R. P. Robison Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 480 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
R. P. Robison , d/b/a R . P. Robison Company and
Henry Clark, Jr. and Howard Ross . Cases 9-CA-
6165-1, -2
June 25, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY,
AND PENELLO
On April 24, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Art-
hur Leff issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, counsel for General Counsel filed
limited exceptions and a supporting brief.
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 Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, R. P. Robison, d/b/a R. P.
Robison Company, Canfield, Ohio, his agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR LEFF. Administrative Law Judge: Upon charges
filed by Henry Clark, Jr., and Howard Ross on March 19,
1971, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director, Region 9, issued a com-
plaint, dated June 7, 1971, against R. P. Robison, d/b/a
R. P. Robison Company, hereinafter referred to as the Re-
spondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended. With respect to the unfair labor
practices, the complaint, as amended at the opening of the
hearing, alleged more specifically that on or about January
I I and 12, 1971, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by interrogating employees about their union activi-
ties, threatening employees with discharge for their union
activities, and soliciting employees' signatures on member-
ship cards of International Union of District 50, Allied and
Technical Workers of the United States and Canada ("Dis-
trict 50"), and that, beginning sometime in March 1971, and
at all times thereafter, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to recall
laid-off employees Clark and Ross because of their member-
ship in, sympathy for, or activities on behalf of Laborers
District Council of Charleston, West Virginia, affiliated
with the Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO ("Laborers"). The Respondent filed an answer,
admitting the Board's jurisdiction over the subject matter of
this proceeding, but denying the commission of the alleged
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, the case originally came on for hear-
ing at Huntington, West Virginia, on August 5, 1971. The
Respondent was represented at that time by counsel. After
the opening of the hearing on that date, all parties including
the Respondent entered into an informal settlement agree-
ment which was approved by the undersigned. Under the
terms of the settlement, the Respondent agreed (a) to offer
Henry Clark, Jr., immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or a substantially equivalent position; (b) to pay
Henry Clark, Jr., $700 and Howard Ross $300 in backpay
to make them whole for loss of wages resulting from the
alleged discrimination against them; and (c) to post a notice
to employees in the form provided for in the settlement
agreement. The settlement agreement contained a nonad-
mission clause. The parties further agreed that if the terms
of the settlement agreement were not complied with then,
upon an appropriate application, approval of the settlement
agreement would be withdrawn, the charges in this case
would be reinstated, and a hearing on the issues raised by
the complaint and answer would be held.
Thereafter, under date of November 10, 1972, counsel for
the General Counsel filed with the undersigned a motion
requesting withdrawal of approval of the aforesaid settle-
ment agreement of August 5, 1971, on the ground that the
Respondent had failed to comply with the terms of that
agreement . On November 13, 1972, the undersigned issued
an order to show cause why the General Counsel's motion
should not be granted. No response to the order to show
cause was received. On December 27, 1972, counsel for the
General Counsel filed with me an amended motion to with-
draw approval of the settlement agreement and for hearing
on complaint. In support of the amended motion, counsel
for the General Counsel attached the sworn affidavit of
Raymond J. Wissinger, compliance officer of Region 9,
disclosing that the Respondent had failed to comply with
the terms of the settlement agreement, in that the Respon-
dent did not post the required notice to employees; did not
make an unconditional offer of reinstatement to employee
Henry Clark, Jr.; and did not pay Henry Clark, Jr., and
Howard Ross the amounts of money designated in the set-
tlement agreement as backpay. Counsel for the General
Counsel also submitted proof of personal service of said
motion on the Respondent. No response to the amended
motion was filed with the undersigned. Under date of Feb-
ruary 21, 1973, the undersigned issued an order withdrawing
his earlier approval of the settlement agreement, dated Au-
gust 5 , 1971, and directing that this proceeding be reopened
for further proceedings on the complaint issued by the Re-
gional Director on June 7, 1971. At the same time, the
204 NLRB No. 81
R. P. ROBINSON COMPANY 481
undersigned issued to all parties to this proceeding a notice
of hearing setting down the case for a reopened- hearing on
March 21, 1973, at a time and place therein specified. As
appears from the affidavit of Deputy U.S. Marshall John B.
Mullins , on file in the record of this case , a copy of the
aforesaid order and notice of hearing was duly served on the
Respondent in person on January 31, 1973.
The reopened hearing was held before the undersigned on
March 21, 1973, at the time and place specified in the notice
of hearing . The Respondent did not appear, either in person
or by counsel, at the reopened hearing . The General Coun-
sel presented evidence in support of the allegations of the
complaint that were denied by the Respondent in its an-
swer . Thereafter, on April 9, 1973, the General Counsel filed
a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent , whose principal offices are located at
Canfield , Ohio, is engaged in business as a sewer , water, and
road contractor . During the 12 months preceding the is-
suance of the complaint , a representative period , the Re-
spondent performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for
customers located outside the State of Ohio. The Respon-
dent admitted in his answer , and it is found , that at all times
material herein he was an "employer," as defined in Section
2(2) of the Act, engaged in "commerce" and operations
"affecting commerce ," as defined in Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Laborers District Council of Charleston, West Virginia,
affiliated with the Laborers International Union of North
America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Laborers, and Inter-
national Union of District 50, Allied and Technical Work-
ers of the United States and Canada, herein called District
50, are labor organizations as defined in Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Relevant Facts
In July 1970, the Respondent was awarded a contract for
the construction of a water line in the city and county of
Wayne , West Virginia . On the day of the bid openings,
R. P. Robison assured Leo Spry, field representative of the
Laborers , that, if awarded the contract , he would work the
job "union" under a contract with the Laborers. The Re-
spondent began construction work on the job in December
1970, starting with a crew of about four employees. The
Respondent performed work on that project , with some
interruptions , until November 1971, when his contract was
cancelled because of his failure to comply with a county
order requiring him to pay his debts. The alleged unfair
labor practices in this case relate solely to the Respondent's
activities at the Wayne water line construction project.
As noted above , the alleged discrimmatees in this case are
Howard Ross and Henry Clark, Jr., the Charging Parties.
Ross was hired as a flagman on the project on January 7,
1971, and began work on the moining of that day. At the
time Ross was hired, he was asked by Lonnie Elliott, the
service crew foreman, whether he knew anyone else who
wanted to work as a flagman on the work project. Later that
morning , Ross, while working as a flagman , stopped a car
driven by Clark. Ross informed Clark that there was an
opening for another flagman on the project. Clark applied
for the job that morning, was hired by Robison, and on the
afternoon of the same day began work as a flagman. Ross
and Clark also worked as flagmen the following day, Janu-
ary 8, performing laborers' duties during periods in the day
when there was no need for flagmen services.
When Ross and Clark reported for work on Monday,
January 11, they were instructed by Blaine Immel, the
Respondent's general superintendent on the project, not to
go on the jobsite that morning. Orville Adkins, also em-
ployed on the work project in a laborer's classification, was
similarly instructed. Immel explained that he did not want
them to be seen on the job as the Respondent was expecting
a visit by a Laborers representative and their presence on
the job might cause trouble because they were not members
of the Laborers Union. It appears that several days earlier
Spry of the Laborers Union had called on Robison and had
presented to him a copy of the Laborers standard agreement
for signature. Robison, however, had held off signing the
agreement , stating to Spry that he wanted to review the
agreement with his general superintendent , Immel , before
committing himself to it. Arrangements had then been
made for Spry to meet with Robison at the jobsite on Mon-
day, January 11, at 10 a.m., for further discussions concern-
ing the contract.
Spry, accompanied by Business Manager Joe Shy of the
Laborers Union, came to the Respondent's field office at
the appointed time, but Robison did not appear for the
meeting as promised. Spry and Shy then drove to the con-
struction site where they spoke to employees Elliott, Wal-
ters, and Collie whom they found at work there. The three
employees on the jobsite informed the Laborers representa-
tives that they had "union books" in AFL-CIO affiliated
unions. They also informed the Laborers representatives
that Robison had been in contact with District 50 and was
trying to get them to sign District 50 cards even though they
did not want to do so. Spry told them that the only way to
stop the job from going District 50 was for the Laborers to
be designated as their bargaining representative through
NLRB procedures. Spry gave Elliott, Walters, and Collie
Laborers authorization cards which they signed and turned
over to Spry later that day.
Spry later that afternoon succeeded in contacting Robi-
son at the construction site. Robison advised Spry that he
would not sign a contract with the Laborers Union as he
had decided to sign one with District 50 instead. Spry pro-
tested, stating that Robison could not sign with District 50
because the Laborers represented a majority of the
Respondent's employees working on the project at that
time . Robison expressed his disbelief that the Laborers rep-
resented a majority. Spry then told Robison, in effect, that
he would institute appropriate legal proceedings to block
482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Robison from recognizing District 50.
While Spry and Robison were still engaged in their con-
versation, Ross, Clark, and Adkins, who had become impa-
tient waiting for Robison to appear at the field office, drove
over to the construction site. Spry, after concluding his con-
versation with Robison, approached the three employees
and arranged to meet with them at the field office, outside
the presence of Robison. At their meeting, Spry told the
employees that Robison was trying to go District 50 and
urged them to sign Laborers designation cards so that the
Laborers might head off District 50 representation through
Board proceedings. Spry's meeting with the three laborer
employees came to a halt when Robison drove up to the
field office.
As soon as Spry left, Robison approached Ross, Clark,
and Adkins and in an angry tone asked them what Spry had
wanted of them. They told Robison that Spry had been
talking to them about his union, but assured Robison they
had not signed up with the Laborers. Robison then told the
three employees that, although it was for them to decide
which union they wanted to go with, the AFL-CIO Labor-
ers Union or District 50, they should bear in mind that if
they chose the Laborers Union there would be no work for
them with the Respondent. Robison went on to urge the
employees to go with District 50, stating that this would be
better for all concerned, the Respondent would be happier
working with District 50, and it would also be to the em-
ployees' economic advantage as District 50 charged much
less for dues and initiation fees. Robison then told the men
to go home and return for work the following morning.
When Ross and Clark, along with Adkins, reported for
work the following morning, January 12, they found that the
job was being picketed by the AFL-CIO. None of the
Respondent's employees crossed the picket line. Robison
specifically instructed Ross and Clark not to go to work
across the picket line, stating that this might lead to violence
or threats of violence which he wished to avoid.
Robison also seized this occasion to urge Ross, Clark, and
Adkins once again to sign up with District 50. Robison had
in his possession at that time District 50 authorization cards
which he passed out to the men. In compliance with
Robison's request, Ross and Clark filled out and signed the
cards and returned the signed cards to Robison. Adkins
informed Robison that he had worked under District 50
before and had paid his initiation fees to that labor organi-
zation, and was told by Robison that under the circum-
stances it would be necessary for him to sign a new
authorization card. While Ross and Clark were filling out
the District 50 cards, Robison asked the employees if they
belonged to any other union. Clark said he did not. The
record does not reflect Ross' response, if any. After Ross
and Clark returned the signed cards to Robison, the latter
instructed Immel to give Ross, Clark, and Adkins 2 hours'
show-up time for that day. Robison told them to report
again for work the following day.
Ross and Clark reported for work the next morning, Jan-
uary 13, but were again told not to work. Robison asked
them to leave their names, addresses, and telephone num-
bers-which they did-and promised to contact them as
soon as work was resumed. Picketing of the job continued
for some weeks thereafter, and no work on the job was done
in the interim.
On January 13, Spry successfully solicited the signatures
of Ross and Adkins to Laborers designation cards. Clark
signed a designation card for the Laborers the following
day.
On January 14, the Laborers filed a representation peti-
tion with the Board , in Case 9-RC-8886, for certification as
the exclusive bargaining agent of the Respondent 's employ-
ees at its Wayne , West Virginia , work project . The hearing
in the representation case was held on February 18 and
March 23, 1971. Ross attended the hearing on its first day
in the company of Laborers Representatives Spry and Shy.
His presence in Spry's ,,company was observed and com-
mented upon by Robison.'
The Respondent resumed work on the water line project
about mid-February 1971. Initially, work was resumed at a
section of the project in the city of Wayne where no flag-
men were required. Work on the state highway portion of
the project, the site at which Ross and Clark has previously
worked, began again on March 11. The record shows that
starting on March 15 and continuing through the next 4
weeks , the Respondent regularly used flagmen on that site.
However, the Respondent did not recall Ross or Clark to
work, notwithstanding his earlier promise to do so when
work became available.
On March 19, 1971, Ross and Clark filed their individual
charges in this case, alleging that the Respondent, by failing
to recall them to work, was unlawfully discriminating
against them in order to discourage membership in the La-
borers Union. Copies of the charges were served on the
Respondent on March 23.
On April 12, 1971, following the filing of the charges, the
Respondent recalled Ross to work. Thereafter, Ross worked
for the Respondent regularly until July 7, 1971, when he was
again laid off. During that period, the Respondent also
employed another flagman. The General Counsel, as ap-
pears from his brief, makes no claim at this time that Ross'
layoff on July 9, 1971, or the Respondent's failure thereafter
to recall him, was unlawfully discriminatory.
Clark was not recalled to work until August 26, 1971,
following the signing, on August 5, of the aborted settlement
agreement in this proceeding to which reference has been
made above. Clark, after his recall worked for a period of
about 4 weeks and then was laid off. There is no evidence
that work was available for him as a flagman after his last
layoff. The General Counsel makes no claim that Clark's
final layoff, or the Respondent's failure to recall him there-
after, was prompted by unlawful considerations.
1 As appears from the Decision and Direction of Election in Case 9-
RC-8886 , District 50 intervened in the "R" proceeding on the first day of
the hearing , asserting , along with the Employer , that there was an existing
contract between the Employer and District 50 which constituted a bar to
the proceeding However , when the hearing was resumed on March 23,
District 50 did not appear at the hearing and subsequently advised the
Regional Director that it was withdrawing from the proceeding and was
waiving any right to appear on the ballot The Laborers won the election
which was thereafter held, and , on July 26, 1971, was certified as the repre-
sentative of all laborers and operators employed on the Respondent 's Wayne,
West Virginia, project.
R. P. ROBINSON COMPANY 483
B. Concluding Findings
As for the Respondent's alleged 8 (a)(1) conduct , the re-
cord establishes that on January 11, 1971, Robison, after
observing employees Ross, Clark, and Adkins talking to
Spry, known to him to be a field representative of the Labor-
ers, interrogated these employees about their conversation
with Spry; that on the same day he threatened these em-
ployees with discharge if they chose the Laborers Union
instead of District 50 as their bargaining representative; and
that, on January 12, 1971, he distributed to the same em-
ployees District 50 authorization cards and requested their
signatures on such cards , at the same time inquiring of them
whether they had ever belonged to any union other than
District 50. These facts, I find, clearly support the
complaint's allegations that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) by interrogating employees about their union
activities and membership , threatening employees with dis-
charge for their union activities , and soliciting employees'
signatures on membership authorization cards of District
50.
As for the Respondent 's alleged 8(a)(3) violation with
respect to Ross , I am satisfied that the General Counsel has
made out a sufficient case to support the complaint's allega-
tion . Thus, the record shows that at the times material here-
in Robison was strongly opposed to having his employees
represented by the Laborers Union, desired to have them
represented by District 50 instead , and had earlier threat-
ened Ross with loss of employment if he opted in favor of
the Laborers Union rather than District 50. Although Ross,
at Robison 's solicitation , had signed a designation card for
District 50, his appearance at the "R" case hearing in the
company of Laborers Representative Spry could have left
no doubt in Robison's mind that Ross ' true allegiance at
that time was with the Laborers Union. Obviously, Robison
was then also aware that the pending representation pro-
ceeding might lead to an election and that Ross, if employed
in the bargaining unit at the time of that election , would cast
his ballot for the Laborers rather than for District 50. Ab-
sent some other , and lawful , explanation-and none was
presented by the Respondent-it is reasonable to infer from
the totality of the foregoing circumstances that Robison's
failure to recall Ross to work on March 15, 1971, when work
on the project requiring the use of flagmen was resumed,
notwithstanding his earlier promise to do so, was attributa-
ble to Ross' support of the Laborers Union to which Robi-
son was then opposed. That inference is not overcome by
the fact that Robison did recall Ross to work some 4 weeks
later , for two things had occurred in the meantime that seem
to explain that belated recall-Ross had filed his unfair
labor practice charge in this proceeding posing for the Re-
spondent a potential continuing backpay liability, and Dis-
trict 50 had made known that it no longer wished to
represent the employees on the Wayne project . In sum, I
find that, with respect to Ross , the General Counsel has
established a prima facie case, not rebutted by the Respon-
dent , that the Respondent 's failure to recall Ross to work
between March 15, 1971, and April 12, 1971, was motivated
by unlawfully discriminatory reasons and was violative of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
As for the alleged 8(a)(3) violation with respect to Clark,
I am not similarly satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to
support the complaint's allegation. Even though the Re-
spondent failed to appear at the hearing and offered no
explanation for the failure to recall Clark, the burden never-
theless remained on the General Counsel to establish, at
least prima facie, the complaint's allegation, denied in the
Respondent's answer, that Clark was discharged because of
his "membership in, sympathy for, or activities on behalf
of" the Laborers. The critical difference between Clark's
case and Ross' is the absence in the former of any evidence
to show, or reasonably to support a substantial inference,
that the Respondent had any knowledge or reason to be-
lieve that Clark was a member of, sympathetic to, or active
on behalf of the Laborers, as the complaint alleges. With
regard to Clark's union affiliation, the Respondent only
knew, so far as this record shows, that Clark had signed a
designation card for District 50, the union which the Re-
spondent favored. It is possible, of course, that Robison,
having learned at the representation case hearing that Ross
had switched his allegiance to the Laborers, suspected that
the same was true of Clark. But, absent more tangible evi-
dence than appears in this record to show that Robison had
reason to suppose that Ross and Clark would act as one in
this respect, a finding that the Respondent suspected Clark
of favoring the Laborers would itself have nothing but sus-
picion to support it. Nor may it fairly be inferred, simply on
the strength of the discrimination finding made in Ross'
case, that the Respondent's failure to recall Clark can only
be attributed to the same unlawful motivation. The finding
in Ross' case is itself based on inference , and to further infer
that the Respondent must have been guided by like consid-
erations in its failure to recall Clark would, I believe,
amount in the circumstances of this case to an impermissi-
ble piling of inference on inference. Concluding, as I do,
that the evidence falls short of supporting the 8(a)(3) allega-
tion relating to Clark, I shall recommend that that allegation
be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By failing to recall its laid off employee, Howard Ross,
to work during the period between March 15, 1971, and
April 12, 1971, because of his manifested sympathy for and
support of the Laborers' Union the Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
2. By coercively interrogating employees about their
union activities, threatening employees with discharge for
their union activities, and soliciting employees' signatures to
District 50 authorization cards, the Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The Respondent did not violate the Act by its failure
to recall laid off employee Henry Clark, Jr., to work.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that the Respon-
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and from like
and related unfair labor practices, and that it take certain
affirmative action found necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent discriminatori-
ly failed, during the period from March 15, 1971, to April
12, 1971, to recall Howard Ross from layoff, it will be rec-
ommended that the Respondent be ordered to make Ross
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him
a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have
earned from the initial date of the discrimination against
him until April 12, 1971, less net earnings, if any, during
such period, to be computed in the manner prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and his Plumb-
ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
As it appears that the Respondent has ceased operations
at the Wayne, West Virginia, site where the unfair labor
practices occurred, it will be recommended that the Notice
to Employees, instead of being posted, be mailed to the last
known addresses of the Respondent's employees at the
Wayne, West Virginia, site , who were employed during the
month immediately prior to the termination of
Respondent's operations at Wayne, West Virginia.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
worked for the Respondent at the Wayne, West Virginia,
water line project during the month immediately preceding
the termination of the Respondent's operations at that pro-
ject.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2 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
3 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 "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
ORDER2
The Respondent, R. P. Robison, d/b/a R. P. Robison
Company, his agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership and activities in Laborers
District Council of Charleston, West Virginia, affiliated
with the Laborers International Union of North America,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discrimi-
nating in any manner against any of his employees in regard
to their hire and tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment, because of their union member-
ship, sympathies, or activities.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees about their union
membership, activities, or sympathies; threatening employ-
ees with discharge or other reprisal for their union member-
ship or activities; soliciting employee signatures on union
designation cards; or in any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
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) Make whole Howard Ross for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him,
in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section above.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership or activities in
Laborers District Council of Charleston, West Virgin-
ia, affiliated with Laborers International Union of
North America, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor orga-
nization, by discriminating in any manner against our
employees in regard to their hire and tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of employment, be-
cause of their union membership, sympathies, or
activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their
union membership, sympathies, or activities; threaten
our employees with discharge or other reprisal because
of their union membership, sympathies, or activities; or
solicit the membership of any of our employees in Dis-
trict 50, Allied and Technical Workers of the United
States and Canada, or in any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce any of our employees in their
rights, given them by the National Labor Relations
Act, including the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or help unions, and to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing.
WE WILL make up all pay lost by Howard Ross as a
result of our failure, found discriminatory by the
Board, to recall him for work during the period from
March 15, 1971, to April 12, 1971.
R.P. ROBisoN d/b/a
R.P. ROBISON COMPANY
(Employer)
(c) Mail copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- Dated By
dix" J to the last known addresses of all employees who (Representative) (Title)
R. P. ROBINSON COMPANY 485
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
anyone . this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days ed to the Board 's Office, Federal Office Building, Room
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced , 2407, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone
513-684-3686.