Ogden & Moffett Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 11, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 1349 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

t ' ~ & & 11, Wagman herein.2 10(c) & l(b): It 1s to resolutions Inc.. (1950). 188 F.2d 1951). tion Marys- ville 1980.= 8(a)(l) post- 1. $50,000, 1 2(6) 2(5) UNFAIR .. 0, and after january 1, 1978, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~truckline had at Marysvi11e* Dearborn, POntiacy Lansing* W e ter- are & DEClSION Sec. Ern~lovees right self-organization, join, - representa- M. WAGMAN, activi- by sel giona] Director for Region issued the complaint herein on october 1979,' alleging that ~~~~~~d~~~ ogden & that arbitrat~on Spjelberg (Spielberg Moffett Company had Section the Na- 112 I080 (1955)). of lntro- tional Act, U.S.C. 3 duced copy of o i arbitra- seq., jntended lay off at 'Ok;ird jts Michigan, because the no M o r e in by Set- cons~dered arbitrat~on Freighi, Inc., ingly, motion 1349 OGDEN MOFFETT COMPANY Ogden Moffett Company and John Kovach. Case 7-CA-16756 March 1981 DECISION A N D O R D E R On November 14, 1980, Administrative Law Judge Leonard M. issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Re- spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. 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, as modified O R D E R Pursuant to Section 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, as modi- fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Ogden Moffett Company, Marysville, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: Add the following after paragraph "(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, o r coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranted them by Section 7 of the Act." The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. the Board's established policy not overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 . enfd. 362 (3d Cir. We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently failed to include the Board's standard narrow injunctive language in his recommended Order, although he did include such language in his notice. have corrected this oversight. STATEMENT OF THE CASE LEONARD Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge filed John Kovach, the General Coun- of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re- 7, 5, Labor Relations as amended (29 151, et herein called the Act), by telling employees that at that terminal engaged activities protected ' Unless otherwise stated, all dates refer to 1979. 254 N L R B No. 181 7 of the and by thereafter laying off highway drivers John Kovach, James Porrett, and Ernest Angove. The matter was heard by me in Detroit, Michigan, on April 9 and 10, Respondent, by its answer to the complaint, denied commission of any of the alleged unfair labor practices. For the reasons stated hereafter, I find, in agreement with the General Counsel, that Respondent has violated Section of the Act, as alleged. Upon the entire record, from my observation of the witnesses, and after consideration of the parties' hearing briefs, 1 make the following: RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent, a Michigan corporation, is, and has been at all times material herein, a regular route, general com- modity motor common carrier maintaining a terminal at Marysville, Michigan. During the year ending December 31, 1978, a representative period of its operation, Re- spondent provided interstate transportation services valued in excess of $50,000 to enterprises located in Michigan, each of which is annually engaged in the non- retail sale and shipment of goods and material valued in excess of from their places of business situated within Michigan directly to points located outside Michi- gan. find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section and (7) of the Act. Local 339, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, re- ferred to below as the Union, is, and has been at all times material to this case, a labor organization within the meaning of Section of the Act. 11. THE ALLEGED LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Muskegon, Ludington, and Manistee, all in Michigan. The drivers based at those minals classified either city drivers or highway In pertinent part. 7 of the Act provides: hall have the to to form, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted ties for the purpose of collective bargaining o r other mutual aid or protection. . . . At the hearing Respondent moved for dismissal of the case on the ground . . the award dealing with the three layoffs had satis- fied the Board's principles Manufacturing Company. NLRB In support its position. Respondent a the grievance and a copy of the minutes the tion committee denying the grievance. 1 delayed my ruling until this doctrine provides for deferral. However, where, as here, there is showing that the unfair labor practice issue me was also placed before and by the committee. I cannot defer to its award. Suburban Motor 247 NLRB No. 2 (1980). Accord- Respondent's is denied. 1 350 terminaL4 Dearborn MPSC's Marys- D e t r ~ i t . " ~ Also Detro~t term~nal. ev~dence show Ko- Dearborn LeRoy Dear- discovered Dearborn McGregor's collective- Stoliker, Stoliker's cost- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD drivers. Highway drivers transport freight from one of Respondent's terminals to another. A city driver operates Respondent's equipment picking up and delivering freight within a 25-mile radius of the city in which his terminal is situated. Each terminal controls the operation of its own city drivers. However, Respondent schedules its highway drivers from a central dispatch point at its Dearborn, Michigan, At all times material herein, Donald L. Chiodo, manager of Respondent's terminal, was also in charge of its central dispatching operation. At all times material to this case approximately 46 driv- ers were domiciled at Respondent's Marysville terminal under the supervision of Manager Thomas J . Mills. At the time of the 3 layoffs involved in the instant case, Re- spondent employed approximately 20 highway drivers at Marysville. An additional 23 highway drivers were dis- tributed among its other terminals. There were 5 at Dearborn, 12 at Grand Rapids, 3 at Kalamazoo, and I each at Muskegon, Manistee, and Ludington. At all times material to this case, the Union represent- ed the Marysville drivers. I also find from the uncontra- dicted testimony of the Union's steward, William Drechsler, that the collective-bargaining agreement in effect at all times material to this case permitted drivers to refuse to haul overloaded trailers in violation of appli- cable law. In early February, Marysville highway driver Don Sullivan received two citations from the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC). One violation, for which Sullivan paid the fine, was for not having an operable fire extinguisher on his tractor. The second, for which Respondent paid the fine, was for defective equipment on the tractor itself. On March 29, the MPSC performed an approximately 2-hour inspection covering 8 to 10 pieces of equipment at Respondent's Marysville facilities. The Commission ad- vised the terminal manager, Mills, that the inspection had resulted from a complaint. Respondent admits that it im- mediately connected Sullivan to the complaint. Howev- er, it did not confirm its suspicion until March 1980. As a result of the inspection, one of ville's highway tractors and one of its city tractors were removed from service. Between May 1978 and July 30, driver Ernest Angove refused to haul overloads for Respondent on as many as six occasions. Respondent did not require Angove to take the overloads. Nor did Respondent reprimand him for his refusals. However, without specifying any partic- ular member of Respondent's management, Angove testi- fied credibly that "they talked pretty nasty to you if you didn't take one of those out of I also find from Angove's testimony that he was atten- tive to the condition of the equipment assigned to him by Respondent. On occasion, during pretrip inspections, Angove found defects which he immediately reported to referred to in the transcript as the Angove also testified that on those occasions when he refused to haul overloaded [railers he was "called a cry baby and a troublemaker." How- ever, Angove did not attribute these remarks to any member of Respond- ent's management. Nor is there any in the record to who made these comments to Angove. Respondent on an inspection form. Again, Respondent did not reprimand Angove when he found fault with his assigned equipment. Nor was highway driver James Porrett shy about re- fusing overweight loads. Approximately 2 months before the layoff, Porrett refused a load of salt because it was overweight. Respondent could not transfer the load and therefore assigned Porrett to another loaded trailer. Re- spondent did not insist that Porrett haul such overweight loads and did not discipline him for his refusals. During the month before highway driver John vach's layoff, the dispatcher at Respondent's Dearborn, Michigan, terminal assigned a trailer load to him for hauling. Kovach found the trailer overloaded and re- fused the assignment. The dispatcher gave Kovach a second trailer which he rejected after finding it over- loaded. Kovach rejected a third trailer after discerning "a bad crack up around the dolly frame." Finally, Kovach accepted a fourth assignment after the repair of some lights. However, soon after leaving the terminal, Kovach observed a driver from one of Re- spondent's other terminals driving one of the trailers he had rejected toward Lansing. Another incident involving Marysville terminal drivers occurred on the night of July 16-17 when Respondent assigned highway driver McGregor to take a loaded trailer on a run out of Kalamazoo. McGregor dis- covered that the trailer lacked approximately half of its marker lights and that both of its brake lights were out. McGregor telephoned Respondent's dispatcher in born and rejected the trailer. The dispatcher, though "a little upset," assigned another trailer to McGregor. How- ever, McGregor that the second trailer was overloaded and notified of his discovery. The dispatcher again "was a little upset about it" and asked McGregor to accept the overload. The dispatcher asked McGregor if he could take the overloaded trailer "anyway." McGregor, believing that he might encounter state scales, responded that he "didn't know." As conversation was in progress, a second Marysville driver, Ray Boswell, discovered that a trailer assigned to him at the Kalamazoo terminal was over- loaded. Boswell rejected the assignment. The dispatcher directed McGregor and Boswell to pick up the empty trailers they had hauled from Lansing and return them to Lansing. When McGregor arrived at Respondent's Lan- sing terminal, he found that a driver based at Respond- ent's Lansing terminal had hauled the same trailer which McGregor had found unsuitable because of its lack of adequate lights. Respondent did not reprimand McGregor, who be- lieved that his refusal was sanctioned by the bargaining agreement covering the Marysville drivers. There was no showing that Boswell suffered any disci- pline for his refusal to take the overload. On July 1, Carl P. Respondent's president and chief executive officer, issued a letter addressed "to all managers." letter addressed itself to cutting as follows: This is to remind you that business passes through what is known as business cycles, and at & 1 especial1 Dearborn Dearborn is labor. Marys- Dearborn "[Wlhat Marysville?'Mills "[Tlhere's 135 OGDEN MOFFETT COMPANY the present time we are passing through a slowing down period of that cycle. In order for us to main- tain a healthy position, during the slowing down period, you, as Manager, must have complete com- mand of your Terminal and its operation, and be in a position to cut your cost at the first sign of a busi- ness decline. We have supplied you with a record of pickup and delivery cost at each terminal, and you can see your position relative to our other terminals. At the present time we are asking for a ten percent aver- age. Some terminals are way out in left field, so to speak, and some are near our present objective, so, it behoves each of you to improve your position, and see how soon we can reach our present objec- tive. Each of you are surely aware that the time spent delivering a partial load of freight is, in nearly all cases, as long as it takes to deliver a full load. Faced with this situation, y during a slow down period of business, I suggest you combine your peddler loads whenever possible, saving the cost of one driver. Another example, it isn't always possible to reduce your help at the first sign of a cutback; but you surely can reduce or eliminate your overtime entirely. During these times of the business slowdown, your men realize the situation, and most of them will try to maintain their usual work schedule and production, but you will have a few who will "coffee stop" you to death. In most cases a good Manager knows who these fellows are, and they should be handled accordingly. I raise the question, are you loading your Termi- nal-To-Terminal loads to capacity? If Marysville could combine more of their loads that would reduce the empty factor out of Dearborn. Not only d o I suggest the better job be done at Marysville, I feel a much better job could be done on loads from going to Lansing. Not to mention any more terminals, but I d o suggest each of you check on the loads leaving your terminal. Keep in mind, whenever you combine a load you are cutting your driver cost in half. The problems we are faced with today are prob- lems that concern all of us, not just your Board of Directors, so I solicit and urge your help and sug- gestions. On July 11, President Stoliker sent another letter "to all terminal managers." In pertinent part, this communi- cation was as follows: This is a follow up to my letter of July 1, 1979, in regard to a slow down in business. Now that we are experiencing a slow down in business it is incumbent upon each of you to reduce your cost in keeping with the same percentage as to your reduction in business. In plain words: If your business is off 10 percent you should reduce your cost 10 percent-your mojor cost On July 26, Donald L. Chiodo directed the ville's terminal manager, Thomas J. Mills, to lay off three highway drivers. Chiodo did not indicate which three were to be laid off. The following day Chiodo di- rected a layoff of some city drivers at the ter- minal. On July 27 the Union's steward, Drechsler, questioned Terminal Manager Mills about the "excessive layoff in Marysville," pointing out that "it was so out of balance with the system." Mills' reply was that the layoff was for "dispatch reasons." Not satisfied with Mills' response, Drechsler pressed Mills for an explanation. When Mills completed his explanation, Drechsler rejected it and asked, is the real reason for the excessive layoff in replied, too damn many crybabies and troublemakers in this terminal." Drechsler asked Mills "to give [Drechsler] an example of what [Mills] meant by troublemakers." Mills spoke of a recent incident in which two Marysville drivers had been dispatched from Lansing to Kalamazoo to pick up trailers which were overloaded. One of the Marysville drivers persisted in refusing to take the overloaded trail- er, saying he did not want to break the law, notwith- standing that, at the time he would have driven the over- loaded trailer, the state-operated scales would have been closed. Mills criticized the two drivers, saying "they were nit picking" and that such employees "are trouble- makers." In the same explanation Mills complained of an inci- dent in which a Marysville driver had driven one of Re- spondent's tractors onto the State's scales and had com- plained to the MPSC regarding the truck's mechanical condition. Mills characterized such drivers as "bad apples." H e also complained that such conduct by an employee which would lead to an MPSC inspection could "cause us a lot of trouble." Drechsler ended the discussion with his view "that our apples were no worse in this barrel than any place else." On July 30 steward Drechsler, alternate steward Mi- chael Mertz, and the three road drivers who were sched- uled for layoff, Ernest Angove, James Porrett, and John Kovach, attended a meeting at the Marysville terminal with Manager Tom Mills and Respondent's director of safety and personnel, Bruce Lewis. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss how seniority would be applied in the three layoffs. The stewards and the three employ- ees questioned Respondent's decision to limit the three layoffs to only the Marysville terminal. In the course of the discussion Drechsler asked Mills "if it wasn't true that he had said excessive layoffs on the Marysville high- way board was due to the crybabies and troublemakers out of Marysville." Mills responded, "That's right." He added in substance that if the employees troubled central dispatch with their complaints "they're just gonna turn DECISIONS layoffs6 Por- 8(a)(l) Inc., 1000-Ol(1975). & 30 Marys- ville testified. Inc.. Inc. (1 8(a)(l) & 2(6) Por- 8(a)(l) Willism 1352 OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD around and bite you." Mills also stated that a lack of business caused the Respondent had scheduled Kovach, Angove, and rett for layoff effective July 30, the day of the meeting. The three employees sought to exercise their seniority to bump the junior city drivers effective August I . Howev- er, Chiodo, at Mills' request, delayed the three layoffs until August 6. B. Analysis and Conclusions The General Counsel contends that Respondent violat- ed Section of the Act by laying off employees Angove, Porrett, and Kovach because the employees at the Marysville terminal had complained to the MPSC re- garding unsafe and overloaded equipment and because the Marysville terminal employees refused to haul over- loaded or faulty trailers. Respondent denies this conten- tion, urging instead that the layoffs were motivated solely by economic considerations. Contrary to Respond- ent's position, I find merit in the General Counsel's posi- tion. The Board has recognized that employee complaints to governmental agencies regarding conditions of em- ployment, including safety, are among the protected con- certed activities covered by Section 7 of the Act. Alle- luia Cushion Co., 221 NLRB 999, The Board has also recognized that Section 7 of the Act affords employees the right to complain to management about unsafe conditions of employment. Detroit Forming, Inc., 204 NLRB 205, 213 (1973). Also, where, as here, it was undisputed that the subject of overloaded trailers was covered by an existing collective-bargaining agree- ment, an employee's insistence upon his employer's com- pliance with such a contract provision has also received Board recognition as a Section 7 right. T T Industries, My findings regarding this encounter between Drechsler and Mills on July 27 or 28 are based upon Drechsler's testimony. My findings re- garding their subsequent confrontation on July are based upon the tes- timony of Drechsler which was corroborated by Mertz. Angove, Porrett, and Kovach. Although Mills denied telling Drechsler that the Marysville employees were crybabies and troublemakers, his testimony left undenied the re- maining portion of Drechsler's account of the confrontation. This neglect to deal with the remainder of the conversation suggests that Drechsler's account, at least to that extent, was accurate. However, in assessing the two witnesses' reliability, I noted that at the time he testified Drechsler was in Respondent's employ and thus was likely to be a candid witness. I also observed that his testimony was replete with such detail and descrip- tion as would suggest that he was giving his full recollection. In contrast, when I asked Mills to recall what if anything Chiodo had said to him about the Marysville drivers' complaints between April and July 26, 1979, Mills answered first that he did not know and then that he did not remember. Thus, he did not deny the possibility that he and Chiodo had talked about the Marysville drivers' complaints. Nor did it appear that Mills was making any effort to press his memory on this topic. Nor was I impressed that Mills was anxious to give his full recollection of the meet- ing on July 30. When asked if he had made the remarks about the drivers being crybabies and troublemakers, his response was "no." However, in responses to direct examination about the content of the meeting, Mills did not appear to be giving his full recollection. Respond- ent's safety director. Bruce Lewis, appeared to have a dim recollection of the meeting at which he was an observer. His gratuitous apologies about his memory and his air of uncertainty contrasted sharply with the cer- tainty with which the credited employees. who were directly concerned with the outcome of the meeting, In sum, they impressed me as the more reliable witnesses in reconstructing what was said at the meet- ing of July 30. 235 NLRB 517, 520 (1978). Finally, Section 7 of the Act affords employees the right to refuse to operate ve- hicles in violation of state statutes. Varied Enterprises, d/b/a Private Carrier Personnel, 240 NLRB 126 979). As shown above, prior to July 26 Respondent learned from a succession of incidents that its Marysville drivers were likely to refuse to haul overloaded trailers or to op- erate defective rolling stock, and to insist upon compli- ance with state regulations. Indeed, at the end of March the Marysville terminal received an inspection visit from the MPSC which resulted in the removal of two of Re- spondent's tractors from service. Granted, Respondent did not identify the complaining employee until March 1980; it nevertheless strongly suspected at the time of the inspection that Marysville driver Sullivan's complaint caused the State's intrusion. That these incidents pro- voked Respondent's hostility toward the Marysville highway drivers was amply reflected in Terminal Man- ager Mills' reply to Drechsler regarding "the real reason for the excessive layoff in Marysville." What followed in Mills' remarks left little doubt of the Respondent's reason for selecting Marysville as the site for the layoff of three highway drivers. Mills' explanation of the "crybabies and troublemakers" was a review of recent incidents in which Marysville drivers had refused to haul overloaded trailers or had complained to the MPSC regarding the mechanical condition of Reapondent's equipment. In sum, Mills' remarks revealed that, when confronted with a downturn in business, Respondent saw an oppor- tunity to show its wrath toward the Marysville highway drivers by laying off three of their members. I find, therefore, that the General Counsel has shown that the Respondent laid off employees Angove, Porrett, and Kovach in retribution for what it saw as an excess of em- ployee complaints to the MPSC regarding overloads and equipment deficiencies and because the Marysville driv- ers refused to haul trailers on the ground that they were . overloaded or defective. I find, therefore, that Respond- ent interfered with, restrained, coerced employees in the exercise of their right to engage in protected concerted activities as set forth in Section 7 of the Act, and thus violated Section of the Act, both by the three lay- offs and by Mills' exposition of Respondent's unlawful motive both to Drechsler on July 27 or 28 and at the meeting with employees on July 30. I . Respondent Ogden Moffett Company is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion and (7) of the Act. 2. By laying off employees Ernest Angove, James rett, and John Kovach because they and their fellow em- ployees made complaints to a state agency regarding overloaded or defective trailers and because they com- plained about or refused to operate trailers they consid- ered to be overloaded or defective and thus sought to enforce a collective-bargaining agreement provision, Re- spondent violated Section of the Act. 3. By telling employee Drechsler and other employees that employees Angove, Porrett, and Kovach & 8(a)(l) 2(6) 8(a)(l) backpay F. W. Woolworth (1950), 1 (1977).7 1qc ) & ville, ' Isis & 138 Sec. Sec. p e n d i ~ . " ~ WILL WILL NOT they OGDEN MOFFETT COMPANY 1353 were about to be laid off because they and fellow em- ployees exercised their Section 7 right to complain to a state agency about overloaded o r defective trailers and because they refused to operate o r complained about overloaded or defective trailers, Respondent impliedly threatened similar reprisals against other employees for engaging in such conduct, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section and (7) of the Act. Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist there- from and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall also recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer employees Ernest Angove, James Porrett, and John Kovach immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and to make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of their unlawful discharges, with com- puted in the manner proscribed in Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289 with interest thereon to be computed in the manner proscribed in Florida Steel Cor- poration, 23 NLRB 651 Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: The Respondent, Ogden Moffett Company, Marys- Michigan, its officers, agents, successors and as- signs, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Laying off o r otherwise inflicting economic repri- sals upon employees for the purpose of interfering with, restraining, o r coercing them in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. (b) Impliedly threatening employees with layoff o r other economic reprisal because they engaged in con- certed activities protected by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Ernest Angove, James Porrett, and John Kovach immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to substan- tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their se- niority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. See, generally. Plumbing Hearing Co.. NLRB 716 (1962). In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find- ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in 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. (b) Make Ernest Angove, James Porrett, and John Kovach whole for any loss of pay they may have suf- fered as a result of their unlawful layoffs in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section of this Decision. (d) Post in conspicuous places at its Marysville, Michi- gan, terminal copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7 after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE NOT lay off, discharge, or otherwise impose reprisals upon our employees because they engaged in concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, including complaints to the Michigan Public Serv- ice Commission, or to any other governmental agency, regarding overloaded trailers or defective tractors or trailers or other violations of govern- mental safety regulations and refusals to haul over- loaded or defective trailers o r to operate defective trailers WE impliedly threaten employees with discharge, layoff, o r other economic reprisals be- cause engage in concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in- terfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer reinstatement to Ernest Angove, James Porrett, and John Kovach to their former jobs or, if those jobs are no longer available, to sub- stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previ- ously enjoyed. WE WILL make Ernest Angove, James Porrett, and John Kovach whole, with interest, for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of their layoffs on August 6, 1979.