Robertson Glass and Glazing Contractor, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 22, 1972

195 N.L.R.B. 496 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Robertson Glass and Glazing Contractor , Inc. and Del-
bert K. Sylvester . Case 28-CA-2145
February 22, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
On October 15, 1971, Trial Examiner Herman Marx
issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. There-
after, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering 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 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 Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Re-
spondent, Robertson Glass and Glazing Contractor,
Inc., Phoenix, Arizona, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN MARX, Trial Examiner: The material issues in
this proceeding are whether Robertson Glass and Glazing
Contractor, Inc. (herein the Company or Respondent), laid
off, and has refused to reinstate, seven employees because of
their union or other protected concerted activities, thus vi-
olating Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act' (herein the Act), and whether, in violation of said
Section 8(a)(1), it interrogated employees concerning their
union activities, threatened them with discharge and other
reprisals because of such activities, and warned employees to
refrain from engaging in them.'
The Respondent has filed an answer which, inter alia,
admits that the named employees were laid off but denies the
commission of the unfair labor practices imputed to it.
Pursuant to notice duly served by the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board (herein the Board) on
the Charging Party, Delbert K. Sylvester, and the Respond-
ent, a hearing on the issues has been held before me, as duly
designated Trial Examiner. The Board's General Counsel
29 U S C 158(a)(1) and (3)
The complaint was issued on October 12, 1970, and is based on a charge
filed on July 27, 1970 Copies of the complaint and the charge have been
duly served upon the Respondent The case was heard at Phoenix, Arizona,
on April 20, 21, and 22, 1971 Briefs were filed on July 12, 1971
and the Respondent appeared through respective counsel and
were afforded a full opportunity to adduce evidence, examine
and cross-examine witnesses, submit oral argument , and file
briefs. The Charging Party did not enter an appearance as a
party but testified.
Upon the entire record, from my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and having read and considered the
respective briefs of the General Counsel and Respondent, I
make the following findings of fact:
I NATURE OF THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS;
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
The Company is an Arizona corporation, maintains its
principal office and place of business in Phoenix, Arizona,
where it is engaged in business as a "glazing contractor" in
the building, and construction industry, and is and has been
at all material times an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2) of the Act.
During the calendar year 1969, in the course and conduct
of its business operations, the Company performed services
valued in excess of $50,000 for Superlite Builders Supply, Inc.
(herein Superlite), an enterprise engaged in Phoenix,
Arizona, in the manufacture and wholesale sale of building
products. That enterprise annually purshases goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers
located in States other than Arizona. By reason of the services
rendered to Superlite, the Company is, and has been at all
material times, engaged in interstate commerce, and opera-
tions affecting such commerce, within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, the Board has jurisdic-
tion over the subject matter of this proceeding.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Glaziers and Glassworkers Union , AFL-CIO, Local No.
1610 (herein the Union), is, and has been at all material times,
a labor organization within the meaning of section 2(5) of the
Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory Statement
The Company' s business consists almost entirely of the
installation of windows and doors in residences, and substan-
tially all of its work is performed under contract for Superlite.
The Company's labor force normally includes window and
door installers , "service men" who make repairs such as re-
placing broken glass, and truck loaders. The force works
under the supervision of Orville Brown, who has the title of
"Superintendent" and is subject, in turn, to supervision by the
Company's president, Brodye J. Robertson, Sr., who man-
ages and directs its operations. Both Brown and Robertson
are, have been at all times material here, supervisors within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
The record does not, however, establish such a supervisory
status for Robertson's son, Brodye, Jr (also called "Skip"
and occasionally so designated here) His duties consist, in
the main , of work as an apprentice in the installation opera-
tions, office work, requisitioning windows and doors from
Superlite for filling its installation orders, and the preparation
of a daily work schedule which is posted on the Company's
premises and sets forth information as to the location of jobs
to be performed on the following day, the materials and
trucks to be used for the given job, and the name of the
individual assigned to perform it.3 According to both Skip
' According to the younger Robertson , sometimes the names listed are
fictitious because the identity of the installer who is to be assigned to the
(Cont)
195 NLRB No. 93
ROBERTSON GLASS AND GLAZING CONTRACTOR
and Brown, it is the latter who determines the assignments,
and there is no evidence to the contrary. Skip was designated
a vice president of the Company about a month before the
layoffs involved here, but the designation appears to be only
nominal, and there is no indication that any other employee
was aware of it at any material time.
The Company's place of business, including an office and
truck loading yard, is located on premises owned by Superlite
which maintains a warehouse adjacent to the Company's
facilities. Each business day, about noon, Superlite delivers to
the Company invoices or work orders for installation jobs to
be performed on the following day. An employee of the Com-
pany (Skip Robertson in the period material here) then
groups them by location routes and prepares the daily instal-
lation work schedule previously mentioned. The windows
and doors required for the work are then requisitioned from
the Superlite warehouse, and later that day one or more
loading employees, who report for work between about 3:30
p.m. and 7 p in. and continue into the night as required, load
the trucks on the basis of the schedule, which at one point or
another during the course of the day is posted on the Com-
pany's premises.
The Union is, and has been at all material times, the collec-
tive-bargianing representative of the Company's employees,
and the labor organization and the Company have been par-
ties to two successive collective-bargaining agreements, the
first of which went into effect in 1965 and expired on May 31,
1970. The second became effective June 1, 1970, and has been
in effect since then. The first provided for step increases for
the classification of "journeyman glazier", terminating in an
hourly rate of $5 19, but made no reference to a separate
classification or scale for residential window and door install-
ers. The second contract provides for a first step hourly rate
of $5.49 for journeymen, but like its predecessor it makes no
reference to a separate classification or rate for residential
window and door installers.
Some 4 or 5 years ago, during the term of the first contract,
the elder Robertson and a representative of the Union entered
into an arrangement providing for the payment to installers
of a lower hourly rate than the scale for journeymen glaziers
set forth in the contract. As of the date of termination of that
agreement, of some 13 employees engaged in window and
door installation work, all but 3 were employed at varying
rates lower than the contract scale for journeymen. Two of
the three exceptions, Odie and Arthur Skaggs, were classified
as journeymen, but the third, Delbert K. Sylvester, was not
thus classified although paid at the same rate as the two
journeymen For some 5 weeks after the new contract went
into effect, installers continued to work at the rates previously
applicable to them, and, during that period, the Company,
contrary to its previous practice, omitted entries from stubs
of their weekly paychecks showing their respective hourly
rates and the amounts deducted for withheld taxes and union
checkoff and health and welfare payments.'
given route is not yet known
' According to the elder Robertson's wife, Katherine, who works in the
Company's office and prepares the payroll, she discontinued the stub entries
because she did not know what wage rates and deductions were required by
the new contract, but the employees were paid after June 1, 1970, on the
basis of the rates previously applicable to them, and the same deductions
continued to be made Thus no reason appears why the entries could not be
made after that date, as they had previously In any case, the reason for the
omission is beside the point of the General Counsel's claim that seven
installation employees were discriminatorily laid off because they turned to
the Union for assistance with their grievances, including a complaint regard-
ing the omission to make the entries
497
On July 15, 1970,5 seven of the Company's employees, H.
Allen Scrignuoli, Daniel H. Eastham, Robert D. Arthur,
Arlis M. Guinn, Van B. Brewer, Howard Harper and Delbert
K. Sylvester, all employed as installers (although Scrignuoli
and Eastham are listed in the Company's records as appren-
tices), went to the Union's headquarters in Phoenix and, with
Sylvester acting as spokesman for the group, submitted griev-
ances to two business representatives of the Union, Melton F.
Baker and Harry Green, to the effect that they were not
receiving the scale for journeymen prescribed by the new
contract; that they were no longer receiving paycheck stubs
reflecting their pay rates and deductions; that the Company
had failed to pay time and one-half for time worked over 8
hours a day; and that some of its employees were not mem-
bers of the Union. The Union's representatives told the seven
employees to return on the following Friday, July 17, with the
paychecks they were scheduled to receive that day The seven
did so in circumstances to be described later
B. The Alleged Interrogation,
Threats, and Warnings
On the day following the submission of the grievances,
Baker and Green visited a construction project where the
Company had work to perform, spoke to some of its install-
ers, including Harper and Brewer, telling them that they
intended to discuss the discontinuance of the check stub en-
tries with Robertson later in the day, and ascertained that the
company had no nonunion help at the project at the time.'
There is no dispute that Superintendent Brown talked to
Harper at the project later that day, but there is conflict as
to what was said. Harper testified that Brown asked him
whether the Union's representatives had been there, whether
he had spoken to them, and whether they had asked him
whether he was receiving "scale" (the journeyman's rate).
According to Harper, he replied that the representatives had
been there but had not asked him about his scale, and that
he had not talked to them very long.
Brown's version is that he asked Harper "if there was
anything new", and the latter replied that Baker and Green
had been at the project site; and that he asked Harper "if
there was a problem or anything wrong", and Harper replied
that he had not spoken to Baker and Green.
Brown's account would lead one to believe that it was
Harper who first referred to the visit of Baker and Green, but
the plausibility of Harper's claim that it was Brown who
broached the subject, and then made the inquiries imputed to
him, is enhanced by clear indications that the management
was opposed to the application of the new contractual jour-
neymen's rate to the installers who were not classified as
journeymen, and sensitive to group activity by them.' This
sensitivity appears in the evidence of a telephone call the elder
Robertson made to Brewer at the Union's office on the
evening of July 17, while the seven installers were there in
conformity with the suggestion by the Union's agents 2 days
earlier. The content of the conversation is disputed, Brewer
claiming that Robertson asked him to identify the installers
who were there while Robertson claims that he asked Brewer
"what was going on", but the important point at this juncture
is that either version evidences a dispostion by Robertson to
pry into dealings between the installers and their union repre-
Unless otherwise indicated all dates mentioned below occurred in 1970
Baker talked to the elder Robertson later that day, but the content of
the conversation does not appear
' For example, the elder Robertson testified that he told Harpei on July
24 that the latter had been hired for window and door installation work, and
that "I am not going to pay those seven men [a reference to the seven who
had complained to the Union ] unqualified men the scale to do it"
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sentatives . It is thus wholly plausible that Robertson 's super-
visory subordinate , Brown , would interrogate Harper in the
vein the latter describes.
In contrast , Brown 's testimony reflects substantial im-
plausbilities . He testified that he was unaware until the hear-
ing ("meeting ," as he terms it) in this proceeding that the
installers had complained to the Union about the failure to
make paycheck stub entries . But in circumstances that will
presently appear, Skip Robertson quotes Brewer as telling
him on July 16 that Baker and Green had been looking into
"some complaints [from employees] about receipts of pay-
checks that had not been given to them for a long period,"
and according to the elder Robertson his son reported Brew-
er's remarks to him , and this led him to telephone Brewer at
the Union 's headquarters on July 17. Against that back-
ground , it seems unlikely that Brown , the second in com-
mand of the force of some 13 installers , would be unaware
until the hearing , held some 9 months after the complaints to
the Union , that about half of the force had complained to the
organization about the repeated check stub omissions. And
the implausibility of Brown 's claim is heightened by the fact
that on the evening of July 17, following the senior Robert-
son's telephone conversation with Brewer (and one with
Baker on that occasion , to be described later), the elder Rob-
ertson told Brown , by telephone, that the seven installers had
visited the Union's headquarters . In that regard , I find it
difficult to believe a claim by Brown that Robertson told him
"no more" than "just that they [the employees] had gone" (to
the Union).
In addition , the record suggests a probability that Baker
was in touch with Brown about the installers ' complaints on
July 15 or 16 . Neither Baker nor Brown describes such a
contact , but the elder Robertson testified that he is "almost
sure" that he first learned that the installers had complained
to the Union from Brown ; that "I believe it was Mr. Baker
called Orville Brown and said I had some unhappy people";
that the call was made prior to July 17; and that "I believe
Baker called Brown-I'm not sure of this-and told him that
the men was [sic] going to have to show this cards [sic] or
show their stubs or something at the [union] hall on Friday
night". Perhaps Robertson is mistaken , but what he says of
itself warrants at least a substantial doubt of the credibility
of Brown 's claim that he was unaware prior to the evening
of July 17 that the installers had complained to the Union,
and that he knew nothing of the complaint about the check
stub entries until the hearing in this case.
The weight of the evidence , in sum, supports Harper, and
I credit his account of his conversation with Brown.'
Brewer , too, describes a conversation with Brown on July
16 at the project site after the departure of the Union 's agents,
also testifying to a discussion later that day, after work, with
Skip Robertson , while the latter was giving him a lift home.
Regarding the first conversation , Brewer testified that the
superintendent approached him at the project and asked him
what Baker and Green wanted ; that he replied that they
"wanted us to go to the union hall on Friday with our checks
and what stubs we had"; that Brown then asked him if he
knew who had been to the Union ; and that he replied in the
Harper and Brown are in substantial accord that the latter asked Harper
on July 17 at the Company 's place of business "what was going on" Harper
prefaces his reference to the inquiry with testimony that Brown "knew that
somebody had made a phone call to the union", but is is not clear whether
this purports to quote Brown In any case , I see no need to determine
whether the inquiry was aimed at eliciting information about union activi-
ties, since such a determination would neither add to nor detract from the
remedy to be recommended below
negative . Then, according to Brewer , Brown "advised [him]
not to go to the union."
With respect to the episode with the younger Robertson,
Brewer testified that Skip offered him a lift home and en route
asked him whether he knew that Baker and Green had called
at the project; that he replied in the affirmative and said that
the Union's agents "want us to bring our checks in after we
received them Friday"; that Skip said that "other companies
were , in effect , cheating [not elaborated] and ... trying to get
even with Robertson Glass"; and that Skip "advised [him]
not to go down there to the meeting [with the Union 's agents
on Friday], that some people had tried things before and they
are no longer employed."
Brown denies that he had any conversation with Brewer on
July 16, but there is no dispute that Brewer had a discussion
with the younger Robertson on that date on the way to Brew-
er's home . Stating that Brewer had requested the lift and
denying that he asked Brewer whether Baker and Green had
come to the job site or advised Brewer not to go to the Union,
Skip gave a substantially more extensive and detailed account
of the conversation than Brewer . Some highlights will suffice
for consideration of the credibility issues presented.
Skip testified that it was Brewer who raised the subject of
the visit of the Union's agents, asking him if he had any
knowledge that they had come to the jobsite and had asked
questions of some of the employees. According to Skip, he
replied in the negative and asked Brewer to whom Baker and
Green had spoken , whether they had talked to Brewer, and
what they wanted ; and Brewer replied that he was not at
liberty to say whether the Union' s agents had spoken to him,
or to name any others to whom they had talked, but that they
had come to the project site "to see about complaints about
receipts of paychecks that had not been given to them [em-
ployees] for a long period and also they [employees] weren't
receiving the correct pay scales." There followed a discussion,
according to Skip's account , during which Brewer asked
whether the Company "would [not] go out of business," in
the event about six of its employees were discharged, quit,
refused to work, or slowed down , and Skip replied to the
effect that the Company would continue with replacements.
Then, Skip testified, Brewer said that the employees wanted
the journeyman glazier 's scale and "were going to go to the
union to get it ," and Skip asked if Brewer intended to do that,
and whether he sought the scale, to which Brewer replied in
the affirmative . According to Skip , Brewer told him that the
Company would "find out" on the coming Friday what the
installers intended to do regarding their wage complaint.
The implausibilities in Brown's testimony and other rea-
sons set out above for crediting Harper make for acceptance
of Brewer 's claim of interrogation by Brown . Moreover, there
are substantial blemishes in Skip Robertson 's testimony on a
number of material issues, and at times he appeared to me to
be reckless with the truth. Indeed , this attitude was mani-
fested in connection with the very conversation he had with
Brewer , as the following excerpt from the younger Robert-
son's cross-examination attests:
Q. (By Mr. Ziprin) Now you stated you had a conver-
sation with Mr. Van Brewer-on what date?
A I said I might have had a conversation.
Q. You are not certain?
A. No
The fact is that, far from being uncertain about the matter on
his direct examination , Skip had given a detailed and lengthy
version of his conversation with Brewer.
Nevertheless , I am persuaded that Skip 's account is closer
to the facts than Brewer's. It is not that Brewer appeared to
me to be a dishonest witness. On the contrary , he seemed to
me to be a sincere one who strove to give his best recollection,
ROBERTSON GLASS AND GLAZING CONTRACTOR 499
but one whose power to recall and articulate his recollection
of a long and detailed conversation-especially a substantial
period after the event-would be relatively modest. Skip, on
the other hand , impressed me as having substantially better
powers of recall and articulation, and these capacities are
reflected , in my judgment , in his account, in which he por-
trays himself as interrogating Brewer at much greater length
than the single question-whether Brewer knew that Baker
and Green had been to the job site-that Brewer attributes
to Skip. From Brewer's account, it would appear that Skip,
having received an affirmative reply to that query, made no
inquiry about the activities or business of the Union's agents
at the project, but, upon my observation of Skip, in the light
of the train of events that followed the submission of griev-
ances by the seven installers to the Union on July 15 I think
it unlikely that Skip's interrogation and the rest of the conver-
sation about union matters , during a ride of some 20 miles,
were as limited as Brewer 's account would lead me to believe.
It is of some significance , on that score , that under cross-
examination , Brewer testified that he "may have said, `Well
Skip, what if everybody quits? How are you going to maintain
your business?' or something to that effect." This concession
is noteworthy, for Brewer in effect imputes to young Robert-
son a threat that those attending the Union meeting on the
following day would be discharged ("some people had tried
things before and they are no longer employed"), while, con-
versely, Skip denies advising Brewer not to attend the meet-
ing, and the thrust of Skip's version of what was said on the
question of termination of employees is that Brewer raised the
subject with an inquiry as to the impact on the Company's
business if a number of employees quit, were discharged, or
slowed down, and that Skip replied that the Company would
replace them . Brewer 's admission , it seems to me, contributes
support to an important aspect of Skip's version-that deal-
ing with the termination of employees.
There is no reason, however, to doubt the credibility of one
aspect of Brewer's testimony, and that is that he told Skip,
in substance, that Baker and Green had requested Brewer and
other installers to bring in their paychecks after receiving
them (in other words, after work) on the following day, Fri-
day. The elder Robertson claims that his son told him of the
conversation, and that this led him to call Brewer at the
Union's headquarters after work on Friday; and it is thus
fairly inferable that the senior Robertson knew that Brewer
and other installers were at the Union's headquarters because
Brewer had indicated to Skip that they would be there on
Friday evening, and Skip had relayed the information to his
father.
Summarizing the material results I reach regarding the
conversation, although Skip's version appears to me to be
exaggerated and embroidered at points (as where he imputes
a threat to Brewer to "cause you all sorts of trouble"-
behavior not in harmony with Brewer's apparently mild per-
sonality and mode of expression), I accept Skip's claim to the
effect that Brewer opened the subject of the visit of Baker and
Green by asking Skip whether he knew about the matter; I
credit Skip's version of his interrogation of Brewer; I find that
what Skip said regarding the termination of employees came
in response to an inquiry by Brewer as to the impact on the
Company's business if a number of employees ceased work as
a group and amounted, in substance, to a position that the
Company would continue to operate with replacements; I
credit Brewer's testimony to the effect that he told Skip that
Baker and Green had requested Brewer and other installers
to bring in their paychecks on the following day, Friday; and
I hold that in view of the indications that Brewer's recollec-
tion of the episode is substantially short , his claim to the effect
that Skip advised him not to attend the union meeting does
not qualitatively outweight Skip's denial in the premises.
As for Brewer 's claimed conversation with Brown, the
total truth, I am convinced, does not rest with either side, as
is so often the case with disputed credibility issues. There is
much that is amiss with Brown 's testimony on a number of
material issues . Some of the shortcomings have already been
mentioned, and others will appear later. In the light of these,
and of my impression of Brewer 's sincerity , nothwithstanding
flaws in his testimony, I do not accept Brown's claim that he
had no conversation with Brewer on the day in question.
On the other hand, there is a substantial blemish in Brew-
er's relevant testimony . Having testified on his direct exami-
nation that Brown "advised" him not to go to the Union on
Friday, Brewer added to this under cross-examination, stat-
ing that Brown "just advised me not to go down there [the
Union], that it might cost me my job". (This similarly differs
from a pretrial affidavit Brewer gave the General Counsel.)
And this claim is additionally flawed by testimony by Brewer
that what Brown said was to the "effect" of the terms Brewer
uses to quote the claimed advice. If Brown did interrogate
him as to the business of Baker and Green at the project and,
following Brewer's reply that they "wanted us to go to the
union hall on Friday with our checks", inquired as to the
identity of employees who had been to the Union, it may be
that the advice not to attend the meeting and the prediction
of possible job loss that Brewer attributes to Brown are mean-
ings or an "effect" that Brewer is reading into Brown 's ques-
tions. The possibility of such a gloss, and the disparity be-
tween Brewer's initial version of alleged advice and the
account he gave later, preclude a finding that Brown gave
such advice or said that Brewer might lose his job.
That does not, however, warrant disregard of Brewer's
testimony concerning interrogation. The questioning he de-
scribes is much of a piece with the interrogation Harper
attributes to Brown , and much the same considerations-
notably the elder Robertson's telephone call to Brewer during
the union meeting on July 17, as to which findings will be
made later-lead me to conclude that the management was
much concerned with the business of the Union' s agents at
the project and with the identity of employees who had been
to the Union. In short, I credit Brewer's testimony regarding
the interrogation and his reply to Brown's query as to the
business of Baker and Green at the jobsite.
The seven installers who had complained to the Union
received their paychecks about the end of the workday on
Friday, July 17. The checks of four (Guinn, Sylvester, Ar-
thur, and Harper) for the relevant pay period (the workweek
ending July 14) reflected an increase to the current journey-
man glazier's hourly scale of $5.49.' None was informed prior
to departure from the premises that afternoon of any impend-
ing layoff or told not to report on the next regular workday,
Monday, July 20. Following receipt of their checks, the seven
proceeded to the Union's office with them, arriving there
about 5 p.m., and met with Baker and Green.
There was a discussion of the grievances at the meeting,
and while it was in progress the elder Robertson called the
Union's office, asked for Brewer, and then spoke in turn to
Brewer and Baker. Here, too, as in so much else in this case,
there is conflict over what was said.
According to Brewer, when he took the phone, Robertson
said that he was going to read off a list of names and wanted
Brewer "to say yes or no whether they were there," and
' Resp Exh 28b However, for the following workweek (in which the
layoffs occurred) Harper and Guinn were paid at their respective rates,
$4 50 and $4 00, in effect prior to the week ending July 14 See Resp Exh
28c
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brewer replied that he "couldn 't do that," whereupon Rob-
ertson asked to speak to Baker.
There is no dispute that Brewer turned the phone over to
Baker, whose version of what followed is brief. According to
him, Robertson asked him for the names of the employees
present , and he furnished them . One of the employees, Ar-
thur , gave testimony to the effect that while Baker was on the
phone , he turned to the employees and told them that Robert-
son had asked for the names of the employees present, where-
upon Sylvester, their spokesman , told Baker to supply them,
and Baker did so.
Robertson 's version of his conversation with Brewer is that
he "asked [Brewer] what was going on", and that Brewer
replied that he "didn 't have to say", and would put Baker on
the telephone "to talk for them [the employees]." Describing
what followed with Baker , Robertson testified:
I asked Pete [Baker] what was the problem and they [sic]
said they [the employees] wanted their back pay that
they had coming to June 1st , the difference in the scale,
and that they had decided to give me until the next
Wednesday to get that up, and I said , "They who", and
he [Baker] said-"who's there", and he called out the
names of who was there , and when [sic] he told me that
they had asked him to talk for them , and I told him to
talk for me and that there wasn 't any work for them, not
to come in until Wednesday morning.
Baker , called as a rebuttal witness, denied that Robertson
told him that the employees were not to report until Wednes-
day.
Actually, the gap between the versions is not materially
great, for especially in the light of the layoffs that followed on
the next regular workday, the most important feature of the
telephone espisode is that Robertson , as his own version es-
tablishes, asked Baker , at least , for the names of the com-
plaining employees , and received them from Baker. But, in
addition , I am convinced that the testimony of Brewer and
Baker is substantially closer to the facts than Robertson's,
noting in connection with Brewer's capacity for recall that his
conversation with the elder Robertson , unlike that with Skip,
was brief, and that Brewer 's recollection of his conversation
with the senior Robertson appeared to me to be clear.
I find Robertson 's version unconvincing for a number of
reasons. To begin with , his professed excuse for calling
Brewer is thin . He claims that he did so because his son had
related his conversation with Brewer the day before, and he
"didn 't know whether the union was the ones that was having
the men down there , or whether the men were going there
themselves"; or, in other words , that the purpose of his call
to Brewer was to find out if the installers had gone to the
Union of their own volition or on the organization 's initiative
But, according to Skip , Brewer had told him that the Union
had received "complaints" about the paychecks and the scale
paid the installers; and that the latter wished to be paid the
journeyman 's scale , "are going to go to the union to get it,"
and "will go to the highest man we can in the union ." More-
over, Brewer had told Skip that Baker and Green had re-
quested the employees to bring their paychecks to the Union's
office on Friday. With these considerations in mind, it does
not seem plausible that the elder Robertson would call
Brewer at the Union 's headquarters merely to ascertain
whether the men had gone to the Union on their own initia-
tive And one would think, too, that if the purpose of Robert-
son's call was really to ascertain the Union 's role in the affair,
rather than to learn from Brewer in covert fashion (by the
device of naming employees to Brewer and having him reply
"yes or no" as to the presence of the persons named ), Robert-
son would have asked in the first instance to talk to a repre-
sentative of the Union, such as Baker, who could speak au-
thoritatively not only for the employees but for the Union as
their bargaining representative.
Moreover , there is good reason to doubt Robertson's claim
that he told Baker that the installers were not to report for
work until the following Wednesday , or, in other words, that
they were laid off for July 20 and 21.10 The fact is that on the
morning of July 20 Robertson laid off the seven installers
without specifying any date for their return , and, signifi-
cantly , directed them to turn in Company tools and yard keys
in their possession . It may be , as Robertson claims, that the
surrender of the keys was required because Superlite intended
to change the locks on the premises (although it does not
appear that this had to be done prior to Wednesday), but the
demand for the tools does not quite jibe with Robertson's
claim that he planned a resumption of work by the seven men
on July 22, for no greater reason appears for the surrender of
the tools during a 2-day layoff period than for 2-day weekend
periods when the men customarily retained the tools assigned
to them
Nor does Robertson plausibly explain why, in his conversa-
tion with Baker, he specified Wednesday as the day for re-
sumption of work . According to Robertson , he did so because
he "expected to have enough work for them maybe," but it
is apparent from Robertson 's testimony that he had no means
of knowing on Friday what work would be available from
Superlite on the following Wednesday . According to him, he
decided on the 2-day layoff after notification by Superlite,
about 1 or 1:30 p . m. on Friday , of cancellation of some orders
previously scheduled for performance on the following Mon-
day or Tuesday. He testified that shortly after receipt of the
cancellation information he proceeded to another Phoenix
location of Superlite for a discussion of work prospects with
its sales manager who , according to Robertson, said that he
could "just see two days ahead" for work requirements; and
that he did not return to the Company 's premises until about
4:45 p in. If Robertson is telling the truth about his conversa-
tion with the sales manager, it is evident that the latter could
not, or did not, say on Friday what work would be required
beyong the next "two days" or, in other words, on the follow-
ing Wednesday; and clearly, too, what the sales manager
allegedly told Robertson provides no rational basis for Ro-
bertson 's alleged expectation that there would be "enough
work for them [on Wednesday ] maybe". In fact , Robertson
admittedly "didn't know how much [work] because I didn't
have Wednesday's work".
The absence of any plausible explanation for the alleged
specification of Wednesday as the day for resumption of
work, and the objective fact that no layoff period was spe-
cified when the men were laid off, militate against acceptance
of Robertson's claim that he told Baker that the men were to
report for work next on Wednesday.
Furthermore , as regards Robertson 's credibility in general,
it appeared to me at a number of points that he was loose with
the facts , if nothing worse. For example , in a context of
explaining why he retained an employee named Sparkes while
laying off the seven window and door installers, Robertson,
having said that Sparkes "was a trainee on windows and
doors" (meaning, plainly, a trainee in window and door in-
stallation] shifted to a claim that Sparkes was "learning the
proper way to load a truck" and was "a trainee" in that work.
There is convincing evidence, to be described later, that
Sparkes was engaged , in the main , in installation work over
10 I disagree with a position in the Respondent 's brief that the issue
whether Robertson informed Baker of the 2-day layoff is the "most crucial
element of this case" Whether or not Robertson did so , the issue whether
the layoffs put into effect by Robertson on July 20 were discriminatory still
remains
ROBERTSON GLASS AND GLAZING CONTRACTOR 501
a period of months after the layoffs. Another example of
Robertson's loose treatment of facts may be found in tes-
timony he gave regarding a certified mail receipt for delivery
of a letter (Resp. Exh. 16) offering Arlis Guinn reinstatement.
Asked whether the signature "Arlis Guinn" on the receipt
was that of Guinn, Robertson testified, "As far as I know, it
is, yes. Looks like it," although the receipt on its face shows
that the name "Arlis Guinn" was put there by Guinn's pur-
ported "agent", who signed the name "Sarah Guinn" beneath
the name "Arlis Guinn".
I am, in sum, unable to accept Robertson's version of his
telephone conversations with Brewer and Baker, and instead,
crediting the testimony of Brewer, Baker, and Arthur, I find
that Robertson proposed in his conversation with Brewer to
read a list of names and asked Brewer "to say yes or no" as
to the presence of each individual named; that Brewer de-
clined; that Robertson then spoke to Baker and asked him for
the names of those present; and that Baker , with the consent
of Sylvester as spokesman for the employees there, gave Rob-
ertson the names of the installers at the meeting
C. The Layoffs
On the morning of July 20, as six of the seven installers who
had been at the union meeting on Friday, all except Eastham,
arrived at the Company's yard gate to report for work, the
elder Robertson told them in substance that they were laid off
for lack of work and were not being discharged but would be
recalled when work picked up, and he directed them to turn
in Company tools and keys to the premises." They complied
and then proceeded to a neighboring coffee shop.
Eastham arrived in the vicinity 5 or 10 minutes late for
work but did not enter the Company's premises, joining those
in the coffee shop when he noticed their cars nearby and
learned that they were in the restaurant. He asked what had
happened, and Sylvester told him that "we've all been laid
off."
Although Eastham was not physically present at the time
of the layoff, there is no dispute that he was included in it.
The Respondent in effect admits in its answer that he was
thus included, and it is evident that Robertson intended that
his layoff remarks should apply to Eastham, for he testified
that "all the seven men" arrived at the premises together that
morning, and that he addressed his remarks to them. The
circumstance that he is mistaken about Eastham's presence
does not alter the fact that he intended the layoff to apply to
Eastham. I find that it did.
On or about November 6, during the pendency of this
proceeding, the Company, by letter bearing that date, made
an offer of reinstatement to Scrignuoli, Eastham, Arthur, and
Guinn, effective as of November 16, and, through Brown,
orally offered to reinstate Sylvester as of November 9.'i Guinn
" I do not credit Robertson's testimony that he asked the employees
"what they were doing there," and whether Baker had told them "not to
come in on Wednesday", and that "somebody" (unidentified) answered
"Yes " None of the other witnesses who described the layoff episode, includ-
ing Superintendent Brown, support this testimony Moreover, for reasons
previously stated, I do not credit Robertson's account of his conversation
with Baker Although varying in emphasis and details , there is substantial
accord among Brown, Scrignuoli, Brewer, Sylvester, Harper, and Arthur as
to the layoff episode, and the relevant findings made reflect a composite of
material features of their testimony
" Sylvester broadly approximates the offer as made about 2 weeks before
November 10, the date he received a letter from the Company referring to
the offer. The General Counsel treats the date of the letter as the date of the
reinstatement offer I have inferred the approximate date of the offer, and
the proposed reinstatement date, from the contents of the letter I note, also,
that I do not credit a claim by Brown that on July 22, following a discussion
at the Union's office of the rate to pay the laid off installers for the workweek
returned to work on November 12, several days before his
proposed starting date. Sylvester, Eastham, Arthur, and
Scrignuoli have not returned, and the General Counsel con-
cedes in his brief that each of these has "rejected" the offer
made him. Putting aside, for later discussion, a claim by the
Respondent that it made a reinstatement offer, through the
Union, to all seven installers, the Company has not made
such an offer directly to either Harper or Brewer."
D. Concluding Findings
The major issue here is whether, as the General Counsel
claims, the seven installers were laid off because they turned
to the Union for resolution of their grievances or whether the
Respondent, as it contends, laid the men off solely because of
a reduced business volume.
As support for the Respondent's position, the senior Rob-
ertson gave testimony to the effect that as a result of strikes
in the construction industry in the Phoenix area there was a
substantial falling off of orders from Superlite during a period
starting in June and extending into August; that he consid-
ered making a reduction in the force of installers in the latter
part of June but did not lay off the installers prior to July 20,
although "two men were doing the work of one," because he
wished to retain the installation staff; that in the "week of
July 17th work slowed down real slow"; that on that date
Superlite cancelled some orders scheduled for performance
on the following Monday or Tuesday; and that the cancella-
tions precipitated his decision on July 17 to lay the seven men
off for July 20 and 21.'°
There is no doubt that the Company had a substantial
falling off in business from Superlite in July and August from
what it had been in earlier months. After grossing approxi-
mately $32,000 in May, and about $28,000 in June, its gross
revenue in July fell to a little over $18,000 and in August to
about $15,000, rising to approximately $28,000 in September.
As the Respondent's records reflect the employment of from
9 to 11 men (including journeymen, apprentices, and Brown
who is listed as a journeyman) in window and door installa-
tion work during almost all of June (Resp. Exhs. 27a-27c),
one may fairly infer that the reduced business volume in July
and August warranted a force reduction in those months,
even though the Respondent does not explain why its records
contain entries to the effect that it employed 5 installers
throughout both August and September (Resp. Exhs. 29a-c
and 30a-d), although its gross revenue in September was
almost double that of August (and substantially above the
ending July 21, while Brown and the seven men "walked outside together,"
Sylvester told the superintendent "I am quitting anyway, and I am going to
take Howard Harper with me " The Respondent does not spell out the
purpose of this testimony in its brief Perhaps it was offered as the basis for
a claim that Sylvester quit on July 22 In any case, Sylvester denies making
the remark and is supported by Harper and Arthur Brown's image of Syl-
vester as saying he was quitting is not quite in harmony with the fact that
only a few days later Sylvester filed the charge alleging the illegality of the
layoffs Moreover, the fact that Brown offered Sylvester reinstatement in
November weighs in some measure against Brown's claim I credit Sylves-
ter's denial
" Apparently as evidence of an offer of reinstatement to Harper, the
Respondent offered in evidence a letter addressed to him at one address and
sent in an envelope bearing another The envelope, with the letter enclosed,
was returned undelivered by the Post Office with a stamp "No such ad-
dress " After this appeared, the Respondent withdrew its proffer of the
envelope and letter There is thus no evidence of the letter's contents, and,
in any case, it was never delivered to Harper
'° Although Robertson does not in so many words say that the order
cancellations precipitated his layoff decision, that is his evident implication
Moreover, the Respondent's brief takes that position, contending, for exam-
ple (at p 16), that Robertson "decide[d] on the layoff on Friday afternoon
when learning of the Superlite order pull back
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
monthly average of about $24 ,000). But such an inference is
not decisive of the question whether the timing of the layoffs,
and the choice of the seven , were motivated by a discrimina-
tory purpose . On that issue , the record as a whole impels a
conclusion that resort by the seven men to the Union to
secure the journeyman's scale and adjustment of other griev-
ances they felt they had was at least a material factor in the
layoffs. Reasons that lead me to that result follow.
It is an important fact that the senior Robertson laid off the
seven men on the very next regular workday after the union
meeting of July 17, during which he sought and acquired
information as to the identity of the employees in attendance.
The timing of the layoffs in relation to the union meeting,
particularly in view of his successful effort to identify the
participating employees , is compelling evidence that a dis-
criminatory purpose entered into the layoff decision , and, in
contrast , Robertson 's claim to the effect that business consid-
erations were the sole reason is unconvincing.
He does not explain what , if anything , led him during the
intervening weekend to shift from his claimed 2-day layoff
decision on Friday to a layoff of indefinite duration on the
following Monday , and, in the light of what occurred during
the union meeting on Friday evening , the absence of such an
explanation points to a lack of candor in the Respondent's
justification of the layoffs.
That view is fortified by the fact that although Robertson
claims that he received the order cancellations about 1 or 1:30
p.m. on the Friday in question , the employees were given no
notice before they left the premises about 4 : 30 p.m ., their
usual quitting time, that they were not to report on Monday,
the next regular workday. Robertson 's testimony to the effect
that he left the premises shortly after receipt of the cancella-
tions for a business discussion with Superlite 's manager and
did not return until about 4:45 p . m. will hardly suffice as a
convincing explanation , for no reason appears why he could
not have issued the requisite instruction for a 2-day layoff
before his departure or telephoned them during his absence,
to management personnel such as his wife , Katherine, who is
an officer of the Company and looks after its time and payroll
records, or Superintendent Brown, or to Skip Robertson,
whose function it was to prepare and post the schedule of
work and route assignments that day for the following Mon-
day.
Nor do I find a reliable explanation in testimony by Brown
that after the employees left for the day on Friday , at "about
quarter to 5 or 5 : 30," he and the senior Robertson had a
discussion of the impending layoff and chose those to be laid
off, discussing the considerations that entered into the choice.
Robertson 's testimony runs in another direction , as the fol-
lowing excerpt (with emphasis added ) indicates:
Q. (By Mr . Gruender) Directing your attention to
around July 17th or 16th of 1970 , at that time had you
had any conversations with anyone relative to a layoff of
your employees?
A. We had discussed it, that work was slowing down.
Q When you say "we", who do you mean?
A. Orville Brown.
Q. Would you identify Mr. Brown?
A. He's the Superintendent for Robertson Glass.
Q. And approximately when had you discussed this
with him?
A. The 1st ofJune when the work was slowing down.
At a subsequent point, Robertson had another opportunity
to corroborate Brown , yet fell short , as the following attests:
Q. (By Mr . Gruender) With respect to events leading
up to your decision to lay off, why did you decide to lay
off these people on July 17th?
[Objection by counsel and related colloquy between
Trial Examiner and counsel omitted.]
Q. (By Mr. Gruender, continuing) Describe for us the
lack of work, what was the problem?
[Objection by counsel and related colloquy between
Trial Examiner and counsel omitted.]
The Witness: We had-Orville Brown, the superin-
tendent at Robertson Glass, and myself, had discussed
what to do, and who to lay off Thursday (sic) at Robert-
son Glass.
Trial Examiner: When was this?
The Witness: The last part of June, and he felt the
strike wouldn't last long and we should hold out as many
men as we could, so as the work picked back up and the
strike was over with, we'd have the men to do the work.
[Emphasis added.]
At a later point, Robertson was, in substance, asked again
why he decided on the layoff on July 17, and he replied that
"there wasn't any work for anybody to do, and I had talked
to my superintendent about trading times, swapping times,
going off a day, another off a day, but we discussed these, and
we thought we would lose ... two journeymen glaziers
" [Emphasis added.] Robertson does not specify when
this discussion occurred, and, although his testimony describ-
ing it follows an account of his alleged conversation with
Superlite's sales manager and a reference to his return to the
shop about 4.45 p.m. on July 17, one may fairly infer that he
is still referring to a discussion with Brown in June in view
of his reference to the claimed conversation with Brown as
one he had had, and of his prior testimony describing a
discussion with Brown in June (a discussion he says at one
point took place early in that month, and, at another, toward
the end of the month). At the very least, Robertson's tes-
timony on the subject of discussion of a layoff with Brown
raises a large doubt that he had the conversation with Brown
on July 17 that the latter describes
Moreover, some testimony by Skip Robertson relating to
the schedule he posted on Friday for the Monday installation
work jeopardizes the credibility of the elder Robertson's
claim that the order cancellations precipitated his claimed
2-day layoff decision. Such a schedule, as previously stated,
is based on the work orders received from Superlite, usually
about noon of the given day, for performance on the following
day, and is used as a basis for the truckloading operations that
begin in the late afternoon or evening. The work orders for
Monday arrived from Superlite by noon on Friday. Skip tes-
tified that these came to his attention at noon, and he was
precise about the matter, stating that he knew the time "be-
cause I looked at my watch". According to him, he made up
the schedule for the Monday work before 12:30 p.m. on
Friday and posted it at about 5:30 p.m., immediately prior to
his departure, with Brown, for the day. The contents of the
schedule as posted, according to Skip, were the same as when
it was prepared about noon. There is an apparent disparity
between this testimony and the senior Robertson's claim that
order cancellations were received from Superlite about 1 or
1:30 p.m. on Friday, for it would seem that if the cancella-
tions in fact came in, the schedule would have been appropri-
ately modified, and this is especially so as it was used as a
loading guide for the Monday work. The Respondent does
not explain the disparity, and the absence of an explanation
operates against acceptance of the senior Robertson's claim
that order cancellations on Friday afternoon were the precipi-
tating cause of the layoff decision."
" Sylvester, Harper, Arthur, Scrignuoli , and Brewer testified that they
saw their respective names listed for assignment in the posted work schedule
for July 20 before they left for the day on July 17 In refutation , Skip denies
ROBERTSON GLASS AND GLAZING CONTRACTOR 503
The Respondent produced five work orders from Superlite,
each reflecting an entry signifying that it was performed on
Monday, July 20, and Skip Robertson testified that he had
canvassed the Company's work order records for all of 1970,
and the five were the only ones he could find that were per-
formed on July 20. Accepting this evidence as I do, and
granting that there was less than enough work to go around
on Monday, that hardly meets the point that the seven install-
ers were laid off not for the one day, but for an indeterminate
period, if not, indeed, discharged;` and that those thus laid
off were the very employees who had enlisted the aid of the
Union with problems they had, as Robertson was well aware
by the time he finished his telephone conversation during the
union meeting on the preceding Friday evening."
The timing of the layoffs, and the common identity of those
who attended the meeting and those chosen for layoff, are of
themselves compelling evidence of a discriminatory motive,
but the existence of such a purpose is made even more visible
by the Respondent's explanation of its reasons for preferring
others for retention.
According to Brown, as previously noted, he and the elder
Robertson, in consultation, made the layoff and retention
selections about 5 p.m. on July 17. Robertson, also as previ-
ously stated, does not support Brown's account of such a
conversation, but, in any case, Brown claims that they de-
cided to retain "the loaders" because of their "lower rate of
pay." He does not identify them but his reference appears to
be to Chad Kurtzman who is identified repeatedly in the
payroll records as a loader (for example, Resp. Exhs. 28a-
28b), and, judging by Robertson's testimony, Richard
Honaker (Hadacker in the record on occasion) and Mike
Sparkes (also Sparks at some points).
Describing Honaker and Sparkes as "trainees", Robertson
testified that Honaker loaded trucks," and that Sparkes "was
such a listing, stating that he used "fictitious" names because it was not his
province to make the assignments , that he discussed the schedule with
Brown at "5 18 [p in ] approximately" on July 17, and that he posted the
schedule about 5 30 p in (about an hour after the installers left for the day)
and then left the premises with Brown It does not plausibly appear why Skip
would resort to fictitious assignment entries instead of omitting names al-
together until given the requisite information by Brown, and it is noteworthy
that Brown does not support Skip, stating that he does not "remember [a
schedule] being posted" on July 17 Moreover, Skip contradicted himself as
to the source of his recollection of the episode, stating first that he had not
seen the time cards since July 22 or 23 (some 9 months before his tes-
timony), but later conceding that he had looked at the cards "two weeks at
the most" before he testified The Respondent claims in its brief that what
the five installers saw was the schedule posted the previous day, but there
is no evidence that that schedule was still posted as of quitting time on July
17 In any case, I see no need to choose between the claims of the five
installers and Skip's testimony to the contrary, since in either case my
conclusion regarding the issue of discrimination is the same
1B Against the background of Robertson's telephone conversations with
Brewer and Baker on Friday, of his requirement, in the process of laying off
the men, that they turn in their tools and keys, and of the fact that the
November offers of reinstatement followed the insuance of the complaint
(on October 12), it may fairly be argued that it was Robertson's purpose to
discharge the seven men rather than to lay them off temporarily The issues,
however, require no determination whether the layoff action amounted to
a discharge, for the end result is the same if an unlawful discriminatory
purpose was a causative factor in the action taken
" A claim by Robertson that he also laid off two other employees, Rich-
ard Honaker (called Hadacker by Robertson) and Mike Sparkes, on July 20
is contrary to the Company's time records for both employees, which show
that both worked on July 20 and 21, and thereafter with fair regularity over
a period of some 5 months, frequently working daily or weekly overtime
1° Robertson does not make clear when it was that Honaker loaded trucks
prior to the layoffs, at one point stating that Honaker loaded on July 17, and
subsequently intimating, at least, that that had been Honaker's customary
work Actually, his time card reflects no work on July 17 but shows that he
worked on July 20, the day of the layoffs
a trainee on windows and doors, and ... was also a me-
chanic." This, however, underwent some change shortly
thereafter when Robertson testified that Sparkes was a
"trainee" in loading, "learning ... the proper way to load a
truck." Not wholly in harmony with Brown's portrayal of a
deliberate decision to retain "the loaders," Robertson testified
that in addition to the seven installers he also laid off Honaker
and Sparkes on July 20. The purpose of this claim, which is
disproved by the Company's payroll records showing that
both worked on that date and continued to work with sub-
stantial regularity over a period of some 5 months thereafter,
was, I am convinced, to obscure the important fact that those
laid off were precisely those who had filed grievances with the
Union and had attended the meeting with its representatives
on July 17.
It is worth noting, too, that neither Brown nor Robertson
spells out, with any clarity at least, what work Honaker and
Sparkes did after the layoffs, and one would be led to believe
from Brown's reference to the retention of "the loaders" and
Robertson's description of the functions of Honaker and
Sparkes that they were primarily engaged in loading work
following the layoffs. That was not the case, as is evident from
some testimony by Mrs. Robertson and the time cards for
Honaker and Sparkes for the period between the layoffs on
July 20 and the workweek ending November 24 (the last week
for which time cards are in evidence). Mrs. Robertson tes-
tified that "the loaders work at night" (starting in midafter-
noon, according to Skip Robertson), that "if they are working
days, they are doing installation," and that time clock pun-
ches prior to noon signify daytime work. The point of the
matter is that the time cards in evidence for the period be-
tween the layoffs and November 24 show no night work for
Sparkes and reflect work at night for Honaker on only a few
days (July 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24); and in the light of Mrs.
Robertson's testimony, it is evident that substantially all of
Sparkes' working time after the layoffs was spent in installa-
tion work, and, with the exception of a few days, the same is
true for Honaker. Significantly, too, as the Company's time
cards attest, during the period, both employees worked a
substantial amount of either daily or weekly overtime (that
is, over 8 hours per day or 40 per week), for which they were
paid time and one-half.
Weighed against the evidence pointing to a discriminatory
motive for the layoffs, the fact that Honaker and Sparkes were
paid at smaller hourly rates than each of the seven laid off
does little for the Respondent's case. A majority of the seven,
at $4 an hour, were paid not a great deal more than Honaker's
rate of $3.50, and although it is true that one of the seven,
Sylvester, had been paid at the journeyman's rate, and
another, Arthur, close to it, it is also true that both had
worked for the Company for about 3 years, and that Sylves-
ter, as the senior Robertson admitted, was "a valuable em-
ployee." I find it implausible that for a genuine economic
reduction in force in its window and door installation work
-practically the whole substance of its business-the Re-
spondent would retain for that work two "trainees,"" one of
them, at least, according to Robertson, hired and employed
to train as a loader, in preference to seven men of varying
degrees of experience in installation work, including an ad-
mittedly "valuable" employee such as Sylvester, and that it
was mere economic coincidence that the seven chosen for
layoff were precisely those who had turned to the Union for
aid in seeking a resolution of their grievances.
" Both Honaker and Sparkes are listed, for the first time, as "on trial"
in an occupational classification column in the payroll records for the week
ending July 21 (see Resp Exh 28c) The Respondent offered no explanation
for the entry
504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is noteworthy , too, that Odie and Arthur Skaggs, both
employed at the highest wage rate paid by the Company,
worked overtime in a considerable number of weeks during
the period of some 5 months between the layoff of the seven
men and the November reinstatement offers, and that the
Respondent 's explanation of its retention preference for the
Skaggses bears earmarks of unreliability , granting that as
journeymen glaziers they possessed qualifications beyond
those of even so valued an employee as Sylvester , who had
received the same wage rate although not a journeyman
As in the case of Honaker and Sparkes , Brown says that
he and Robertson discussed and decided upon the retention
of the Skaggses after quitting time on July 17, but , as previ-
ously pointed out, Robertson does not support the claim that
such a conversation occurred . Moreover , Brown and Robert-
son are in some measure at odds as to the reasons for not
including either Odie or Arthur Skaggs in the force reduc-
tion . According to Brown , they were retained because they
"are old men [sic] had been in the Union a long time and they
can perform any work on custom houses or store fronts or
anything that we might have , particularly custom houses."
But Robertson says nothing about their seniority , whether in
age or job tenure, or their union membership as factors in
their retention , stating, on the contrary , that in deciding
whether to retain a man he is not governed by seniority but
makes his determination on the basis of the quality and quan-
tity of an employee 's work . According to him , he retained
Odie and Arthur Skaggs "because they are all-around gla-
ziers and the seven [laid off] are not"
This professed reason is, to be sure, in the vein of Brown's
to the effect that the Skaggses "can perform any work on
custom houses or store fronts," but the stress put on such
capability has an aura of puffing . Substantially all ("about 99
percent") of the Company's business consists of "residential"
window and door installation , and, as Robertson admits, the
Company has not had a "commercial " or "nonresidential"
job for "quite a few years" (7 years, he estimated at one
point). That being the case, it is quite unlikely that Brown or
Robertson gave any thought to the capability of the Skaggses
with regard to "store fronts." As for "custom" jobs (such as
those, according to Brown , that require special metal fittings)
Brown generalized that two construction firms, one of them
identified as "RPR Construction" had built "some custom
houses," but there is no indication when "custom" window
and door installation work was performed on thses projects,
nor is it even clear that it was the Company that did it In
fact , whatever there is of concrete evidence of work by the
Company on a project of either construction firm points in an
opposite direction , consisting of testimony by Brown himself
that as of July 16 , the Company had in prospect the installa-
tion work on 19 or 20 homes under construction by RPR, and
that the installers who worked at the project on that date were
Harper, Guinn , Arthur , Brewer, and another who Brown
thinks was Eastham Actually, there is no evidence that the
Company had any "custom" jobs in prospect at the time of
the layoffs or at any time thereafter, except a claim by Brown
and Robertson that it performed "custom " work on week-
ends on a house belonging to a man named Sipes, who is
Superlite 's president
However , the evidence bearing on the Sipes project does
little for the Respondent's disclaimer of any discriminatory
aim in the layoffs According to Robertson's testimony, the
work was begun at least by Saturday , July 18, and he stated
that it was performed only on Weekends over a period of a
month and a half, and he offered none of the work to any of
the seven laid off employees because "they could not do it."
I am unable to accord any weight to this self -serving generali-
zation and a similar one by Brown because, beyond blanket
descriptives that the project was "custom work ," there is no
concrete demonstration of any special factors that made it
such or placed it beyond the capacity of a valued employee
such as Sylvester or, for that matter , any of the other six who
were laid off. In that regard , it is of some moment that
Sparkes, as Robertson testified , worked at the Sipes project,
and that the record does not plausibly explain why one or
another of the seven , especially a trainee or apprentice such
as Scrignuoli or Eastham , "could not do " the work that
Sparkes did, whether making deliveries to the job , as Brown
claims, or performing other work there . It is evident , too, that
as of the time of the layoffs there was no imminent need for
any work on the Sipes house , whether "custom" or otherwise,
for the time records of the Skaggses following the July 20
layoffs show no weekend work by either until Saturday, Au-
gust 1 , when both worked . In fact , the records show that they
worked but 2 weekend days, August 1 and 8, during a period
of a month and a half following some work by Arthur Skaggs
on Saturday , July 18 (at the Sipes house , according to Robert-
son)."
The sum of the matter is that in the face of the evidence
pointing to an unlawful discriminatory motive in the timing
of the layoffs and the choice of the seven men laid off, the
reasons given for the retention preference accorded Odie and
Arthur Skaggs over the seven are so weighted with puffed
claims and other earmarkks of unreliability as to preclude a
finding that the preference given the Skaggses was in no way
attributable to the fact that they were not among those who
had turned to the Union for help with their grievances.
On the whole record , I find , for the reasons stated , that the
precipitating cause of the layoffs was the action of the seven
men in seeking the aid of the Union for a resolution of griev-
ances they felt they had;" and that by laying off each, the
Company violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and interfered
with , restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of
nghts guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, thereby vi-
olating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.22
It may be that at some point after the union meeting of July
17 the Respondent would have had an economic force reduc-
tion , including one, or some, or perhaps all, of the seven who
" ° The timecards for both Odle and Arthur Skaggs reflect no Saturday
work after August 8 until September 18, but that date, and a number of
subsequent Saturdays on which they worked, as reflected in their time cards,
are well beyond the period of a month and a half over which, according to
Robertson , the Sipes work was performed As the job was in progresss by
July 18 and took a month and a half to complete , according to Robertson's
testimony , there is no warrant for a finding that Saturday work by either
Odle or Arthur Skaggs during the second half of September and in October
was on the Sipes houses
" Contrary to the Respondent , I find no operative weight in the fact that
various of the laid off employees made statements in their applications to
the Arizona Employment Security Commission for unemployment compen-
sation that they were unemployed because of "lack of work" or words to that
effect That was what Robertson, in substance , told them in laying them off,
and it would be only natural that they should repeat that reason in applying
for unemployment compensation The record as a whole , and not their
conclusion or their repetition of what Robertson told them, is the proper
basis for evaluating Robertson ' s motive
" The record contains somewhat extensive testimony bearing on the
background and content of a telephone conversation between the elder
Robertson and Eastham 's wife about an hour after Robertson spoke to
Brewer and Baker during the union meeting on July 17 According to Mrs
Eastham, Robertson , among other things, told her that Eastham had "be-
trayed" him by going to the Union , and that that " is costing Danny [East-
ham] his job " Robertson denies making the quoted remarks and gives a
version of the conversation differing at a substantial number of points from
that of Mrs Eastham I see no need to pass upon the evidentiary conflict
nor go into the background and other details of either version , for whichever
account be credited , I reach the same result regarding the legality of the
layoffs
ROBERTSON GLASS AND GLAZING CONTRACTOR 505
had filed grievances with the Union, but the timing and scope
of the layoffs are so interlocked with an unlawful discrimina-
tory motive as to preclude a determination on this record
which employees, but for the discrimination , would have
worked, and to what extent, on and after July 20, in window
and door installation projects. To paraphrase Judge Learned
Hand, it rests with the Respondent "to disentangle the conse-
quences for which it [is] chargeable from those from which
it [is] immune ,"" and , in order to effectuate the policies of the
Act, such disentanglement now requires an order that in-
cludes provisions, as set forth in the remedy recommended
below, that the Respondent make each discriminatee whole
for his wage losses , together with appropriate interest, be-
tween the date of the layoffs and a proper offer of reinstate-
ment to such discriminatee.
As previously stated, Sylvester, Eastham, Arthur, Scrig-
nuoli , and Guinn received reinstatment offers in November,
all these, except Guinn who returned to work on November
12, have, as the General Counsel concedes, rejected the offers.
The General Counsel in his brief admits the sufficiency of the
five offers of reinstatement, and this implies a correlative
claim by him that the backpay periods for Sylvester, East-
ham, Arthur, and Scrignuoli were tolled by the effective dates
of reinstatement offered them in November, and for Quinn by
the date he retuned to work, and that the Respondent should
be required to offer reinstatement to Harper and Brewer.
The Respondent, however, notwithstanding the November
offers, maintains that a prior reinstatement offer was made to
all seven laid off employees through the Union and rejected
by them. The principal basis for this claim is testimony by
Arthur that all seven attended a meeting of the Union's Ex-
ecutive Board, where the Union's president "said that Brodye
Robertson had given us an offer for all seven of us to come
back to work." Arthur could not remember when the meeting
occurred, stating , too, that he could not recall "the exact offer
.. because it was all hashed up," although he subsequently
testified that the offer expressed by the Union's president was
that "the seven individuals would be reinstated with two
weeks back pay" (consisting, as Arthur explained, of the
difference for a 2-week period between the wages received and
what would have been paid at the journeyman's rate of $5 -
49). According to Arthur "all seven agreed [at the meeting,
apparently] not to take the offer."
The difficulty with the Respondent's thesis is that Arthur's
testimony quoting the Union's president purportedly quoting
Robertson is hearsay, and that the record not only fails to
establish that an operative reinstatement offer was, in fact,
made to the Union but warrants a contrary conclusion.
The subject came up twice in Robertson's testimony but
yielded no evidence of an offer. On the first occasion, he was
asked on his direct examination whether he had had "an
opportunity to discuss the basis [sic] or to make a proposal"
to the Union "concerning the terms" on which the seven men
would return to work, and he replied that he had had such
a discussion with Baker about July 30, but then, asked what
he proposed, Robertson testified, "I asked what I can do
about a scale for these men and I was told that I couldn't do
anything but pay the men the scale " Subsequently, again on
his direct examination , Robertson was asked whether he had
ever discussed reemployment of the seven men with a repre-
sentative of the Union, and he replied that he had done so
with Baker in August, but when asked "what did you say to
him and what did he say to you," the whole of Robertson's
reply was, "He [Baker] told me again I have to pay the scale".
11 NLRB v Remington Rand, Inc, 94 F 2d 862, 872 (CA 2)
Brown, contrary to a claim by the Respondent in its brief,
also fails to spell out a reinstatement offer to the Union. The
sum of that testimony is that about the end of September, in
a telephone conversation with Green, he told Green "that
work looked like it was going to pick up, and we would like
to have these men back"; and that Green replied that he knew
the whereabouts only of Harper and Arthur, that they had
"signed the book" (in other words, had registered at the
union's hiring hall), but that "he would try to get in touch
with them" (whether with all seven or the two registrants
does not appear).
Putting aside the question-unnecesary to decide here-
whether Green (or the Union, for that matter) had a sufficient
agency status to receive an offer of reinstatment on behalf of
the discnminatees,24 what Brown said amounted at best to a
prediction that "work was going to pick up," harnessed
to an expressed wish "to have the men back" when that
occurred. This hardly constitutes a definite offer of reinstate-
ment, and one may add to that that the terms in which Brown
expressed himself to Green differ materially from the terms
in which Arthur quotes the Union's president. That being the
case, one can only speculate whether Arthur is quoting him
accurately, or, if he is, what prompted the organization's
president to say anything to the effect that the Company had
offered to reinstate the seven men with some backpay The
controlling fact is that the record does not establish that a
sufficient reinstatement offer was, in fact, made to the Union.
I find that offers of reinstatement were made to Scrignuoli,
Eastham, Arthur, and Guinn effective November 16, and to
Sylvester effective November 9; that no offer of reinstatement
was made to any of the discriminatees prior to those made in
November, previously described; that Sylvester, Eastham,
Arthur, and Scrignuoli rejected the respective offers made
them; that the backpay periods for Scrignuolf, Eastham, and
Arthur should be tolled as of November 16, for Sylvester as
of November 9, and for Guinn as of November 12, the date
he returned to work; and that no offer of reinstatement has
been made to Harper and Brewer 25
Finally, I find that the Company interfered with the exer-
cise by its employees of Section 7 rights, thereby violating
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as a result of (1) Browns's queries
of Harper on July 16 whether the Union's representatives had
'' I note, in passing , that the hiring hall provisions in the collective-
bargaining contract, to which the Respondent alludes in its brief, do not alter
its obligation to terminate the discrimination against the seven men with a
suitable offer of reinstatement to each
" The reinstatement offer to Sylvester , and its rejection , render moot a
claim by the Respondent that he should be denied reinstatement because of
misconduct No claim is made that he should be denied backpay, but an
expression of my view of the matter is appropriate The Respondent pre-
sented evidence to the effect that shortly after the layoffs, Sylvester voiced
threats to the Robertsons that he would cause them "trouble " unless he were
paid accrued wages due him Conceivably, what Sylvester meant, in the
context of circumstances, was that he would sue for the money or file a
charge concerning the layoffs with the Board , as he did a few days later The
evidence of the remarks in question will not support a finding that he was
responsible for damage to "a couple of generators" and some "broken glass"
that Brown says he saw on some unspecified occasion after the layoffs There
is, however , no dispute that on July 22, on an occasion when Baker and
Robertson and others met to discuss wage problems relating to the seven
installers , and the latter were on the Company' s premises, Sylvester, as
Guinn testified , " twisted (a tank gasket) a couple of times and broke it "
(This may be "a damaged valve on our gas machine " that Brown says he
saw after the meeting If that is not the case , there is no evidence that
Sylvester damaged the valve ) Without condoning such conduct , it would
not effectuate the policies of the Act to deny Sylvester backpay because of
it, since to withhold the remedy would enable the Respondent to profit from
its misconduct in discriminatorily laying off Sylvester This, of course, does
not preclude the Respondent from invoking any remedy it may have at law
for the damage to the gasket caused by Sylvester
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been to the project where Harper was then working, whether
he had spoken to them, and whether they had asked if he was
receiving the journeyman's scale; (2) Brown's interrogation of
Brewer on the same date as to what Baker and Green had
"wanted" at the project, and whether he knew who had been
to the Union; and (3) the elder Robertson's proposal to
Brewer, by telephone, during the union meeting of July 17,
that he read a list of names to Brewer, and that the latter "say
yes or no whether they [meaning employees, plainly] were
there."26
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following
conclusions of law:
1. The Company is, and has been at all material times, an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. The Union is, and has been at all material times, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily laying off seven employees, as found
above, the Company has engaged, and is engaging , in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act, as found above, the Company has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections
2(6) and 2(7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act,
I shall recommend below that it cease and desist from its
unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative actions
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In view of the
naure and extent of the unfair labor practices committed, and
in order to make effective the interdependent guarantees of
Section 7 of the Act, I shall recommend an order below which
will in effect require the Respondent to refrain in the future
from abridging any of the rights guaranteed employees by the
said Section 7.$7
Having found that the Company discriminatorily laid off
Howard Harper, Daniel H. Eastham, Robert D. Arthur, Del-
bert K. Sylvester, Van B. Brewer, H. Allen Scrignuoli, and
Arlis M. Guinn on July 20, 1970, in violation of Section
" As it would neither increase nor diminish the remedy in this proceed-
ing, I dispense with a determination whether any of the interrogation of
Brewer by Skip Robertson on July 16, as found above, is imputable to the
Company or violated the Act
" " a discriminatory discharge of an employee because of his union
affiliation goes to the very heart of the Act " N.L.R.B. v Entwistle Manufac-
turing Co, 120 F 2d 532, 536 (C A. 4) See, also, May Department Stores
v. NL.R.B, 326 U S 376, Bethlehem Steel Company v N.L R B, 120 F 2d
641 (C.A D C)
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, reinstated Guinn on November 12,
1970, offered Sylvester reinstatement effective November 9,
1970, and Scrignuoli, Eastham and Arthur reinstatement
effective November 16, 1970, and has not offered reinstate-
ment to Harper and Brewer, I shall recommend below that
the Company offer Harper and Brewer immediate and full
reinstatement to their respective former jobs or, if such jobs
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their respective seniority and other rights and
privileges; that the Company make Harper and Brewer whole
for any losses of pay they respectively have suffered, by reason
of the discrimination against them between the date of their
layoff and the respective dates on which they are offered
reinstatement, as aforesaid, together with interest thereon as
provided below; that Guinn be made whole for any loss of pay
he suffered by reason of the discrimination against him be-
tween the date of his layoff and the date of his reinstatement,
together with such interest as provided below; that Sylvester
he made whole for any loss of pay he suffered by reason of
the discrimination against him between the date of his layoff
and November 9, 1970, together with interest as provided
below; that Scrignuoli, Eastham, and Arthur be made whole
for any losses of pay they respectively suffered by reason of
the discrimination against them between the date of their
layoff and November 16, 1970, together with interest as pro-
vided below; and that the loss of pay for each of the seven
employees discriminatorily laid off, as found above, be com-
puted in accordance with the formula and method prescribed
by the Board in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
and include interest at the rate of six percent per annum, as
provided in Isis Plumbing and Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law and the entire record in this proceeding, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the fol-
lowing recommended:28
ORDER
Robertson Glass and Glazing Contractor, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership of any of its employees in
Glaziers & Glassworkers Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 1610,
on any other labor organization, by laying off or discharging
any employee, or in any other manner discriminating against
any employee with respect to such employee's hire, tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) By discharging or laying off any employee, interrogat-
ing any employee concerning his interest or participation in
any activity by or with any labor organization or any activity
of such organization in representing him, or in any other
manner interfering with or restraining or coercing any em-
ployee in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which, I find, will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Van B. Brewer and Howard Harper immediate
and full reinstatement to their respective former jobs, or if
those no longer exist to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their respective seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make each of them, and Delbert K.
Sylvester, Daniel H. Eastham, Robert D. Arthur, H. Allen
" 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, recommendations and recommended order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the said Board and become its findings, conclusions and order,
and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
ROBERTSON GLASS AND GLAZING CONTRACTOR 507
Scrignuoli, and Arlis M. Guinn whole as provided in section
VI, above, entitled "The Remedy".
(b) Preserve until compliance with any order for backpay
made by the National Labor Relations Board in this proceed-
ing is effectuated, and make available to the said Board and
its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security records, time cards, and any other records that
are relevant to a determination of the amount of backpay due.
(c) Post in conspicuous places at the Company's place of
business in Phoenix, Arizona, including all places there
where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of
the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix." Copies
of the said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 28 of the National Labor Relations Board, shall,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the
Company, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
such conspicuous places. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the said Company to insure that said notice is not covered,
altered, or defaced by any other material."
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of receipt of a copy of this decision what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.70
It is also recommended the complaint be dismissed to the
extent that it alleges that the Company engaged in any unfair
labor practices not expressly found above.
1' In the event that the Board 's order is enforced by a judgment of the
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 OR-
DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD"
'0 In the event that this recommended order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed, Section 2(d) thereof shall be modified to read.
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, 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
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to
present evidence and state their positions, the National Labor
Relations Board had found that we have violated the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, and had ordered us to post this
notice.
The Act gives the employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization;
To form, join, or assist any union;
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing;
To engage in activities together for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion;
To refrain from the exercise of any such activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge, lay off, or otherwise dis-
criminate against any employee because such employee
exercised any of such rights.
WE WILL NOT, by laying off or discharging any em-
ployee, interrogating any employee about his interest or
participation in any acitivity in or with any union or
about any activity of a union in representing him, or in
any other manner , interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of any of the said rights given
them by the National Labor Relations Act.
The National Labor Relations Board has found that
we discriminated against Howard Harper, Daniel H.
Eastham, Robert D. Arthur, Delbert K. Sylvester, Van
B. Brewer, H. Allen Scrignuoli, and Arlis M. Guinn by
laying them off, and that we have reinstated Arlis M.
Guinn and have offered reinstatement to Delbert K.
Sylvester, Daniel H. Eastham, Robert D. Arthur, and H.
Allen Scrignuoli, but have not made an offer to Van B.
Brewer and Howard Harper; and has ordered us to offer
immediate reinstatement to Van B. Brewer and Howard
Harper and to reimburse each of them and Delbert K.
Sylvester, Daniel H. Eastham, Robert D. Arthur, H.
Allen Scrignuoli, and Arlis M. Guinn for the losses of
pay that they respectively may have suffered because of
such discrimination together with interest as provided in
the Board's order.
WE WILL comply with the Board's order.
ROBERTSON GLASS AND
GLAZING CONTRACTOR,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
WE WILL notify immediately Van B. Brewer and Howard
Harper, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon applica-
tion 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 any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to
the Board's Office. 7011 Federal Building & US Courthouse,
500 Gold Ave SW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87101, Tele-
phone 843-2555.