Zengel Brothers, Inc., And F & J Zengel Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1990

298 N.L.R.B. 203 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

ZENGEL BROS. 203
Zengel Brothers , Inc., and F & J Zengel Plumbing
& Heating, Inc. and Road Sprinkler Fitters
Local Union No. 669 and Sprinkler Fitters
Local Union No . 696, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing &
Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and
Canada, AFL-CIO. Cases 22-CA-15624 and
22-CA-15636
April 11, 1990
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY
On September 26, 1989, Administrative Law
Judge D. Barry Morris issued the attached deci-
sion. The Respondent filed exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and has decided to
affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclu-
sions and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.2
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following for the judge's Conclu-
sion of Law 4.
"4. By withdrawing its recognition of the Unions
by refusing to abide by and adhere to the collec-
tive-bargaining agreements with the Unions, there-
by repudiating the agreements, the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act."
I The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law' judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951).
We have carefully- examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
2 In various places in his decision, the judge characterized the 8(a)(5)
violation alleged in this proceeding in different ways. We note the specif-
ic complaint allegation at par . 12 regarding the 8(aX5) violation was the
following-
(a) Since on or before September 23, 1987, Respondent withdrew
its recognition of Local 669 as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the Local 669 Unit, by refusing to abide by and
adhere to its collective-bargaining agreement with Local 669, there-
by repudiating said agreement.
(b) Since on or before October 29, 1987, Respondent withdrew its
recognition of Local 696 as the exclusive collective -bargaining repre-
sentative of the Local 696 Unit by refusing to abide by and adhere to
its collective-bargaining agreement with Local 696, thereby repudiat-
ing said agreement
We are satisfied that the judge's factual findings support the conclusion
that the Respondent violated the Act in the manner alleged in the com-
plaint. Accordingly, we shall enter amended Conclusions of Law and we
shall revise the judge's recommended Order and notice, to reflect the al-
legations of the complaint.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Zengel Brothers, Inc., and F & J Zengel
Plumbing & Heating, Inc., Freehold, New Jersey,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a).
"(a) Withdrawing recognition from Local 669
and Local 696, United Association of Journeymen
and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-
CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the Respondent's employees, by refus-
ing to abide by and adhere to the collective-bar-
gaining agreements with Local 669 and Local 696,
thereby repudiating said agreements."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from Local
669 and Local 696, United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of our employees covered by the
agreements, by refusing to abide by and adhere to
our collective-bargaining agreements with Local
669 and Local 696, thereby repudiating said agree-
ments.
WE WILL NOT interrogate, threaten to discharge,
or discharge employees for activities protected by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole the appropriate individ-
uals for any losses they may have suffered by
reason of our failure to apply the terms of the col-
lective-bargaining agreements in effect between us
and Local 669 and Local 696, including all contri-
butions the Unions would have received in accord-
ance with the agreements, with interest.
WE WILL offer John Rahn, David Kane„ and
John Cusanelli immediate and full reinstatement to
298 NLRB No. 17
204 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their former positions or, if such positions no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make them whole for any loss
of earnings they may have suffered by reason of
their discharges, with interest.
WE WILL remove from our files any references
to the unlawful discharges of Rahn, Kane, and Cu-
sanelli and notify them in writing that this has been
done and that the discharges will not be used
against them in any way.
ZENGEL BROTHERS , INC., AND F & J
ZENGEL PLUMBING & HEATING, INC.
Bernard S. Mintz, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Mitchell B. Craner, Esq., of New York, New York, for
the Respondents.
Kathleen A. Murray, Esq. (Beins, Axelrod, Osborne &
Mooney, P.C.), of Washington, D.C., for Local 669.
Francis H. Pykon, Esq., of Newark, New Jersey, for
Local 696.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
D. BARRY MORRIS, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard before me in Newark, New Jersey, on
February 7, 8, and 13, 1989. On charges filed on March
23 and 29, 1988, a complaint was issued on July 27, 1988,
alleging that Respondents, Zengel Brothers, Inc. (Zengel
Brothers) and F & J Zengel Plumbing & Heating, Inc. (F
& J) violated Section 8 (a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act). Respondents filed an
answer denying the commission of the alleged unfair
labor practices.
The parties were given full opportunity to participate,
produce evidence , examine and cross-examine witnesses,
argue orally, and file briefs. Briefs were filed by General
Counsel, Local 669, and Respondents on May 19, 1989.1
Upon the entire record of the case, including my ob-
servation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Zengel Brothers and F & J are corporations with an
office and place of business in Freehold, New Jersey,
where they have been engaged as plumbing and heating
contractors in the building and construction industry, in-
stalling and repairing residential and commercial heating
and plumbing systems, including fire prevention systems.
Respondents have admitted that during the preceding
year they purchased and received at their Freehold facil-
ity goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points located
outside the State of New Jersey. Respondents have ad-
mitted, and I so find, that they are employers engaged in
3 General Counsel 's motion to correct transcript is granted.
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act. Respondents have also admitted, and I
find, that Local 669 and Local 696, United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-
CIO are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The issues are:
1. Do Zengel Brothers and F & J constitute a single
employer within the meaning of the Act?
2. Did Respondents enter into, and later repudiate, col-
lective-bargaining agreements with Local 669 and Local
696?
3. Did Respondents unlawfully interrogate employees
and threaten them with discharge if they joined the
Union?
4. Did Respondents discharge employees Rahn, Cusan-
elli, and Kane because of their union activities?
B. The Facts
1. Single employer
The record discloses that Zengel Brothers and F & J
are commonly owned. John and Fran Zengel each owns
50 percent of the shares of each corporation, with John
Zengel serving as president , and Fran Zengel serving as
secretary, of each corporation. The Zengels manage both
companies and have ultimate labor relations authority for
both companies. Both corporations share common facili-
ties in Freehold, New Jersey. Only Zengel Brothers'
name is on the sign of the facility and there is one tele-
phone number which is answered "Zengel Brothers." In
Radio Union Local 1269 v. Broadcast Service, 380 U.S.
255, 256 (1965), the Supreme Court stated that the con-
trolling criteria for establishing single-employer status are
"interrelation of operations , common management, cen-
tralized control of labor relations and common owner-
ship." Not all of these indicia need be present. Blumen-
feld Theatre Circuit, 240 NLRB 206, 215 (1979). Based on
the entire record, I fmd that there exists an interrelation
of operations, common management, common owner-
ship, and centralized control of labor relations between
the two corporations. Accordingly, I fmd that Zengel
Brothers, Inc., and F & J Zengel Plumbing & Heating,
Inc. constitute a single employer within the meaning of
the Act.
2. Agreement with Local 669
Both Local 669 and Local 696 represent sprinkler fit-
ters who install and repair fire sprinkler systems. The ter-
ritorial jurisdiction of Local 669 includes the entire State
of New Jersey except for a 25-mile radius of Newark
and a 15-mile radius of Philadelphia. The territorial juris-
diction of Local 696 includes those areas in New Jersey
within a 25-mile radius of Newark.
On October 16, 1986, John Garthe, business agent of
Local 669, met with John Zengel, president of Respond-
ZENGEL BROS. 205
ents. Garthe credibly testified that Zengel signed a col-
lective-bargaining agreement with Local 669 at that time.
Garthe asked Zengel how he wanted to identify the
name of the employer on the agreement he had signed
and Zengel gave Garthe a business card with the name
"Zengel Bros., Inc." on it and its address. On October 30
Local 669 sent to Zengel Brothers the fully executed sig-
nature page and forms necessary for bonding purposes.
There was no response to the letter. On December 29,
1986, and February 19 and March 19, 1987, Local 669
again requested that Zengel Brothers return the bonding
forms. There was no response to any of the letters.
Zengel testified that he signed the agreement with
Local 669 sometime in the fall of 1987 after he had al-
ready signed an agreement with Local 696. Zengel also
testified that he instructed Garthe to insert F & J as the
name of the employer. I credit Garthe's testimony that
the agreement was signed on October 16, 1986. I note
that Zengel handed Garthe a card which stated "Zengel
Bros., Inc." and I further note the letters dated October
30 and December 29, 1986, and February 19 and March
19, 1987, relating to the agreement, all addressed to
Zengel Brothers. At no time did anyone from Zengel
Brothers contact Local 669 to suggest that Local 669
was corresponding with the wrong company. Based on
the entire record, I find that on October 16, 1986, Zengel
Brothers entered into a collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 669.
3. Agreement with Local 696
During September 1987, Local 696 Business Manager
Stephen Sczcepaniak learned that Zengel Brothers was
to perform work within its territorial jurisdiction on a
project known as the A & P job in South Plainfield.
Sczcepaniak assigned Local 696 Business Agent Richard
Hodavance to contact John Zengel to discuss signing a
contract wih Local 696. Hodavance credibly testified
that John Zengel signed a contract with Local 696 on
October 29, 1987, effective by its terms through June 30,
1989. Hodavance asked Zengel for a business card which
Zengel gave to him and it identified "Zengel Bros., Inc."
as the contracting company. Hodavance stapled the card
to the contract to identify the company with which he
had contracted. While Respondents concede that a con-
tract was ,signed with Local 696 in October 1987 they
maintain that the contracting party was instead F & J. I
credit Hodavance's testimony that John Zengel handed
him a business card indicating "Zengel Bros., Inc." and
that card was then stapled to the collective-bargaining
agreement. Based on the entire record, I find that on Oc-
tober 29, 1987, Zengel Brothers entered into a collective-
bargaining agreement with Local ' 696.2
4. Failure to comply with the agreements
Sometime after it signed the Local 669 contract
Zengel Brothers employed a crew of employees to per-
form work covered by the contract. However, Respond-
2 Even were the contracting party to have been F & J, inasmuch as I
have found both corporations to constitute a single employer, Respond-
ents' obligations remain the same, irrespective of winch corporation was
the contracting party.
ents never paid the employees according to the contract
nor did it observe the other terms and conditions of the
contract. In addition, following its signing of a contract
with Local 696 in October 1987 Zengel Brothers failed
to apply the contract to bargaining unit work performed
by its employees but instead applied the contract only to
a single job, the A & P job in South Plainfield, New
Jersey.
5. Interrogation and threats
In October 1987 John Rahn, a sprinkler fitter employ-
ee of Zengel Brothers contacted Garthe about joining
Local 669 and obtaining a collective-bargaining agree-
ment at Zengel Brothers. Garthe was surprised at Rahn's
inquiries and explained that Local 669 already had a con-
tract with Zengel Brothers and that pursuant to that con-
tract Rahn should have joined the Union and was al-
ready covered by the contract. Thereafter Garthe met
with some Zengel Brothers' employees and provided
them with applications for membership in Local 669,
which several of the employees completed.
Soon after Rahn joined the Union he had a conversa-
tion with his supervisor, James Pace, at which time he
told Pace that he joined the Union. Pace replied, "I
thought you were going to stay with us and you would
probably eventually get my position . . . I'm sorry it has
to be this way . . . but you know they are not going to
look favorably on this." David Kane, another employee,
credibly testified that during a conversation in December
1987 at a job in Englewood, New Jersey, Pace told sev-
eral employees that "he personally didn't like the unions
and he suggested that we not join the union and he said
he wasn't sure what . . . would happen to us if we
joined the union, but we could all end up in a union
hiring hall." Kane also credibly, testified that after Rahn's
termination on December 18, 1987, Pace asked Cusanelli,
Evan, and himself whether they had joined the Union.
Kane then asked Pace why Rahn was fired and Pace re-
plied that Rahn was fired because "he joined the union."
Kane credibly testified that he then asked Pace if he
would be fired if he joined the Union and Pace replied,
"I know that and you know that, but don't let that
change your mind." In addition, Kane credibly testified
that after he and Cusanelli told Pace that they had joined
the Union, Pace told them "we should call up John
Garthe and have him call John Zengel and tell him that
we were officially in the union, and that they would
definitely fire us for that." Cusanelli corroborated Kane's
testimony. Based on the entire record, I find that Re-
spondents interrogated their employees concerning
whether they joined the Union and threatened them with
discharge if they joined the Union.
6. Discharge of Rahn
In early December 1987, after receiving acknowledge-
ment that he was in the Union, Rahn told Pace that his
paycheck "wasn't up to scale." He continued, "I was in
the union now and it should be' union scale." On Decem-
ber 18 Rahn was discharged by Pace. Upon discharging
him, Pace told Rahn, "Here's your union scale, good
luck." Kane credibly testified that he asked Pace why
206 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rahn was discharged and Pace replied "because he
joined the union." Similarly, Cusanelli credibly testified
that he asked Pace why Rahn was discharged. Pace re-
plied, "just between us, the reason John was fired was
because he went behind my back and joined the union."
7. Discharges of Kane and Cusanelli
On November 5, 1987, David Kane met with Garthe,
at which time Garthe gave him a membership applica-
tion and gave him an additional application to give to
Cusanelli. Kane gave the application to Cusanelli the fol-
lowing day. During several meetings in the fall of 1987
Kane and Cusanelli asked Pace what would happen if
they joined the Union. It was during these meetings that
Pace replied, "We could all end up in a union hiring
hall." In early February 1988 Pace came to the jobsite
and asked both Kane and Cusanelli whether they were in
the Union yet. Kane replied, "Yes, it's just a matter of
some paperwork coming through." Cusanelli also an-
swered in the affirmative. On February 10, 1988, Pace
discharged Kane and Cusanelli. Kane credibly testified
that he asked Pace why they were being discharged and
Pace replied "Dave, you of all people should know why
you are out of a job . . . you joined the union." Cusan-
elli similarly credibly testified that when Pace was asked
why they were discharged he answered, "You know
why and I know why. Because you guys joined the
union."
C. Discussion and Conclusions
1. Single employer and single-appropriate unit
As discussed above, I have found that Zengel Broth-
ers, Inc., and F & J Plumbing & Heating , Inc. constitute
a single employer within the meaning of the Act. How-
ever, once a determination has been made that the two
corporations constitute a single employer it is neverthe-
less necessary to determine whether the employees of
both corporations would constitute a single unit. South
Prairie Construction Co. v. Operating Engineers Local 627,
425 U.S. 800, 804 (1976). Respondents have admitted in
their answer that the employees of both corporations to-
gether constitute a single-appropriate unit. In addition,
the evidence in the record supports a fording that the
sprinkler fitter employees of both corporations constitute
an appropriate unit . The Companies are engaged in the
same type of business which businesses are highly inte-
grated, sharing the same facility, office staff, trucks, and
automobiles. They also share the same supervisory and
managerial personnel who have ultimate labor relations
authority for both companies. Furthermore, the sprinkler
fitters from both companies perform the same type of
work and utilize the same skills in the performance of
their duties. Additionally, there is evidence of contact
and interchange between the groups of employees. For
example, during Rahn 's last week of employment, while
he was on F & J's payroll, he continued to work with
Zengel Brothers' sprinkler fitters with whom he had
worked in the past. I find that the evidence warrants the
conclusion that the two corporations' employees do not
constitute distinct and separate units and that therefore
an employerwide unit is the appropriate unit. See DMR
Corp., 258 NLRB 1063, fn. 3 (1981); Safety Electric Corp.,
239 NLRB 40 (1978).
2. Failure to bargain
I have found that Respondents entered into an agree-
ment with Local 669 on October 16, 1986, and with
Local 696 on October 29, 1987. The record is clear that
the terms and conditions of employment relative to wage
and fringe benefits as contained in the collective-bargain-
ing agreements of Local 669 and Local 696 were not ap-
plied to the employees who were carried on Zengel
Brothers' payroll. By failing to abide by the wage and
fringe benefit provisions of the collective-bargaining
agreements and by unilaterally changing those terms and
conditions of employment without negotiating with the
Unions, Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962).
3. Discharges
As discussed above, I have found that Rahn, Kane,
and Cusanelli were discharged because they joined the
Union . While Pace testified that the three were terminat-
ed because of a "lack of work," I find that reason to be
pretextual . Pace himself testified that Rahn was laid off
because "I didn 't have any work for him , since he, was a
union member." Pace further conceded that had Rahn
not joined the Union he would have had "work for
him."
With respect to Kane and Cusanelli, the evidence dem-
onstrates that there was sprinkler fitter work available
which they could have done had they not been terminat-
ed. Thus , Evan, who told Pace that he had not joined
the Union , continued to do sprinkler fitter work . In addi-
tion, a different employee took their van out after they
were fired in order to bring sprinkler fitting supplies to
the jobsite . Furthermore, Respondents have offered shift-
ing reasons for the termination of Kane and Cusanelli.
Thus, while Pace asserted the reason was "lack of
work," Heulitt, the general manager, stated that they
were terminated because "they were not producing the
work they should have in the allotted time ." There is no
evidence in the record that either Kane or Cusanelli re-
ceived any complaints about their performance prior to
their discharges . The Board has long expressed the view
that "when an employer vacillates in offering a rational
and consistent account of its actions , an inference may be
drawn that the real reason for its conduct is not among
those asserted." Aluminum Technical Extrusions, 274
NLRB 1414, 1418 ( 1985); F. W.I.L. Lundry Bros. Restau-
rant, 248 NLRB 415, 428 (1980). Such an inference is
warranted here.
Based on the above , I find that Respondents dis-
charged Rahn , Kane , and Cusanelli because they joined
the Union , in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. Respondents ' reasons for the discharges are clearly
pretextual . See Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722
(1981), enfd . 705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982). Even were
this case to be considered as involving a dual motive,
Respondents have not sustained their burden of showing
that the "same action would have taken place in the ab-
sence of the protected conduct ." Wright Line, 251 NLRB
ZENGEL BROS. 207
1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981),
cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Zengel Brothers, Inc., and F & J Plumbing & Heat-
ing, Inc. are employers engaged in commerce with the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 669 and Local 696, United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-
CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. Zengel Brothers, Inc., and F & J Zengel Plumbing
& Heating, Inc. constitute a single employer within the
meaning of the Act.
4. By, failing to apply the terms of the collective-bar-
gaining agreements between Respondents and the Unions
to Respondents' employees, Respondents have violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. By interrogating their employees concerning their
union activities and by threatening employees with dis-
charge if they joined the Union, Respondents have vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. By discharging certain employees because they
joined the Union, Respondents have violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices constitute unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order
Respondents to cease and desist therefrom and to take
further action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act. In addition, I shall order that the Respondents make
whole the appropriate individuals for any losses they
may have suffered by reason of Respondents' failure to
apply the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements,
including benefit contributions, with such amounts to be
computed in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Serv-
ice, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir.
1971), plus interest3 as computed in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).4 The collective-bar-
gaining agreement with Local 669 expired on March 31,
1988, and the collective-bargaining agreement with
Local 696 expired on June 30, 1989. In its brief, Local
669 requests that I issue a bargaining order. However,
under John Deklewa & Sons, 282 NLRB 1375, 1377-1278
(1987), enfd. sub nom. Iron Workers Local 3 v. NLRB,
843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988), upon the expiration of an
8(f) agreement, the signatory union will enjoy no pre-
sumption of majority status, and either party may repudi-
ate the 8(f) bargaining relationship. The complaint in this
proceeding alleged that Respondents repudiated the col-
lective-bargaining agreements and I have so found. Ac-
cordingly, pursuant to Deklewa, I will not issue a bar-
gaining order. See Meekins, Inc., 290 NLRB 126 (1988).
In addition, Respondents having terminated the em-
ployment of John Rahn, David Kane, and John Cusan-
elli, I shall order Respondents to offer them full rein-
statement to their former positions or, if such positions
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings
that they may have suffered from the time of their termi-
nation to the date of Respondents' offers of reinstate-
ment. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the
formula approved in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest as computed in New Horizons for the
Retarded, supra.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed5
ORDER
The Respondents, Zengel Brothers, Inc., and F & J
Zengel Plumbing & Heating, Inc., Freehold, New Jersey,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Withdrawing recognition during the term of a col-
lective-bargaining agreement from Local 669 or Local
696, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the United
States and Canada, AFL-CIO as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the Respondents' em-
ployees covered by the agreements.
(b) Interrogating, threatening to discharge, or dis-
charging employees for activities protected by Section 7
of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole the appropriate individuals for any
losses they may have suffered by reason of Respondents'
failure to apply the terms of the collective-bargaining
agreements in effect between Respondents and Local 669
and Local 696, including all contributions the Union
would have received in accordance with the agreements,
with interest, in the manner set forth above in the section
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Offer John Rahn, David Kane, and John Cusanelli
immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions
or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of
their discharges, with interest, in the manner set forth
above in the section entitled "The Remedy."
a See Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213 (1979).
a Under New Horizons, interest on and after January 1, 1987 shall be 5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
computed at the "short-term Federal rate" for the underpayment of taxes Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C. § 6621. Interest on Order shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
amounts accrued prior to January 1, 1987, shall be computed in accord- Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
ance with Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). poses
208 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Remove from their files any references to the un-
lawful discharges of Rahn, Kane, and Cusanelli and
notify them in writing that this has been done and that
the discharges will not be used against them in any way.
(d) Preserve and, on 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 records nec-
essary to analyze the amounts owing under the terms of
this Order.
(e) Post at its facility in Freehold, New Jersey, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."s Copies of
the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 22, after being duly signed by the Respond-
ents' authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondents immediately upon receipt and be maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ents to ensure that the 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 this Order what steps the Re-
spondents have taken to comply.
B If 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 Nation-
al 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."