Mobile Home Expo, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 5, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 1188 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mobile Home Expo , Inc. and General Truck Drivers,
Warehousemen , Helpers & Automotive Employees
Union, Local 315, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America . Case 20-CA-7058
September 5, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On June 15, 1972, Trial Examiner Stanley Gilbert
issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
cross-exceptions and a supporting memorandum.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders
that Respondent, Mobile Home Expo, Inc., Concord,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT, Trial Examiner: Based upon a charge
filed on October 13, 1971, by General Truck Drivers,
Warehousemen, Helpers & Automotive Employees Union,
Local 315, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, hereinafter
referred to as the Union, the complaint herein was issued
on December 8, 1971. The complaint alleges that Mobile
Home Expo, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Respon-
dent or the Company, violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5)
of the Act. Respondent, by its answer, denies that it
1 Trial Examiner Richard Taplitz presided at the hearing on February
22, 1972, during which no testimony was presented The hearing was
postponed until March 14, 1972 At that time , Trial Examiner Taplitz was
not available and [Stanley Gilbert] was designated as Trial Examiner to
conduct the remainder of the hearing in this proceeding (on March 14 and
15, 1972)
committed the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint.
Pursuant to notice, the hearing was held in San
Francisco, California, on February 22, and March 14 and
15, 1972.1 Appearances were entered on behalf of the
General Counsel and Respondent. Briefs were received
from General Counsel and Respondent on April.19 and 20,
respectively.
Upon the entire record 2 in this proceeding and my
observation of the witnesses as they testified, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and at all times material herein has been,
a California corporation with its office and place of
business located in Concord, California, where it is
engaged in retail sales and service of mobile homes. During
the calendar year preceding the issuance of the complaint,
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, received gross revenues in excess of $500,000.
In the calendar year 1971, Respondent indirectly pur-
chased materials from sources outside the State of
California of a value in excess of $9,000.
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
an employer engaged in commerce and in a business
operation affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED HEREIN
The Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background Information and Chronology of Events
Since its formation in June of 1969, Respondent has
been engaged in the business of selling mobile homes. In
connection with its sales of mobile homes, it is required to
install the homes which are sold and, from time to time,
service homes which had been installed.
From the formation of the Company to September 2,
1971, the president and principal stockholder of the
Company was Edmund McDonald. As' of September 2,
1971, Tim Sherry and his wife, Nancy Sherry, acquired all
of the issued and outstanding stock in the Company, In
November of 1970, both Mr. and Mrs. Sherry became
employed as salesmen for the Company. In June of 1971,
Mr. Sherry was promoted to sales manager. It appears that,
at least for a considerable period of time prior to
September 1971, McDonald was not active in the manage-
2 On May 2, the Trial Examiner issued an order correcting the third
volume of the transcript (for March 15, 1972) as follows
The first page which is numbered "I" should be numbered "147" and
the number on each succeeding page corrected accordingly (by
increasing the number by 146) so that the last page which is numbered
"107" will be numbered "253 "
198 NLRB No. 181
MOBILE HOME EXPO, INC. 1189
ment of the Company and that the Company operated at a
loss while it was owned by McDonald.
For some time prior to September 2, 1971, and up to
October 8, 1971, Respondent maintained a service depart-
ment for the aforementioned installation and servicing of
homes which Respondent sold.3 During the course of the
hearing, it was stipulated as follows:
At all times material herein, all service department
employees employed by Respondent, at its Concord,
California location, excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
It was further stipulated as follows: (1) That from
September 10, 1971, and at all times material herein, Elmer
Rudolph, Leon Bates, and Lewis Jones were members of
said bargaining unit; 4 (2) that Jose Verdin was hired on
September 21, 1971, and became a member of the above-
described bargaining unit; (3) that on September 10, 1971,
Rudolph, Bates, and Jones signed authorization cards for
the Union; (4) that at all times material herein the Union
represented a majority of the employees in the above-
described bargaining unit; (5) that on September 24, 1971,
the Union filed a petition for an election and that on
September 25, 1971, a copy of said petition was received by
Respondent; and (6) that on October 8, 1971, all of the
members of the bargaining unit (Rudolph, Bates, Jones,
and Verdin) were discharged.
The Issues
It is alleged, and the General Counsel contends in his
brief, that by its discharge of Rudolph, Bates, Jones, and
Verdin, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. Ostensibly, it is General Counsel's contention that the
discharges were motivated by the desire to destroy the
bargaining unit and thus evade the obligation of having to
bargain with the Union with respect to the service
department employees. The Respondent contends that the
discharges were not discriminatorily motivated, but rather
that they were the result of a decision based upon
economic reasons to contract out the work of the service
department.
It is alleged in the complaint, and the General Counsel
contends in his brief, that the Respondent further violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawful interrogation and
threats of economic reprisal. The Respondent contends, in
effect, that the General Counsel has failed to prove said
unlawful conduct by a preponderance of the evidence.
It is alleged in the complaint as follows:
Commencing on or about September 27, 1971, and
continuing to date, the Union has requested, and is
requesting, Respondent to bargain collectively with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other terms and conditions of employment as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of all
employees of Respondent in the unit described above.
3 With the exception explained herembelow that until shortly before
September 2, 1971, part of the service work was contracted out
4 Although there is some dispute as to whether or not James Hetzel was
or was not a member of the bargaining unit, the issue of whether he was or
Commencing on or about October 8, 1971, and
continuing to date, Respondent has refused to recog-
nize the Union and bargain collectively with it with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other terms and conditions of employment as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of Res-
pondent's employees described above.
Commencing on or about October 8, 1971, Respon-
dent, without giving the Union notice or an opportuni-
ty to bargain, unilaterally subcontracted out work
previously done by employees in the unit described
above.
It is also alleged in the complaint, and the General Counsel
contends in his brief, that by the above-described conduct
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The
Respondent argues that it did not refuse to bargain with
the Union in that there was no demand by the Union to do
so and that it had no obligation to bargain with the Union
with respect to its decision to contract out the work of the
service department.
Resolution of the Issues
James Hetzel, who was employed from mid-July 1971 to
September 29, 1971, when he voluntarily quit, worked
primarily as a "lot boy," but also worked with the service
crew in the installation of homes. While he also signed a
union authorization card on September 10, as indicated
hereinabove, it is of no materiality whether or not he was a
member of the bargaining unit during the period of his
employment.
Hetzel testified that on September 21 he was in the sales
office and overheard Mr. and Mrs. Sherry speaking in loud
voices in one of the inner offices lint could not understand
what they were saying. He further testified as follows:
They came out into the hall and their voices were
still kind of raised. Something I can't quote word for
word, but it had something to do, not joining,
something about the union.
Q. Who said what to whom?
A. I believe it was Nancy [Sherry] that said that,
no, they were not joining the union.
On cross-examination, he testified that her statement was
as follows:
We'll have nothing to do with the union. They are a
bunch of crooks.
Although Mr. and Mrs. Sherry deny that she made such a
statement, it is noted that the secretary who was in the
outer office with Hetzel, Vickie Correia, was called as a
witness by Respondent and testified that Mrs. Sherry may
have said something about the Union but that it was not in
Hetzel's presence. It appears from Hetzel's testimony that
Mrs. Sherry's statement was made before she was aware of
his presence in the outer office. The General Counsel does
not contend that said testimony of Hetzel will support a
finding of a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, but does
contend that the testimony may be relied upon to prove
union animus. In presenting his case, General Counsel
was not a member of the bargaining unit from September 10 until the time
he voluntarily terminated his employment on September 29, 1971, need not
be resolved since it is of no materiality
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
offered no evidence which would support a finding that
Respondent had any knowledge of the union organization
or activity prior to the receipt on September 25 of a copy of
the Union's petition for an election. However, it appears
from Sherry's testimony that he received a call on
September 21 from the secretary of a Mr. Davis, an official
of the Union, requesting an appointment with him for Mr.
Davis but that she made no further explanation of the
purpose of the appointment. Hetzel was an impressive
witness and , in the circumstances , the Trial Examiner is of
the opinion that his testimony should be credited. The
Trial Examiner is of the opinion, however, that since it is
not revealed in what context Mrs. Sherry's statement was
made, it cannot be given much significance. Nevertheless,
it is found to be sufficient to tend to disclose hostility
toward the Union when viewed in context with the
unlawful conduct of Respondent found hereinbelow.
Hetzel further testified to a conversation he had with
Sherry on September 27 or 28 which occurred in the service
department while he, Hetzel, was eating his lunch. His
testimony with respect to this conversation continues as
follows:
He then asked me if I knew anything about the
Teamsters Union.
I said , yes, I do.
He wanted to know if I signed a pledge card for the
union.
I said, "Yes," that I did.
At that point he wanted to know whose idea it was
and I said, "I believe it was Rudolph's or Rudy's idea."
Later on in the conversation he made some effect
that , "Those stupid bastards; I will fire them all."
And he said something about he would subcontract
the work instead and close out the service department.
Sherry testified that they did have a conversation at that
time, that he had gone into the service department to post
the notice about the election and that Hetzel asked him
what it was. Sherry's testimony continues as follows:
I said , "Well, you should know about it. You know,
you're in the-you're checking with the service people,"
and he said, "Yes." He said, "I do."
I said, "I am aware of it." He said, "All the service
department is going to join the union."
I said, "Well, I don't know. Maybe you can tell me
more," and he said, "Well, all I know is that they are all
going to go into the Union, and you really don't have
too much to say about it."
So I said , "What do you mean by that?"
Well, he said, "I have a"-he said, "I have an
experience or had an experience or someone in my
family had an experience back east, and when this is
decided, when this sort of thing is decided, you really
don't have anything to say about it."
A. And he said, as I indicated, he said, well, you
don't have any rights in this matter because of what
you had heard back there, and I said, "Gee, that
sounds terribly strange to me. It seems you could run a
company in many different ways," and that was the
end of the conversation.
During his cross-examination , Sherry testified with respect
to the conversation with Hetzel as follows:
A. My notes also indicate that at that point in your
conversation with Mr. Hetzel , you said , "Maybe you
can tell me more about this , about this."
What did you mean by that?
A. Well, I wanted to find out, you know, what was
going on . Ldidn't know.
Q. Let's be a little more specific. Did you and
Hetzel get into a discussion about any particular
employees , namely Rudolph , Bates or Jones, about
whether they were supporting the Union or not
supporting the Union?
A. Not specifically , no. Not as individuals . We just
referred to the service department.
As stated hereinabove , Hetzel was an impressive witness
and it appears from Sherry's testimony that he , in part,
corroborated Hetzel 's testimony with respect to the
conversation . Consequently , the above testimony of Hetzel
is credited . It is concluded therefrom that Sherry did
unlawfully interrogate Hetzel in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act and did threaten to discharge employees and to
contract out their work because of their adherence to the
Union thereby further violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Bates who entered his employment in the service
department in July of 1969 testified to a conversation he
had with Sherry at a party in the sales office on or about
October 1 , 1971. Bates testified as follows to said
conversation:
THE Wyss: Well, I was sitting in a chair having a
drink and Mr. Sherry walked over to me.
s s s
THE WITNESS: And he says, "Leon, I thought you
were a friend of mine."
I said, "I am, Tim."
He said, "Why did you go to the union?"
I says, "Tim, we wanted to get better relations."
The above testimony is credited and it is concluded that
Sherry's inquiry, viewed in the context of the other conduct
of Respondent , constituted unlawful interrogation within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
As stated hereinabove, the four employees in the service
department were terminated as of October 8, 1971. By
letter dated October 7, 1971, Sherry advised the employees
of their termination and informed them that management
had decided to subcontract out the work of the service
department.
The General Counsel contends that the motivation for
Respondent's action in discharging the entire service
department complement was an attempt to evade bargain-
ing with the Union with respect to the service department
unit. Respondent contends that the action was based solely
upon economic considerations.
In support of Respondent's contention, Sherry testified,
in effect, that the Company had suffered substantial losses
during its prior ownership and that when he and his wife
assumed the ownership of the Company on September 2,
1971, he undertook to eliminate some of the costs of
operation. According to his testimony, he consulted his
accountant, George Bewall, and a Donald Barkley who
MOBILE HOME EXPO, INC.
was the service manager of a competitive dealer. Sherry
further testified that in a conversation with Barkley on
September 8, Barkley asked him if he had ever thought of
subcontracting the service work to which Sherry respond-
ed:
Not really outside of the fact whenever we seem to get
a load of work in at Mobile Home Expo, whenever we
got a load of work, we would go to a subcontractor for
that kind of work.
Sherry also testified that Barkley advised him that by
subcontracting out the service work he would have greater
control over his service expenses.
In addition, Sherry testified that on September 15 he had
a telephone conversation with Bewail in which Bewail
advised that he would have greater control over his costs if
he subcontracted out the work. Sherry further testified that
as a result of the conversations with Barkley and Bewail he
and his wife decided to "proceed into the subcontracting
area" and "started to look for" an available subcontractor
and that close to the end of September they made the
decision to subcontract the service work.
Bewail testified that he had two conversations with
Sherry in which the matter of subcontracting out the
service work was discussed, the first about the middle of
September and the second about the last part of September
or the first part of October. It appears from Bewall's
testimony that Sherry did not, during the course of their
conversations, indicate that he had made a decision to
subcontract out the work, but that the discussion was on an
"exploratory" basis.
Rudolph testified that Sherry asked him and Bates to
contact Verdin about coming to work, because Hetzel was
leaving and Verdin had worked at the Company previous-
ly. Both Rudolph and Verdin testified to the conversation
between Verdin and Sherry (when the former was hired)
Just prior to September 21 (the date when Verdin started
his employment). Verdin's testimony, which is corroborat-
ed by Rudolph and is credited, is as follows:
THE WITNESS: Mr. Sherry was real happy with me
that I come back to my job, you know.
He offered again the job, you know, for me.
I leave my job, because I work in Walnut Creek in
the shopping center of Walnut Creek.
I already had my job, you know, and he offered me
my job, go back for work for Mobile Home Expo with
him, you know, and he offered to me a job, you know,
and I said, all right, you no give me layoff again.
He told me, no, because pretty soon the business
come in that more, I put more employees on and I will
rustle more money for you, because now I give you six-
fifty, maybe later business come more, I give you more.
As stated hereinabove, Verdin became a member of the
service department bargaining unit and was terminated
with the others in that department on October 8.
According to Sherry's testimony, there were quite a few
5 Although Sherry testified he hired Verdin to replace Hetzel (who
primarily worked as a "lot boy"), it appears that Verdin worked in the
service department and that, if he had been hired to do lot work, he would
not have been discharged because of the decision to contract out the service
work It is noted that, on October 15, 1971, Respondent hired another man,
Dennis Kelley, to do lot maintenance work (Although the transcript states
that Kelley was hired on November 15, it is evident from the context of the
1191
areas in which he contemplated effecting economies and
the Trial Examiner is of the opinion that the cost of
installing and servicing was among the various expenses
which he considered. However, it is inferred that Sherry
had given little thought to contracting out the service work
prior to the receipt of the Union's petition for election on
September 25. Just the week prior thereto Sherry hired
Verdin ostensibly for service department work and assured
him that not only need he have no fear of being laid off but
that the work would increase. This is wholly inconsistent
with Sherry's testimony that after his talk with Bewail on
September 15 he started out to look for subcontractors .5
Respondent presented evidence that the cost of the
service work per unit was less during the period October 9,
1971, to December 31, 1971, than it was January 1, 1971, to
October 8, 1971. These figures do not appear to be reliable
inasmuch as the electrical work was contracted out prior to
August 1971 and it appears from Sherry's own testimony
that with respect to the cost of servicing the homes there
was much confusion in working out with the manufacturer
what part of the cost of servicing should be borne by the
manufacturer prior to his assumption of the ownership of
the Company. In any event, even if it were assumed that
the figures are reliable to show that operating with
subcontractors was less expensive than maintaining a
service department, at the most it only serves to demon-
strate that the action of dispensing with the service
department did effect an economy, but this evidence sheds
no light on Respondent's motivation for making the
change. There is no showing that Respondent made any
study of the costs of operating the service department to
compare with a projection of the cost of changing to
operating with subcontractors. On the contrary, it is
inferred from all the circumstances, including the timing of
the decision to contract out the work, that the changeover
was hastily made in order to destroy the bargaining unit
and evade the obligation to bargain with the Union with
respect to the service department employees .6
Therefore, it is concluded that Respondent discharged
the four service department employees because he knew
that the majority of them sought to have union representa-
tion and that said action was violative of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
It is alleged in the complaint that commencing on
alternative dates, September 27 and October 8, 1971,
Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union.
General Counsel in presenting his case-in-chief offered no
evidence of a request by the Union that Respondent
bargain with it. The only testimony with respect to
communications between the Union and Respondent was
elicited from Sherry. He testified to the above-mentioned
telephone call from Davis' secretary on or about Septem-
ber 21 in which she asked for an appointment for Davis
and a conversation he had with Davis some time
subsequent thereto. Sherry's testimony with respect to the
testimony that the date was October 15, and the transcript is hereby
corrected as follows . page 190, line 6 and line 11 , "November" is changed to
"October ")
6 At the time the action was taken the Respondent had knowledge of the
fact that a majority of the employees in the service department had
authorized the Union to bargain for them and it is reasonable to assume
that Respondent anticipated that the Union would win the election
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time and content of his conversation with Davis is too
confused to -permit drawing any inference therefrom.
Neither Davis nor his secretary was called as a witness by
General Counsel. Consequently, there is no evidence to
support a finding that a request for recognition and
bargaining was made by the Union. No material purpose
would be served, however, in resolving the issue of whether
or not Respondent, commencing on September 27 or
October 8, refused to bargain with the Union within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, as alleged,
since a finding one way or the other would not affect the
remedy which will be recommended for the unlawful
conduct found hereinabove.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent set forth in
section III, above, occurring in connection with its
operations set forth 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor
practices found herein and take certain affirmative action,
as provided in the recommended Order below, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It was found hereinabove that during all times material
herein the Union represented a majority of the employees
in the service department bargaining unit and that said
unit is an appropriate bargaining unit. It was further found
hereinabove that Respondent discriminatorily discharged
all of the members of said bargaining unit and contracted
out the work of said unit in order to avoid bargaining with
the Union as the majority representative of the employees
therein . No case was cited by the parties, and research
failed to reveal any case which is sufficiently similar
factually to the instant case to afford a clear precedent as
to the suitable remedy for the above-mentioned discrimi-
natory discharges of the service personnel and the
subcontracting out of their work.? Based upon a study of
the principles enunciated in the decisions in N.L.R.B. v.
Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 (1969); Fibreboard
Paper Products Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 379 U.S. 203 (1964); L.
B. Foster Company, 168 NLRB 83 (1967); Ozark Trailers,
Inc., 161 NLRB 561 (1966); Western Aluminum of Oregon
Incorporated, 144 NLRB 1191 (1963); and Town &
Country Manufacturing Co., Inc., 136 NLRB 1022
(1962), it is deemed that the appropriate remedy to
effectuate the policy of the Act is to restore the status quo
ante by ordering the Respondent to do as follows: Resume
operation of its service department; offer Elmer Rudolph,
There being at the time of said action no recognized or certified union
and no request to bargain by the majority representative
8 It appears that it would be inappropriate to add the usual language "or
if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions ," since at
present their jobs no longer exist and apparently there are no substantially
equivalent positions in Respondent's employ
Leon Bates, Lewis Jones, and Jose Verdin immediate and
full reinstatement to their former jobs,8 without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges; reimburse
the aforesaid Rudolph, Bates, Jones, and Verdin for any
loss of pay they may have suffered as the result of their
discriminatory discharges in the manner set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-293, together with
6 percent interest thereon in accordance with Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716; and bargain with the
Union, upon request, as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the service department bargaining unit, since
it is highly unlikely that a fair election could be held in said
bargaining unit.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record of the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. On or about September 27, 1971, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawful interroga-
tion and by threatening to discharge service department
employees and contract out their work because of their
desire to have the Union represent them.
4. On or about October 1, 1971, Respondent unlawfully
interrogated an employee in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
5. On October 8, 1971, Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Rudolph, Bates, Jones, and Verdin in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid four employees constituted the entire
membership on October 8, 1971, of the appropriate
bargaining unit described as follows:
All service department employees employed by Res-
pondent, at its Concord, California location, excluding
all other employees, office clerical employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
7. Commencing on September 10, 1971, and at all times
material thereafter, the Union represented the majonty of
the employees in the above-described appropriate bargain-
ing unit.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:9
ORDER
Respondent, Mobile Home Expo, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating employees with respect to
their protected activities.
(b) Threatening to contract out the work of employees
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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
MOBILE HOME EXPO, INC. 1193
and to discharge them because of their adherence to
General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers & Auto-
motive Employees Union, Local 315, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America.
(c) Discouraging membership in the aforesaid Union, or
any other labor organization, by discriminating against its
employees in regard to hire and tenure of employment or
any other term or condition of employment.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights under Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Resume operation of its service department and offer
to Elmer Rudolph, Leon Bates, Lewis Jones, and Jose
Verdin full reinstatement to their former jobs in said
department without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges.
(b) Make Rudolph, Bates, Jones, and Verdin whole for
any loss of pay suffered by them by reason of their
discriminatory discharges in the manner set forth in the
section hereinabove entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Notify immediately the above-named individuals, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act.
(d) Upon request, bargain with the aforesaid Union as
the exclusive representative of all the employees in the
above-described appropriate unit 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 statement.
(e) Upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents for examination and copying all payroll and other
records containing information concerning Respondent's
backpay obligation under this recommended Order.
(f) Post at its place of business in Concord, California,
copies of the notice attached hereto as "Appendix." 10
Copies of said notice on forms furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees 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.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps Respondent has
taken to comply herewith. i I
10 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 be changed to read
"Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
11 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing , within 20 days
from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees with
respect to their protected activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to contract out the work of
employees and to discharge them for their adherence to
General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers &
Automotive Employees Union, Local 315, Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the afore-
said Union or any other labor organization by
discriminating against our employees in regard to hire
and tenure of employment or any other term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights
under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL resume operation of our service depart-
ment and offer to Elmer Rudolph, Leon Bates, Lewis
Jones, and Jose Verdin full reinstatement to their
former jobs in said department without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL make Rudolph, Bates, Jones, and Verdin
whole for any loss of pay suffered by them by reason of
their discriminatory discharges.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the aforesaid
Union as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit described
hereinbelow 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 . Said appropriate
bargaining unit is as follows: All our service depart-
ment employees, excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
MOBILE HOME Expo, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
WE WILL NOTIFY immediately the above-named individu-
als, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application
after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 13018
or covered by any other material . Federal Building, Box 36047, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with San Francisco, California 94102, Telephone 415-556-0335.