Ambrose Distributing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 9, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 1642 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT promise employees wage increases, or other benefits, if our
employees reject Retail Clerks, Managers & Salesmen's Union, Local 1393, or any
other labor organization; threaten to get "tough" and close our Pottstown store if
it became unionized; Iequest a vote of confidence in the context of such promises
or threats; coercively interrogate our employees concerning their union member-
ship, sympathies, activities, or voting intentions in any Board-conducted election;
or inform employees that changes would be made to dissuade them from support-
ing the above-named union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request, with the above-named union, as
the exclusive representative *of all our employees described below with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment. The bargaining unit is:
All selling and nonselling employees at our Pottstown, Pennsylvania,
store, including regular part-time employees, but excluding professional
pharmacists and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
BAUSE SUPER DRUG STORES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) . (Title)
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Telephone No. 735-2612, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Ambrose Distributing Company and General Teamsters, Ware-
housemen, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union Local No. 483, affili-
ated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Independent).
Case No. 19-CA-?825. February 9, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 13, 1964, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members' Fanning and Jenkins].
150 NLRB No. 157.
AMBROSE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 1643
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision and the entire record in the case,
including the Respondent's exceptions, and hereby adopts the Trial
Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts,
as its Order, the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
orders that Respondent, Ambrose Distributing Company, 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
This matter was tried before Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster in Twin Falls,
Idaho, on June 30, 1964.1 The complaint alleges that Ambrose Distributing Com-
pany, herein called the Respondent , questioned and threatened employees in connec-
tion with membership in or activities in behalf of General Teamsters , Warehousemen,
Chauffeurs & Helpers Union Local No. 483, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America ( Independent),
herein called the Union, and discharged employees Richard F. Byrd and Thomas
Smith because of their interest in the Union.2
Upon the basis of the entire record, in consideration of the brief filed by counsel
for the Respondent , and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is engaged in the wholesale distribution of meat and Texaco petro-
leum products and is also a private carrier by truck. During 1963, the Respondent
distributed meat and Texaco petroleum products valued in excess of $ 100,000 of which
products valued at more than $50,000 were shipped from its Butte , Montana, terminal
to States other than the State of Montana. During the same period the Respondent
purchased , transferred , and delivered to its Butte terminal meat and Texaco petroleum
products valued at more than $ 100,000 of which more than $50 ,000 were brought to
that terminal from States of the United States other than the State of Montana.
During the same period the Respondent performed trucking services valued at more
than $50 ,000 for business concerns located in States other than the State of Montana.
I find , as the Respondent concedes , that it is an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act , engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7)
of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
In. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
About 38 truckdrivers work out of Respondent 's terminal in Wendell , Idaho.
Richard Byrd , who had worked for the Respondent on previous occasions , was rehired
in mid- 1963 as a truckdriver there. At the time Byrd was indebted to the Respondent
as a result of a business arrangement and, subsequent to his reemployment , amounts
were deducted from his earnings in liquidation of this debt . In September, Byrd
applied for membership in the Union and , from about then until mid -November,
1 All dates are in 1964 except where otherwise indicated.
2 The complaint issued May 8 upon charges filed February 17 and April 7.
1644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
solicited other drivers to join . On December 12, 1963, the Union filed a petition with
the National Labor Relations Board seeking a representation election among Respond-
ent's truckdrivers. On January 16 following, a hearing on this petition was held and
on January 28 a Direction of Election issued. The election on February 18 resulted
in a vote adverse to the Union.
On January 4, Nolan Cooper 3 commented to Byrd that the latter was the "Union
instigator"; and that two of the drivers had said that Byrd had gotten them to sign
union designations . Ernest Bartee testified that in early February Cooper said that
if the Union won the election the Respondent would reduce its operations so that no
more than five trucks would be kept running. After the election, in which the Union
received 11 votes, Cooper remarked to Bartee that he had listed 15 employees who he
believed would vote for the Union and thus was in error as to 4. He exhibited the
list to Bartee who noted that the names of Thomas Smith and Byrd were included.
Cooper told Bartee that the men listed would be "sent down the road"; that Byrd and
another driver, Dutch Dillon, were the men who were promoting the Union. About a
week after the election, at a time when agents of the Regional Office of the Board were
conducting some sort of investigation either in connection with this case or in respect
to the election, Cooper upbraided Byrd for reporting to the investigator what Cooper
had said to him about the Union. Cooper said that Byrd was not courageous enough
to fight his own battles and had to call in outsiders for help.
Cooper was called by counsel for the General Counsel as an adverse witness but was
not questioned about any of the remarks attributed to him by Byrd and Bartee. The
testimony of Byrd and Bartee in these areas stands undenied and is credited.
About January 20, Byrd testified Neal Ambrose, Respondent's owner, interrupted
a conversation between Byrd and another employee, Gene Kuhn, saying to Kuhn, "Be
careful what you say, Byrd is going to be the new shop steward in the union."
Thomas Smith, a driver, testified that about mid-December 1963, at Wendell,
Ambrose asked him what he thought about the Union and asked him not to vote for it.
Ambrose went on to say that he had been thinking for some time about establishing a
fund for permanent employees which would be distributed as an annual bonus, that
although he could not promise to follow through on this plan he was thinking about
bringing it to being if the Union was unsuccessful? In early February, still according
to Smith, Ambrose said that he could not understand why Byrd would be for the Union
considering the help he had given Byrd in the past.
In January, while on a run to a California plant, Byrd narrowly avoided collision
with another vehicle and scraped his trailer against a roadside obstruction. No
damage beyond a paint scratch resulted. Byrd mentioned this happening to shop
employees in Wendell and Ambrose learned of it. On the occasion when Ambrose
spoke to Byrd and Smith about the upcoming election and the possibility of a bonus,
he said that he was a fair man and would not hold resentment against an employee
who had signed a union authorization. Ambrose said, however, that were this not so
he could have used the scratched paint incident as a reason to discharge Byrd.
Although called as a witness, Ambrose did not deny making any of these comments
to Byrd or Smith. I find that Ambrose spoke as they testified.
In early March, Byrd and another driver left a trailer at Respondent's yard in Butte
and then went on to other destinations . On March 11, Ambrose telephoned Byrd and
asked him if he had "dropped" 5 a trailer load of grain at Butte. Byrd said that he had.
Ambrose said that Byrd had not properly lowered the landing gear on the trailer with
the result that the trailer was damaged and that it was necessary to spend 5 hours to
jack it up to the proper position. Byrd denied that this was so and asserted that the
trailer had been properly uncoupled from the tractor and was sitting safely when he
left it. Ambrose then said that considering the kind of work Byrd had been doing
recently and the fact that he had struck a bridge 6 sometime earlier, he was discharged.
Byrd became angry at this point and told Ambrose he was a liar; that Ambrose knew
that he had not damaged any trailer in Butte. Ambrose replied, according to Byrd,
"Well that does not make any difference. I've got about five guys up here that will
swear that you did." Ambrose said that he should have been given some help when
O Cooper Is Respondent 's manager at Wendell and concededly is a supervisor within
the Act's meaning.
4 Byrd testified that he was present with Smith when Ambrose held out this possibility
but recalled the date to be January 17 The difference in dates is immaterial.
5In context this was not an admission by Byrd that he had handled the trailer im-
properly but only that he had brought it to Respondent's Butte terminal.
O This is a reference to the matter of the scratched paint There is no evidence that
Byrd ever struck a bridge.
AMBROSE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 1645
he needed it and that Byrd, in consideration of all that Ambrose had done for him in
the past, was one who should have supplied it. Byrd has not since worked for the
Respondent.
Thomas Smith, after some previous employment with the Respondent, was rehired
in June 1962 as a truckdriver. He was absent from work for several weeks in the fall
of 1963, but before the end of the year returned to his job. In early February, accord-
ing to Smith's undemed and credited testimony, Ambrose said that he was going to stop
operating the trucking business for a period of 2 weeks until the election was over, and
said that if the election jeopardized his trucking operation in Utah he would sell the
trucks then being used on those runs. 7
Shortly after the election, Ambrose and Smith discussed that event. Smith said
that he would just like to forget it and let bygones be bygones Ambrose commented,
in obvious reference to Byrd's interest in the Union, that he could not understand him;
that he had done more for Byrd than for almost anyone else. In late February or
early March, Smith was directed to drive a truck to some destination and on this occa-
sion told Cooper that he could not do so because he had no money Smith testified
that at this time three paychecks and two expense checks, which were due him, had
not been received. It is clear, however, that a cash advance which the Respondent
had given to him for expense purposes was not then exhausted. Ambrose telephoned
him to inquire about the difficulty. Smith admitted that he had spent part of his
expense money for groceries. At Ambrose's direction, Smith went to the Wendell
yard. Ambrose brought up the subject of the union election. Smith said that no one
knew how he voted After some further discussion, Ambrose made a personal loan
to Smith of $200 with the understanding that the advance would not be held out of
his pay, but that Smith would repay it as soon as he was able. About the middle of
March, Smith, while driving a truck in Canada, jackknifed the trailer, causing damage
which Smith estimated to be less than $200. He telephoned his dispatcher in Butte
and was instructed to continue on. Smith arrived in Butte about March 18. When the
-truck was ready after some repair work, Smith delayed in the Butte office, waiting for
an expense check. Ambrose instructed Smith to go on to Wendell saying that he,
Ambrose, would bring the check down in a day or two. Ambrose added, "You won't
be going out before Sunday, anyway." Smith returned to Wendell. On Saturday,
March 21, Smith met Ambrose at the Wendell office. Ambrose said "Torn. you sure
have me in a bind." Smith asked how that was so and Ambrose explained, "You know
I fired those fellows the other day that dropped that trailer up in Butte." Smith said
that he had heard about it. Ambrose then went on to say, in effect, that if he did not
now discharge Smith, the Union could force him to take the other men back to work.
Ambrose suggested that Smith could haul hay and said that he would help him in that
endeavor. After several subsequent conversations on later dates in the course of which
Ambrose allayed Smith's fears that there would not be sufficient business to make hay
hauling profitable for him, Smith purchased another truck and readied himself for this
work. He then telephoned Ambrose, who was in Butte, and told him that he was
ready to start hauling Ambrose said, "I don't think we are going to have any hay
for you to haul." That was the last conversation between Smith and Ambrose. These
developments after March 21 are curious but I find no reason to determine why
Ambrose so suddenly and without explanation withdrew his aid from Smith.
In his testimony Ambrose said that Byrd was negligent in the manner in which he
uncoupled the trailer in Butte and that the trailer was thus damaged. There is no
testimony by Ambrose that he ever investigated the circumstances attending this inci-
dent but he seems to have assumed that Byrd was at fault. As Ambrose did not deny
that upon the occasion of Byrd's discharge he spoke as Byrd testified he did and as
Byrd's testimony throughout the hearing had the ring of truth, I credit Byrd.8
Byrd, when accused by Ambrose, denied that he had damaged the trailer Ambrose
countered with the reply that he had men who would swear that he did. The remarks
of Ambrose in this conversation as detailed in the testimony of Byrd amounted to an
expressed determination by Ambrose to bring about the discharge no matter where
the fault, if any, in connection with the trailer damage might lie The concluding
remark by Ambrose that Byrd had not helped Ambrose when the latter needed it is
an obvious reference to Byrd's support of the Union.
I find that Byrd was not discharged because of any shortcoming in the performance
of his work.
7Ambrose denied in general terms that he had ever threatened a shutdown or curtail-
ment of operations if his employees joined the Union. I credit Smith
s Ambrose was not in any event a witness to inspire confidence. His replies to ques-
tions on cross -examination were often evasive.
7 7 5 -6 9 2-6 5 -v o f 150-10 5
1646 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cooper had said that union supporters would be "sent down the road." Ambrose
had warned Byrd somewhat obliquely that his union support might bring about a dis-
charge were not Ambrose a "fair" man. Byrd was the principal supporter of the
Union among the drivers and Ambrose suggested that he would be the Union's steward.
I am convinced that even if a trailer was damaged, Ambrose used this circumstance
only as a pretext to bring about Byrd's discharge. His words to Byrd about Byrd's
failure to help him when he needed it reveal that the discharge was in retaliation for
Byrd's espousal of the Union. Whether Ambrose thought that Smith was a supporter
of the Union is not evident. Smith told Ambrose that no one knew how he voted in
the election and that he preferred that it all be forgotten. Shortly after the election
Ambrose exhibited his confidence in Smith by lending him $200 and by passing over
the circumstance that Smith had used expense money for family needs 9 When Smith
came to Butte with the damaged trailer, Ambrose gave him no hint that he was to be
discharged although Smith was in fear that he might be. When the discharge did take
place, Ambrose did not attempt to justify it on the ground that Smith was at fault in
the accident. He said that if he did not discharge Smith it might appear to some that
he had treated Byrd unfairly; that he might somehow be required to bring Byrd back
to his job. Although in his testimony Smith quoted Ambrose as saying that he had
"fired those fellows the other day that dropped that trailer up in Butte," there is a
complete absence of any evidence that anyone other than Byrd was discharged in that
connection.
I find that by suggesting the possibility of bonus payments if employees would reject
the Union, by saying that trucks might be sold and some operations curtailed should
the Union be chosen, by saying that union supporters would be "sent down the road,"
and in this context questioning employees about their interest or membership in the
Union, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and I find, engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
I find that Byrd was discharged- because the Respondent correctly believed him to
be a leader among the employees in the movement to establish the Union as bargaining
representative. The asserted reason, a damaged trailer, was but a pretext. The dis-
charge of Smith came about because of the Respondent's fear that failure to take this
action might strip from the discharge of Byrd the mantle of legality with which the
Respondent had sought to clothe it.10 I find that in the discharges of Byrd and Smith
the Respondent was motivated by a desire to rid itself of one who had prominently
supported the Union. The Respondent thereby discriminated in regard to their tenure
of employment to discourage membership in, and activity on behalf of, the Union and
has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3)
and (1) of the Act.
The allegation that in February Byrd was discriminatorily deprived of employment
opportunities is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connec-
tion with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in the commission of unfair labor
practices , it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As the two discharges were a product of Respondent 's discrimination , it will be
recommended that it offer to Richard Byrd and Thomas Smith immediate and full
reinstatement each to his former or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice
to seniority or other rights and privileges , and that they be made whole for any loss of
earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination by payment to each of that sum of
money which normally would have been earned from the dates of the discharges to
the dates of the offer or reinstatement less net earnings , if any, during those periods.
Backpay shall be computed with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum on a
quarterly basis in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716.
9 The propriety of this was not really litigated and I do not pass on it Arguably, at
least, It provided Ambrose with a plausible reason for discharge had he chosen to take
that action.
10 Englewood Lumber Company, 130 NLRB 394, 395.
AMBROSE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 1647
In consideration of the nature of the unfair labor practices found; I find that there
exists the danger of commission of further unfair labor practices by the Respondent
and I accordingly recommend that the Respondent be directed to cease and desist from
in any manner infringing upon rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the •meaning of
Section 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. By discharging Richard Byrd and Thomas Smith to discourage membership in,
or activities on behalf of, the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By the discharges, by interrogating employees in a context of coercion, and by
threats and promises to employees conditioned upon their attitude toward the Union,
the Respondent has interefered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has thereby 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 com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, Ambrose Distributing
Company, Wendell, Idaho, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in General Teamsters, Warehousemen, Chauffeurs &
Helpers Union Local No. 483, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Independent), or in any
other labor organization, by means of discharge or discrimination in any other manner
in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) By means of coercive interrogation, threats of loss of employment, or promises
of benefit or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing 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 col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find to be necessary in effectuation
of the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Richard Byrd and Thomas Smith immediate and full reinstatement
each to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make each whole for any loss of earnings suffered
by reason of discharge as provided by that section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Notify Richard Byrd and Thomas Smith if they are serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act of 1948, as amended,.after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its terminals in Wendell, Idaho, and Butte, Montana, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 11 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order Is enforced
by a'decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
775-692-65-vol. 150-106
1648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the, Regional Director for Region 19, shall, after being duly signed by the Respond-
ent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices -are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps the Respondent has taken
in compliance.I2
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith"
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT in order to discourage membership in or activity in behalf of
General Teamsters, Warehousemen, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union Local No. 483,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America (Independent), or in any other labor organi-
zation, discharge any employee or otherwise discriminate against employees in
regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT question our employees in coercive circumstances regarding
their interest in the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, and
we will not offer any promises of benefit or threats of loss of employment con-
ditioned upon the rejection or acceptance of any union.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, 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 in
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Richard Byrd and Thomas Smith immediate and- full -rein-
statement to their former jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and pay them the wages lost by reason of discharge.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the above-named Union, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
AMBROSE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Richard Byrd and Thomas Smith if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon 'appli-
cation in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327
Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 688-4553,
if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.