C.H.D. Pool Equipment, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 9, 1966157 N.L.R.B. 515 (N.L.R.B. 1966) Copy Citation C.H.D. POOL EQUIPMENT, INC . 515 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. (d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.29 "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and pro- tection, by discriminating in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to engage in, or refrain from engaging in, any or all the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL make whole Arnold Vaillancourt, James E. Douthit, and Vences V. Jaramillo for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. STATE ELECTRIC COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro- visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1015 Tijeras Street NW., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Telephone No. 247-2505. C.H.D. Pool Equipment , Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No . 1710. Case No. 21-CA-6400. March 9,1966 DECISION AND ORDER On November 9, 1965, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, 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 Deci- sion. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Faniiing and Jenkins]. 157 NLRB No. 48. 221-374-66-vol. 157-34 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the following modification : 2 [Add the following as the fourth indented paragraph of the notice: [WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1710, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.] ' We conclude , as did the Trial Examiner , that Respondent , by discharging Basinger and Pineault , violated Section 8 ( a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act . The Trial Examiner found that Wade , Respondent 's president , told employees he would find out which ones were behind the union drive and that "they would be weeded out and fired now or later." The record shows that both Basinger and Pineault distributed authorization cards to em- ployees who signed them and returned them to Basinger . These were the only employees who actively participated in the organizational drive. Wade admitted that he was aware of Basinger 's union activity and that this was a factor which led to his discharge. Under the circumstances , we agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent discharged both .employees to make good its threat , and not because of a "lack of work" as the employees were told , or because their work was unsatisfactory , as Respondent now claims 2 We take official notice that on November 12, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 21, Issued an order vacating the direction of a second election among Respondent 's employees and dismissed the petition for certification of representatives filed in Case No. 21-RC-9295. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge 1 and amended charges 2 filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1710, herein called the Union, a .complaint , dated March 23, 1965, was duly issued alleging that C.H.D. Pool Equip- ment , Inc., has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (5 ) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , herein called the Act. Respondent duly filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint . A hearing in this pro- ceeding was held before Trial Examiner George L. Powell at Los Angeles, Cali- fornia, on June 15 and 16 , 1965. Thereafter briefs were filed on behalf of General Counsel and Respondent. Upon the entire record in this case , the briefs of the parties , and from my observa- tion of the witnesses as they testified , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent , a California corporation , is engaged in the manufacture of swimming pool equipment with its main office and plant in Los Angeles, California. In the 1 Filed January 21, 1965. Filed January 27 and February 10, 1965 C.H.D. POOL EQUIPMENT, INC. 517 course and conduct of its business operations, Respondent annually sells and ships from its Los Angeles plant products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of California. During the same period, Respondent's sales exceed $500,000. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The parties admit, and I find, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The issues 1. Did Respondent, through its officers and agents, threaten its employees with discharge or other reprisals if they became or remained members of the Union or gave any assistance or support to it? 2. Did Respondent discharge two employees, Orvis Daniel Basinger and Robert Pineault, because they joined or assisted the Union, or engaged in other concerted protected activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection? 3. Did Respondent refuse to bargain in good faith with the majority representa- tive of its employees in an appropriate unit? For the reasons as more fully set out below, I answer all three questions in the affirmative and find that the General Counsel has established the violations of the Act by a preponderance of the evidence. B. The appropriate unit The parties admitted and I find the following to constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees, shipping and receiving employees, truckdrivers, and leadmen, excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. C. Majority status During the time in question there were nine employees in the above unit and eight of these had signed union authorization cards 3 on November 23, 1964, desig- nating the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. Basinger passed out some of the cards and was given back all of the cards after they were signed. D. Bargaining demand The Union wrote a letter on November 30, 1964, to Respondent requesting bar- gaining in the above unit. Respondent has refused to bargain. E. The speeches The Union's request to bargain was received by Respondent on December 2, 1964. A meeting of all employees was immediately called and Wade, Respondent's presi- dent and an owner, had the letter in his hand at the time. Wade admitted to the following taking place at the meeting: 1. He called the meeting which he along with Denton, Respondent's secretary- treasurer and an owner, and Office Manager Inferrera attended. 2. Denton told the employees they had received the letter demanding recognition and thought it pretty low 4 for the employees to do this. He told them he had no respect for whoever was behind the Union and the employees could be fired and replaced by women. 3. Inferrera referred to the practice of the employees coming for pay advances from time to time, but said no more advances would be given if the Union came in. Inferrera also told them the Blue Cross insurance , which Respondent was paying for, would be dropped if the Union came in, and future insurance would have to be paid 3 The cards stated• "I authorize the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers to represent me In collective bargaining with my employer." 4 The characterization given this statement by Basinger is more salty. 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,for by the individual employees; also that Respondent would fire all the employees and hire new employees before it would let the Union come in. Employees were told the Respondent didn't want the Union in the plant and was not going to have it "one way or the other." - 4. Wade himself addressed the employees telling them he had worked hard to get where he was and before he would let a third party come in and tell him how to run his business he would close down the„ plant and fire all the employees and go back to working for a living. He told them he didn't know which employees were behind the union drive but he would find out and they be weeded out and fired, "now or later." The December 10, 1964, Meeting and Speeches Latva told the employees to attend a meeting in the light assembly department. They did so except for employees Hunt and Lashbrook who were not in the plant at the time. The meeting took place between 8:20 and 10 a.m. on December 10, 1964. Denton told the assembled employees: (1) He didn't want the Union, and they "would not allow it"; (2) he would fire all the employees and hire new ones; and (3) Basinger was one ,of the instigators of the Union and in addition was insubordinate. Inferrera told them in effect that if the Union came in they would lose benefits such as their Blue Cross insurance and all employees could be replaced. He said Respondent was not going to have the Union "one way or another." Basinger, whose testimony is generally credited, admitted he was the union insti- gator and invited Denton to a meeting of the employees with the union representa- tive, which meeting was planned in the near future. He also credibly testified, in addition to the above, that Denton said he (Denton) had talked to Wade on the tele- phone and Wade had given an ultimatum to fire the instigators behind the Union. Denton also said he didn't intend to pay more than $2.10 each hour (which Basinger and the painter were making) and he was not going to pay Basinger any more than that. He told Basinger they didn't need him and could farm out the work. They all returned to work. Inferrera testified that Respondent knew that Basinger was the instigator of the Union as early as December 2, 1964. After Respondent received the Union's letter on December 2,•1964, Inferrera said Latva was called into a meeting of management people and told them he, Latva, had known of the union activity and that Basinger started it.5 Latva admitted that he had heard Basinger discussing the Union with fellow employees some "half dozen times" for "two to three weeks" before he was termi- nated on December 10. It is also noted that eight employees out of the nine signed union cards on November 23, 1964 (some cards had been given out by Basinger but all were given back to him after they were signed), which would be between 2 and 3 weeks before December 10, 1964. Thus I find Respondent had knowledge of Basinger's union activity about the time the cards were signed. F. The discharges Wade testified that he took a trip to Florida to check on complaints arising from defective underwater swimming pool lights and filters which Respondent manu- factured. Apparently the Respondent had a practice of automatically replacing any defective equipment and even would pay for service calls on it. He found many of the lights had cracked lenses caused by an uneven surface (warp) on their face rings. With a warped surface, the internal strains set up in the glass lens by tightening down the screws would cause the lens to crack before installation. Sometimes the crack would take place after installation when the cool water surface on one side of the lens. reacted with the heat of the light on the other surface. The lens would not otherwise crack, short of being hit by an object hard enough to break the thick lens, and there was no evidence of this. After checking into these complaints, Wade then telephoned his plant.. The result was that employees Orvis (Danny) Basinger and Robert Pineault were "laid off" on the'saine day, December 10, 1964, about 1 p.m. Who made the decision to let these employees go is not clear from the testimony of Respondent's witnesses nor is it clear as to why they were let go. 5-"I believe he did" was his testimony, referring to whether Latva told them Basinger started the Union C.H.D. POOL EQUIPMENT, INC. 519 Wade testified that in this telephone conversation he told Inferrera to fire Basinger and Pineault. However, in his affidavit under oath made on January 7, 1965, he said he told Denton to fire Basinger and anyone else who was giving him trouble with his work. No mention was made of Pineault. Denton, however, credibly testified that Wade told him to let Basinger go and he, Denton, decided to let Pineault go as well. Inferrera, on the other hand, claimed it was his decision to let both Basinger and Pineault go, Denton had nothing to do with it, and he didn't talk to Denton about it. But in his prior affidavit under oath he said Wade called Denton and told him to get rid of Basinger and then Denton called him. Inferrera further testified that he called Foreman Latva and told him to lay off both Basinger and Pineault for lack of work and orders. Latva eagerly testified that all Inferrera told him was to let two men go and Latva, himself, decided the two would be Basinger and Pineault. He said Inferrera did not give him any reason why he should let the men go but that he, Latva, let both Basinger and Pineault go for lack of work and parts. These are the identical reasons Inferrera testified he told to Latva. There was evidence that Pineault was not a particularly satisfactory employee. Also there was evidence of friction between Foreman Latva and Basinger and some evidence of poor work by Basinger. But good cause was not the reason given for letting Basinger and Pineault go, only "lack of work." At the outset, Denton credibly testified that it was impossible to determine who was responsible for defective lights. Accordingly, Wade's reference to "trouble" must have related to other than defective workmanship. Basinger had not been reprimanded in over a month for any work errors and, along with others, performed' on the drill press drilling and tapping holes on face plates. Further, if Wade wanted to let Basinger go because of defective workmanship, all he had to 'do was tell Denton, or somebody else in authority, and get the message to Basinger. Wade attempted to explain that he decided to fire Basinger for this defective workmanship even though he knew trouble would be caused by the Union. But, if in fact it could be established that Basinger was responsible for the defective lights, a ,discharge made for that reason would be a discharge for cause and would not violate the Act. Apparently Wade knew he could not show Basinger's responsibility for the bad lights because Basinger and Pineault were told by Latva that they were laid off for "lack of work." He admitted that Basinger's union activity played a part in his decision to let Basinger go but attempted to show this was only a slight consideraion. As noted above, the December 10 meeting lasted until about 10 a.m. Then at 1 p.m. Latva called both Basinger and Pineault to the office and told them they were laid off for "lack of work." Basinger asked why he was chosen because he had seniority with Respondent over all other employees and even over Latva. Latva replied that Respondent didn't recognize seniority. - Further Evidence Respondent, once committed to the defense that Basinger and Pineault were laid off for lack of work,6 admitted, through Inferrera, that they were not called back when more employees were needed. He testified that by only laying off the two employees he, in effect, would make it possible for them to draw unemployment compensation, a result not obtainable if told they were fired. But there was no doubt the two would ever be recalled? Pineault Pineault's union activity consisted of talking with Basinger as to who should get cards. Apparently he was a willing worker but not one who could be called "excellent." However, he had started his employment on March 19, 1964, at $1.35 an hour and had received raises until he was making $1.75 an hour on December 10. His last G There was some evidence that work slackened in December . There was also evidence of a great turnover in employment , leaving Basinger in the position of top seniority although he had only worked for Respondent for 11/3 years starting his employment, as he did, on May 22, 1963. - * Apparently it never occurred to Inferrera that he, in''effect, was cheating on the un- employment compensation fund by taking the private position that the men were fired and a public position that they were only laid off. This is only one reason why Inferrera is not credited. 520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD raise was 5 or 10 cents an hour and was granted at his request about 2 months before his discharge. He, therefore, went from $1.35 to $1.75 an hour in 9 months. This is almost one-third more than he was making at the beginning. This evidence rebuts Respondent's contention that he was not a satisfactory employee, but again Respondent told him he was laid off for "lack of work." Conclusions 1. I find Basinger and Pineault were both discharged because of union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. When Respondent gave lack of work as the reason for the discharge it was given only as a pretext.8 Basinger was identified by Respondent's agents as one of the instigators of the Union and at the same time Respondent believed there was more than one active union member. They must have believed the other active member was Pineault because of the timing of the layoffs and the reason given therefor. Both were laid off together, shortly after the December 10, 1964, telephone conversation, for the reason which has been found above to be spurious as to Basinger. If the reason were a pretext for Basinger it must also be a pretext as to Pineault under these circumstances, as there is nothing to separate the two employees. The threat to find out who started the Union and fire him was carried out. 2. I find Respondent, through its officers and agents, threatened its employees with discharge or other reprisals if they supported the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling employees: (a) Respondent would find out who was behind the Union and they would be weeded out and fired; (b) Respondent would close the plant and fire all the employees rather than have a third party (the Union) come in; (c) Respondent didn't want the Union and was not going to have it "one way or the other"; (d) Blue Cross insurance would be dropped if the Union came in;, and (e) the practice of giving advances to employees would be dropped if the Union came in. 3. I find under the circumstances of this case, as developed above, that Respondent refused to bargain in good faith with the Union as the majority representative of the employees in an appropriate unit in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. The bargaining request was made on December 2, 1964, when the Union's letter was received,9 in an appropriate unit with the authorization of eight out of the nine employees in the unit. Respondent refused to bargain and instead engaged in the above unfair labor practices designed to cause the employees to revoke their authoriza- tions given the Union. Citation of authority on this basic issue is unnecessary. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma- tive action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend that Respondent offer employees Orvis Daniel Basinger and Robert Pineault full and immediate reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, 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 unlawful discrimination against them, by paying to each of them a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned absent the discrimination, and in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed quarterly as set out in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. As the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent are of the character striking at the roots of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights of employ- ees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 8 Mira-Pak, Inc., 147 NLRB 1075; G d J Company, Inc., 146 NLRB 1151; Ambor, in- corporated, 146 NLRB 1520. 9 Respondent treated the letter a$ a bargaining request. C.H.D. POOL EQUIPMENT, INC. 521 Having found that the Union is the representative of the employees of Respondent in an appropriate unit and that Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with it, I shall recommend that the Respondent , upon request , bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of its employees. Upon the foregoing factual findings and conclusions 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. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of Orvis Daniel Basinger and Robert Pineault by terminating their employment on December 10, 1964, and failing and refusing to reinstate them thereafter, because of their interest in and. activities on behalf of a union, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 4. By refusing to bargain with the majority representative of the employees in an appropriate unit of: All production and maintenance employees, shipping and receiv- ing employees , truckdrivers , and leadmen , excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards , watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act, the Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in a refusal to bargain in good faith within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. 5. By the foregoing conduct, and by threatening its employees with discharge and other reprisals such as closing the plant and firing the employees , dropping the Blue Cross insurance , and dropping the practice of giving advances if they supported the Union, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) thereof. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, I recommend that the Respondent C.H.D. Pool Equipment , Inc., its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall. 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in and activity on behalf of International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No 1710, or in any other labor organization , by discharging , laying off, refusing to reinstate , or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Threatening its employees with discharge or other reprisals and loss of bene- fits, such as Blue Cross insurance and receiving advances, if they supported the Union. (c) Refusing to bargain with the representative of its employees in the above- described appropriate unit. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Orvis Daniel Basinger and Robert Pineault immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and notify any of the employees 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 Mili- tary Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (b) Make whole Orvis Daniel Basinger and Robert Pineault for any loss of earn- ings suffered by them as a result of the discrimination against them , in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy." (c) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate unit aforesaid , with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached , embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying , all payroll records , social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to determine the amounts of backpay due. 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (e) Post at its place of business at Los Angeles, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, 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 altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith." 101n the event that this Recommended Order is 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 Is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1710, or any other labor organiza- tion, by discriminating as to the hire, tenure, or any other term or condition of employment of any of our employees. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge or other reprisals such as dropping the Blue Cross insurance or dropping the practice of giving advances to employees if they support International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1710, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1710, as the exclusive repre- sentative of our employees in the appropriate unit described as follows: All production and maintenance employees, shipping and receiving employees, truckdrivers, and leadmen, excluding all office clerical employ- ees, professional employees , guards, watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL offer Orvis Daniel Basinger and Robert Pineault their former or substantially equivalent jobs, without prejudice to seniority or other employment rights and privileges, and WE WILL pay them, with interest, for any loss suffered because of our discrimination against them. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization. C.H.D. POOL EQUIPMENT, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) NOTE.-We will notify any of the above -named employees 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 discharged from the Armed Services. 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, Eastern Columbia Building , 849 South Broadway , Los Angeles, California , Telephone No. 688-5229. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation