Bill Pierre Ford, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 90 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bill Pierre Ford , Inc. and Automobile Drivers &
Demonstrators Local Union No . 882, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Independent . Case 19-CA-4020
March 26, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On November 14, 1968, Trial Examiner Stanley
Gilbert issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, as amended by an erratum issued on
November 15, 1968, finding that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision and
Erratum. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision together with a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National 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 and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,'
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
' Respondent contends that, in his concluding findings, the Trial
Examiner has in effect found that Bill Pierre's praise of employee Bower
on Monday , April 8, should be considered a condonation of any pnor
alleged acts of insubordination by Bower, and that such a finding has no
rational basis Although it is not entirely clear that the Trial Examiner was
so finding , we agree that the Monday interview, a mixture of praise and
warning, could not properly be characterized as an absolution by
Respondent of any earlier misconduct by Bower
With respect to the Everett truck incident , the Trial Examiner thought it
reasonable to assume that Sales Manager Horrobin should have been
"pleased" with the expeditious manner in which it was handled rather than
incensed because Bower had consulted used-car manager Clarke, who
handled the matter by phone, thus avoiding sending Bower and a mechanic
to Everett In view of the fact that Bower's resolution of the problem
constituted a failure to carry out the instructions given him by Horrobin,
and in the context of pnor conduct by Bower thought to be in defiance of
Horrobin's authority, we do not agree that it is reasonable to assume that
Horrobin would have been "pleased" by Bower's handling of the Everett
truck episode, expeditious though it may have been
We nonetheless agree with the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that the
appearance of Bower's union activity during the day motivated Horrobin's
and Pierre 's actions culminating in the immediate discharge of Bower that
evening . We believe that the evidence amply supports the finding that
Bower's union activity played a substantial, part in the decision to
discharge him
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that Respondent, Bill Pierre Ford, Inc.,
Seattle, Washington, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT, Trial Examiner- Based upon a
charge filed by the Automobile Drivers & Demonstrators
Local Union No. 882, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, Independent, hereinafter referred to as the
Union, on May 10, 1968, as amended on June 21, 1968,
the complaint herein was issued on June 28, 1968. The
complaint alleges that Bill Pierre Ford, Inc., hereinafter
referred to as Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act. Respondent, by its answer, denies that it
committed the unfair labor practices alleged
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in Seattle,
Washington, on September 4, 1968, before the duly
designated Trial Examiner. All the parties were
represented by counsel at said hearing. Briefs were
submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent within
the time designated therefor.
From my observation of the witnesses and upon the
entire record, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Washington corporation which
operates a showroom and garage in Seattle, Washington,
where it is engaged in the sale and service of new and used
automobiles. During the year preceding the issuance of the
complaint, a representative period, Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business, sold and distributed
products valued in excess of $500,000 and purchased
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which
were transported to it in interstate commerce directly
from points outside the State of Washington
As is conceded by Respondent, it is, and at all times
material herein has been , an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As is conceded by Respondent, 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 UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Prior to June 1966, salesmen employed by Respondent
had been represented by the Union. In June 1966, a
decertification election was held and the Union was
decertified as the bargaining representative of
Respondent 's salesmen.
175 NLRB No. 14
BILL PIERRE FORD, INC. 91
On Monday, April 8, 1968, William Pierre, president of
Respondent, announced a change in the compensation of
salesmen which they believed would cause a decrease in
their commissions.'
Following the announcement, there were discussions
among the salesmen as to the advisability of having the
Union again represent them On April 9, Richard Bower
and a fellow salesman by the name of Ewing approached
Joseph Crandell, also a salesman, and asked him if he was
still a dues-paying member of the Union. When he said
that he was, they asked him to call a union representative
to determine what would be required to have the Union
again represent the salesmen. He called Jim Clark, the
secretary-treasurer of the Union, and obtained suggestions
from him as to the procedure to be followed. According to
his uncontradicted and credited testimony, Crandell
informed Ewing and Bower on Wednesday, April 10, that
he had made arrangements for the salesmen to meet Clark
the next day to sign authorization cards Bower credibly
testified that he then talked to all but two' of the 14 or 15
other salesmen to determine how they felt about the
Union and told them about the meeting to be held the
following day with the union representative.
Crandell testified that about 2 o'clock in the afternoon
of April 10, he had a conversation with William Horrobin,
general sales manager for Respondent. Following is
Crandell's uncontradicted and credited testimony with
respect to their conversation:
A. Mr. Horrobin told me that I had been pinpointed
or that it had been indicated to him that I was active in
the dissension movement, and that knowing me for so
many years as a friend, he wanted to say to me, "Back
off, don't make waves, I like you, I wouldn't want
anything unpleasant - " I am putting my own words
to this, because I don't know, but the intimation was,
"I don't want anything unpleasant to happen to you, I
want to continue to work with you."
Q. What did you say then?
A. It's pretty hard not to take a stand, because there
is no doubt in anybody's mind I am one of the few
dues-paying members in the Union, that is, in this
store, and that I firmly believe in organization, and that
I will continue to believe in it , although I promised Mr.
Pierre to make no overt act towards organizing the
store, and I don't believe that I have.
Q. What, if anything, did Mr. Horrobin say after
you said that to him?
A He said keep up the good work, kiddingly,
friendly-like, it was a friendly conversation, it wasn't a
threatening conversation, and a friendly "Get back in
there and pitch, and go on about your business."'
Crandell further testified without contradiction and his
testimony is credited that at the time of the decertification
of the Union (June 1966) he told Pierre that he was a
union man and assured him that he would not do anything
to organize the store; and that on April 11, 1968, Pierre
called him into his office and had a conversation with him
in which he again assured Pierre that he would make no
move toward organizing for the Union
'Although there is some contention in the record that the change would
not have caused a decrease , it is clear that the salesmen believed it would
and it is immaterial to the issues in these proceedings whether or not their
belief was well founded
'One being the son of Pierre and the other Ernest Walker, who was
away from the showroom until early evening of that day
'This testimony is considered herembelow in the Concluding Findings as
to whether it establishes an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act
Crandell also testified without contradiction, which
testimony is credited, that at a meeting of the salesmen on
Friday, April 12, Pierre stated to them "that any
salesman that needs a union for a backbone isn't worth
his salt, and he more or less had contempt for the fact
that we would even bother with such an organization when
he felt that we didn't need it."
About 5:30 in the afternoon of April 10, Horrobin
called Pierre at his home and arranged to stop by to see
him. Since early in the morning of that day, Pierre had
been away on a fishing trip, and apparently he returned
shortly before Horrobin called. Bower testified that he
overheard Horrobin talking on the phone to Pierre at
about 5:30 p.m , (there was only a partition between him
and Horrobin). His testimony as to what he overheard
Horrobin say is as follows:
A. First thing I recall, he said, "Mr Pierre." There
was a pause, as far as I can tell, then he said, "We
have trouble down here. I had better stop on my way
home and see you." This is as best as I can recall the
conversation
This testimony is credited. Although Horrobin testified
that he only asked Pierre if he was home and told him
that he would be by to see him, it is reasonable to assume
that he gave Pierre an explanation of why it was urgent
that he see him that evening
According to Horrobin, he had some difficulty with
Bower in the morning. Horrobin's testimony with respect
thereto is as follows:
He asked me to get a couple of mechanics and go up
to Everett and fix his truck. I didn't agree that we
should let two mechanics leave the store, so I asked
him to go up with one of the mechanics to find out
what the problem was with the truck and for him to
take the truck and go on up and see his customer and
sell it. He didn't want to do that, didn't want to leave
the show room. He wanted to stay right there on the
show room and wait for something to happen. Where
there is a prospect, there is some money, and I like to
sell cars, so I suggested that he go and he didn't want
to go So we got in a little bit of a hassle, and I advised
him that I was running the sales department and not
him, and he must do what I say. This is one of the
numerous ones, but this happened the day of the tenth
of April.
Bower testified to substantially the same facts about a
stalled truck in Everett, but placed the date at 4 or 5 days
prior to the day of his discharge. He further testified,
which testimony is credited, that he talked to Bill Clarke,
manager of the used car department, about the truck
problem. Clarke realized that the reason for the truck
stalling was that the truck had two gas tanks and gas had
been put in the wrong tank. Clarke resolved the problem
by making a telephone call and giving instructions to put
gas in the right tank. Horrobin testified that he
"probably" learned that Clarke had taken care of the
truck problem around 5:30 that afternoon, that Clarke
explained what had caused the problem and informed him
that he had taken care of it by telephone. Horrobin
testified that this problem was not the reason he called
Pierre. His testimony as to what caused him to do so is as
follows:
A. Well, he [Bower] was walking around the show
room sort of pouting and snarling at me, and upset,
and I think he had a feeling that he'd achieved
something that I couldn't handle for him.
Q. Did Mr. Bower in the course of doing what you
just described say any words to you?
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A I can't remember Words are sometimes more
important than snarling and pouting
Q So it was the snarling and pouting that caused
you to try to reach Mr. Pierre, is that right9
A. This was the culmination of the other things that
had been brought up today, the fact that he did not
handle himself, with the truck that another salesman
and he had a split on and I had to chat with about that,
and he didn't want to go get a truck because he didn't
want to leave the store, and the fact that he didn't
cooperate and want to go down and work the other
show; this is the culmination of things.
Pierre testified that when Horrobin came to see him
they talked about Bower's lack of cooperation and
reviewed several incidents evidencing Bower's
uncooperative attitude. The first occurred approximately 2
weeks previously when the salesmen were to draw straws
to determine which two would attend an automobile show
and Bower stated that he had no intention of going.
However, some other salesmen drew the assignment.
Another incident was a refusal by Bower to pick up a
truck that had some body work done on it, and the third
incident involved the stalled truck in Everett '
Pierre was asked by General Counsel whether he had
had any knowledge of union activity going on among the
salesmen . Pierre testified that he heard about it from
Horrobin during their conversation at his (Pierre's) home
Pierre also admitted that Horrobin expressed a belief that
Bower "was among those who were instigating the union "
About 7.30 that evening, Pierre went to the showroom.
He testified that he called Walker into the office before
talking to Bower His reason therefor was stated as
follows:
A Mr. Walker has been with me for 21 years He is
the senior salesman of this group, and I think he has
the respect of all this group. So I came and asked him
what was happening to Dick Bower, why was all this
coming up
Walker testified as to his conversation with Pierre
which testimony is credited and may be summarized as
follows- Pierre told him that he wanted to talk to him
about Bower "not wanting to cooperate"; they agreed
Bower was a wonderful salesman;' Pierre asked him if he
heard anything about any union activities to which he
replied that he had been out of town, Pierre asked "if
Bower was causing friction and wanted to know if it was
anything to do with the union activities" to which he
replied that he did not know; Pierre asked him if Bower
was the instigator of the union activities to which he
replied that he did not know; and Pierre stated that he
had heard from other people "that Bower was the
instigator of the activities of the Union."'
After his conversation with Walker was concluded,
Pierre called Bower into his office Bower's version of
their conversation is as follows:
A. I walked in the door. He said, "I am going to
give you your letter of recommendation."' This took
me a little by surprise, and I said, "Why?" Then he
'There appears to be no contradiction in the record as to the fact that
these three incidents occurred except there is a conflict as to whether the
Everett truck incident occurred on April 10 or some days before that (as
claimed by Bower) In view of the resolution of the issues in this case, it
appears unnecessary to resolve this conflict (as to the date of the Everett
incident)
'It appears that, for a considerable period of time prior to his discharge,
Bower was Respondent ' s top salesman
This testimony is considered herembelow in Concluding Findings as to
whether it establishes a violation of Section 8(a)(l)
brought up the fact that I had refused to go down to
the camper show and that I had had some trouble
about a truck , and I reminded him that I thought this
was ironed out yesterday . Besides that , I had had no
trouble as far as a truck goes, it really wasn ' t my job. I
reminded him that he better call Mr. Clarke, the sales
manager, to get his facts straight , because the facts
were all messed up He sat down at his desk and
fumbled through the little telephone pad for a moment,
then he said , "Well, I can ' t find his number right now "
He said , "Go on outside and I'll call you back." So I
did
Q. And how long did you remain outside?
A. Probably ten minutes
Q. What happened then?
A. He called me back into his office
Q. Was anyone there when you got back?
A No.
Q Tell us as best you can remember what he said
and what you said then
A. He said , " I am going to let you go anyway " I
shrugged my shoulders and walked out He said, "Go
deliver your truck "
Pierre's version of the conversation is as follows.
A. . . I told Dick that this just couldn 't go on like
it was, I mean , that it is insubordination and defying
the management , that we dust couldn ' t have any. They
would have to get on the team or not on the team, and
as far as I am concerned , I think that he should leave.
He said, "I think you are firing the wrong man." Those
are the exact words he used . So then I excused him,
and I went to the telephone and called up Mr Guyette
and asked him if he had heard anything in regard to
Dick Bower not getting along with the management He
said yes, he had, that Mr Bower had told him that they
had one or two people to go, and that Mr. Horrobin
had to leave or he'd have to leave, that they couldn't
get along . So I told Dick that he was discharged.
Q Before telling Mr Bower that he was discharged
and after you called Mr . Guyette, did you ask Mr.
Bower whether he in fact had said that either Horrobin
had to go or he would go9
A No, I didn't.
Q You didn ' t ask for his version of that?
A. No.
It appears that Bower understood that Pierre was going
to call Clarke when he, Bower, was asked to step out of
the office . It also appears from the testimony of Pierre
and Guyette that Pierre, in fact , called Guyette, and
Guyette corroborated Pierre's testimony that he told
Pierre, Bower had stated either that he or Horrobin "had
to go." On the other hand , Bower testified that he had
never made the statement that "either Horrobin goes or I
go " While Bower appeared to be a convincing witness,
Guyette was also convincing and, in the circumstances, it
is concluded that Bower probably failed to recall making
such a statement to Guyette . There is no material
contradiction in the testimony of Bower and Pierre about
'It appears that on Monday, April 8, after Pierre announced the change
in compensation for the salesmen , Bower went to Lawrence Guyette,
business manager of Respondent, and asked for a letter of
recommendation Guyette asked him if he was going to resign and he
either said , "No," or stated nothing Two hours later Pierre called him
into his office and asked him why he wanted a letter of recommendation
He told Pierre that he wanted it in case he was going to cut the salesmen's
pay again It appears that Bower was using the device of requesting a letter
of recommendation to protest the change in the compensation of the
salesmen
BILL PIERRE FORD, INC.
their conversation except as to whether there was mention
of calling Clarke. Since the Everett truck episode was
supposedly the final act of insubordination which Pierre
indicated precipitated the discharge and Clarke was
involved in it, it is deemed likely that a call to Clarke was
mentioned.
Pierre testified that he made up his mind to fire Bower
when Guyette told him that Bower had stated that either
he or Horrobin had to leave However, according to
Walker's credited testimony, it appears that Pierre had
made up his mind before he talked to Bower or Guyette
Bower testified that about 9.30 or 10 p.m., on April 11,
the day after he was discharged, Pierre called him at his
home. The following is his uncontradicted and credited
testimony of their conversation:
A The best I can recall, he said, "I understand you
had a meeting up at your house " And I believe I said,
"Yes."
The other thing I recall, "So you thought you could
get the damn Union in here," he said, "I thought you
were ready for a change." The only thing I could think
of to say was that I felt he had infringed on one of my
basic rights
Then he said, "You don't have much to say, do
you?" I said, "No," and he hung up.
Concluding Findings
in its brief, Respondent contends that Bower was
discharged for insubordination, that Respondent had
sufficient cause for his discharge after two prior warnings
Respondent dismisses his union activity as a mere
coincidence, apparently disregarding Pierre's admission
that Bower's union activity did have a "small bearing" on
his decision to discharge Bower. No purpose would be
served in attempting to resolve whether this admission was
prompted by his candor or by an attempt to simulate
candor (in admitting that the motive for the discharge was
tainted, but minimizing the extent to which it was
tainted), since it is concluded that the record reveals that
Bower's union activities reasonably was the prime factor
in Pierre's decision to discharge him
True, there were two acts of insubordination prior to
the day of his discharge (assuming that the third act of
insubordination with respect to the Everett truck episode
occurred on the day of the discharge). However, the
record reveals that on the- Monday preceding the
discharge, April 8, Pierre admittedly praised Bower in
discussing with him his request for a letter of
recommendation. Therefore, it appears, if Respondent's
contention were accepted that Bower's insubordination
caused his discharge, that the precipitating event was the
Everett truck episode.
According to the record, Bower refused to obey
Horrobin's order to go to Everett about 10 o'clock that
morning. It appears that Horrobin did not concern
himself further about the truck and did not learn until
5 30 p m. that Clarke, the used car manager, had handled
the problem by telephone, thus avoiding the necessity of
sending Bower and a mechanic to Everett. Instead of
being satisfied that the matter had been efficiently
handled, Horrobin, according to his testimony, was
incensed by the fact that Bower had gone behind his back
and consulted Clarke. It appears reasonable to assume
that, as general sales manager, Horrobin would have been
pleased at the expeditious manner in which the problem of
the stalled truck had been resolved, instead of being
incensed Further, it appears most unlikely that Horrobin
93
would have used the Everett truck episode as a basis for
complaint to Pierre, since it indicated that Bower handled
the matter more intelligently than Horrobin attempted to
handle it. It is noted that, when Pierre first testified about
the Everett truck episode, he could not remember who had
reported it to him Also, it is deemed most unlikely that
the episode would have so disturbed Pierre that he found
it necessary to rush down to the showroom at 7 30 in the
evening after a long day of fishing. The truck episode
appears far too flimsy to have caused the urgency in
Horrobin's consultation with Pierre and in Pierre's
immediate visit to the showroom
It is concluded that the appearance of union activity
during the day is the only reasonable explanation for the
urgency of Horrobin's and Pierre's actions culminating in
the discharge of Bower As indicated above, that
afternoon Horrobin spoke to Crandell about the union
activity and told him not to "make waves," indicating
that something unpleasant would happen to him if he did
engage in any union activity. Although Crandell testified
that this was a friendly conversation, it was nonetheless
coercive, for in it Horrobin clearly conveyed the message
that if Crandell engaged in any union activity he would
meet with some economic reprisal Therefore, this conduct
was violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, and indicates
that Horrobin was disturbed by the advent of union
activity
It is noted that Pierre admitted that Horrobin informed
him on the evening of April 10 at his home of the union
activity and told him that he believed that "Bower was
among those who were instigating the union." Pierre
immediately proceeded to the showroom and upon his
arrival called Walker into his office. Walker credibly
testified that Pierre asked him if he knew who was causing
the union activity and whether it was Bower who was the
instigator. When Walker replied that he did not know,
Pierre stated that he had heard that Bower was the
instigator. It appears that at the time he talked to Walker,
Pierre had already made up his mind to discharge Bower,
because he stated to Walker, according to Walker's
credited testimony, that he thought he would let Bower go
"because of cooperation, that Horrobin and he had had a
talk about it."' Although this interrogation of Walker was
the single instance of interrogation in the record,
nevertheless it cannot be considered isolated and of little
coercive effect in view of its close relationship to the
discharge of Bower immediately subsequent thereto
Therefore, it is concluded that this interrogation of
Walker was unlawful within the meaning of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act Further, it indicates that Pierre was
very concerned about the activity on behalf of the Union
and that he was attempting to verify his information that
Bower was the instigator.
In view of the foregoing, it appears that Bower's acts of
insubordination were neither the sole nor the significant
reasons for the decision to discharge Bower It is
concluded that Bower's union activity was the primary
reason This conclusion is further substantiated by
Bower's credited testimony of the telephone conversation
he had the following night with Pierre. As set forth above,
Pierre called him and taunted him with the statement "so
you thought you could get the damn Union in here." The
conclusion that the discharge was discriminatorily
motivated appears to be further warranted by the evidence
As indicated above, Pierre testified that he did not make up his mind to
discharge Bower until he called Guyette during his subsequent conversation
with Bower
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Respondent's animosity toward the Union, particularly
Pierre's speech to the salesmen on Friday, April t2, in
which he spoke in derogatory terms about any salesman
who needed a union for a "backbone.'"
Thus, it is concluded that Bower's discharge was
violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of Respondent set forth in
Section III above, occurring in connection with its
operations set forth in Section 1, above, have a close,
intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof
V THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent discharged
Richard Bower in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent be
ordered to offer Bower immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and
make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him by payment
to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would
have earned from the date of discharge to the date of
reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period, in
accordance with the formula prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, together with
interest on such sum, such interest to be computed in
accordance with the formula prescribed in Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, I make the following-
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent threatened Joseph Crandell with
economic reprisal should he engage in activities on behalf
of the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Respondent, unlawfully interrogated Ernest Walker
as to union activities of fellow employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. Respondent discharged Richard Bower for activities
on behalf of the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and upon the foregoing
findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and the entire
record in this case, it is ordered that Bill Pierre Ford,
Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
'From Crandell 's credited testimony set forth heremabove
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with economic reprisal
should they engage in -activities on behalf of Automobile
Drivers & Demonstrators Local Union No 882,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Independent, or
any other labor organization
(b) Unlawfully interrogating employees with respect to
activities on behalf of the Union.
(c) Discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment of
any employee for engaging in activities on behalf of the
aforesaid Union, or any other labor organization.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to engage
in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the
activities specified in Section 7 of the Act, except to the
extent such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Richard Bower immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to his seniority, or other rights
and privileges, and make him whole for any loss he may
have suffered by reason of his discharge in the manner
and to the extent set forth in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Notify Bower if he is presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of his 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.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records and reports and all other records necessary
or useful to determine the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its place of business in Seattle, Washington,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 19, shall, after being duly signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
remain posted for a period of 60 consecutive days from
the date of posting, 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 altered, defaced or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith."
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words " a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
BILL PIERRE FORD, INC. 95
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that-
WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employees or
otherwise discriminate in regard to their hire of tenure
of employment , or any terms or conditions of
employment , because they have engaged in activities on
behalf of Automobile Drivers & Demonstrators Local
Union No 882, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, Independent , or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with economic
reprisal should they engage in activities on behalf of the
aforesaid union or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees as to
their union activities or union activities of their fellow
employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of their
right to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in, any
or all of the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by
an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959.
WE WILL offer Richard Bower immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed by him, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him.
BILL PIERRE FORD, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
Note. We will notify Richard Bower if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of his 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.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, Republic
Building, 10th Floor, 1511 Third Avenue , Seattle,
Washington 98101, Telephone 583-7473