C.H.D. Pool Equipment, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 515 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

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.