Berger Furniture Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 415 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

BERGER FURNITURE COMPANY 415
Berger Furniture Company and Paul K. Bopp and
Vickie A. Huebner. Cases 14-CA-5214 and
14-CA-5284
June 30, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS MCCULLOCH
AND BROWN
On May 4, 1970, Trial Examiner Gordon J.
Myatt issued his Decision in the above-entitled con-
solidated proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommend-
ing that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in cer-
tain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommended that these allegations be
dismissed . Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with a
supporting brief, and the Respondent filed cross-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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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, the exceptions, the
brief, and the entire record in these cases, and
hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as
modified below.
The Trial Examiner concluded that employee
Vickie Huebner was discharged because she failed
to meet the required sales quota which had been
negotiated between the Union and the Respondent
within the prescribed period of time, even though,
as he further fount, the surrounding circumstances
clearly show that the Respondent welcomed this
opportunity to rid itself of a leading union ad-
' We hereby correct the following inadvertent errors in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, which do not affect the conclusions therein or our adop-
tion thereof In fn 18, Huebner's sales total for April 19, 1969, the date of
her discharge , was stated as amounting to $3,788 15, when in fact her sales
for that day totaled $ 2,129 90, and in the same footnote it is clear that
Huebner 's sales amounted to $880 91 for the first week after the layoff and
to $45 95 for the second week thereafter In addition, in sec C, 2, par 3,
Gravois is mispelled In sec C, 4, par 5, it is clear that Warren Berger
herent. We find merit in the General Counsel's ex-
ceptions to this finding.'
As the Trial Examiner found, the Respondent felt
betrayed and harbored a deep-seated resentment
toward its employees because they had voted for
the Union. Huebner, who was the union observer at
the election and who was looked upon by the
Respondent as the union steward because she was
the oldest employee in terms of service, was an ob-
vious target for the expression of this resentment.
On several occasions expressions of hostility and
retaliation were made to Huebner by her super-
visors. Moreover, although she had been employed
by the Respondent since September 1967, and had
on one occasion received an increase in wages and
benefits in order to persuade her to remain with the
Respondent, she became the object of constant
criticism of her work by the Respondent after the
election. It was this attitude on the part of the
Respondent which ultimately led to Huebner's
discharge.
As the Trial Examiner found, the Respondent
had on March 24, 1969, discriminatorily laid off all
of its employees including Huebner. As the result of
the Union's threat to strike the Respondent,
Huebner, and three other employees were recalled
by the Respondent on March 31. At about 4:30
p.m. on the last day of the third week following her
return to employment, the Respondent notified
Huebner that she was being discharged for failing
to meet her sales quota. A sales quota of $2,000 a
week for 3 consecutive weeks, or, as the record
shows, alternatively, of $6,000 for the entire 3-
week period was established subsequent to the
layoff as a condition of employment at the sug-
gestion of Union Representative Robert Kelly.
While Huebner had had poor sales for the greater
part of the 3-week period, on the day of her
discharge she had a sale amounting to over $2,000
and at the time of her discharge her total sales for
the entire 3-week period amounted to $4,705.01.
Huebner's workday, however, was not to terminate
until 9 p.m. that evening and there was a possibility
that she could have made her quota during the
remaining hours. Whether she would in fact have
done so is a matter of uncertainty. Respondent,
however, did not wait to find out. We are per-
suaded on all the evidence that the Respondent was
motivated by a desire to rid itself of all the union
proponents, and particularly Huebner, because the
rather than Raymond Berger told Huebner she was discharged Finally, in
fn 19, the record shows that prior to the layoff Bremel worked until 9 p in
on weekdays rather than to 9 30
'Chairman Miller finds insufficient evidence to establish that Huebner
was discharged for unlawful reasons, rather than for the reasons found by
the Trial Examiner He would, therefore , affirm the Trial Examiner's con-
clusions as to Huebner
184 NLRB No. 46
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent believed her to be the prime supporter
of the Union, and that, motivated by that desire, it
seized upon the asserted failure of Huebner to meet
her sales quota as a pretext to discharge her. It is
apparent to us that but for her union activities
Huebner would not have been discharged. We
therefore find, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that
by discharging Huebner because of her union ac-
tivities the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act.
The Trial Examiner also found that during the
third week in April Warren Berger asked Huebner
who was responsible for bringing the Union into the
store in the first instance, and sought to find out if
Paul Bopp was involved with the organizational ef-
fort . Berger also at this time asked Huebner what
the employees hoped to gain . In our opinion, this
interrogation of Huebner as to the union activities
of Respondent 's employees , which served no legiti-
mate business purpose , can only be regarded as
coercive when considered in the context of the
Respondent's repressive and retaliatory conduct
after the election. Accordingly, we find that the
Respondent by such conduct violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent's
layoff of all its employees on March 24, 1969, was
discriminatorily motivated . The record shows that
only four of the employees were recalled and then
only on March 31, 1969. The Trial Examiner did
not believe that under the circumstances a backpay
remedy was required. We disagree. The mere fact
that the Respondent negotiated the recall of four of
the employees and preferential recall status for a
fifth with the Union does not justify relieving the
Respondent of its backpay liability when the public
interest is involved . Accordingly, we find that the
remedy will best effectuate the purposes of the Act
if it embraces the usual backpay requirement as
well as the posting of a notice . We shall so order.
The Remedy
We have found, contrary to the Trial Examiner,
that the Respondent engaged in certain additional
unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. We shall therefore
order that the Respondent cease and desist
therefrom and take certain additional affirmative
action.
We have also found, contrary to the Trial Ex-
aminer , that an additional backpay remedy is
needed beyond notification that the Respondent
will not engage in similar conduct in the future, in
order to fully remedy Respondent's unlawful layoff
on March 24, 1.969. We shall revise the Recom-
mended Order accordingly.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the record as a whole, we make the fol-
lowing amended conclusions of law.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following conclusion of law for the
Trial Examiner 's seventh conclusion of law:
"The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by discharging employee Vickie
Huebner on April 19, 1969."
Add the following conclusion of law after the
Trial Examiner's last conclusion of law:
"The Respondent by interrogating employee
Vickie Huebner about its employees' union activi-
ties engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Berger Furniture Company , St. Louis, Missouri, its
officers , agents , successors, and assigns , shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recom-
mended Order , as so modified:
1. Insert the following as paragraphs 1(e) and
1(f) before the present paragraph 1(e) and letter
the latter as paragraph 1(g):
"Unlawfully discharging employee Vickie
Huebner because of her union activities."
"Interrogating employee Vickie Huebner as to
her employees ' union activities in a manner con-
stituting a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
2. Add Vickie Huebner 's name after that of
Catherine Bremel in paragraph 2(a).
3. Insert the following as paragraph 2(b) and
letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly:
"Make the employees named below whole for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered by
reason of Respondent's unlawful layoff of March
24, 1969 . In making these employees whole, the
Respondent shall pay them a sum of money equal
to that which they would have earned as wages
from March 24, 1969, to March 31, 1969, in the
case of the first four employees named below and
from March 24, 1969, to the date of the offer of
reinstatement to the last named employee , less any
net earnings received during said period. Backpay
shall be computed on a quarterly basis in a manner
consistent with the Board policy described in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest
thereon at 6 percent per annum computed in the
BERGER FURNITURE COMPANY
manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716. The employees entitled to backpay
are: Catherine Bremel , Toni Scott, James Faerber,
Vickie Huebner, and Paul Bopp."
4. Add Vickie Huebner's name after that of
Catherine Bremel in the sixth indented paragraph
of the Appendix
5. Add the following paragraphs after the last in-
dented paragraph of the Appendix:
WE WILL NOT question our employees about
their union activities in a manner constituting a
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL make whole the employees named
below for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered because of our discrimination against
them on March 24, 1969:
Catherine Bremel
Toni Scott
James Faerber
Vickie Huebner
Paul Bopp
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GORDON J. MYATT, Trial Examiner: Upon a
charge filed by Paul K. Bopp, an individual, in Case
14-CA-5214, on July 30, 1969,' and upon a charge
filed by Vickie A. Huebner, an individual, in Case
14-CA-5284, on September 15, and subsequently
amended on September 30, a consolidated com-
plaint and notice of hearing was issued by the Re-
gionz Director for Region 14. The complaint al-
legec t' t Berger Furniture Company (hereinafter
referrer to as the Respondent) violated Section
8(a).1) .,f the Act by promising employees benefits
in the event that they voted against union represen-
tation, by creating an impression of surveillance of
employees' union activities, by threatening em-
ployees with discharge because of activities on be-
half of the Union, and by unlawfully interrogating
employees about their union activities and the
Unless otherwise noted , all dates herein refer to 1969
' The Respondent 's answer was not filed until after the trial commenced
in this case This was brought about by the fact that the Respondent filed a
motion for a bill of particulars after the complaint issued This motion was
the subject of an order issued by Trial Examiner Schneider on October 24,
in which he required the General Counsel to supply the Respondent with
the names of the employees alleged to have been laid off because they
selected the Union as their representative He also required the General
Counsel to provide a more specific description of the "other concerted ac-
tivities" of the employees which the complaint cited as one of the motivat-
ing factors resulting in the alleged unlawful conduct In all other respects
the motion was denied The General Counsel supplied the Respondent with
the names of the employees , but requested special permission of the Board
to appeal the ruling concerning the "other concerted activities " On
November 14, the last working day before the trial began , the Board de-
nied the General Counsel 's request At the beginning of the trial , counsel
for the General Counsel moved to strike this phrase from the complaint
417
union activities of other employees. The complaint
also alleged that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act by unlawfully laying off em-
ployees because of union membership and activities
on behalf of the Union, and by unlawfully discharg-
ing employees for the same reason. The Respon-
dent's answer2 denied all of these substantive al-
legations of the complaint and specifically denied
the commission of any unfair labor practices.
This case was tried before me in St. Louis, Mis-
souri, on November 17, 18, and 19. All parties were
represented by counsel and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard and to introduce relevant
evidence on the issues. Briefs were submitted by
counsel for the General Counsel and for the
Respondent and they have been fully considered by
me in arriving at my decision in this matter.
Upon the entire record in this case, including my
evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, based
on my observation of their demeanor and upon
consideration of the relevant evidence, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The Respondent is a Missouri corporation en-
gaged in the retail sale and distribution of furniture,
appliances, household goods, and related products.
The Respondent maintains its principal office and
warehouse in St. Louis County in the State of Mis-
souri and also maintains two retail stores, described
herein as the Gravois and Manchester stores, in the
same county. During the year ending August 31,
1969, the Respondent in the operation of its busi-
ness purchased and caused to be transported and
delivered to its warehouse and retail stores, from
points located outside the State of Missouri, furni-
ture, appliances, and household goods valued in ex-
cess of $50,000. During a similar period the
Respondent sold goods and merchandise valued in
excess of $500,000.
On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
and the motion was granted over the Respondent 's objection The Respon-
dent contended that the General Counsel was seeking to avoid compliance
with the Trial Examiner 's pretrial ruling, and further that it had been preju-
diced in preparing its defense as the allegation containing this phrase was in
the conjunctive rather than the disjunctive The Respondent then moved to
strike all of the substantive allegations contained in pars 5 and 6 of the
complaint This motion was denied and leave was granted to answer orally
on the record with a formal written answer to be supplied during the course
of the trial
In its brief the Respondent renews its motion to strike the substantive al-
legations contained in pars 5 and 6 of the complaint , alleging substantially
the same grounds urged at the trial As I have found that the striking of the
phrase "other concerted activities" did not prejudice the Respondent in
the preparation of its defense in this case, and as the Respondent fully an-
swered the allegations during the trial and ably presented its defense, 1
hereby deny the renewed motion to strike
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Retail Store Employees ' Union , Local No. 655,
affiliated with the Retail Clerks International As-
sociation , AFL-CIO ( hereinafter called the Union),
is, and has been at all times material herein , a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts
The Respondent is a family-owned and operated
business enterprise . The four Berger brothers are
the corporate officials and manage the Respon-
dent's day-to-day operations. Robert Berger is pre-
sident, Warren Berger is executive vice president,
Edwin " Bud" Berger is vice president as well as
assistant secretary and general manager of the
Gravois store, and Raymond Berger is treasurer and
general manager of the Manchester store.
Some time during the latter part of January, the
Union began its campaign to organize the sales em-
ployees at both of the Respondent's stores. On
February 7, Robert Kelly, the union organizer, met
with Robert Berger and claimed to represent a
majority of the sales employees. Kelly offered to
submit the authorization cards he possessed to a
third party check, but the Respondent asked for
time to consult with counsel. On February 13, the
Union filed a representation petition with the
Board's Regional Office (Case 14-RC-6247). A
consent election agreement was entered into and a
representation election was held on March 12. The
unit embraced all of the Respondent' s sales person-
nel at both stores excluding office clerical and
professional employees, guards , supervisors, and all
other employees. In keeping with the Board's
procedures, the Respondent furnished an "Excel-
sior" list indicating that there were three sales em-
ployees at the Gravois store (Paul Bopp, Katherine
Bremel , and Toni Scott), and three at the
Manchester store (John Corea, James Faerber, and
Vickie Huebner). According to the tally of ballots
five employees voted in favor of union representa-
tion, and Faerber's ballot was challenged. On
March 20, the Regional Director certified the
Union as the collective-bargaining representative of
the sales employees.
B. Events Prior to the Election
Paul Bopp began working for the Respondent on
December 3, 1968 , as a salesman at the Gravois
store. As noted above, the Union began its organiz-
ing campaign during the latter part of January.
Bopp testified that approximately the last week in
January, he was invited by Warren Berger to go to
' Scott, also a witness in these proceedings , made no mention of this par-
ticular conversation with W arren Berger
4 Although the Respondent admitted that Ryan was a supervisor, it de-
lunch and during the course of the meal Berger
questioned him about his prior employment at
Biederman's, a large retail furniture store located in
the St. Louis area. Biederman's sales employees
were represented by the same union that was seek-
ing to organize the Respondent's employees. Ac-
cording to Bopp, Berger wanted to know the
amount of the sales commissions given by
Biederman and the general working conditions
which existed under the terms of the union con-
tract. Bopp further testified that when he and
Berger were returning to the Respondent's store, he
asked if Berger were inquiring about the conditions
at Biederman's because the Union was attempting
to organize the Respondent's employees. According
to Bopp, Berger replied in the affirmative.
Berger admitted asking Bopp about the working
conditions under the union contract at
Biederman's. He denied, however, telling Bopp that
he was interested because the Union was not at-
tempting to organize the Respondent's employees.
Bopp testified that he had another conversation
with Warren Berger approximately 2 weeks later.
Bopp stated that he and employee Scott were
together in the Gravois store when Berger came up
and started talking to them. Berger, according to
Bopp, told the two employees that, if the Union
became their bargaining representative, all of the
employees would have to sell more furniture
because the Respondent would not be able to keep
employees who were not producing. Berger denied
making statements of this nature to the sales em-
ployees.3
Under the Respondent's organizational structure
a sales manager was assigned to each store in addi-
tion to the two Bergers who were general managers.
Jack Ryan was the sales manager of the Manchester
store and Carl Sambo held this position at the
Gravois store.4 Shortly after the representation peti-
tion was filed, Robert Berger held a meeting with
his three brothers, Ryan, and Sambo. This meeting
was foi the purpose of instructing the management
official how to conduct themselves regarding em-
ployee :luestions concerning the Union and the
Compan y's policy toward unionization. Berger in-
structed them to keep a "hands off" attitude and
not to interfere with matters relating to the Union.
In spite of Berger's admonition to the managers,
the testimony of Bopp, Scott, and Bremel indicates
that they engaged in frequent conversations with
Sambo concerning the Union. Sambo encouraged
them to join the Union and indicated that by so
doing they could improve their working conditions.
Bopp testified that approximately 4 days prior to
the election, Sambo called the three employees to
the rear of the store. Sambo told them if the con-
versation were repeated, he would deny all that he
said. He then informed the employees that the
receptionist was spying on them for the Respon-
nied that Sambo possessed similar status Sambo's status at the Gravois
store is treated subsequently in this decision
BERGER FURNITURE COMPANY 419
dent. According to Bopp, Sambo stated that all of
the sales employees were in danger of losing their
jobs and that his job was also in jeopardy because
the Berger brothers would find fault with their per-
formance and release them. Bremel recalled the
conversation with Sambo, but fixed the date as
March 24-after the election. On cross- examina-
tion Bremel admitted stating in her affidavit for the
Board agent investigating the case that Sambo's re-
marks did not relate to the Union. Scott also
testified about this particular conversation with
Sambo, but was unable to recall whether it oc-
curred before or after the election.
By all accounts the Respondent held two
meetings at each store with the employees prior to
the election. Although the record is not clear as to
when the initial meetings were held, it is apparent
that they took place during the latter part of
February. Robert Berger was the principal
spokesman in each instance. He had a copy of a
collective-bargaining contract between Biederman
and the Union with him, and he discussed the terms
of this agreement as it would apply to the Respon-
dent's employees. Bremel and Scott testified that
Bremel asked if the employees could work out their
differences with the Respondent in the event the
Union was defeated in the election. According to
these witnesses, Berger replied that he was not at
liberty to comment on this, but "it might be possi-
ble."-' Huebner asked virtually the same question
during the meeting at the Manchester store. She
testified that Berger responded by saying he was
not at liberty to comment on what the situation
would be if the Union didn't get in.
The second meeting with the employees at each
store was held 2 days before the election. Again
Robert Berger was the principal speaker and he
read from a prepared text. In essence he asked the
employees to vote against the Union because the
provisions in the union contract with Biederman-
which he felt would be similar to any contract
negotiated with the Respondent-were more
restrictive and less rewarding than their present
terms of employment. He also urged the employees
to give the Respondent a chance to prove itself and
to postpone any thoughts of having a union for at
least a year.
There is testimony that Ryan also spoke to the
Manchester store employees about union represen-
tation prior to the election. Huebner testified that
on March 11 she and employee Coreae were talking
in the Manchester store when Ryan came up and
started discussing the Union. Huebner stated that
Ryan questioned the need for the employees to
have a union and asked what they hoped to gain
from it. According to Huebner, Ryan went on to
say that in the past there had never been a layoff
when business was slow, but that he would not be
surprised if all of the employees, including himself,
were out of a job if the Union were voted in. Ryan
denied making any statements to the employees
concerning the Union, either before or after the
election.
The day of the election Bopp and Huebner were
scheduled for their regular day off. Huebner was
the employee observer for the Union during the
balloting and was present at both stores.' Bopp ap-
peared at the Gravois store in time to cast his bal-
lot, and then waited outside in the parking lot for
Huebner and Kelly, the union organizer. After
lunch Bopp followed Huebner and Kelly to the
Manchester store and waited for them to complete
the balloting. While he was at the Manchester store
he was seen by Warren Berger.
That evening, after the election results were
known, Bremel had a conversation with Sambo in
the store. Bremel testified that Sambo stated that
the Berger brothers were very upset over the out-
come of the election. Scott also testified to a con-
versation with Sambo that evening. According to
Scott, Sambo told her that the Bergers were
shocked at the outcome of the election, and pre-
dicted that it would go hard on Huebner because
she would be the union steward and this would im-
pinge on her selling time8 Scott stated that Sambo
informed her that the Bergers considered Bopp to
be a "union observer" because he was with Kelly
and Huebner during the balloting.
When Bopp returned to work the following day,
he and Faerber were summoned by Sambo to the
rear of the store. Bopp testified that Sambo told
them that the Bergers were surprised that Huebner
was the observer for the Union during the election
and predicted that they would not take the election
results lying down-but would find some way to
release the employees. Sambo also indicated that
he and Ryan felt their jobs as managers were in
jeopardy.
C. The Events After the Election
All of the employees testified that there was a
marked change in the manner in which they were
treated by the Bergers after the election . They also
felt that their work rules had become far more
stringent . Bopp testified that he was required to un-
Bopp testified that the question was put to Berger during the second
meeting, held 2 days before the election According to Bopp, Berger stated
that "he was not allowed to say either way, but things could be worked
out "
Corea was assigned to the Manchester store with Huebner when it
opened in October 1968 He was not a witness in this proceeding however,
as he had departed for Canada after receiving a draft induction notice in
the spring
' Huebner had been employed by the Respondent longer than any of the
other sales personnel She was hired in September 1967 and worked at the
Gravois store until the Manchester store opened in October 1968 The
Respondent then transferred her to that store In March 1968, she gave
notice of intent to quit for a better payingjob, but the Respondent induced
her to stay by giving her a wage increase and greater medical benefits
s The testimony of all the witnesses indicates that the Respondent con-
sidered Huebner to be the logical person to be steward because she was the
senior employee in terms of service
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
load furniture from trucks during his selling time,
although he admitted on cross-examination that he
had also performed this duty prior to the election.
Bopp also stated that Bud Berger was more abrupt
in speaking to him and in odering him to help ar-
range furniture and picture displays in the store. He
further complained that he was subjected to more
criticism concerning the manner in which he wrote
sales slips and was required to rewrite them on nu-
merous occasions.
Bremel testified that after the election the em-
ployees were told that they had to remain busy at
all times and that they were not to talk among
themselves on the sales floor. She also testified that
shortly after the election, the Respondent stopped
all sales employees from making house calls at the
homes of prospective customers to render decorat-
ing service.' Scott testified that after the election
each sales employee was assigned a specific section
in the store and instructed to stay in that section;
keeping it arranged and not to talk to the other em-
ployees.
Huebner testified that the Manchester store em-
ployees were told by Raymond Berger that they had
to become more professional and keep busy at all
times, now that the Union was their representative.
The employees were also told that they could no
longer run "tabs" or cash personal checks at the
store. Previously they had been allowed to get small
advances when needed by putting a slip for the
amount in the cash drawer and repaying it later.
The employees had also been allowed to cash per-
sonal checks in small amounts. After the election
Ryan told the employees that Berger had ordered
this practice stopped. The employees were also told
that they were not considered interior decorators,
but were merely sales employees and consequently
they were not to make any more house calls. 10
1. Issuance of reprimands to Bopp
On March 22 , Robert Berger called Bopp into his
office and handed him five written reprimands. One
was dated March 18, another was dated March 20,
and three were dated March 22. The reprimands
related to incidents alleged to have occurred
between February 13 and March 19. Bopp testified
that Berger instructed him to read the reprimands
and when he complained that he had never been
verbally warned about the alleged incidents , Berger
asked if he wished to resign . Bopp refused to do so.
The first reprimand accused Bopp of "direct in-
subordination " in failing to follow the proper
procedure for writing up a sales ticket According
to the Respondent , Bopp wrote up a sales ticket,
but Failed to include the terms of the sale. When
this was called to his attention , he was instructed to
call the customer and arrange for a down payment
and for terms of final payment . The reprimand
stated that when the customer was contacted on
9 Bremel had a degree in interior design and had been given permission
in February to make house calls
March 4 by the shipping department, she stated
that Bopp never mentioned a down payment and
that he advised her that she could have the
merchandise on approval for a week. Bopp testified
that Bud Berger spoke to him on March 5 concern-
ing this particular order and asked for an explana-
tion. Bopp denied selling the merchandise on ap-
proval and maintained that the terms were stated
on the sales ticket . A copy of the sales ticket dis-
closed that the merchandise consisted of two chairs
and that the total bill was $164.80. On the face of
the ticket , in a section reserved for the terms of
sale, Bopp indicated that the balance was due in 30
days. According to Bopp, the store followed a pol-
icy of treating merchandise sold on a 30-, or 60-, or
90-day basis as a cash sale . He admitted , however,
that the store also required a down payment, and
that he had not asked for one from this particular
customer . Bopp denied failing to request a down
payment after being so instructed by Bud Berger,
and he denied informing the customer that she
could have the merchandise on approval.
Two incidents were cited in the second repri-
mand; the first of which is alleged to have occurred
on February 13. The Respondent claimed that
Bopp failed to include a dining room table on an ini-
tial sales ticket , and that a subsequent sales ticket
which he issued to adjust the matter had not been
located by the warehouse. The reprimand also in-
dicated that he erroneously stated the prices of two
lamps on this same order, thereby overcharging the
customer for one and undercharging for the other.
Bopp was also accused of admitting on March 19,
that he guessed at the prices quoted for these items.
Bopp testified that the transaction involved a large
quantity of furniture and the customer asked for a
discount As he had no authority to grant this
request, Bopp took the matter, up with Warren
Berger . Pursuant to Berger's instructions, Bopp got
the prices from the tags attached to the items and
listed them on a separate piece of paper. He gave
the list to Berger who then negotiated the amount
of the discount the Respondent was willing to grant.
Bopp stated that when he wrote up the sales slip
Berger told him not to itemize the prices on the
ticket, but to merely show the discounted amount
as the total cost of the merchandise. The following
day Sambo informed Bopp that he had ordered a
table pad but had not listed a table on the sales
ticket. Bopp was then instructed to write an "add-
on" ticket showing the sale of the table to the
customer. Copies of both sales tickets reflecting
this transaction were introduced into evidence.
Bopp further testified that on March 19, Bud
Berger inquired as to why a table had not been
listed on the original ticket. When Bopp explained
that the error had been corrected by the "add-on"
ticket, Berger instructed him to list the prices of all
of the items involved in the sale by getting them
from the furniture catalogues. Bopp stated that
10 Huebner had studied interior design and was 10 credit hours short of
receiving a degree in this field
BERGER FURNITURE COMPANY
later that day he was told by Berger that the prices
he had listed were wrong and that he should look
them up again. When Bopp did this, Berger accused
him of looking at the wrong catalogue numbers for
the lamps and guessing at the prices.
The second incident contained in this reprimand
related to a dining room table sold by Bopp on
March 6. The reprimand stated that the table
which, was sold for $210, was not tagged and that
Bopp guessed at the price. Bopp acknowledged that
there was no price tag on the table and that he
looked in a catalogue which showed two similar ta-
bles. However, one was larger and one was smaller
than the table that the customer desired. Bopp
testified that he advised the customer that he was
not certain of the exact price but that he would find
out for them. He stated that he saw Robert Berger
and explained his problem. Berger agreed to look
up the price in the catalogue but instructed the em-
ployee to close the sale in the meantime. Bopp then
informed the customer that the table would be
around $210, although he was not certain. He told
the customer that the estimate would only be $5 or
$10 off either way and that Berger was looking up
the exact price in the catalogue. It subsequently
developed that the correct price was the figure
quoted by Bopp. Berger denied meeting Bopp or
the customer and stated that he was in his office
when Bopp called and inquired about the price of
the table. Berger stated that he gave Bopp the
catalogue number and told him to look it up. Ac-
cording to Berger , after Bopp completed the sale,
he asked him where he had gotten the price of the
table and Bopp said that it was a guess . Berger
testified that he then reprimanded Bopp for failure
to use the catalogue. Although this incident oc-
curred on March 6, the written reprimand was not
issued until March 20 and was not given to Bopp
until March 22. Berger stated that he was busy with
other matters and did not get around to the in-
cident until the latter date.
The third reprimand related to two occasions
when Bopp reported late for work. The Respondent
claimed that on February 27, Bopp reported to
work 45 minutes late and that he was also verbally
reprimanded for reporting late on March 14. Bopp
testified that although he had been late on occasion
prior to the election, he had never been repri-
manded.
The fourth reprimand given to Bopp alleged that
he did not know the correct procedure to follow in
writing a return sales ticket. According to the
Respondent, Sambo asked Bopp to write up a
return ticket for a customer on March 14, and he
did not know how to do this. Bopp testified that
one of Sambo's customers returned some merchan-
dise on that date and Sambo was busy. He in-
structed Bopp to write up a return slip for him.
Bopp stated he did not know how and Sambo gave
" Only the managers and the Bergers had authority to approve return
sales and the issuance of credits
421
him detailed instructions. When he completed the
slip he asked Bud Berger to approve it.'t Berger
questioned Bopp about the way the slip was written
and was told that he was following Sambo's instruc-
tions. Berger then spoke to Sambo who denied
showing Bopp how to make out the slip. According
to Bopp, Berger then accused him of "going off
halfcocked" and writing the slip incorrectly.
The final reprimand related to Bopp's lack of
knowledge of the drapery department. The repri-
mand alleged that on March 15 Bopp asked for
assistance with a drapery customer because he did
not know the procedures regarding the sale of
drapes. Bopp is alleged to have gotten another
salesperson to handle the customer; even though
the Respondent held a sales meeting that morning
with the employees and asked if they had any
questions concerning the procedures to follow in
any department. Bopp admitted attending the sales
meeting, but stated that drapery sales were not
discussed. He also admitted that he did not ask any
questions at the meeting regarding the sale of
drapes. He further stated that the drapery customer
approached him as he was going to the rear of the
store to look up some prices for a customer he was
serving. Bopp testified that he informed the drapery
customer that he was busy at the time, and that he
would get someone to help her. The customer in-
dicated she was only pricing the merchandise and
Bopp asked Bud Berger to assist the customer.
Berger instructed Bopp to handle the customer,
even though Bopp admitted that he had very little
knowledge of the drapery department and that he
had a sale pending. Bopp then asked Scott to assist
the customer with the drapes and Berger sub-
sequently saw her in the process of doing this.
Berger then asked Bopp why he was unfamiliar with
the drapery department and Bopp replied that he
had missed the drapery sales meeting because he
was busy with a customer. According to Bopp,
Berger then informed him that knowledge of the
drapery department was a part of his job.
2. The layoff of March 24
On March 24, Kelly and the Respondent's
representatives met for the first time to engage in
collective bargaining. Robert Berger announced the
Respondent was considering laying off all of the
sales employees because business conditions were
very poor. Kelly took the position that the layoff
was unwarranted and that the Respondent was
using this as an excuse to retaliate against the em-
ployees for voting in favor of union representation.
The union official promised to take whatever mea-
sures necessary to protect the employees if the
Respondent put its plans into effect.
427-835 O - 74 - 28
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Berger also voiced complaints about the sales
performance of the employees at this meeting,12
and Kelly suggested that they initiate a system of
written reprimands to let the employees know the
areas where improvement was needed. He also sug-
gested that the company rules and procedures be
typed out and made available to the employees.
The Respondent considered the suggestions meri-
torious and implemented them.
The evening of March 24, all of the sales em-
ployees were laid off pursuant to the orders of
Robert Berger. But Berger made the announcement
in the presence of Robert Berger to the Gravois
store employees at closing time . 3 According to the
employees, Berger told them that they were being
laid off because business was slow. He stated that
under the union regulations the Respondent could
lay them off for this reason. Several of the em-
ployees protested that they had recently had a
number of large sales. Berger, however, stated that
sales generally were down, and they would be re-
called when business improved. Bud Berger
testified that when he informed the employees of
the layoff he never mentioned the Union or that the
Respondent was following union procedures.
Warren Berger handled the layoff at the
Manchester store. Huebner testified that Berger
stated the layoff was due to the decline in business
and that under the union rules the employees could
not be laid off in terms of seniority; consequently,
both employees had to be laid off. Both Ryan and
Berger denied that the Union was mentioned in any
manner during the conversation. They testified that
Berger went to great lengths to explain that the em-
ployees were being laid off and not terminated.14
The Union contacted the Respondent after the
layoffs and threatened to strike if the employees
were not recalled immediately. As a result of
negotiations between the Union and the Respon-
dent it was decided that four employees would be
recalled the following Monday. It was further de-
cided that Bopp, the employee with the least
seniority, would be recalled as soon as business im-
proved. During the negotiations the Respondent
complained that the employees were not selling
enough furniture to earn commissions equal to their
weekly draw.ts Kelly suggested that the Respondent
establish a minimum weekly sales quota sufficient
to cover the draw, and hold each employee respon-
sible for meeting this goal. He further suggested
that if an employee failed to meet the quota for a
period of 3 consecutive weeks, the Respondent
'x There is some question as to whether this subject was discussed at this
meeting or at a subsequent meeting Robert Berger testified that the sub-
ject was mentioned before the layoff of March 24, but was uncertain of the
date Kelly, testifying as Respondent's witness in this regard, indicates that
the topic was discussed several days later In any event, it is clear that there
was no discussion between the Respondent and the union representative
until March 24
'a Bopp testified that Robert Berger announced the layoff to the em-
ployees, but the testimony of Scott and the two Bergers indicate that Bud
Berger spoke to the employees All of the employees, however, were in
would be in a position to discharge that employee
because of inability to perform the job.
Since only four employees were to be recalled
immediately, the Respondent and the Union also
agreed that the employees would have different
working hours to provide sales coverage on the
floor at both stores. Previously, each employee
received a day off during the week and some of the
employees only worked in the evenings.16 Under
the new arrangement the employees were required
to work full time on split shifts during the week and
all day on Saturday. Kelly told the employees of the
changes in working conditions that weekend, and
he instructed them to report to work on March 31.
Each employee was notified in writing, upon
returning , that the weekly sales quota was $2,000.
3. The decision not to recall Bopp
On April 3, the Respondent decided not to recall
Bopp under any circumstances. Neither Bopp nor
the Union, however, was notified of this decision.
Robert Berger testified that Bopp made a substan-
tial sale ($2223.87) on March 1, and the first week
in April the customer called and said he changed
his mind and asked for a refund of his $200 down
payment. Berger stated that he was going to deny
the request until the customer informed him that
Bopp had granted him this option at the time the
transaction was made. The customer produced his
copy of the sales ticket which carried a handwritten
notation at the bottom, "Refund $200.00 if
customer has change of mind." This notation was
not on the office copies of the sales ticket. Berger
stated that he felt obligated to honor the commit-
ment and allowed the customer to cancel the order.
Berger further stated that Bopp had no authority to
make this kind of arrangement without prior ap-
proval. Because he considered this to be an inex-
cusable violation of the Company's rules, Berger
decided not to reemploy Bopp.
Bopp, on the other hand, testified that Berger
was informed about the entire transaction and gave
him specific instructions on how to handle the sale.
He stated that the customer was anxious to make
the purchase, but balked over the question of a
down payment. The customer claimed that he had
been in an accident and expected to pay for the fur-
niture out of anticipated recovery from insurance
proceeds. Since he was not certain when the money
would be available, the customer hesitated to make
a down payment. According to Bopp, he explained
agreement on the substance of the conversation
" Berger stated that he made the distinction because he had recently
been involved in negotiations with the Teamsters concerning the Respon-
dent 's warehouse employees
15 The employees received a weekly draw of $100 Since they earned a
5-percent commission on most sales, it was necessary for them to sell
$2,000 worth of furniture a week to equal the draw
"According to the testimony , evening hours, Fridays, and Saturdays
were considered the prime selling time
BERGER FURNITURE COMPANY 423
the problem to Robert Berger, who insisted that a
small amount be paid. Bopp stated that he then per-
suaded the customer to put $200 down, with the
express understanding that it could be refunded if
the customer failed to receive the proceeds from
the accident. Bopp testified that Berger agreed to
this arrangement because the particular group
selected by the customer was a popular item and
the Respondent's stock had been depleted. Bopp
stated that Berger instructed him to put the refund
notation only on the customer's copy of the sales
slip.
4. The incidents after the layoff
After the employees returned on March 3 1, there
were a series of incidents involving each of them
and the Respondent's officials. Huebner lodged a
complaint with the union representative regarding
credit for a sale she felt she was entitled to receive,
but which had been given to Ryan." According to
Huebner, she had spent several hours assisting a
customer in making a selection, but the customer
did not make the purchase at that time. The same
customer subsequently returned when Huebner was
out of the store, and Ryan completed the sale. He
received credit for the sale and Huebner com-
plained. When Kelly came to the store to handle
the grievance, Berger told him that Huebner re-
peatedly demonstrated a lack of ability to close a
sale. He also stated that Huebner was not aggres-
sive enough in handling customers. Kelly relayed
these comments to Huebner and offered to sit down
with her and Berger to settle their differences.
Huebner felt that she could not push items on
customers when they did not want or need them.
She also declined his offer to discuss her problems
with Berger because she felt that Berger was con-
stantly abusing and picking on her.
On April 11, Huebner received two written repri-
mands. The first involved an order for two chairs
written by Huebner in August or September 1968.
She failed to specify the type of finish required for
the chairs. The merchandise was delivered shortly
before April 11, and the finish was not the type
requested by the customer. The Respondent had to
add the chairs to its stock and reorder chairs for the
customer with the correct finish Robert Berger
called Huebner on the telephone about the order,
and she admitted her error. This conversation was
later set forth in the form of a written reprimand.
Huebner received a second call from Berger that
day regarding her failure to meet the sales quota.
According to Huebner, Berger asked "if it was the
best she could do " When she attempted to offer an
explanation, Berger cut her off and insisted upon an
answer to his question. Huebner then replied "yes "
This exchange became the basis of the second
reprimand.
During the third week in April an article ap-
peared in a publication printed by the Union. The
article accused the Respondent of mistreating its
employees because they voted in favor of the
Union Robert Berger questioned Huebner in an ef-
fort to determine if she were responsible for the ar-
ticle. Later that day warren Berger heatedly told
Huebner the article was "unnecessary," and that
the Union was attempting to tell the Respondent
how to run its business. Shortly thereafter, Berger
returned and apologized to Huebner for getting up-
set. He asked her who was responsible for bringing
the Union into the store in the first instance, and
sought to find out if Bopp was involved with the or-
ganizational effort. Huebner disclaimed any
knowledge of Bopp's connection with the Union.
Berger then asked what the employees hoped to
gain , and Huebner replied that they would equalize
the pay and benefits. According to Huebner, Berger
stated that the employees had "equalized them-
selves into clerks."
On April 19, Raymond Berger told Huebner she
was being discharged because business was slow
and she had failed to meet her sales quotas during
the 3-week period. Although Huebner protested
that her sales were picking up and that she had a
large sale that day, she was discharged by the
Respondent.18
Employee Scott testified that after her return
Sambo told her that he had been instructed by the
Bergers to spend more time selling on the floor.
Sambo stated that the Bergers wanted him to sell
more in order to make it difficult for the employees
to meet their sales quota. He promised to help
Scott all that he could, but cautioned that there
would be times when all the Bergers were in the
store and he would not be able to assist her.
Scott also testified that she was subjected to ver-
bal abuse from Bud Berger . She stated that on one
occasion, in the presence of Sambo, Berger said he
did not trust her and that he wanted her to keep
busy at all times in the store. According to Scott,
Berger stated he would not say what he thought of
her, "not because she was a lady but because he
was a gentleman ." Shortly after Scott resumed
work, Berger reprimanded her about the manner in
which she made out a refund slip. Scott stated that
each time she presented the slip to Berger for ap-
proval, he told her it was incorrect and to rewrite it.
After she had rewritten the slip a number of times
and had it rejected, Berger forced her to admit that
she did not know how to properly fill out the form.
Scott quit the Respondent's employment during the
second week in April.
Bremel testified that after she returned from the
layoff, she found that the new hours worked a hard-
'T The Respondent followed a policy of giving credit tor a sale to the em-
ployee who actually quoted the prices to a customer This rule applied even
though the actual sale was completed at a subsequent date by another
salesperson
Is Huebner had completed a sale amounting to $3,788 15 that after-
noon Her sales totaled $ 36 95 for the first week after the layoff, and
$880 91 for the second week ( excluding the sale for which Ryan received
credit)
424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ship upon her and her family.19 Due to the split-
shift requirements, Bremel 's husband, who was at-
tending graduate school, had to care for their child
in the morning and deliver the child to a babysitter
in the afternoon. This had an adverse effect on his
studies and his attendance at school Bremel spoke
to Bud Berger about her problem sometime in May,
but was told that the hours could not be changed.
Approximately a week after the employees were
recalled, Bud Berger showed Bremel a copy of the
new book of rules and procedures compiled by the
Respondent.20 Bremel testified that Berger told her
to read the rules and that she was responsible for
knowing them. According to Bremel, Berger stated
that the employees "bought themselves a set of
rules" and that he would not tell her what he
thought of them, "not because she was a lady but
because he was a gentleman."
On May 29, Bremel received a written reprimand
accusing her of "usurping authority." The repri-
mand charged that on May 27 Bremel answered a
telephone inquiry from a person seeking employ-
ment as a decorator, and informed the caller that
the Respondent did not need any additional help. It
was alleged that this was the second time that
Bremel had "overstepped" her authority, and that
she would be discharged if it occurred again.
Bremel denied that the incident happened as set
forth in the reprimand . Bremel stated that when the
caller asked about opportunities for decorators with
the Respondent, she volunteered that she also had a
degree in interior design but the Berger brothers
were the decorators for the store. She advised the
caller to remain on the line, however, and called
Bud Berger to the telephone. After Berger spoke
with the person, he accused Bremel of not wanting
competition and overstepping her authority.21
The first week in June, Bremel consulted with
her doctor. She was advised that her job-related
tensions were affecting her physical well being. The
doctor recommended that she quit her job. Bremel
testified that she did not disclose this to anyone at
the Respondent's store.
On June 9, Bremel was called into the office by
Bud Berger. According to Bremel, Berger stated
that the Respondent was laying her off because
business was slow. Bremel testified that she then
told Berger she was going to quit in any event
because she had been so advised by her doctor.
Bremel returned to the store to pick up her check
on June 11. Before releasing the check, Berger had
her sign a typed statement indicating that she had
resigned on June 9 and had received full payment
of her salary.
19 Prior to the layoff, Bremel worked from 4 30 p m to 9 30 p in during
the weekdays , and from 9 a m to 9 p m on Saturdays Her new hours were
from 9am to 12 noon and 6pm to 9 p in on Mondays , Wednesdays, and
Fridays, 12 noon to 6 p m on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and 9 a in to 9 p m
on Saturdays
20 Although the Bergers testified that a loose leaf set of rules and
procedures had always been posted on the bulletin board in the store, none
of the employees ever recalled seeing it or having their attention directed
Berger denied that Bremel was laid off. He
testified that she came into the office and told him
that she was quitting on the advice of her doctor.
Berger also stated that business was good at the
time and the Respondent did not intend to lay her
off.
D. The Status of Carl Sambo
As previously noted, Sambo was the sales
manager of the Gravois store. Bopp, Bremel, and
Scott testified that when they were hired, the
Bergers informed them that Sambo was the
manager and could help them with any problems.
The employees further testified that they had to get
approval from Sambo or one of the Bergers to ex-
tend short term credit to a customer without a
down payment or with a small amount down. They
also had to clear sales credits for return merchan-
dise with Sambo or the Bergers. Although there is
no indication that Sambo hired or discharged em-
ployees, Scott testified that when she applied for a
job with the Respondent, she was interviewed ini-
tially by Sambo and then taken to Bud Berger who
made the actual decision to hire her. The em-
ployees were also instructed to call and notify
Sambo when they were going to be delayed or late
reporting to work.
While he also sold furniture, Sambo had an office
in the store and he was responsible for shipping and
ordering furniture for the store. When the Bergers
were out of the store, Sambo was in charge of the
entire operation. He also attended the meeting
Robert Berger held with the managerial officials
during the union campaign, and was instructed to
stay clear of any matters concerning the Respon-
dent's position regarding the Union. Neither Sambo
nor Ryan were included on the list of eligible voters
supplied by the Respondent for the repesentation
election.
Concluding Findings
Although the issues in these -cases are not com-
plex, the differences in the testimony regarding
each incident alleged are so great that a detailed
exposition of the testimony and the evidence was
deemed necessary. The basic issue is whether the
Respondent promised the employees benefits in
order to induce them to vote against representation
by the Union, and having failed in that regard,
whether the Respondent sought to retaliate against
the employees by means of harassment, layoffs, and
ultimately by discharge.
to It
21 The second incident referred to in the reprimand related to another
applicant for employment The Respondent alleged that the applicant was
in the store and overheard Bremel and Scott speak disparagingly about the
Bergers According to Bud Berger, the applicant stated he did not want to
work around a "bunch of fighting women " Bremel denied any knowledge
of the incident
BERGER FURNITURE COMPANY 425
1. Determination of Sambo's status
As a great portion of the employee testimony re-
lates to conversations or incidents involving Sambo,
determination of his status is essential to the resolu-
tion of the ultimate facts in this case. The only un-
controverted fact concerning Sambo's relationship
to the Respondent is that he occupied the position
of sales manager of the Gravois store. Although the
title "manager" is not controlling, it is nevertheless
a factor which must be weighed in conjunction with
his duties to determine whether Sambo was in fact
a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. It is
clear that the Respondent's officials held S'ambo
out to be more than an ordinary sales employee. He
was introduced to the other employees as their
manager when they were hired, and they were in-
structed to take their problems to him. While there
is no evidence that Sambo hired any employees,
Scott testified that Sambo examined her application
and interviewed her before sending her to Bud
Berger, who made the final decision. All of the em-
ployees were required to get approval from Sambo
or one of the Bergers before extending credit terms
to customers and before issuing sales credits for
returned merchandise. It is also clear that the em-
ployees, themselves, considered Sambo to be one of
their supervisors. They took orders from him and
reported to him when they were going to be late for
work. Although Sambo sold furniture, this was also
true of the Respondent's other management offi-
cials . His duties included responsibility for shipping
and ordering furniture, and he had an office in the
store. When the Bergers were away from the Store,
Sambo was in complete charge.
The Respondent's contention that Sambo was
merely a senior employee and that he sought to in-
flate his status by asserting authority which he did
not possess is not persuasive and is not supported
by the record. The evidence indicates that the
Respondent not only held Sambo out to others as a
supervisor, but also considered him a part of the
management structure. Thus, he attended the meet-
ing of the management officials shortly after the
Union filed the representation petition, and
received instructions on how to deal with employee
questions regarding the Union Moreover, Sambo's
name was not included on the list of eligible voters
supplied by the Respondent.
Considering all of the above factors, I find that
Sambo was a supervisor at the Gravois store. I
further find that he responsibly directed the sales
employees in the performance of their duties and
that he exercised independent judgment in carrying
out his responsibilities. Moreover, he held a posi-
tion identical to that of Ryan, an admitted super-
visor at the Manchester store. In these circum-
stances I find and conclude that Sambo was a su-
pervisor within the meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the
Act. Henry Colder Company, 163 NLRB 105. See
also Wells Fargo Bank, 179 NLRB 465; Supermar-
ket of Dunbar Inc., 178 NLRB 206.
2. Berger's preelection statement
The complaint alleges that on two occasions
Robert Berger told assembled groups of employees
at the Gravois store that "things could be worked
out" in the event they did not vote in favor of union
representation. Although the evidence must be ex-
amined in its totality, this particular allegation lends
itself to separate consideration. The General Coun-
sel contends that Berger's statement contained an
implicit promise which intruded upon the right of
the employees to make a decision at the election
without interference. While the evidence is con-
flicting, it is clear that Berger made the statements
on two occasions; once at the Gravois store and
once at the Manchester store. Each time it was in
response to a question by an employee concerning
whether they could work out their differences in
the event the Union were defeated in the election.
Bremel and Scott testified that Berger replied that
he was not at liberty to comment on this, but "it
might be possible." Huebner, who asked the
question at the Manchester store, testified that
Berger said he was not at liberty to comment on
what the situation would be if the Union were not
voted in. Bopp's testimony indicated that Berger
responded by saying he was not allowed to say
either way, "but things could be worked out."
Viewing the testimony in the light most favorable
to the General Counsel, I am of the opinion that
Berger's comment on these occasions contained
nothing which suggested, inferentially or otherwise,
that the Respondent would grant benefits to the
employees if they voted against the Union in the
election. His response was very limited and
couched in very guarded language. Even on the
basis of Bopp's testimony-the strongest in support
of the allegations-Berger made it clear that he was
not free to discuss the matter with the employees
and that he did not intend to do so. To hold that
the phrase "things could be worked out" contained
an implied promise to treat the employees more
favorably if they voted against the Union reads far
too much into the expression, and totally ignores
the context in which it was made. In these circum-
stances, therefore, I find that Berger's statements in
response to the employees' questions were nothing
more than permissible expressions of views allowed
by Section 8(c) of the Act and did not constitute a
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as charged.
Accordingly, I shall recommend that this aspect of
the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
3. Sambo's statements to the employees
It is clear from the testimony that the Gravois
store employees had a friendly relationship with
Sambo and frequently engaged in discussions with
him concerning the Union. The testimony indicates
that prior to the election Sambo encouraged the
employees to join the Union in order to improve
their working conditions; following the election he
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
warned the employees of the Respondent 's hostile
reaction to the union victory . On one occasion
Sambo assembled the employees at the rear of the
store and told them that all of their jobs, including
his own , were in jeopardy because the Bergers in-
tended to find fault with their performance and
discharge them . Sambo also stated that the recep-
tionist was spying on the employees and reporting
to the Bergers . In a conversation with Scott, Sambo
said that he was instructed by the Bergers to spend
more time selling furniture in order to make it more
difficult for the employees to reach their newly im-
posed sales quota. There is testimony that Sambo
cautioned the employees to be extremely careful
and to arrive at work on time because the Bergers
were seeking means to get rid of them.
The Respondent argues vigorously that the
testimony of the employees regarding their conver-
sations with Sambo was contrived and not worthy
of belief . In support of this contention the Respon-
dent points to the fact that Bremel testified that
Sambo was talking about the Respondent 's reaction
to the union victory when he stated their jobs were
in jeopardy , but stated in her affidavit that Sambo
did not refer to the Union . The Respondent also
notes that the employees were not in agreement as
to when the conversation took place in the rear of
the store ; Bopp testified that it happened prior to
the election , Bremel testified that it occurred on
March 24, and Scott was unable to fix the date, but
thought that it occurred after the election . The fact
that the employees differed as to the time of the
conversation and the fact that Bremel 's testimony
differed from her affidavit is not sufficient, in the
circumstances of this case , to cause me to discredit
their testimony . Each of these witnesses impressed
me as being straightforward and candid , even when
their testimony conflicted with that of other em-
ployee witnesses . Though they differed on the date,
the witnesses were in agreement on the substance
of the conversation with Sambo . Furthermore, the
statements attributed to Sambo were accurate
forecasts of the course of conduct followed by the
Respondent after the election.
I find, therefore , that Sambo did warn the em-
ployees on several occasions that their jobs were in
jeopardy and that the Bergers were going to at-
tempt to get rid of them because they voted in
favor of the Union . I further find that these state-
ments had a coercive impact upon the employees
because they were made at a time when the em-
ployees had experienced actual manifestations of
the Respondent 's anger toward them because of the
election results . Bopp had received five reprimands
at one time, covering his conduct over a period of 2
months ; the employees were assigned specific sec-
tions in which to work ; further , the employees were
instructed to keep busy at all times and not to en-
gage in conversations with each other on the sales
floor . The sudden imposition of new work rules and
the issuance of the written reprimands served
notice upon the employees that the Respondent in-
tended to retaliate against them for selecting the
Union as their bargaining representative. When
Sambo 's statements were considered in the context
of the repressive and retaliatory environment
created by the Respondent , one need not search far
to conclude that the statements were coercive with
respect to the employees.
Accordingly , I find that when Sambo advised the
employees that the receptionist was spying on them
and reporting back to the Bergers , an impression
was created that the Respondent was engaging in
surveillance of their activities on behalf of the
Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Similarly , when Sambo told the employees their
jobs , and his as well, were in jeopardy because the
Respondent was seeking means to discharge them,
a further violation of Section 8(a)(l 1 was com-
mitted. Since Sambo was a supervisor, the Respon-
dent must be held responsible for his unlawful con-
duct , even though the supervisors had been in-
structed not to discuss matters relating to the Union
with the employees. Webb Tractor and Equipment
Company, 167 NLRB 383; Pascoe Steel Corp., 163
NLRB 572; Bush Hog, Inc ., 161 NLRB 1575. 1 find,
therefore , that by Sambo 's statements to the em-
ployees, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act as described above.
4. The mass layoff
The March 24 layoff of all of the sales employees
was, in my judgment , a further demonstration of
the measures the Respondent employed to retaliate
against the employees for voting in favor of the
Union . Although the Respondent introduced
evidence to establish that the layoff was the result
of legitimate decline in business , this evidence does
not outweigh other factors in the record which
cause me to conclude that the layoff was unlawfully
motivated . Less than 2 weeks before the layoff
Sambo told the employees that the Respondent was
"upset" over the outcome of the election and
"would not take it lying down ." After the election
more stringent working rules were imposed and a
series of reprimands were given to Bopp 2 days be-
fore the layoff. Equally signigicant is the fact that
the layoff occurred less than 2 weeks after the elec-
tion, and represented a departue from the past
practice of retaining employees when business was
slow. All of these factors far outweigh the Respon-
dent's asserted economic defense , and compel the
conclusion that the defense was merely a pretext in-
tended to justify an unlawful attempt to retailiate
against the employees because they voted in favor
of union representation.
There is a conflict in the testimony concerning
what was said to the employees at the time of the
layoff, the employee witnesses stating that the
Respondent 's officials claimed they were acting in
accordance with union rules and the Respondent's
BERGER FURNITURE COMPANY
witnesses denying any mention of the Union. I do
not, however , deem it necessary to resolve this con-
flict . It is clear from all versions that the employees
were told they were being laid off because of a
decline in business . Since I have already found that
the layoff was discriminatorily motivated , it would
add nothing to this decision to find that the state-
ments made at the time of the layoff constituted a
further violation of the Act. Accordingly , I find that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
when it laid off all of the sales employees approxi-
mately 2 weeks after the election . National Business
Forms, 176 NLRB 859; Rea Trucking Company,
Inc., 176 NLRB 518.
5. The various discharges
I find that the Respondent 's subsequent decision
not to recall Bopp ( made on April 3), was
motivated by the same discriminatory reasons that
inspired the mass layoff of the employees on March
24. The evidence fully supports the conclusion that
Bopp was singled out by the Respondent as one of
the leading adherents for the Union . Sambo in-
formed Scott the evening of the election that the
Respondent ' s officials considered Bopp an "observ-
er" for the Union , because he had accompanied
Huebner and Kelly to the polling places during the
election . Bopp received five written reprimands on
March 22, covering incidents alleged to have oc-
curred during the prior 2 months . It is significant to
note , regarding the reprimands , that they were is-
sued to Bopp before the union organizer had sug-
gested that the Respondent adopt a policy of writ-
ing out the complaints against employees in order
to facilitate handling of the grievances. Even after
the decision not to recall Bopp , Warren Berger at-
tempted to find out from Huebner what connection
Bopp had with the Union , thus indicating that the
Respondent 's officials considered him to have
played a role in organizing the employees. It is also
apparent that Bopp was thought to be a satisfactory
employee until he became identified with the
Union 's organizational effort . Bud Berger testified
that Bopp constantly made mistakes in filling out
sales tickets , and the Respondent introduced copies
of them, dating back to December 1968, to support
this contention. Berger admitted , however, that
other employees made similar errors on their sales
tickets. In my judgment the Respondent "doth
protest too much " by its heavy -handed use of these
documents in an effect to establish that Bopp was
an undesirable employee ; especially when the er-
rors were not considered significant when com-
mitted and only gained importance after Bopp en-
gaged in activity on behalf of the Union.
Nor do I credit Robert Berger 's testimony that
the cancellation of the order and the refund of the
down payment to the customer was the event which
427
triggered the decision not to recall Bopp . Consider-
ing that the sales personnel operated under very
close supervision and were required to get approval
from the Bergers or the sales manager for every
transaction other than cash sale, I find it highly im-
probable that Bopp would have granted the
customer such unique terms without first securing
approval . I find , therefore , that Berger was aware of
the terms of sale and of the possibility that the
down payment would have to be refunded if the
order were canceled . I further find that the decision
not to recall Bopp was motivated by a desire to get
rid of an employee thought to be a leading activist
on behalf of the Union , and not by any alleged defi-
ciencies in his performance as a salesman . In these
circumstances , I find that the Respondent violated
Section 8 ( a)(3) of the Act.
Huebner's discharge on April 19 presents a more
serious problem . The record clearly shows that the
Respondent 's officials felt betrayed and harbored a
deep -seated resentment toward the employees
because they voted in favor of union representa-
tion . It is also clear that Huebner was an obvious
target for expressions of this resentment . She was
the employee observer for the Union during the
election , and was considered to be the union
steward on the job because of her seniority as an
employee . Expressions of hostility and retaliation
were made to Huebner on several occasions by her
supervisors . Ryan made the observation to Huebner
and Corea shortly after the election that the "em-
ployees were in a mess " ( because of the Union),
and he reminded them that in the past no one had
been laid off when business was slow , but their jobs
were now in jeopardy because of the increased
costs the Respondent would incur with the Union.
When an article appeared in the union journal in
April alleging that the Respondent was mistreating
its employees because they voted for the Union,
both Robert and Warren Berger questioned
Huebner to determine if she were responsible for its
publication . Warren Berger also sought to find out
from Huebner what the employees hoped to gain
from representation by the Union . When told that
the employees' pay and benefits would become
equalized , Berger stated that the employees had
"equalized themselves into clerks ."22 Although
Huebner had been employed by the Respondent
since September 1967, and had received an in-
crease in wages and benefits in order to presuade
her to remain with the Respondent , after the elec-
tion her sales technique was the subject of constant
criticism by the Respondent 's officials.
Normally these factors, in conjunction with the
unlawful layoff, would be sufficient to warrant the
conclusion that Huebner 's ultimate discharge was
also unlawful . But there is an additional factor in-
volved in her discharge which can not be ignored.
After the Union negotiated for the return of the
22 Both Ryan and Warren Berger denied engaging in discussions about
the Union with Huebner , but I do not credit them in this regard
428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees from the unlawful layoff, the union
representative suggested that the Respondent
establish a minimum sales quota for the employees
and the Respondent accepted this proposal. Even
though the parties had not negotiated a formal writ-
ten contract, the sales quota became a term of em-
ployment negotiated by the bargaining representa-
tive and the Respondent. It is evident from the
record that Huebner failed to meet the required
sales quota for 3 consecutive weeks and was vul-
nerable to discharge for this reason.23 In such cir-
cumstances the Board has held that "if an em-
ployee provides an employer with a sufficient cause
for his dismissal by engaging in conduct for which
he would have been terminated in any event, and
the employer discharges him for that reason, the
circumstance that the employer welcomed the op-
portunity to discharge does not make it discrimina-
tory and therefore unlawful." (Emphasis supplied.)
Klate Holt Co., 161 NLRB 1606, 1612; Winn-Dixie
Stores, Inc., 153 NLRB 273, 288. It is obvious from
this record that the Respondent was seeking ways
to get rid of the employees because they exercised
their statutory right to select a collective-bargaining
representative. But it is equally clear that Huebner
failed to meet the sales quota negotiated between
the Respondent and the Union, thereby providing
the Respondent with sufficient cause to terminate
her. In these circumstances, I reluctantly conclude
that Huebner was discharged because she failed to
meet the sales quota within the prescribed period of
time, even though the surrounding circumstances
clearly show that the employer welcomed this op-
portunity to rid itself of a leading union adherent .24
The circumstances surrounding the termination
of Bremel's employment on June 9 lead me to con-
clude that she was unlawfully discharged by the
Respondent. As in the case of the other sales em-
ployees, she had been subjected to the reprisals by
the Respondent's officials after the election. Ap-
proximately a week after she returned from the dis-
criminatory layoff in March, Bud Berger showed
her a booklet compiled by the Respondent setting
forth all of the rules and procedures which the em-
ployees were to follow. Bremel credibly testified
that Berger stated she was required to know the
contents and that the employees "bought them-
selves a set of rules." Berger 's remarks clearly im-
plied that the rules were established because the
employees had voted in favor of union representa-
tion. On May 29, Bremel received a written repri-
mand accusing her of overstepping her authority in
that she was alleged to have discouraged an appli-
cant for employment from seeking a job at the
store. I credit Bremel 's denial that the incident oc-
curred as alleged by the Respondent, and I find that
23 The General Counsel argues that the Respondent prevented Huebner
from meeting her quota by crediting some of her sales to Ryan, but a review
of the evidence indicates that this argument is speculative at best
z' The General Counsel also argues that the Respondent shifted its defen-
ses by first alleging that Huebner was laid off because of a decline in busi-
the reprimand was simply a continuation of the
Respondent's unlawful efforts to retaliate against
the employees for voting in favor of the Union.
After the employees returned from the layoff,
Bremel 's hours were rescheduled along with the
other employees in order to provide coverage on
the floor. The new schedule created a hardship for
Bremel because her husband was in school and she
had a babysitter problem. She asked to have her
hours changed but was informed that this could not
be done. Due to the tension created by her working
conditions and her personal problems, Bremel went
to a doctor during the first week in June . She was
advised to quit her job because the tension was af-
fecting her physical well-being. I credit Bremel's
testimony that she spoke to no one at the store con-
cerning her doctor's recommendation. The Respon-
dent contends that Bremel resigned from her job on
June 9. Bud Berger testified that Bremel came into
his office on that date and announced that she was
resigning on advice of her physician. He also
testified that business was generally good and the
Respondent had no intention of laying Bremel off.
When Bremel returned several days later to pick up
her final paycheck, she was requested to sign a
statement indicating that she had resigned. I do not
credit Berger's testimony concerning the circum-
stances surrounding the termination of Bremel's
employment. My determination in this regard rests
not only upon my observation of the witnesses
while testifying, but also upon the fact that Berger's
statement is in conflict with other evidence in the
record. The Respondent put into evidence a sales
performance chart showing the monthly sales for
each store. Examination of this document reveals
that the sales at the Gravois store during May and
June 1969 were far less than the sales for the
preceding March-the month in which the Respon-
dent claimed that sales were so low that it was
necessary to lay off all of the employees. Thus
Berger 's statement that business was good is not
substantiated by the Respondent's own records.
The fact that he felt compelled to testify otherwise
gives credence to Bremel 's version of the incident. I
find, therefore, that Bremel was told that she was
being laid off because business was poor and when
she volunteered that she was going to quit anyway,
Berger seized upon this as a device to convert the
layoff into a resignation . I further find that the
layoff was discriminatorily motivated . Bremel was
the sole survivor of the group of employees who
were subjected to the Respondent's unlawful
reprisals because they voted in favor of representa-
tion by the Union. She had received a written repri-
mand the week before her termination wrongfully
accusing her of usurping authority. She was also
ness and later asserting that she was terminated because of a failure to meet
the sales quota There is no merit to this argument By Huebner's own
testimony she was told that business was slow and that she had failed to
meet her sales quota Thus, it is evident that both grounds were asserted by
the Respondent at the time of her termination
BERGER FURNITURE COMPANY 429
subjected to remarks by the Bergers which made it
clear that the employees were going to pay a dear
price for unionization . In these circumstances, I
find that Bremel 's layoff on June 9 by the Respon-
dent was in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Berger Furniture Company is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Retail Store Employees' Union, Local No.
655, affiliated with Retail Clerks International As-
sociation , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent by the statements of its su-
pervisor and agent , Carl Sambo , created an impres-
sion of keeping the employees' activities on behalf
of the Union under surveillance in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
4. The Respondent by the statements of its su-
pervisor and agent, Carl Sambo, violated Section
8(a)( 1) of the Act by telling employees that their
jobs were in jeopardy and by informing employees
that the Respondent's officials would attempt to
find fault with their work in order to discharge
them because they voted in favor of union
representation.
5. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by unlawfully laying off all of the
sales 'employees at its Gravois and Manchester
stores on March 24, 1969, for the reason that they
voted in favor of representation by the Union,
thereby discriminating against the employees in
order to discourage membership in and activities on
behalf of the Union.
6. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by its decision, made on April 3,
1969, not to recall employee Paul Bopp for the
reason that he had engaged in activities on behalf
of the Union.
7. The Respondent did not violate Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging em-
ployee Vickie Huebner on April 19, 1969.
8. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by laying off employee Catherine
Bremel on June 9, 1969, for the reason that she had
voted in favor of representation by the Union.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend the issuance of an order that it cease
and desist therefrom and that it take certain affir-
mative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that the Respondent unlawfully
laid off employee Paul Bopp on March 24, 1969,
and subsequently unlawfully refused to recall this
employee because he voted in favor of union
representation and engaged in other protected,
concerted activities on behalf of the Union, and as I
have found that the Respondent unlawfully laid off
employee Catherine Bremel on June 9, 1969,
because she voted in favor of union representation,
I recommended that the Respondent offer these
employees full and immediate reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent position,
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 the
unlawful layoffs and discharge . In making these em-
ployees whole, the Respondent shall pay them a
sum of money equal to that which they would have
earned as wages from the date of the unlawful
layoffs and discharge to the date of the offer of
reinstatement, less any net earnings received during
said period . Backpay shall be computed on a quar-
terly basis in a manner consistent with the Board
policy described in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent per
annum computed in the manner set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Although I have found that the layoff of March
24, 1969, was discriminatorily motivated, the
Respondent and the Union negotiated for the
return of four of the employees on March 31, and
Bopp was given a preferential recall status. While
this does not vitiate the unfair labor practice com-
mitted by the Respondent, it does, in my judgment,
rule out the need for a remedy beyond notification
that the Respondent will not engage in similar con-
duct in the future.
Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record
in this case, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I
make the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent, Berger Furniture Company, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Creating an impression that the employees'
activities on behalf of the Union are being kept
under surveillance.
(b) Threatening to find fault with the employees'
work performance in order to discharge the em-
ployees because they voted in favor of union
representation.
(c) Telling employees that their jobs are in
jeopardy because they engaged in activities on be-
half of the Union and voted in favor of union
representation.
(d) Unlawfully laying off and unlawfully refusing
to recall laid off employees because they were
members of the Union and voted in favor of union
representation.
(e) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
as amended.
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which I APPENDIX
find will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to the employees named below im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if these jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed by them , and make them whole for any loss
of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them in the section of this
decision entitled "The Remedy." The employees
entitled to immediate and full reinstatement are
Paul Bopp and Catherine Bremel.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board or its agents , for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(c) Notify the above-named employees, if
presently 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, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(d) Post at its Gravois and Manchester stores,
located in St. Louis County, Missouri, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."25 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by
the Respondent's official representative, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and
be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14,
in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.26
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations
setting forth violations not specifically found herein
be dismissed in their entirety.,
2S In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
26 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 14 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We hereby notify all our employees that:
WE WILL NOT create an impression that we
are engaging in surveillance of union activities
by our employees.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees that
their jobs are in jeopardy because they voted in
favor of union representation.
WE WILL NOT threaten to find a means to
discharge our employees because they voted in
favor of union representation.
WE WILL NOT layoff or discharge employees
because they are members of the Union or
because they voted in favor of union represen-
tation.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
WE WILL offer to the employees named
below immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if these jobs no longer ex-
ist, to substantially equivalent positions, and
we will make them whole for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered because of
our discrimination against them.
Paul Bopp
Catherine Bremel
BERGER FURNITURE
COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above-named in-
dividuals, if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States, of the right to full reinstate-
ment , upon application after discharge from the
Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
BERGER FURNITURE COMPANY 431
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. Board's Office, 1040 Boatmen's Bank Building, 314
Any questions concerning this notice or com- North Broadway, St. Louis, Missouri 63102,
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Telephone 314-622-4167.