Ehrlich Beer Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1987

286 N.L.R.B. 671 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

EHRLICH BEER CORP. 671
Ehrlich Beer Corp . and Local 277, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America . Case 2-CA-
21881
judge and orders that the Respondent, Ehrlich
Beer Corp., New York, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order.
30 September 1987
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BABSON, STEPHENS, AND
CRACRAFT
On 14 May 1987 Administrative Law Judge
Raymond P. Green issued the attached decision.
Both the General Counsel and the Respondent filed
exceptions and supporting briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and
conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended
Order. 3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
i The Respondent and the General Counsel have excepted to some of
the judge 's credibility findings The Board's established policy is not to
overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the
clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they
are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd
188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings
In accordance with our decision in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), interest on and after 1 January 1987 shall be comput-
ed at the "short-term Federal rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set
out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C § 6621 Interest on amounts ac-
crued prior to 1 January 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amendment
to 26 U S C § 6621) shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel
Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977)
3 We disavow the judge 's reference , in sec II,(c), par 1, of his deci-
sion , to employee Ismael Mendez' motivation in seeking union representa-
tion The judge stated , "As to Mr Mendez the question is did the com-
pany discharge him because of his union activities or did he seek union-
ization because he had good reason to believe that he was about to be
fired " We find Mendez' motivation in seeking unionization irrelevant to
the issue of whether his discharge violated Sec 8 (a)(3) and (1).
We agree with the judge 's finding that the Respondent's layoff of its
empties warehouse employees violated Sec 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
We also agree with the judge's rejection of the Respondent's assertion
that the layoffs were necessary because the Respondent 's suppliers no
longer accepted returns of empty cans and bottles The judge found, con-
trary to the Respondent 's assertion , that pursuant to New York law, the
Respondent's suppliers were required to accept such returns In its excep-
tions, the Respondent asserts, inter alia, that the judge misconstrued and
misapplied the applicable New York law We have reviewed McKinney's
Consolidated Laws of New York, Secs 27-1007 and 1009, concerning the
mandatory acceptance of empty beer beverage containers, and we agree
with the judge's conclusion We therefore find that the Respondent has
not met its burden of rebutting the General Counsel's puma facie case of
unlawful layoffs under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd 662
F.2d 889 (1st Cir 1981), cert denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in
NLRB v Transportation Management Corp, 462 U S 393 (1983)
3 The General Counsel has requested that the recommended notice be
printed in English and Spanish We find merit in the General Counsel's
request, and we amend the recommended remedy accordingly
Carol Sabin, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Arthur Liberstein, Esq., of New York, New York, for the
Respondent.
Ann W. Schulman, Esq. (Cohn, Glickstein, & Lurie), of
New York, New York, for the Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RAYMOND P. GREEN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard by me in New York, New York, on 15,
20, and 26 January 1987. The charge in this proceeding
was filed by the Union on 1 October 1986 and the com-
plaint was issued by the Regional Director of Region 2
of the National Labor Relations Board on 13 November
1986. In substance, the complaint as amended at the
hearing alleges:
1. The discriminatory discharge on 27 September 1986
of Ismael M. Mendez.
2. The discriminatory discharges on 30 September
1986 of Carlos Muniz, Ricardo Cruz Morales, Luis
Nieves Morales, Angel Lopez, Juan Soto, Martin Vega,
and Robert Harvin.
Based on the entire record in this case including my
observations of the demeanor of the witnesses and after
reviewing the briefs filed by the parties, I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. J4TRISDICTION
It is admitted by Respondent and I find that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Also at the hearing, the Respondent conceded and I
find that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE FACTS
The Respondent is a small business enterprise engaged
in the wholesale distribution of beer in New York City.
It obtains beer from other larger wholesalers who in turn
get their beer from the brewers. The Company then sells
beer to small markets, restaurants, and taverns. Its chief
operating officer is Scott Ehrlich. i
By June or July 1986, the Company was losing money.
To deal with this problem the Company, among other
things, laid off three of its drivers and substituted owner-
driver to take care of the routes. After this and until
mid-September 1986, the Company directly employed
five persons to work either as drivers, helpers, or ware-
i Scott Ehrlich's father, Irving, is also an officer of the corporation.
The senior Ehrlich has, however, withdrawn from active participation in
the Company and has left it, since 1985, in the hands of his son
286 NLRB No. 58
672 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
housemen. These were Felix Zayas and Carlos Muniz,2
who were mainly drivers, Ismael Mendez who was a
driver/warehouseman,3 Dagoberto Hernandez who
mainly worked in the warehouses, and Robert Harvin
who was a helper.4 Additionally, there were five persons
who worked in the office, these being Scott Ehrlich, his
wife Gina Ehrlich (part-time), Carmelo De Jesus who
was an office manager/bookkeeper, Elizabeth Salgado,
and Brunhilde, whose last name is unknown to me.
In July 1986, while Mendez was closing the ware-
house, the door was damaged. Ehrlich blamed Mendez
for this and insisted that the latter pay for part of the re-
pairs . Mendez did pay $100. The bill was for $243.
On 2 September 1986, Muniz, while driving the com-
pany van, was stopped by the police and received 13 ci-
tations . Twelve of these were for defects in the van. The
other was for driving when his license was suspended. In
this regard, Muniz ' license had been suspended in March
1985 when he was not employed by Ehrlich Beer. On re-
ceiving the citations, Muniz turned them over to Ehrlich
who then had the van fixed.
About 6 September, Mendez was sent to pick up $500
from a customer. At some point later, a dispute arose
whether Mendez turned this money into the office. As to
this, Mendez testified that about 2 weeks before his dis-
charge Ehrlich accused him of not turning in the money.
He testified, "I noticed a change in Ehrlich' s attitude
toward me. I think he thought I took the money."
With respect to the money incident, Ehrlich testified
that although the event occurred on 6 September, he
first discovered that the money was missing during the
week of 22 September when he checked the books. It is
Ehrlich's contention that after discovering the discrepan-
cy after not receiving a satisfactory explanation from
Mendez that he decided to discharge him.
According to Mendez he had another dispute with
Ehrlich about a week and a helf before his discharge.
This involved Mendez not wanting to stay every night
to lock up and Ehrlich's insistence that he continue to do
so.
On 10 September 1986 the Company received a sum-
mon's from the city of New York concerning the bottles
and cans that the Company had allowed to accumulate
on the sidewalk. Because of this citation, Ehrlich asked
an employment agency, Mobicentrics, to send over a
group of people to clean up the mess . In this regard,
Vasquez, an employee of Mobicentrics who has dealt
with the Respondent over the years, testified that she
was asked to refer some people for temporary jobs. Con-
sequently, on 16 September, Mobicentrics referred five
persons to the Company all of whom were hired and
were put to work cleaning up the empty bottles and
cans . These people were Martin Vega, Juan Soto, Angel
Lopez, Luis Nieves Morales , and Ricardo Cruz Morales.
When they began work they were put under the direc-
2 Minuz originally began working for the Company in May 1984 He
left in January 1985 and was rehired as a driver in April 1986
8 Mendez had a key to the warehouse, which he opened in the morn-
ing and closed at night He lives within walking distance of the Compa-
ny
4 Harvin was originally hired in October 1985 He was laid off in the
spring of 1985 and rehired in June or July 1986
tion of Harvin who was one of the Company's regular
employees. I note at this point that the Company has
two warehouses that are near each other. The main
warehouse is for the beer that is to be distributed and
this also contains the Company's offices. The other ware-
house where the new group of employees was assigned
is used to house empty cans and bottles prior to their
return to the Respondent's suppliers.
Mendez testified that he began speaking to other em-
ployees about getting the Union sometime during the
week of 21 September 1986. He states that he did so qui-
etly in Spanish, which is a language not spoken or under-
stood by Ehrlich. If I credit Mendez' account, I must
conclude that he did not begin discussing a union until
after the two incidents described above and after Ehr-
lich's attitude toward him had changed. Thus, I am in-
clined to believe, notwithstanding his assertions to the
contrary, that Mendez began thinking about getting a
union after he began to realize that his job might be in
jeopardy.
On Wednesday, 23 September , Muniz went to traffic
court. He took with him repair bills so as to clear these
tickets. The cases, however, were put over to Monday
and Muniz was told that he ought not drive until his li-
cense was reinstated.
On Friday, 25 September, Mendez called the Union
and spoke to Anthony Distinti. This was his first contact
with the Union while employed at Ehrlich Beer.5 Dis-
tinti told him to call back on Monday. Later on Friday,
Mendez went to speak to the employees at the empties'
warehouse about unionization . (By this time, the bottles
and cans had been cleaned from the street and these em-
ployees were straightening out the empties' warehouse.)
On Saturday, 26 September, Mendez was fired. Ac-
cording to Mendez he was called into Ehrlich's office
after the employees were given their weekly pay. He
states that Ehrlich told him that he was no longer
needed. According to Mendez when he asked why, Ehr-
lich said that they were not seeing eye to eye, that they
needed a vacation from each other, and that perhaps in
the future Mendez could come back to work. When
Mendez said that he needed a letter for unemployment
benefits, Ehrlich told him to come back on Monday.
On Monday, 29 September, Mendez went to get his
letter. He was told, however, that he did not need a
letter and to just tell the unemployment agency that he
was laid off because work was slow. When Mendez pro-
tested that he should not be laid off for such a reason be-
cause of his seniority, Ehrlich told Mendez to do what-
ever he wanted.
On Monday morning , after visiting the Company,
Mendez went over to the union office where he told
Distinti of his discharge. At this time Distinti gave
Mendez some authorization cards to distribute to other
employees. That afternoon, Mendez picked up Muniz at
the traffic court and the two returned to the empties
warehouse. (Although clearing up the tickets relating to
5 At an earlier time while employed at another company , Mendez had
been a member of Local 277 IBT and knew Distinti.
EHRLICH BEER CORP.
the van, Muniz did not get his license reinstated because
he did not have enough money to pay his fine.)
According to Mendez and Muniz, about 4 p.m. on
Monday, they saw that the people working in the emp-
ties warehouse were let off early. They then approached
these employees and induced them to sign union authori-
zation cards. Mendez and Muniz thereafter went over to
the main warehouse where they met Dagoberto Hernan-
dez and Felix Zayas. These two employees also signed
cards albeit reluctantly.
On Tuesday morning , 30 September, Mendez deliv-
ered the signed union cards to the Union. According to
Distinti, after receiving these cards he sent Mendez over
to the Union's lawyer for the purpose of filing an elec-
tion petition and an unfair labor practice charge.
According to Distinti between 1 and 2 p.m. on Tues-
day, 30 September, he made a phone call to the Compa-
ny. He testified that he first spoke to a woman who iden-
tified herself as Jean Ehrlich to whom he told that he
was a union representative; that he represented the Com-
pany's employees; and that he wanted to negotiate a con-
tract. Distinti states that she then turned over the phone
to someone who identified himself as Scott Ehrlich and
to whom he said the same things. Both Mr. and Mrs.
Ehrlich deny any such phone conversation. On demean-
or grounds, I shall credit Distinti in this regard.
About 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, Scott Ehrlich, accompa-
nied by Carmelo De Jesus, laid off all the employees
working at the empties' warehouse including Robert
Harvin. He told them that they were being laid off be-
cause his suppliers were not accepting the returns of his
empties. He also told them that if he needed their serv-
ices in the future he would recall them. As to the assert-
ed reason for laying off these employees, I note that
under New York law, his suppliers are required to
accept the return of empty bottles and cans just as Ehr-
lich Beer is required to accept returns from his custom-
ers. The persons laid off at this time were Robert
Harvin, Martin Vega, Juan Soto, Angel Lopez, Luis Mo-
rales, and Richardo Morales. Dagoberto Hernandez and
Felix Zayas were kept on. Thereafter, according to
Muniz , about 2:40 p.m. he too was told by Ehrlich that
he was fired.
Subsequent to the discharges, 1 he Union picketed the
Company for a few days in early October. Also it filed
the instant unfair labor practice charge on 1 October
1986.
On 6 October the Company hired an individual named
Arthur Graham who basically did Robert Harvin's job.
Thereafter on 16 October Mobicentrics referred three
employees to the Company, these being Mike Trache,
Wilfred Madera, and Roniel Pagan . At the end of Octo-
ber these three employees were laid off but Graham was
kept on. At the end of November, Trache was rehired
and continued to work thereafter. In December 1986,
four more individuals were hired including Juan Soto,
one of the alleged discriminatees who was laid off on 30
September. I am not certain, based on this record, how
long this group worked.
III. ANALYSIS
673
As to Mendez, the question is did the Company dis-
charge him because of his union activities or did he seek
unionization because he had good reason to believe that
he was about to be fired?
Mendez had been employed by the Company for more
than 2 years without any apparent problems until the
summer of 1986, when the broken door incident oc-
curred. Nevertheless by his own account Mendez was in-
volved in two significant disputes with Ehrlich within 2
weeks of his discharge. Thus, Mendez testified that about
2 weeks before he was fired, Ehrlich accused him of
taking $500 after which Ehrlich's attitude toward him
changed. Mendez also testified about a subsequent dis-
pute regarding his having to stay late to close the shop.
The significance of those disputes is not who was right,
but rather the disputes occurred almost immediately
before Mendez began talking to other employees about
getting a union.6 Thus the change in attitude that
Mendez described Ehrlich as having, could not have
been caused by any union activities on the former 's part.
After Mendez reached the conclusion that Ehrlich be-
lieved that he had taken the missing money, Mendez
began talking to other employees about getting a union.
In this respect, he testified that he did so in a quiet way
and in Spanish, a language not spoken by Ehrlich. In
fact, there is no evidence that would lead one to the con-
clusion that Ehrlich was aware of this activity prior to
the discharge of Mendez on Saturday, 27 September.
Because of the lack of evidence showing Respondent's
knowledge of Mendez' union activities and because of
the two disputes described above, I conclude that Re-
spondent's decision to discharge Mendez was not moti-
vated by illegal reasons.
The Respondent asserts that the layoffs of the employ-
ees who worked in the empties warehouse were eco-
nomically motivated.
In this respect, it asserts that these people were tempo-
rarily employees who were laid off when the Company's
suppliers no longer accepted returns of empty cans and
bottles. The fact is, however, that pursuant to New York
law, the Respondent's suppliers were required to accept
such returns. Therefore the asserted reason for laying off
these employees makes no sense to me. Further, as I
have credited Distinti's assertion that he, on behalf of the
Union, telephoned the Company and spoke to Mr. and
Mrs. Ehrlich only minutes before these employees were
laid off, I am convinced, based on the totality of the evi-
dence, that these layoffs were motivated by antiunion
consideration.'
6 I make no conclusion whether Mendez handed in the money
r As to Vega, Soto, Lopez, Luis Morales, and Ricardo Morales, I am
of the opinion that they were hired for the purpose of cleaning up the
bottles and cans on the street and to straighten out the empties ware-
house In this respect, the evidence indicates that this was just about fin-
ished on 30 September. Thus, although I have concluded that the assert-
ed reason for laying off the above -named employees was pretextual, it is
apparent that the purpose for which these employees had been hired had
largely been accomplished Therefore it is likely that some or all of these
people (except for Harvin), would have been laid off soon after 30 Sep-
tember notwithstanding their union activities I therefore leave that issue
for the compliance state of this proceeding
674 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I am also of the opinion that the discharge of Muniz
was discriminatorily motivated. In his case, the Employ-
er testified that he discharged Muniz because Muniz'
driving license had been suspended. While appearing to
be a legitimate reason superficially, the fact remains that
the tickets, including the ticket for driving without a li-
cense, were turned over to Ehrlich in early September
and Muniz was kept employed until 30 September, basi-
cally as a warehouseman.
I do not credit Ehrlich's assertion that he first suspect-
ed on 24 September that Muniz' license had been sus-
pended. I also do not credit his assertion that he did not
discharge Muniz immediately on discovering his license
problem because he wanted to use Muniz to take care of
the other tickets at traffic court. On the basis of the
record as a whole and considering the timing of his dis-
charge (soon after the telephone call from Union Agent
Distinti), I conclude that the discharge of Muniz was
motivated by antiunion considerations. However, as
Muniz was employed primarily as a driver, I cannot rec-
ommend that he be reinstated to that position unless and
until his driver's license has been restored.8
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Ehrlich Beer Corp. is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 277, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By discharging Carlos Muniz , Ricardo Cruz Mo-
rales, Luis Nieves Morales, Angel Lopez , Juan Soto,
Martin Vega , and Robert Harvin because of their union
activities , Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (3)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Except to the extent heretofore found , the other al-
legations of the complaint are dismissed.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated the
Act in certain respects, I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
With respect to Robert Harvin, it is recommended that
Respondent offer him full and immediate reinstatement
to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his se-
niority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and to make him whole for any loss of earnings he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced
against him, such earnings to be computed in accordance
with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 298 (1950), with interest thereon to be computed
in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231
8 In the absence of a proper license, Muniz could be reinstated to a job
as a warehouseman or helper
NLRB 651 (1977). See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1982).
Additionally, in accordance with Sterling Sugars, 261
NLRB 472 (1982), I shall recommend that Respondent
remove from its files any reference to the discharge of
Harvin and to notify him in writing that this has been
done and that evidence of same will not be used as a
basis for future personnel actions against him.
As to Carlos Muniz I recommend that Respondent
offer him immediate reinstatement to the position of
driver on condition that his driver's license has been re-
instated. Otherwise, I recommend that he be offered re-
instatement to either a position as a warehouseman or
helper. In either case such offer should be without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previ-
ously enjoyed. Insofar as backpay is concerned, I recom-
mend that Muniz be made whole, with interest, for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered in accordance with
the principle set forth above in F W Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651
(1977), and Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1982). I
also recommend that his record be expunged in the
manner described above as per Sterling Sugars, 261
NLRB 472 (1982).
With respect to Ricardo Cruz Morales, Luis Nieves
Morales, Angel Lopez, Juan Soto, and Martin Vega, I
shall recommend that Respondent reinstate these em-
ployees to their former positions of employment (tempo-
rary warehousemen), if and when such positions are
available, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights previously enjoyed. I shall also recommend that
backpay be granted to them with interest to the extent
that they may have suffered a loss of earnings in accord-
ance with the principles set forth above in F W. Wool-
worth Co., 90 NLRB 298 (1950), Florida Steel Corp., 231
NLRB 651 (1977), and Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1982). Likewise I recommend the same expunction
remedy in accordance with Sterling Sugars, 261 NLRB
472 (1982).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed9
ORDER
The Respondent, Ehrlich Beer Corp., New York, New
York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or laying off employees because of
their union support or sympathies.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights to self-organization, to form, join, and assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining
8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
EHRLICH BEER CORP
or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) In accordance with the remedy section of this deci-
sion , offer Robert Harvin, Carlos Muniz, Ricardo Cruz
Morales , Luis Nieves Morales, Angel Lopez, Juan Soto,
and Martin Vega immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially 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.
(b) Remove from its files any references to the dis-
charges of the above-named employees and notify them
in writing that this has been done and that evidence of
the discharges will not be used as a basis for any future
personnel actions against them.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its place of business copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." i ° Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2,
after being signed by the Respondent's authorized repre-
sentative , shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi-
al.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps have been
taken to comply therewith. For the purpose of determin-
ing or securing compliance with this Order, the Board,
or any of its duly authorized representatives, may obtain
discovery from the Respondent, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, or assigns, or any other person having knowl-
edge concerning any compliance matter, in the manner
provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such
discovery shall be conducted under the supervision of
675
the Untied States court of appeals enforcing this Order
and may be had on any matter reasonably related to
compliance with this Order, as enforced by the court.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or layoff our employees be-
cause of their union activities or other protected concert-
ed activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer reinstatement to Robert Harvin, Carlos
Muniz, Ricardo Cruz Morales, Luis Nieves Morales,
Angel Lopez, Juan Soto, and Martin Vega and make
them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf-
fered because of our discharges or layoffs of them on 30
September 1986.
EHRLICH BEER CORP.
10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "