Bingler Motors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1941

30 N.L.R.B. 1080 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of BINGLER MOTORS, INC. and UNITED AUTOMOBILE
WORKERS, LOCAL 521, AFFILIATED WITH THE CIO
Case No. C-1770.-Decided April 10, 1941
Jurisdiction : automobile selling industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coeicion: anti-union statements; advising employees
to forego the union.
Collective Bargaining: majority established by consent election-failure to bar-
gain in good faith ; refusal to negotiate with duly constituted bargaining com-
mittee ; imposing a limitation upon size and composition of the committee ;
refusal to-negotiate or enter into any type of collective agreement; attempts
to alter the bargaining unit established by agreement and to impose separate
department units upon the employees ; attempts to bargain with striking
employees, over the heads of their duly chosen representatives.
Remedial Orders : employer ordered to bargain collective; reinstatement of
striking employees upon application, ordered.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : employees engaged in the service
department, excluding new and used car salesmen, office employees, and
supervisory employees.
Mr. Robert H. Kleeb, for the Board.
Mr. J. Howard Devlin, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the respondent.
Miss Ann Landy, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
4
Upon charges duly filed by United Automobile Workers, Local 521,
affiliated with ' the C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Sixth Region (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), issued its
complaint dated November 15, 1940, against Bingler Motors, Inc.,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, herein called the respondent, alleging that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. A copy of the complaint, accom-
30 N. L. R. B., No. 153.
1080
BINGLER MOTORS, INC. 1081
panied by notice of hearing, was duly served upon the respondent
and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in
substance: (1) that the respondent made statements tending to dis-
courage activities by its employees for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining and to discourage membership in the Union; (2) that al-
though a majority of the respondent's employees in a unit appropri-
ate for-the purposes of collective bargaining had designated the Union
as their bargaining agent, the respondent on August 26, 1940, and at
all times thereafter refused to bargain collectively with the Union;
and that on September 27, 1940, as a result of the respondent's unfair
labor practices, the respondent's employees ceased work and went on
strike. The respondent filed an answer which, in substance, denied the
alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
on November 29 and 30, 1940, before Martin Raphael, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board
and the respondent were represented by counsel and were afforded full
opportunity to participate in the hearing, to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon
the issues. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made
numerous rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. On December 23, 1940, the Trial Examiner filed
his Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon all
the parties. In it he found that the respondent had engaged and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2- (6) and (7) of the
Act and_ recommended that the respondent cease and desist from the
unfair labor practices found and take certain affirmative action in
order to effectuate the policies of -the Act. Neither party filed briefs,
or exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation having its principal
office and place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where it is
now and has been since April 1, 1939, engaged in bu3ing, selling, and
otherwise dealing in new and used automobiles, automobile parts and
equipment. It purchases all its new automobiles from Chrysler Cor-
poration, Detroit, Michigan. '
1082 DECISIONS OF • NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
For the period -froni April 1,• 1939, to Septeiber 28; 1940, the re-
spondent purchased 2,097 new automobiles valued at $1,426,036.37, all
of which were shipped! to the respondent from outside the State of
Pennsylvania. For, the period from September 30 to November 15,
1940, it purchased 263 new automobiles valued at $186,379.58, all of
which were shipped from outside the State of Pennsylvania.
The respondent admits that it is engaged in interstate commerce.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Automobile Workers, Local 521, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background; interference, restraint, and coercion
The Union began to organize the respondent's employees some time
in 1939. During the week of May'20, 1939, Shop Foreman Phillips
told employees Hamilton, Sabish, and Held that President Bingler
wanted to see them. Bingler asked them "What was going on around
the,place." The, men told him they had joined the Union to protect
their jobs, explaining that they, had heard rumors that the new
service manager intended to spread the work and reduce their wages.
Bingler assured the men they had nothing to be afraid of. Before
leaving the meeting, Hamilton: told Bingler that on the following
Saturday the Union would present a contract for his consideration.
On May 25, pursuant to arrangements made by Hamilton, Earhart,
the Union's organizer, Meiner, its international representative, and the
union committee met with Bingler in his office and presented the pro-
posed contract. After reading it, Bingler threw it ' oR the desk and
said he would have nothing to do with the contract and that he could
deal with his men without a contract. Bingler called Meiner a
Communist and a racketeer, stated that he was opposed to the C. I. O.
union, and asked the union representatives to eliminate the reference
to the Union in the contract. He asked the committeemen why they
wanted a contract, and explained that it was not necessary for
them to organize a union in order to obtain the benefits of one. He
then asked Meiner what he could do' for the men which he, Bingler,
could not do. Meiner replied that the employees had joined the or-
ganization of their own free will, that they had designated the Union
as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
that, as one of he union representatives, he was there to negotiate
a contract. Bingler did not reach the point where he was willing to,
'The respondent did not call any witnesses . The findings herein are based upon the
uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony of the witnesses called by the Board.
BINGLER MOTORS, INC. 1083
exchange ideas with the union representatives about the terms of the
proposed contract. The meeting ended with no date set for another
conference.
We find that on May 25, 1940, the respondent, by the action of
its president in advising employees to forego the Union and in
speaking disparagingly of the Union and its representative, interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The Union, shortly after this conference, filed a charge with the
Regional Director for the Sixth Region alleging that the respondent
had refused to bargain with it.2 Several conferences were thereafter
held between the representative of the Board's Regional Office,
Bingler, his attorney, and the union representatives. As a result
thereof, on July 16 the Union and the respondent agreed to hold
an election in order to determine the bargaining representative of
the respondent's employees in the unit described below. Pursuant
to this agreement, an election was held on August 5. The Union won
the election by a vote of 43 to 3. -
B. The refusal'to bargain; further interference, restraint, and coercion
1. The appropriate unit
By the terms of the consent-election agreement above mentioned,
the respondent and the Union agreed that all the respondent's em-
ployees engaged in the service department, excluding new and used
car salesmen, office employees, and supervisory employees, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. The complaint herein
alleged, and the respondent admitted, that this is an appropriate unit.
The record contains no evidence justifying a departure from the unit
agreed upon by the parties. -
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent's employees
engaged in the service department, excluding new and used car sales-
men, office employees, and supervisory employees, at all times material
herein constituted, and that they now constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining, aid that said unit insures to
employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates
the policies of the Act.
'2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
The complaint alleged and the respondent admitted that on August
5, 1940,'a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, by means
I This charge was withdrawn pursuant to the consent -election agreement.
1084 DECISIONS, OF ^ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of a secret ballot conducted pursuant to the consent-election agree-
ment, designated the Union as their representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining with the respondent.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that on August 5, 1940, the
Union was, and at all times thereafter has been the duly designated
bargaining representative of a majority of the respondent's em-
ployees in the unit found to be appropriate, and that, pursuant to
Section 9 (a) "of the Act, the Union was on that date and at all times
'thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all the employees
in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
3. The refusals to bargain; other acts; acts of interference; the strike
Following the election, Earhart attempted on a number of occa-
sions to get in touch with Bingler, but was unsuccessful. Finally, on
August 26, a conference was held in Bingler's office. Earhart,
Meiner, and the full union committee, consisting of seven members,
came prepared to go into Bingler's office. But while they were
standing on the service floor, awaiting the call to attend the confer-
ence, Phillips came out of Bingler's office and stated that Bingler
was willing to meet with Meiner, Earhart, and only three members
of the committee, Hamilton, Finley, Sr., and Held. The aforemen-
tioned persons were the only union representatives who went into
Bingler's office. Bingler, Shop Foreman Phillips. Service Manager-
Barron, Office Manager Black and one Pivirotti represented the
respondent.
The conference lasted for about 21/2 hours. At the opening there-
of, Meiner asked Bingler if he had read the contract, and if he were
ready to negotiate. Bingler stated that he would not negotiate an
agreement with the Union, would not recognize it, and the men could
quit if they wanted to. When Meinet asked Bingler why he had con-
sented to an election if he had no intention of entering into an agree-
ment, Bingler stated that as far as the election was concerned, the
Board did not have jurisdiction over the men in his shop. Pressed by
Meiner to negotiate and sign an agreement, Bingler again refused,
protesting that there were too many things in the contract of which
he disapproved. He made no counterproposals, however. When,
Meiner asked Bingler to point out the clauses he found unaccepta-
ble, Bingler, without replying, placed his hand on the contract and
stated, "This thing here I will never sign." He then stated, "I
would like to talk with the boys the way I would like to and I would
open their eyes." At that point, Phillips declared that he had talked
to the "boys" and told them what he, Phillips, did not like about
BINGLER MOTORS, INC. 1085
the contract, specifically, that the mechanics, car washers, and porters
should not belong in the same units Bingler then asked Held, one
of the committeemen, whether he wanted the Union. Held said he
did. Bingler thereupon asked him what he would do if he did not
"get" the Union. Held replied that that would be "up to the boys."
Toward the end of the conference, Bingler suggested that the dis-
cussion be terminated for the day and that the parties meet again
at a later date because he wanted to talk the matter over with Devlin,
his attorney. The conference then broke up with an agreement to
meet again on August 30.
At the conference held on August 30, 1940, Bingler's adamant
refusal to treat with the union representatives, expressed at the
previous conference, remained unaltered and was intensified by his
challenge, made for the first time at this meeting, that the Union
"start action against him." He advised the union representatives
that he would let them know when he could set a date for another
conference after he had met with the respondent's board of direc-
tors on September 4, 1940.
On September 5, Earhart called Bingler and asked' him if he
would set a date to 'continue negotiations. Bingler replied that he
could not meet until Phillips came back from his vacation, which
would be the following week.-' On the same day, September 5, the
Union filed a charge with the Regional Director for the Sixth
Region.
On 'September 20, Bingler, Devlin, Meiner, and Earhart met at
the office of Robert Kleeb, the Board's Regional Attorney for the
Sixth Region, where the parties arranged, at Kleeb's request, to
confer on September 26 at Bingler's office. Pursuant to that arrange-
ment, Meiner and the full union committee met on the service floor
of the respondent's place of business. Devlin invited Earhart to come
into Bingler's office where Bingler informed Earhart that he would
not confer with the full committee, reaffirming his former position
than he would meet only with Finley,, Sr., Held, Hamilton, Meiner,
and Earhart. Earhart told Bingler that'by the terms of the consent-
election agreement, he had agreed to meet with the representatives
of the employees, and that these representatives consisted of the
full committee,' as well as Meiner and himself. Bingler nevertheless
insisted the Union be represented only by the five named persons.
Bingler also stated that he intended to negotiate six agreements, one
$ The respondent , in signing the consent-election agreement , had stipulated that these
groups were -properly included in the bargaining unit.
11 Bingler had not advised the Union at any prior meeting that Phillips would be gone the
succeeding week.
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for each department. Earhart replied that the Union could not
negotiate under an arrangement -of that kind. Devlin advised
Bingler to bargain, telling him that the union representatives had,
been duly chosen by the men, but Bingler refused to accept them
as such, and insisted on bargaining separately with a representative
for each of the six departments comprising the bargaining unit.
Devlin and Earhart told the rest of the committee men and Meiner,
who were waiting on -the service floor, about Bingler's attitude.
Devlin and Earhart then' went back into Bingler's office, where
Bingler stated that he would not bargain with anyone except on a
departmental basis as he had previously asserted. During the course
of these discussions, Bingler asked Meiner to come into his office
and negotiate an agreement, but Meiner refused to do so upon-the
ground that it was contrary to the Union's constitution, and insisted
that the negotiations proceed with the full committee. The entire
committee, however, was unable to get into Bingler's office to talk
to him, and the union representatives left. No date was set for
another meeting.
On September 27, the Union held a meeting. The 34-employees
present voted unanimously to call a strike because of the respondent's
refusal to bargain. The strike `vent into effect on ' Saturday morn-
ing, September 28. During the strike, the respondent made efforts
to get the men to return to work, and on one occasion the respondent
sought, through Shawkey, manager of the wholesale department, to
bargain with the strikers over the heads of their union representa-
tives. Shawkey said to Sabish, a striking employee : "Why don't
you fellows get in there and try to talk to Mr. Bingler? ... If you
prefer to arrange it and give me the consent I am sure that I can
go in and have Mr. Bingler set a time for you fellows to go in there
and talk to him." Sabish replied that if Bingler was not willing to
bargain, there was no point in going to him, whereupon Shawkey
said he felt sure that everything in the contract would be agreed
upon, but "that so far as Mr. Bingler signing the contract that is
out." He also said, "It will only 'be a matter of time before they
close the place up." -
During the course of the strike, efforts were made by the Regional
Office to bring the parties together in conference. Ar'rangemeaits •had
been made for the Union's committee to meet on October 28 with Dev-
lin, Meiner, Earhart, and Henry. Shore, a Board attorney, at.Bing-
ler's office. When the union committee arrived at the respondent's
place of business on that date, Shore came out of Bingler's office
and stated that Bingler would not meet with Meiner and Earhart,
but would sleet only with the committee, which at the time consisted
BINGLER MOTORS, INC. 1087
of Sabish, Everett, and Hamilton. The union men agreed that the
committee should go in to find out what, proposal Bingler'was willing
to make. Upon entering Bingler's office, Hamilton asked Bingler
if he would negotiate- a contract with the committee of three as the
union representatives. Bingler said "No." Held then asked Bingler
if he would negotiate a contract with an outside representative whom
the Union might get from Cleveland. Bingler said "No." Hamilton'
then asked if he would negotiate with the three committeemen subject
to their right to take the proposal to the union officials for approval.
Bingler said "No," adding, "My advice to you fellows is to go and
get yourselves an attorney to draw up a contract of your own and
present it to me; . . . I will sign that kind of a contract." He
also stated he realized that the pickets were "broke" and offered to
advance them money. "I will even think about, putting on' a little
party when you come back," Bingler suggested, and stated that he
"will even go so far as to sign papers that there be nobody fired for
union activities" if the men returned to work. Hamilton asked
Bingler what was the matter with the union contract. Bingler re-
plied, "I am afraid of it." He stated further, "It is not the original
signing of the contract- but it is the things which crop up in the
plant after the contract is signed that I am afraid of." Bingler
stated that everyone in the plant was known by his first name, that
the door was open at any time if the men had, any grievances that
they would come and "lay it on the table" and they would be taken
care of. He added that "if he was to sign the contract today and, he
was to `let go' tomorrow where would you,fellows be? It will only
be until about the first of February and this place will close." No
further meetings were held after this one.
Throughout the attempted negotiations, as has been shown, the
respondent refused to recognize the duly constituted bargaining com-
mittee of the Union and refused to negotiate or to enter into any
type of collective agreement with it. At the, initial conference of
August 26, 1940, Birigler not only imposed a limitation upon the
size and composition of the committee, thereby withholding from the
Union the full recognition to which it was entitled,- but also flatly
stated that he would not recognize or bargain with the Union.
Although the conference lasted for several hours, Bingler did not
recede from this position, nor did he alter it in any material respect,
during the subsequent meetings. The refusal to bargain is further
evidenced by the respondent's attempt, at the September 20 meeting„
to alter the bargaining unit established by agreement and to impose
separate department units upon the employees, and by its attempts
to bargain with its striking employees over the, heads of their duly
chosen representatives.
1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We-find that the respondent on August 26, 1940, at all times there-
after, and specifically on August 30, September 20, and October 28,
1940, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the repre-
sentative of the respondent's, employees in an appropriate unit in
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
We find that by its aforesaid refusal to bargain collectively and
by the foregoing statements of Bingler and Shawkey, designed to
induce the respondent's employees to abandon the Union, the re-
spondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
We further find that on September 27, 1940, the respondent's em-
ployees went on strike because of the unfair labor practices of the
respondent and that the strike was thereafter prolonged by the
respondent's unfair labor practices a
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth above in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent refused to bargain collectively
with the Union although the Union represented a majority of the
respondent's employees in an appropriate unit. We shall order the
respondent to cease and desist from its refusal and, upon request,
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative
of such employees.
We have also found that the respondent by acts other than its
refusal to bargain, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the' exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7. This
course of conduct discloses a purpose to defeat self-organization and
its objects. Because of the respondent's unlawful conduct and its
underlying purpose, we are convinced that the, unfair labor practices
found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices
s Counsel for the respondent announced at the hearing that the strike had been settled
and that the respondent had agreed to take back , from time to time, as many strikers as
business warranted . In view , however , of our finding that the strike was caused by the
respondent ' s unfair labor practices, we shall order the respondent , upon application, to
reinstate , the striking employees , In the manner set forth in the section entitled "The
Remedy" below.
.
BINGLER MOTORS, INC. 1089
proscribed and that danger of their commission in the future is to
be anticipated from the course of the respondent's conduct in the
past.6 The preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless
our order is coextensive with the threat. In order therefore to make
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a
recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby to minimize indus-
trial strife which burdens and obstructs .commerce, and thus effec-
tuate the policies of the Act, we will order the respondent to cease
and desist from in any manner infringing the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Having found that the respondent's employees went on strike on
September 27, 1940, because of, the respondent's refusal to bargain,
we shall, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, order that the
respondent, upon application, offer to its employees who went on
strike on or after that date and have not since returned to work, im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their- former or substantially
equivalent employment. The offer of employment shall be without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. Such
reinstatement shall be effectuated in the following manner :
All employees hired- after September 27, 1940, who were not on
the respondent's pay roll prior to September 27, 1940, shall, if neces-
sary to provide employment for those to be offered reinstatement, be
dismissed. If, after this is done, there is not, by reason of a reduc-
tion in the force of employees needed, sufficient employment immedi-
ately available for the remaining employees, including those to be
offered reinstatement, all ;available positions shall be distributed
among such remaining employees in accordance with the respondent's
usual method of reducing its force, without discrimination against
any employee because of his union affiliation or activities, following
a system of seniority to such extent as has heretofore been applied
in the conduct of the respondent's business. Those employees remain-
ing after such distribution, for whom no employment is immediately
available, shall be placed upon a preferential list prepared in accord-
ance with the principles set forth in the previous sentence, and shall
thereafter, in accordance with such list, be offered employment in
their former or substantially equivalent positions as such employment
becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work.
The strikers will not be awarded back pay .for the period. during
which they were on strike. However the strikers will be entitled to
back pay beginning 5.days after any refusal by the respondent of
their applications for reinstatement in accordance with our order. In
all cases a deduction from the compensation to be paid will be made
9 See National Labor Relations Board v Empress Publishing Company , 312 U S. 426.
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on account of the net earnings,', if any, 9f the respective employees
to be compensated.
Upon the basis of the above findings,of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Automobile Workers, Local 521, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization, within
the meaning of-Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The respondent's employees engaged in the service 'depar'tment,
excluding new and used car salesmen,- office employees, and super-
visory employees, at all times herein material 'constituted, and they
now constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar--
gaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Automobile Workers, Local '521, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, is, and has been at all times since
August 5, 1940, the exclusive representative of all the employees in.
such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing, to, bargain collectively with the United Automobile
Workers, Local 521, affiliated with,'the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganization',as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit, the respondent, ha's engaged in and is engaging
in,, unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5)" of
'the Act. . ,
5. The respondent, by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in, Section, 7
of 'the, Act, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7).
of the Act. -
ORDER
'Upon the basis of 'the above findings of fact and conclusions of,
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
1 7 By "net earnings"' is meant earnings less expenses, such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent , which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere .' See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer-
ica, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N L. R B. 440. Monies received
for work performed upon Federal , State , county , municipal , or other work -relief projects
shall be considered as earnings . See Republic Steel, Corporation v. National Labor Rela-
tions Board, 311 U S 7
BINGLER MOTORS, INC. 1091
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Bingler
Motors, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with any representative which
under the National Labor Relations Act is entitled to act as the ex-
clusive representative of the respondent's employees engaged -in the
service department, excluding new and used car salesmen, office em-
ployees, and supervisory employees;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other
mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Automobile
Workers, Local 521, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
z anizations, as the exclusive representative of the respondent's em-
ployees engaged in the service department, excluding new and used
car salesmen, office employees, and supervisory employees;
(b) Upon application, offer to the employees who went on strike
on or after September 27, 1940, and have not returned to work, im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges, in the manner set forth in the section entitled
"The Remedy" above, placing those employees for whom employment
is not immediately available upon a preferential list in the, manner
set forth in said section, and thereafter,-in said manner, offer them
employment as it becomes available;
(c) Make whole such striking employees for any loss of pay they
may suffer by reason,of the respondent's refusal to reinstate them,
upon application, by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum
of money equal to that which each would normally have earned as
wages during the period from five (5) days after the date of the
iespondent's refusal to reinstate him on application to the date of
offer of reinstatement or placement upon a preferential list required
by paragraph (b) above, less his net earnings during said period;
(d) Post immediately in conspicuous places in the plant and main-
tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the
date of posting, notices to its employees stating (1) that, the re-
spondent will not engage in the conduct from which it has been
440135-42-Vol 30-70
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this
Order, and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in para-
graphs 2 (a), (b)-, and (c) of this Order;
(e) Not the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps it has
taken to comply herewith. i