Sossamon Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 324 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sossamon Electric Company and Sossco Building Sys-
tems, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, Local Union 116. Cases 16-CA-7011
and 16-CA 7546
March 21, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On October 13, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Michael O. Miller issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Sossco Building
Systems, Inc., filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers filed a brief in answer to Respondent's ex-
ceptions.
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 briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
Director for Region 16 of the National Labor Relations
Board (herein called the Board) on June 30 and November
30, 1977, respectively. The amended complaint alleges that
Sossamon Electric Company and Sossco Building Systems,
Inc.,' as "alter egos" of the same business enterprise, vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1), (3). (4), and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act (herein the Act). Respondents' timely filed
answers denied the substantive allegations of the complaint.
All parties were given the opportunity to appear, to ex-
amine and to cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and
to file briefs. Based upon the entire record in this proceed-
ing, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE RESPONDENTS' BUSINESSES AND THE UNION'S LABOR
ORGANIZATION STATUS
Both Respondents, the record establishes, are Texas cor-
porations engaged in Forth Worth, Texas, in the building
and construction industry. Jurisdiction is not in issue. The
complaint alleges, Respondents admit, and I find, that they
are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The complaint alleges, Respondents admit, and I find,
that the Union is a labor cganization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
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 Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent Sossamon Electric
Company and Sossco Building Systems, Inc., Fort
Worth, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.
I Respondent Sossco has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibil-
ity unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces
us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Producrs, Inc., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL O. MILLER, Administrative Law Judge: These
consolidated cases were heard in Fort Worth, Texas, on
April 13 and 14, 1978, based upon unfair labor practice
charges filed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local Union 116 (herein called the Union), on
February 7 and October 12, 1977, and a complaint and
amended consolidated complaint issued by the Regional
Sossamon Electric Company (herein Sossamon) has been
engaged as an electrical contractor for more than 20 years
and during this time maintained a collective-bargaining re-
lationship with the Union. At the time of the events herein,
it was party to collective-bargaining agreements between
the Union and the North Texas Chapter of the National
Electrical Contractors Association. The contracts provide
for the employer to recognize the Union as the exclusive
representative for collective-bargaining purposes of all of its
employees performing work within the jurisdiction of the
Union and for the Union to be the "sole and exclusive
source of referral of applicants for employment."
George Sossamon, Sr., is Sossamon's president. He
claimed to have overall supervision of that Company. Until
November 23, 1976, his son, George Sossamon, Jr.,' was
Sossamon's vice president. George, Jr., was Sossamon's
general manager for day-to-day affairs and was the overseer
of its construction projects. George, Jr.'s wife, Connie, was
Sossamon's secretary-treasurer.
In July 1976, George Jr., entered into another business,
Sossco Building Systems, Inc. (herein Sossco), with the in-
tention of engaging as a general contractor for the erection
of metal buildings. George, Jr., was the sole owner of
Sossco. His efforts to become a general contractor were
'The name of Respondent Sossamon Electric Company appears as
amended at hearing.
2 To differentiate between them, they will be referred to herein as George,
Sr., and George, Jr., respectively.
241 NLRB No. 47
324
SOSSAMON ELECTRIC COMPANY
unavailing. He was unsuccessful in securing work for his
new venture.
In about October 1976. George. Jr., decided that Sossco
would enter the electrical contracting business on a non-
union basis. Pursuant to the advice of counsel (Respondent
Sossamon's attorney herein), both he and his wife resigned
their corporate offices in Sossamon and George, Jr.. de-
clared that he would take no further active role in Sossa-
mon's management. However, he retained his 52 percent
ownership interest therein. George, Sr., then close to 70
years old, claimed to assume full control of Sossamon. In
December 1976, the Union was notified that George. Sr.,
was Sossamon's "chief executive officer . . . responsible for
all labor and management relations." The Union's business
agent, Jack Scott, was requested to consult with George,
Sr., on any questions he might have.
Although Sossamon and Sossco had different mailing ad-
dresses, they operated out of the same building. Initially,
Sossco leased 720 square feet from Sossamon, pursuant to a
lease executed on November 23, 1976, for a 5-year term at
$100 per month. Sossco subsequently purchased the build-
ing and leased space back to Sossamon.
Sossco also purchased and leased most of its equipment
from Sossamon, including trucks and trailers. Two invoices
in evidence indicate such transfers on January 4, 1977, with
payments made subsequent thereto. There was no evidence
that the transactions were for less than fair market value.
Susan Sechrist had been Sossamon's bookkeeper and of-
fice clerical employee since 1974. She performed such tasks
as assisting in the estimating of jobs and change orders and
communicating with the Union when additional employees
were necessary. Upon the resignation of Connie Sossamon
from the Sossamon board of directors, Sechrist was elected
secretary-treasurer to take her place. Sechrist went on the
Sossco payroll as bookkeeper on January 2, 1977. The rec-
ord does not indicate that she terminated her Sossamon
employment. In addition Sossamon's shopman, Jerry Hall,
left the Sossamon payroll on October 7, 1977, and on the
following Monday became an employee of Sossco. While
still on Sossamon's payroll, he had performed some work
for Sossco, for which Sossamon was paid. Both Sechrist and
Hall were outside the Union's bargaining unit. The only
other employee to go from the Sossamon payroll to that of
Sossco was George, Jr.'s son, George Ill, who left Sossa-
mon on September 23, 1977, and on that same date became
an employee of Sossco.
Around early January 1977, according to the testimony
of long-term Sossamon employees Ivy Buckingham and
David Stewart, George, Jr., spoke to them about his inten-
tion to run a nonunion electrical contracting business. Ac-
cording to their essentially consistent testimonies, George,
Jr., told them what he intended to do and stated that if the
Union did not like it, he would take the Sossamon business
down to "zero, zero." He also offered them each an oppor-
tunity to accept supervisory positions with the new Com-
pany: the)' both declined his offer on the basis that they did
not wish to work nonunion.'
'I credit this testimony. George, Jr., did not specifically deny that such a
conversation took place: he testified only that he did not recall it, and that.
to his knowledge. the conversation could not have occurred. His denial was
less convincing than the affirmative testimonies of Buckingham and Stewart.
George. Sr., who was placed in this coversation by Buckingham but not by
Stewart subsequently spoke with George, Jr., concerning
George, Sr.. pointing out that George, Sr., was approaching
retirement age and was not actively working to build the
business. George, Jr., told Stewart "not to worry about it
for all practical purposes, that he would be running both of
them."
In November of 1976. Sossco bid successfully for two
contracts as an electrical subcontractor. Sossco performed
one, the Northeast National Bank project, with its own
nonunion employees commencing January or February
1977. On the other contract, the University of Texas at Ar-
lington (UTA) bookstore and student center, however,
there was an alleged misunderstanding between the bidder,
Sossco, and the general contractor, Walker Construction.
George, Jr., testified that he submitted the bid, intending it
to be on Sossco's behalf. James Walker, president of
Walker Construction, however, not having any knowledge
of a firm called Sossco, and knowing of George, Jr.'s role in
Sossamon, he assumed that Sossamon was the bidder. He
so indicated on his list of principal subcontractors furnished
to the project owner on November 19, 1976. Within about I
month, it came to Walker's attention that the successful
bidder for the electrical subcontract was Sossco. Walker
Construction then communicated with George, Jr., and
specified that the work had to be done with union contrac-
tors.
On January 10, 1977, Sossco and Walker Construction
executed a subcontracting agreement for the electrical work
on the UTA project. On January 20, 1977, Sossco subcon-
tracted that same work to Sossamon at its original contract
price, less 5 percent payable to Sossco. Sossco did not seek
other bidders; Sossamon did not question or separately esti-
mate Sossco's price.
On January 21, 1977, a preconstruction conference for
the UTA project was held, attended by "Representatives of
the Owner ... Contractor, and major subcontractors .... "
Present were George, Jr., and Ivy Buckingham. They intro-
duced themselves as representing Sossamon and the min-
utes of that meeting prepared by the owner's representative
so list them.
Ivy Buckingham was Sossamon's jobsite foreman on the
UTA project. He credibly testified that with regard to those
with whom he dealt at Sossamon for supervision and direc-
tion, he could discern no difference between the UTA proj-
ect and prior projects on which he had been Sossamon's
foreman. Thus, he testified, before any work was done on
that project, he participated with George, Jr., in reviewing
the blueprints of the work to be done for the purpose of
estimating the job and was sent to inspect the jobsite by
George, Jr. He began working on the project with one other
employee, immediately following the preconstruction con-
ference, and his crew was gradually built up to about eight
electricians. Each time he determined that an additional
Stewart, denied being present when any such statement was made by
George, Jr. It may have been that he was not present when the remark was
made; it is also possible, in view of the state of his health, other testimony
indicating that his memory was not complete as to all events, and inconsis-
tencies in his testimony that he simpl) did not remember it.
4This uncontradicted testimony is credited. Stewart was no longer em-
ployed by the Respondents at the time he testified. He had voluntarily quit
and was not alleged as a discriminatee. He therefore had little interest in the
outcome of these proceedings.
325
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
worker was required, he called George, Jr., and would be
told either to call the union hall himself or that George, Jr.,
George, Sr., or Susan Sechrist would call. Buckingham saw
George, Jr., on the UTA jobsite once or twice a month and
communicated with him by telephone an average of a cou-
ple of times a day concerning problems encountered in the
work. He sought and received guidance from George, Jr.,
regarding those problems. For example, when he found that
he could not properly supervise both parts of the UTA
project, he spoke with George, Jr. Subsequently, another
union member was sent to the jobsite and, pursuant to a
discussion between Buckingham and George, Jr., that indi-
vidual took over the bookstore. He also discussed change
orders with George, Jr., and occasionally with George, Sr.
Monthly progress conferences were held at the jobsite;
George, Jr., and Buckingham attended them. Buckingham
did not see George, Sr., in the building at anytime while he
worked there and seldom spoke with him in regard to the
work. On prior projects, George, Sr., had similarly seldom
visited the jobsites; that had been George, Jr.'s responsibil-
ity.
The Union had filed its initial charge herein, alleging a
refusal to bargain by Sossamon and Sossco, on February 7,
1977. It was served on February 9. On February 10,
George, Jr., spoke to Buckingham about the charge.6
George, Jr., told Buckingham that the Union was 'doing it
all wrong" and "had the NLRB doing their work for them."
He also told Buckingham that he would have to be a con-
sultant to his father on the job, that Buckingham would tell
him of his problems and he would take the problems to
George, Sr., who would then call and instruct Buckingham
what to do. There was no change, however, in the persons
with whom Buckingham discussed job problems following
this conversation; he continued to discuss them with
George, Jr.
George, Jr., contended that his role on the UTA project
was simply that of prime subcontractor, principally liable to
the general contractor for completion of the work. He de-
nied that he was functioning in any capacity for Sossamon.
George, Sr., was hospitalized and underwent surgery on
September 19, 1977. He was incapacitated thereafter for at
least I month. On October 7, 1977, he called Buckingham
at the jobsite. According to Buckingham, George, Sr., told
him, "You know the Union is suing us and we are going to
have to lay you off." Buckingham asked and was told that
the layoff was of all Sossamon employees The eight Sossa-
5 Buckingham believed, but admitted that he was not sure, that he was so
instructed on one occasion.
6 Buckingham's initial testimony was confused as to the date, placing this
conversation in August 1977. An affidavit he gave in February of that year,
however, places it on February 10. The context of the conversation, particu-
larly the reference to a letter from the Board, supports a finding that it took
place in early February.
7 George, Sr., did not recall saying anything to Buckingham in regard to a
lawsuit and testified that he had no reason to do so because he had heard
about the lawsuit "about a year ago before that" and there was no reason to
bring it up. However, at the time of this conversation, there was reason to be
thinking of it, as the hearing on the original complaint issued June 30, 1977,
was scheduled for October 18, 1977, only 11 days away. George, Sr., also
specifically testified that the decision to terminate business operations and
layoff the employees flowed from his doctor's orders, received that morning,
that he could no longer engage in business. That testimony is contradicted by
a letter from George. Sr.. to Geroge, Jr., dared October 6, 1977, wherein he
stated, "Effective this date, October 6, 1977, this is formal notice that I will
cease business operations at UTA as of the close of business October 7,
mon employees received their paychecks and were laid off
that afternoon.s
Buckingham testified on cross-examination that all of the
Sossamon employees on the UTA project, except possibly
one, were members of the Union.
Following the layoff of the Sossamon employees, Sossco
took over performance of the UTA contract. It replaced the
Sossamon employees with its own nonunion employees, did
not recognize the Union as the employees' collective-bar-
gaining representative, and did not apply the terms of the
collective-bargaining agreement (between Sossamon and
the Union) to them. George, Jr., testified that he did not
offer any of the Sossamon employees jobs with Sossco be-
cause he knew that union members would not accept em-
ployment with a nonunion firm. Other than the testimonies
of Buckingham and Stewart (who had quit in September
1977) that they would not accept nonunion employment
and the fact that union members accepting such employ-
ment were subject to union sanctions, there is no evidence
to indicate that the remaining Sossamon employees would
not have accepted employment with Sossco.
The record contains further evidence of George, Jr.'s
continued role with Sossamon. Sossamon checks for pay-
roll, union benefit funds, and other items, dated January
and February 1977, were signed by George, Jr. On one
occasion in 1977, George, Jr., directed Sossamon employee
Stewart to a job at a customer's home (the Neeley job).
When Stewart reported that the job would take longer than
expected and would interfere with other work to which he
had been assigned, George, Jr., reassigned the work to a
Sossco employee. Sossco also sought out and took over a
service account that Sossamon was on the verge of losing
because of high prices. A trailer bearing the Sossamon
name was used on the Northeast Bank project until shortly
before the hearing.
At the time of hearing, according to George, Sr., Sossa-
mon remained a viable, though dormant, business entity.
The UTA job was its last venture as an electrical subcon-
tractor.
B. The Issues
The principal issue herein is whether Sossamon and
Sossco are "alter egos" of the same business enterprise and/
or constitute a single employer for purposes of the Act.
Upon resolution of that issue, there arise the questions of
whether Respondent discriminated against the Sossamon
employees by laying them off and replacing them with non-
union employees of Sossco because of their union member-
ship or the filing of charges under the Act and whether, by
failing to apply the terms of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment to the Sossco employees, Respondents abrogated their
bargaining obligation to the Union.
1977." In view of this inconsistent evidence, and noting George, Sr.'s failure
to specifically deny the conversation as related by Buckingham, I credit
Buckingham.
8 The record reflects that the following Sossamon employees were termi-
nated on October 7, 1977: Ivy Buckingham, Jr.. Margaret Connell, James P.
Davidson, Elmer C. Davis, Tom L. Harvey, Arnold D. Humphnes, Steven P.
Sexton, and Thurman Watson, Jr. Some of these names vary, in spelling or
in other ways, from those names alleged in the complaint.
326
SOSSAMON ELECTRIC COMPANY
C. Anaolsis
In determining whether one legal entity is the alter ego of
another, the Board looks to the ownership, management,
business purpose, operation, equipment, customers, and su-
pervision of the two businesses. Generally, where these are
substantially identical, the Board finds alter ego status. See,
e.g., Crawford Door Sales Company, Inc.. 226 NLRB 1144
(1976) and Marquis Printing Corporation, 213 NLRB 394
(1974). Similarly, the Board finds that two legal entities
comprise a single employer where there is common owner-
ship and financial control, common management, interrela-
tion of operations, and centralized control of labor rela-
tions. See, e.g., Don Burgess Construction Corporation, 227
NLRB 765 (1977) and Western Union Corp., 224 NLRB 274
(1976). Clearly, Respondents herein satisfy both tests. Sos-
samon and Sossco were engaged in the same business.
George, Jr., was the majority stockholder of Sossamon and
maintained that position even after he organized Sossco
and ostensibly stepped out of Sossamon's management.
Notwithstanding his stated intentions to the contrary,
George, Jr., remained in very substantial control of Sossa-
mon's business. With regard to the UTA project, he held
himself out as representing Sossamon and, at least insofar
as both the general contractor and the employees were con-
cerned, continued to manage the operation for Sossamon in
virtually the same manner that he managed other projects
prior to Sossco's creation. He assigned employees to work
(as when he directed Sossamon employee Buckingham to
assist him in estimating the UTA job and sent another Sos-
samon employee, Stewart, to the Neeley job), reassigned
work from Sossamon to Sossco (the Neeley job), and signed
payroll and other checks. Sossco's customers, including
Walker Construction, Trinity Valley, and Neeley were the
same ones that Sossamon had serviced. When Sossco "sub-
contracted" the UTA job to Sossamon, Sossamon took that
subcontract with no independent evaluation of the bid
price. Sossco operated from the same location as Sossamon,
utilizing the same nonbargaining unit personnel (Sechrist
and Hall). Most, if not all, of Sossco's equipment was pur-
chased from Sossamon, transactions which, in view of
George, Jr.'s financial stake in both companies, involved
little more than the transfer of funds from one pockt to
another. Finally, George, Jr. revealed his intention to oper-
ate Sossco as a "disguised continuance" of Sossamon to
Buckingham and Stewart when he told them that he in-
tended to eliminate Sossamon's business and told Stewart
that he would run both businesses.
I further find that Sossamon-Sossco discriminatorily dis-
charged the Sossamon employees on October 7, 1977, in
violation of Section 8(a)(l), (3) and (4) of the Act, when
George, Sr., told Buckingham that all of the Sossamon em-
ployees were being terminated because of the union filed
legal action.9 Moreover, it is evident that this layoff was but
I do not doubt that George, Sr.'s physical incapacity played a role in this
decision. However, it is evident from George, Sr.'s statement when terminat-
ing the employees that the pending complaint was a substantial motivating
factor.
Included within those found to have been unlawfully discharged is Ivy
Buckingham. Even if Buckingham were deemed to be a supervisor, his termi-
nation would violate Sec. 8(aX I) of the Act because it was "an integral part
of a pattern of conduct aimed at penalizing employees for their union activl-
part of George, Jr.'s plant to eliminate the unionized Sossa-
mon and replace it with a nonunion Sossco. George, Jr.'s
admission that he did not offer any of the Sossamon em-
ployees positions with Sossco because he did not believe
that union members would accept work with a nonunion
company, without ever asking the employees whether they
would, evidences this intent and, independently, constitutes
discrimination in violation of Section 8(a)(3).
Finally, it is undisputed that George, Jr., applied none of
the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement to which
Sossamon had been bound to the Sossco employees. By
thus abrogating the contract, to which Sossco as a single
employer with Sossamon and/or as its alter ego, was bound,
Sossco has failed and refused to bargain in good faith with
the Union and has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act.
CONcI.USlONS OF LAW
I. Respondent Sossamon and Respondent Sossco consti-
tute a single employer and are alter egos of the same busi-
ness entity and, at all times material herein, have been an
employer, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All employees of Sossamon and Sossco working
within the jurisdiction of the Union, excluding all other
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. The Union at all times material herein was and is the
exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
5. By failing at all times to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
on the Sossco payroll in the above-described unit, by failing
to honor the collective-bargaining agreement with respect
to such employees, and by failing to apply to such employ-
ees the terms and conditions of that agreement, Respon-
dents have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act.
6. By discharging the employees on the Sossamon pay-
roll on October 7, 1977, because of the pending unfair labor
practice complaint, because of their union membership and
in order to avoid dealing with the Union, and by failing to
consider them for employment on the Sossco payroll for the
same reasons, Respondents have violated Section 8(aXl),
(3), and (4) of the Act.
7. The above-described unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section 11,
above, occurring in connection with their operations de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
ties." Pioneer Drilling Co., Inc., 162 NLRB 918, 923 (1967), enfd. in pertinent
part 391 F.2d 961 (10th Cir. 1968); Krebs and King Toyota, Inc., 197 NLRB
462 (1972).
327
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l),
(3), (4) and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend that they be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Sossco and Sossamon comprise a sin-
gle employer and that Sossco has continued to operate as
the alter ego of Sossamon but has failed and refused to
recognize the Union as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of its employees, or to apply the terms of the contract
between the Union and Sossamon to those employees, I
shall recommend that Sossco be required, upon request, to
recognize the Union as the representative of its employees
and to honor and apply that agreement to all of its employ-
ees working within the jurisdiction of the Union.
Having further found that Sossamon discharged its em-
ployees on October 7, 1977, because of their union member-
ship and because of the pending complaint, and that Sossco
refused to consider those employees for employment be-
cause of their union membership and in order to avoid deal-
ing with the Union, I shall recommend that Sossco be re-
quired to offer the employees named in footnote 6, supra,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions
or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equiv-
alent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and
other rights and privileges, dismissing if necessary any em-
ployees hired by either Sossamon or Sossco in the interim,
and make them whole for any loss of pay, including fringe
benefits, that they may have suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against them. The backpay provided herein
shall be computed with interest, in the manner set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Flor-
ida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB (1977).'10
"A violation of Section 8(a)(3) goes to the very heart of
the Act." It therefore warrants that Respondent be further
required to cease and desist from infringing in any other
manner upon the rights guaranteed employees by §7 of the
Act. Pan American Exterminating Co., 206 NLRB 298, foot-
note 1 (1973); Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 23 NLRB
1058, enfd. as modified, 120 F.2d 532 (4th Cir. 1941).
Upon the basis of the entire record, the findings of fact
and the conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER"
Respondents, Sossamon Electric Company and Sossco
Building Systems, Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
10See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 116, or
any other labor organization, by laying off, discharging, re-
fusing to consider for employment, or in any other manner
discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment because the Union which represents them has filed
charges under the Act or because of their union member-
ship, activities and desires, or in order to avoid dealing with
the Union.
(b) Abrogating the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreement which was binding on Respondent Sossamon
and therefore upon Respondent Sossco as a part of a single
integrated enterprise comprising both Respondents.
(c) Refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative of its employees in the appro-
priate unit, described above, with respect to the wages,
hours, working conditions, or other terms and conditions of
employment of said employees.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 116, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Ivy Buckingham, Jr., Margaret Connell, James
P. Davidson, Elmer C. Davis, Tom L. Harvey, Arnold D.
Humphries, Steven P. Sexton, and Thurman Watson, Jr.,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earning
and benefits they may have suffered by reason of the dis-
crimination against them, in the manner set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, recognize and bargain with the Union
with respect to the wages, hours, and conditions of employ-
ment of Respondents' electricians who are represented by
the Union, are covered by the aforesaid collective-bargain-
ing agreement, and who constitute an appropriate bargain-
ing unit under the Act.
(c) Upon the Union's request, give retroactive effect to
the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement and apply
that agreement to the electricians in the employ of Sossco,
and make them whole for any wage and benefit losses they
may have suffered by reason of Respondents' failure to ap-
ply the contract to them, with interest computed in the
manner previously described.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records, and reports, and all other documents
necessary and relevant to analyze and compute the amount
of backpay due under this Order.
(e) Post at its offices copies of the attached notice
328
SOSSAMON ELECTRIC COMPANY
marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 16, after being
duly signed by Respondents' authorized representatives,
shall be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of the Order, what steps Respondents
have taken to comply herewith.
12 In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States
court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted 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
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union 116, or any other labor organization by laying
off, discharging, refusing to consider for employment,
or in any other manner discriminating against employ-
ees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment because the
union which represents them has filed charges against
us under the National Labor Relations Act or because
of their union membership, activities and desires, or in
order to avoid dealing with the Union.
WE WILL NOT violate the terms of the collective-bar-
gaining agreement which was binding on Sossamon
Electric Company and therefore binding also upon
Sossco Building Systems, Inc. as part of a single inte-
grated enterprise comprising both Respondents.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with
the Union with respect to the wages, hours, working
conditions, or other terms and conditions of employ-
ment of the electricians employed by us.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the above-named Union, or any other
labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
WE WILL offer Ivy Buckingham, Jr., Margaret Con-
nell, James P. Davidson, Elmer C. Davis, Tom L. Har-
vey, Arnold D. Humphries, Steven P. Sexton, and
Thurman Watson, Jr., immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of
earnings or benefits suffered by reason of the discrimi-
nation against them.
WE WILL at the Union's request, give retroactive ef-
fect to the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement
and apply the agreement to the electricians in the em-
ployment of Sossco Building Systems, Inc. and make
them whole for any wage losses they may have suffered
by reason of our failure to apply the contract to them,
with interest.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain
from becoming or remaining members of the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 116, or
any other labor organization, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment,
as authorized by Section 8(aX3) of the Act.
SOSSAMON ELECTRICAL COMPANY AND SOSSCO
BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
329