Bagdad Bowling Alleys

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 851 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

BAGDAD BOWLING ALLEYS, ETC. 851
The action of the union representatives in subsequently seeking a separate con-
tract with Respondent reflected that they were aware that the agreement reached
by the Council was not intended to bind Respondent either in the minds of the
Council or the Union representatives.
In agreement with Respondent , I find the Board 's decision in Metke Ford Motors,
Inc., and Bel-Air Chevrolet Co., Inc., 137 NLRB 950, is controlling in the factual
situation presented here. In the Metke case, the union 's acquiescence to the with-
drawal by an employer of a multiemployer -bargaining unit was regarded by the
Board as a controlling factor in reaching its decision that the agreement reached
was not binding upon the employer involved . The facts reflected by this record
establish beyond question that the Union in this case acquiesced with respect to the
Respondent 's withdrawal from the multiemployer unit before consummating a con-
tract. Furthermore , the Union's conduct subsequently , in seeking to negotiate a
separate agreement , buttresses the finding that the Union did not regard the Re-
spondent as one of the employers covered by the agreement that was negotiated
on the evening of May 20 and the morning of May 21, 1963. Hence it follows
Respondent did not violate the Act by refusing to be bound by the collective-
bargaining agreement reached by the Union and the Council on May 20, 1963. Nor
does the record warrant a finding that Respondent committed an unfair labor
practice by filing with the Board , on July 8, 1963, a petition for an election among
its employees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. Respondent has not violated Section 8 ( a)(1) or 8(a)(5) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that an order be entered herein dismissing the complaint in
its entirety.
Bagdad Bowling ' Alleys; Broadway-Van Ness Bowl; L and L
Castle Lanes ; Marina Bowl ; Mission Bowl; Park Bowl; Sports
Center Bowl ; San Francisco Bowling Proprietors Association
and Building Service Employees Union , Local 87, AFL-CIO.
Cases Nos. 20-CA-2667-1, 20-CA-2667-2, 20-CA-2667-3, 20-CA-
2667-4, 20-CA-P2667-5, 20-CA-2667-6, 20-CA-2667-7, and 20-CA-
2667-8. Jwne 26, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 30, 1964, Trial Examiner David Karasick issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
147 NLRB No. 97.
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications stated below.
The Trial Examiner found no essential differences between the
facts in the instant case and those in The Kroger Company, 145 NLRB
235, and regarded himself as bound by the Board's decision in that
case.i We agree that the Board's decisions in Brown Food Store,
infra,.and Kroger fully support the Trial Examiner's Decision herein,
and we so find. We do not, however, rest our holding solely upon the
application of the Brown Food Store doctrine to this case.
In N.L.R.B. v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 449, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. (Buffalo Linen Supply Company), 353
U.S. 87, affg. 109 NLRB 447, the Supreme Court adopted the Board's
holding that the action of nonstruck members of a multiemployer bar-
gaining unit in temporarily shutting their places of business following
a strike by the union against only one member of the association was
"defensive and privileged in nature, rather than retaliatory and unlaw-
ful," 2 and was a; lawful means of preserving their multiemployer bar-
gaining basis. In Brown Food Store, supra, the Board held that when
the nonstruck employers locked out their employees and also continued
to operate with temporary replacements their action exceeded the law-
ful defensive limits established in Buffalo Linen, even though no con-
tention was made there that such action was intended to coerce the
union into a more favorable bargaining settlement.
Here, in addition to replacing temporarily the locked-out employees,
there is evidence 3 which demonstrates that the Respondents' conduct
was offensive or retaliatory in nature, rather than defensive and law-
ful. The testimony of several of Respondent Employers indicates
clearly that the purpose of the lockout was to enhance their bargaining
position vis-a-vis the Union. James Swanson, owner of the Mission
Bowl, one of the Respondent Employers, testified that the purpose of
the lockout was to come to a quick conclusion and that he felt that this
would help bring down the Union's bargaining demands. Similarly,
1 As noted by the Trial Examiner, the Board' s decision in John Brown, et al., d/b/a
Brown Food Store, 137 NLRB 73, involving the same issue, was denied enforcement by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, N.L.R.B. v. Brown Food Store,
319 F. 2d 7. On January 6, 1964, the Supreme Court granted the Board's petition for
certiorari, 375 U.S. 962. With all due respect for the opinion of the 'Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, the Board has determined to adhere to its decision in Brown Food
Store, pending final resolution of the issue by the Supreme Court. See The Kroger Com-
pany, supra, and Food Giant Super Markets; Mayfair Markets, d/b/a El Rancho Markets;
Safeway Stores, Inc., 145 NLRB 1221.'
2 353 U.S. 87, 91, quoting from 109 NLRB 447, 448.
3 Member Brown would adopt the Decision of the Trial Examiner without relying on the
evidence of purported intent set forth below.
BAGDAD BOWLING ALLEYS, ETC. 853
John Cordoni, owner of the Marina Bowl, another of the Respondent.
Employers, stated that the purpose of the lockout was to bring the bar-
gaining to a head. Daniel Oglove, general manager of Sports Center-
Bowl and Broadway-Van Ness Bowl, two of the Respondents, agreed
that the purpose of the lockout was to increase the Employers' bar-
gaining strength with the Union. It is clear from this testimony
that, unlike the situation in Brown Food Store, Respondents them-
selves considered the lockout as a means of enhancing their bargain-
ing strength against the Union, rather than as a means, of preserving
the integrity of the multiemployer bargaining unit.
We find, therefore, that the Respondents interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of their right to bargain col-
lectively, and violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by replacing them
while they were willing to work and were not on strike. We further
find that such conduct constituted unlawful discrimination within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, in discouraging employees
from engaging in concerted activities for their mutual aid and
protection.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondents, their
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
These proceedings are based upon . charges and amended charges filed by Build-
ing Service Employees Union, Local 87, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and
a complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board
against Bagdad Bowling Alleys, Broadway-Van Ness, Bowl, L and L Castle Lanes,
Marina Bowl , Mission Bowl , Park Bowl , and Sports Center Bowl ( herein individ-
ually called . the Respondent Bagdad , the Respondent Broadway -Van Ness, the
Respondent L and L, the Respondent Marina, the Respondent Mission, the Re-
spondent Park, and the Respondent Sports Center , and collectively called the 'Re-
spondent Employers ) and San Francisco Bowling Proprietors Association ( herein
called the Respondent Association ).' ' A hearing , in which all parties were repre-
sented, was held before Trail Examiner David Karasick in San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, on October 15, 1963. The issues litigated were whether the Respondent
Employers and the Respondent Association violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) 'of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ', herein called the Act.
On consideration of the entire record in the cases ,' including consideration of
briefs filed by each of the parties , and from my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following:
I Charges in Cases Nos. 20-CA-2667-1 through 20-CA-2667-7 were filed against the
Respondent Employers on April 15, 1963; first amended charges in Cases Nos. 20-CA-
2667-2 and 20-CA-2667-7 were filed against the Respondent Broadway -Van Ness and the
Respondent Sports Center , respectively , on April 16, 1963 ; and a charge in Case No.
20-CA-2667-8 was filed against the Respondent Association on July 1, 1963. A complaint,
consolidating the foregoing cases, was issued on July 22, 1963.
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT ASSOCIATION AND THE
RESPONDENT EMPLOYERS
The Respondent Association, a California corporation with its principal office and
place of business located in Redwood City, California, is a voluntary association
of employers engaged in operating bowling alleys and related facilities in San
Francisco, California. The Respondent Association represents its employer-members
in collective bargaining and participates in the negotiation, execution and adminis-
tration of collective-bargaining agreements on behalf of its employer-members with
various labor organizations, including the Union herein. Employer-members of the
Respondent Association annually purchase and receive goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from places located outside the State of California and,
in addition, annually sell goods and services valued in excess of $500,000.
Each of the Respondent Employers is a California corporation, and each is a
member of the Respondent Association engaged in operating a bowling alley and
related facilities in San Francisco, California. The Respondent Association, as
well as each of the Respondent Employers, is an employer engaged in commerce
and in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Secton 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
For the past 25 years the Respondent Employers, the Respondent Association,
and the Union have been parties to collective-bargaining contracts and for the past
10 years these contracts have covered persons employed in an appropriate bargain-
ing unit comprised of alleymen, janitors and watchmen, desk help, billiard room
attendants, pin chasers, and mechanics of the Respondent Employers. On March 31,
1963, the contract which had been in effect between the parties since 1961 expired.
On or about March 25, 1963, the parties began negotiations for a new agreement.
A representative of the Union met with a representative of the Respondent Asso-
ciation and a policy committee consisting of representatives of three of the Respond-
ent Employers. Further meetings were held on April 1, 9, and 11, 1963. The
parties failed to arrive at an agreement and on April 9, the Union informed the
Respondent Employers and the Respondent Association that it would call a strike
of the employees of the Downtown Bowl only. The Downtown Bowl is an employer-
member of the Respondent Association, in addition to the Respondent Employers
named above. The spokesman for the Respondent Employers and the Respondent
Association informed the Union that a strike against one employer-member of the
Respondent Association would be a strike against all and in the event such a strike
were called it would result in a lockout by the Respondent Employers.2
A strike, limited to the employees of the Downtown Bowl, began on the afternoon
of Aprii 12, 1963. In accordance with instructions from the Respondent Asso-
ciation and pursuant to a plan previously agreed upon between them, the Re-
spondent Employers whose employees had not gone on strike began to lock out their
employees who were included in the bargaining unit. Each Respondent Employer
locked out its employees as they completed one shift after the lockout had been
called. Each distributed to its employees a notice stating that all work was being
withdrawn from employees covered by the collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union and would be resumed after the strike had terminated and as soon as busi-
ness conditions would permit and further stating that every effort would be made to
maintain normal business operations by the Respondent Employer in question. The
Downtown Bowl and all of the Respondent Employers continued to operate dur-
ing the strike, using supervisors and the owners of the establishments as replace-
2 Whether the Union was so notified at the commencement of negotiations , as the spokes-
man for the Respondent Association and the Respondent Employers testified , or on April 11,
as a representative of the Union testified , is Immaterial since in any event the information
was conveyed to the Union before the strike began on April 12.
BAGDAD BOWLING ALLEYS, ETC. 855
ments.3 The strike at the Downtown Bowl and the lockout of the employees of
the Respondent Employers ended when the parties arrived at a new agreement on
April 16, 1963.
B. Contentions of the parties and concluding findings
The General Counsel contends that by locking out the employees, as noted above,
the Respondent Employers and the Respondent Association violated the Act. The
Respondents assert that the lockout was lawful, placing their reliance upon the
Buffalo Linen decision' In essence, the question is whether the lockout here is to
be regarded as a defensive measure designed to preserve and protect the solidarity
and integrity of the employer group or, instead, is to be considered as an offensive
weapon directed against the striking employees. Although an .employer who be-
longs to a multiemployer group may lock out his employees and shut down his
operations if the union strikes one of the other employers, he may not lock out his
employees and continue to operate by replacing them. A lockout under such cir-
cumstances loses its defensive character and becomes instead an act of retaliation.
The Kroger Company, 145 NLRB 235; Cf. Industrial Conference Board and Kitsap
Retail Druggists' Association, 141 NLRB 625. In the Kroger case, the Board
stated that "the non-struck employer's legitimate interest is fully protected by giving
him a choice between closing down or operating with those regular employees who
are willing to work" and "to permit the non-struck employer to operate with replace-
ments while his own employees are willing to work, serves only to punish those em-
ployees because of their adherence to the striking union."
I see no essential differences between the facts in these proceedings and those in
the Kroger case .5 Accordingly, I find that the Respondent Employers and the Re-
spondent Association 6 interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of their right to bargain collectively, thereby violating Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of
the Act by replacing them while they were willing to work and were not on strike. I
further find that such conduct discouraged the employees from engaging in concerted
activities for their mutual aid and protection, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Employers and the Respondent Association, as
set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the business 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 and the free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Employers and the Respondent Association have
engaged in certain unfair labor practices , it will be recommended that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
3 The Respondent Sports Center replaced the employees locked out -with supervisors and
a bookkeeper, the latter an employee not included in the unit. The Respondent L and L,
during the lockout, retained two employees who were trainees and were working part time
as janitors , a classification included in the unit. These two employees were not members
of the Union at the time of the strike. The General Counsel contends that this constitutes
proof that the lockout was based upon union membership. I do not believe either that
this isolated incident or the record as a whole supports this contention. I have found, as
noted above, that the employees were locked out, not because they were members of the
Union, but because they were included In the bargaining unit.
4 Buffalo Linen Supply Company, et al., 109 NLRB 447, alId. sub nom. N.L.R.B. v. Truck
Drivers Local Union No. 449, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, eto., 353 U.S. 87.
5 Although an earlier similar decision of the Board in John Brown, et al., d/b/a Brown
Food Store, 137 NLRB 73, was denied enforcement by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
(N.L.R.B. v. Brown Food Store, 319 F. 2d 7), the Board has decided to adhere to its de-
cision In that case and has filed a petition for certiorari In the Supreme Court seeking
review of the court of appeals decision. I therefore regard myself as bound by the Board's
view in the matter. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, 119 NLRB 768,
772-773.
6 The evidence shows that the Respondent Association, as agent of the Respondent Em-
ployers, not only participated in bargaining negotiations but formulated the plan for the
lockout of the employees.
856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Having found that the Respondent Employers and the Respondent Association have
discriminatorily locked out employees, it will be recommended that each of the Re-
spondent Employers make its employees, who are the subject of this discrimination
and whose names are set forth in the attached Appendix A, whole for any loss of
earnings suffered during the period of the lockout by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to that which each would have earned for the period that the
bowling alley, in which he was prevented from working, operated on and after
April 12, 1963, to the date when he was brought back to work. Loss of pay shall
be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
with a deduction for net earnings during that period, and shall include the payment
of interest at the rate of 6 percent to be computed in the manner described in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. As it appears from the record that the
locked-out employees have been reinstated to their jobs and as there is no allegation
that any employee was discriminatorily given a different job upon his return, no re- .
quirement of reinstatement will be made.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in these
proceedings, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2. The Respondent Association and the Respondent Employers are employers with-
in the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. By locking out employees, the Respondent Employers and the Respondent As-
sociation have discouraged membership in the Union and have thereby engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of
the Act.
4. By the lockout, the Respondent Employers and the Respondent Association
have interfered with, 'restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act and have thereby engaged in and are en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)( I) 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 these proceedings, I recommend that the Respondents herein,
Bagdad Bowling Alleys, Broadway-Van Ness Bowl, L and L Castle Lanes, Marina
Bowl, Mission Bowl, Park Bowl, Sports Center Bowl, all of San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, the San Francisco Bowling Proprietors Association, of Redwood City, Cali-
fornia, the officers, agents, successors,. and assigns of each, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Building Service Employees Union, Local 87,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discriminatorily locking out
employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise 'of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
Building Service Employees Union, Local 87, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activity 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 designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Each Respondent shall make whole its employees, who were locked out, for
any loss of earnings in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) 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 such records necessary for a
calculation of the amount of backpay due under the terms of the Recommended
Order. '
BAGDAD BOWLING .ALLEYS, ETC. 857
(c) Each said Respondent shall post 7..at its establishment in San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, copies of the appropriate attached notice marked "Appendix B." 8 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region,
shall, after being duly signed in each instance with the name of the appropriate em-
ployer by an authorized representative, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
materials.
(d) Each Respondent shall notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision and Recommended Order,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.9
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of
receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order each of the Respondents notifies
the said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recom-
mendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring such Re-
spondent to take that action.
7 Since the Respondent Association employs no persons in the categories involved In
these proceedings and since its office is not located in San Francisco, it shall not be re-
quired to post the notice otherwise required in the case of Its employer-members involved
herein.
8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a De-
cision 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 be 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."
BIn 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 Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
I. L & L Castle Lanes
Donald Broll_____________________________ Desk Man
Terrance McDermott ----------------------- Pin Chaser
Phillip Del Carlo__________________________ Mechanic
Anthony Di Basileo------------------------ Janitor
Marino Marradi-------------------- -------- Janitor
Enzo Minghetti------------------ _--------- Janitor
Martin J. Nyman -------- _----------- _Desk Man
Jerry Schembre------- _-------------------- Pin Chaser
George Smith ----------------------------- Pin Chaser.
II. Sports Center
Joseph Pontes ----------------------------- Desk Man
Eugene O. Brown -------------------------- Mechanic
Vance Perez______________________________ Janitor
Brian Rowan_____________________________ Pin Chaser
Paul Wayne Mitchell ----------------------- Pin Chaser
Harry Tang ----------------------- _------- Pin Chaser
Jim Halog-------------------------------- Janitor
Jeanne St. Claire__________________________ Desk Woman
III. Broadway-Van Ness
Leo Bowie -------------------------------- Janitor
Joan Daly________________________________ Desk Woman
V. Garnett_______________________________ Janitor
Tom Kung_______________________________ Pin Chaser
Louis Perna______________________________ Alleyman
James Price ------------------------- Mechanic
Bernardo Tarango-------------- _---------- Pin Chaser
858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. Bagdad
Frances Ashworth------------------------- Desk Woman
Dino Bonaldi----------------------------- Pin Chaser
Nicolai Moffett ----------------------------- Mechanic
V. Mission Bowl
Gerardo Ponciano------------------------- Janitor
Robert Granger--------------------------- Desk Man and Mechanic
Clare E. Mann---------------------------- Desk Man
Clift McCloud---------------------------- Mechanic
VI. Park Bowl
John Lamson----------------------------- Mechanic
AtLusto--------------------------------- Pin Chaser
Gene Goyhenetche------------------------. Porter
Larry Fitzpatrick-------------------------- Porter
George Shook----------------------------. Alleyman
Dorothy Wralty--------------------------- Desk Woman
Clarence Nunes--------------------------- Desk Man
Robert Schroeder-------------------------. Desk Man
VII. Marina Bowl
Noland Scott----------------------------- Mechanic
Paul Hedrick----------------------------- Desk Man
The foregoing list includes all employees who would have worked but for the
lockout.
APPENDIX B
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
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Building Service Employees Union,
Local 87, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discriminatorily
locking out our employees.
WE WILL make whole our employees for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the lockout which occurred on April 12, 1963.
WE WILL NOT by any means of unlawful lockout or in any like or related
manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist Building
Service Employees Union , Local 87, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively with the 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 rights may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in
Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
BAGDAD BOWLING ALLEYS; BROADWAY-VAN NESS BOWL;
L & L CASTLE LANES; MARINA BOWL; MISSION BOWL;
PARK BOWL; SPORTS CENTER BOWL; SAN FRANCISCO
BOWLING PROPRIETORS ASSOCIATION,
Employers.
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, 13050
Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California,
Telephone No. 556-3197, if they have any questions concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.