E.P. Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1966

157 N.L.R.B. 336 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
good faith with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Local Union 497, as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of our employees in the above unit.
I. D. LowE (TRUSTEE FOR BARBER J . THOMAS, RICHARD C.
LYDLE AND MARILYN K . LYREN) , D/B/A THERMO-RITE
MANUFACTURING 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, 720 Bulk-
ley Building , 1501 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland , Ohio, Telephone No. 621-4465.
E.P. Co., Inc. and Sheet Metal Workers' International Associa-
tion, Local Union No. 170, Sheet Metal Workers' International
Association, AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-CA-5931-1. March 4,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 21, 1965, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 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, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
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 : Amend the second sentence of paragraph
2(e) as follows: "Copies of said notice, in both English and Spanish,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 21, ..."]
i In the context of the Respondent ' s other unlawful interrogations and threats , we agree
with the Trial Examiner that Clyde Maddox coercively interrogated Gonzales by his in-
quiry as to whether Gonzales thought that the Union would be a good thing for him and
the employees . Hciniwh Alotois, Inc., 153 NLRB 1575 ( Lawler ' s interrogation of Patti)
157 NLRB No. 26.
E.P. CO., INC. 337
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard by Trial Examiner David F.
Doyle in Los Angeles, California, on February 1 and 2, 1965, on complaint of the
General Counsel and answer of the Respondent. The issues were whether the
Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act by certain con-
duct described hereinafter.1
At the hearing the parties were represented by the counsel named above who were
afforded full opportunity to present evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to present oral arguments and briefs on the issues.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is engaged at Los Angeles, California, in the manufacture and dis-
tribution of food-handling equipment. In the course and conduct of its business
operation, it annually sells and ships products valued in excess of $50,000 directly
to firms located outside the State of California. It is not disputed, and I find, that
the Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that the assertion of jurisdiction is warranted.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted by the pleadings, and I find, that the Union is now, and at all times
material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues
The complaint alleges that the Company by its officers and supervisors violated
the Act as follows: (1) interfered with the rights of the Company's employees by
interrogation and coercive statements; (2) discriminatorily discharged employee
Rene Fausto on May 1; and (3) refused on and after April 20 to bargain with the
Union which was and is the majority representative of the Company's employees
in an appropriate unit.
The duly filed answer of the Company denies the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
B. Undisputed facts; the unit; the Union's request for recognition and bargaining;
the agreement for consent election
It is undisputed that the Company conducts its business from its manufacturing
plant at 1580 East Industrial Street, Los Angeles, California. It is admitted that at
all times pertinent hereto Clyde Maddox was the president of the Company, and
his brother, Richard Maddox, was its production manager and later its shop superin-
tendent. Prior to October 1, Antonio Vargas was the shop superintendent.
At the hearing, counsel for the parties stipulated that a unit of employees, described
as follows, was appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All of the Company's production, maintenance, shipping, and receiving employees
employed at its plant at 1580 East Industrial Street, Los Angeles, California, exclud-
ing office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
'In this Decision, E.P. Co., Inc. is referred to as the Respondent, the Company, or the
Employer ; Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 170, as the
Union ; the National Labor Relations Board, as the Board ; the General Counsel of the
Board and his representative at the hearing, as the General Counsel ; and the Labor Man-
agement Relations Act, 1947, as the Act.
The original charge in this proceeding was filed on May 4, and a first amended charge
was filed on June 17. The complaint herein was issued on June 26 by the Acting
Regional Director, Region 21.
It should be noted that all dates in this Decision are in the year 1964 unless specified
otherwise.
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the hearing , counsel for the parties also stipulated that at the time of the
Union 's demand for recognition and bargaining , there were 18 employees in this
unit The names of these employees are set forth in an exhibit in evidence. Among
these employees were the following, who testified in this proceeding, Rogerio and
Francisco Chale, Alfredo Huerta-Vasquez, and Rene Fausto.
It is undisputed that during the second week of April , an organizing campaign on
behalf of the Union was initiated among the Company's employees by employee
Rene Fausto. In the first organizational efforts he was assisted by Jose Torres.
Fausto testified, without contradiction, that he initiated the campaign by getting in
touch with Emil Eilmes, international organizer for the Union, and by obtaining some
union authorization cards from Eilmes. Fausto signed a card and received additional
signed cards from other employees. After receiving some further encouragement
from the employees, Fausto arranged a series of meetings in which the employees
became acquainted with Eilmes and a second union organizer, who spoke Spanish.
The meetings were held at a restaurant named Las Rochas, which was located near
the plant In the course of these meetings, Fausto ultimately acquired 11 signed
authorization cards which he turned over to Eilmes.
It is likewise undisputed that on April 20, Joseph A. Hartley, business manager
for the Union, phoned Richard Maddox, then the production manager of the Com-
pany. In this telephone conversation, Hartley told Maddox that the Union repre-
sented a majority of the Company's employees in the production and maintenance
unit, and that the,Union wished to discuss recognition and bargaining with company
officials. Richard Maddox agreed that Clyde Maddox, president of the Company,
and himself would meet with representatives of the Union on that afternoon. At
approximately 2:30 p.m. on that date, Hartley and Eilmes met with the brothers
Maddox to discuss the situation . In the conference , Hartley stated that the Union
had been selected by a majority of the Company's employees to represent the employ-
ees on matters of wages, hours , and working conditions , and he requested recog-
nition and the initiation of bargaining . The representatives of the parties then began
to discuss the type of contract which would be appropriate for an operation like the
Company's ; and it developed that the Union did not represent employees at any other
company whose operations were similar to those of the Respondent . Clyde Maddox,
president of the Company, pointed out that most of the employees were Spanish
speaking and that there was some difficulty in communication between manage-
ment and employees . Finally, the representatives of the parties discussed the elec-
tion procedure of the Board, and the Company stated that the Company would
recognize the Union , if an election conducted by the Board established that the
Union was the majority representative of the employees.
At this meeting, the representatives of the Union did not show representatives of
the Company the authorization cards received by the Union, nor did they offer to
show them to the officials of the Company at a future date. At this conference, the
representatives of the Union agreed to the election procedure, but they cautioned the
Company's representatives that the employees had certain rights which were to be
respected by the Company pending the election.
It is undisputed that representatives of the Company and the Union met with a
representative of the Board on April 27, and that the parties entered into a consent-
election agreement with the approval of the Regional Director, Region 21. It is
likewise undisputed that the approval of the consent -election agreement was with-
drawn by the Regional Director when the instant charges of unfair labor practices
were filed against the Company , and that the election did not take place.
C. The Union's proof of majority
The employee witnesses who testified in this proceeding understand some English,
but are much more fluent in Spanish . Some testified entirely by interpreter, and
others needed an interpreter only on occasion . Fausto, who was the moving spirit
in the organizational campaign , testified in English except for one brief colloquy
when he appeared to misunderstand the question . Counsel for the Company cross-
examined Fausto sharply and in his brief he attacks the credibility of Fausto. How-
ever, Fausto impressed me favorably ; he appeared to testify candidly and honestly,
and I am satisfied that any slight discrepancy as to details in his testimony is due to
Fausto's unfamiliarity with English rather than to any confusion or lack of veracity
on his part . Upon a consideration of all the evidence and a scrutiny of Fausto's,
I accept his entire testimony . Therefore , upon the authorization cards in evidence
and Fausto 's testimony , I find that on April 20 the Union was the majority repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
E.P. CO., INC. 339
D. Interrogation and coercion of employees ; the discharge of Fausto
On the same date on which representatives of the Company and the Union con-
ferred in the office of the Company , Antonio Vargas, shop superintendent, made a
speech to the assembled employees . Fausto testified that at this meeting, Vargas
told the employees that Clyde Maddox had instructed Vargas to tell the employees
that during the previous month they had worked too slow, and for that reason they
had not earned any bonus or incentive pay. Vargas also said that Maddox had
informed Vargas that some of-the employees had gone to the Union , and Vargas
wanted to know whether that was true or not. Vargas said that he didn 't care if the
employees told him right then and there , because a union representative had talked
to the Company and during the next 15 days there would be an election. Then
Vargas said that Maddox told him to tell the employees that if the Union came in,
the employees who spoke Spanish would be fired
Fausto also testified that on or around April 25, at the plant, Vargas spoke to him
personally . Vargas asked him what he thought of the Union and Fausto replied
that he didn't want any problems with the Union or anybody else. Vargas then said
Fausto was a good worker.
Fausto also testified to the manner in which he was discharged by the Company.
He said that on May 1, at quitting time, Vargas instructed him to wait a minute.
Then he said to Fausto , "Mr. Maddox learned that you went to the meeting yester-
day and, well , they became aware of the fact that you made a lot of mistakes in your
work. Well, really, yesterday you didn't want to work extra time , and they thought
because you were going to the meeting and , excuse me , it isn 't my fault but they
decided to let you go, and here's your check." With that Vargas gave Fausto his
check and his employment was terminated . Fausto said that on the previous eve-
ning he and Jose Torres had conferred with two of the union organizers.
Employee Francisco Chale testified credibly that toward the end of April, Super-
intendent Vargas came to him in the plant . Vargas said that he knew that there was
a union meeting that night and that Richard Maddox had hired a detective to watch
the meeting . When the detective reported which employees were present at the
meeting, they would be fired. Chale reported the substance of this conversation to
Fausto who told Chale that there would be no union meetings until further notice.
On that day there was a union meeting scheduled , but it was canceled after this
incident.
Employee Alfredo Huerta-Vasquez testified credibly that on one occasion Vargas
asked him who the union supporters were, and if he was one of them. He disclaimed
any knowledge of the Union.
Superintendent Antonio Vargas was called as a witness for the Company. Vargas
testified that his memory was not too good as to certain aspects of the meeting at
which he addressed the employees . He testified that this meeting took place on the
same day that the union representatives talked to representatives of management,
April 20. When Vargas was asked on direct examination what he had said about
the Union , he replied that he was sure of some things, "But one thing I remember
is that I tell them, if the Union comes in the shop, the company wanted to replace
all the Spanish speaking people, because the company wants only English speaking
people in the shop."
In the course of cross-examination , Vargas admitted that he gave a sworn state-
ment to a Field Examiner of the Board at a date prior to the hearing. Vargas
admitted that in his statement he related this facet of the speech as follows: "I told
them if Mr . Maddox had to deal with the union , then he was going to ask the union
for English speaking people, because he wanted to be able to go outside and talk to
the boys in the shop himself. I did , not mention the word replace or fired to the
employees."
Richard and Clyde Maddox also testified for the Company. Richard Maddox
testified that he was the production manager until the departure of Vargas from
employment with the Company on October 1. After that, Richard Maddox was
both production manager and superintendent . Richard Maddox had direct super-
vision of Fausto. Richard Maddox testified that Fausto had been hired to perform
a deburring operation on certain hardware used by the Company in the manufactur-
ing process . In this operation , he removed burrs from the castings by filing. Fausto
was slow on deburring so he was transferred to the shipping department . A day or
two before his discharge , Richard Maddox had shown Fausto how to pack 15 units
221-3 74-66-vol. 157-23
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of an order for the University of Missouri. When the cabinets were received by the
University, they were found to be damaged because certain items had not been fas-
tened together inside the cabinets. According to Richard Maddox, he had instructed
Fausto specifically on this point. Maddox conferred with Vargas and Clyde Mad-
dox as to whether Fausto should be terminated or not. In this conference, it also
became known that Fausto had misdirected another order and had, on occasion,
refused to work overtime. The conferees then decided to terminate Fausto and
his check was given to Vargas for delivery to Fausto. Clyde Maddox, who was not
the immediate supervisor of Fausto, stated that he knew of the damaged shipment
to the University, of his own knowledge, and his testimony supported that of his
brother.
Fausto was called in rebuttal. He testified that his immediate supervisor was
Vargas and that he rarely had any dealings with Richard Maddox. Fausto said that
Vargas was responsible for one shipment which was misdirected and that he did not
remember the particular shipment to the University of Missouri.
Concluding Findings
The employees who testified in this proceeding, Fausto, Francisco and Rogerio
Chale, and Alfredo Huerta-Vasquez were persuasive witnesses, who appeared to
testify honestly and fairly. Counsel for the Respondent cross-examined these wit-
nesses thoroughly but their testimony remained unshaken. Therefore, upon their
credited testimony, I find that the Company committed violations of Section 8(a)
(1) of the Act by the following conduct of Superintendent Antonio Vargas:
(1) On April 20, by threatening employees with discharge if the Union came into
the plant.
(2) By the interrogations of employees Rogerio Chale, Fausto, and Vasquez con-
cerning the identity of union supporters and sympathizers.
(3) By informing employees Fausto and Francisco Chale that the Company had
hired detectives to keep a union meeting under surveillance , and that those who
attended the meeting would be discharged.
It is also found that Clyde Maddox, president of the Company, interrogated
employee Oscar Gonzales concerning his union sympathies.
I also credit the testimony of Fausto as to the manner in which his discharge was
effected by the Company. Fausto's narration of his interrogation by Vargas on sev-
eral occasions followed by his discharge which appears to have been most' precipitate
and without warning, falls into the familiar pattern, whereby an employer seeks to
rid himself of the ringleader of the union. Apparently Fausto was at least an average
employee , up until the time that management learned that he was one of the ring.
leaders of the Union. Then suddenly Fausto exhibited to management shortcomings
in many aspects ; he misdirected shipments ; failed to - properly pack a shipment; dupli-
cated manufactured merchandise uselessly; and refused to work overtime. All these
deficiencies were discovered in the 48-hour period prior to his discharge . I do not
credit the testimony of Richard Maddox, as supported by Clyde Maddox, which
ascribes these derelictions to Fausto. Therefore, I find that the discharge of Fausto
on May 1, 1964 , constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The facts concerning the alleged refusal to bargain are not in dispute. It is clear
from the testimony of both the union and company representatives that on April 20,
the parties agreed that they would proceed to ascertain the majority of the Union
through, the elective procedures of the Board, and that a few days thereafter the
parties executed an agreement for consent election . If the Respondent had proceeded
to the election without the commission of unfair labor practices , then the question
of refusal to bargain would not have arisen. However, on the very day that repre-
sentatives of the Company assured the Union that the Company would agree to an
election, Superintendent Vargas made his coercive speech to the employees and
embarked upon his campaign of interrogation ' of employees , ending with the dis-
charge of Fausto on May 1. This pattern of interrogation , intimidation , coercion,
and reprisal against adherents of the Union impeaches the claim of good faith on the
part of the Company in this proceeding Inasmuch, as the Company used the period
prior to the election for the commission of unfair labor practices designed to destroy
the majority status of the Union in the appropriate unit, I find that the Company has
refused to bargain in violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act .2
2 Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v N.L R B, 185 F. 2d 732 (C.A D.C.), cert. denied 341 U.S. 914;
Flomatic Corporation, 147 NLRB 1304; Bannon Mills, Inc., 146 NLRB 611.
E.P. CO., INC. 341
I find that the Company did not refuse to bargain by instituting a wage increase to
employees in May. The undisputed testimony is that this wage increase was a
proper continuation of a practice established in prior years.
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 of Respondent , described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States , and constitute unfair labor practices which tend to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of
Section 8(a)(1), (3 ), and (5 ) of the Act , I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Having found that the Company has discriminated in regard to the tenure of
employment of Rene Fausto, I shall recommend that the Company offer to him imme-
diate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to his seniority.and other rights and privileges, and make him whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him
by•payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned
from the date of such discrimination to the date of reinstatement or a proper offer
of reinstatement, as the case may be, less his net earnings during such period; back-
pay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at the rate of
6 percent per annum in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
Having found that the Respondent has failed to bargain with the Union as the
majority representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, I shall recommend
that the Respondent be ordered to bargain collectively, upon request, with the Union
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, to embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
I shall also recommend that the Company preserve and make available to the
Board, or its agents, upon request, all pertinent records and data necessary to assist
in an analysis and computation of the amount of backpay due.
Because of the nature and extent of the unfair labor practices engaged in by
Respondent , which evince a continued attitude of opposition to the purposes of the
Act in general , I deem it necessary to recommend that Respondent cease and desist
from in any manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local Union No. 170, Sheet
Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. E.P. Co., Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By discharging and refusing to reinstate Rene Fausto because of his participa-
tion in union activities, thereby discouraging membership in the above-named labor
organization, the Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By interrogating its employees and by threatening them with discharge if they
engaged in Union activities, the Company has violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
5. At all times since April 20, 1964, the Union has been and is the majority repre-
sentative of the employees of the Respondent in a unit described as follows:
All of the Company's production, maintenance , shipping, and receiving employees
employed at its plant at 1580 East Industrial Street, Los Angeles, California, exclud-
ing office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. By committing unfair labor practices for the purpose of destroying the Union's
majority status in the unit described above, the Respondent has refused to bargain
with the Union in violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and the entire
record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, E.P. Co., Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Sheet Metal Workers' International Union, Local
Union No. 170, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, AFL-CIO, or any
,other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate, or
in any other manner discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist the Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives 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 of such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer Rene Fausto immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive represent-
ative of the employees in the bargaining unit described above as appropriate, and
embody in a signed agreement any understanding which may be reached.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board, or 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 analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended order.
(d) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act
of 1948, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(e) Post at its plant in Los Angeles, California, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by the Company's representative, be
posted 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. The Company shall take reasonable steps to insure that such
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 receipt of this Decision, what steps the Company has taken to comply
herewith.4
I further recommend that unless the Company shall within 20 days from the date
of receipt of this Decision notify said Regional Director, in writing, that it will
comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board
issue an order requiring the Company to take the action aforesaid.
8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
41n the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
DRUG KING, INC . 343
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 Sheet Metal Workers' International
Association , Local Union No. 170 , Sheet Metal Workers ' International Asso-
ciation , AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees , by dis-
charging, refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating against
them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL offer Rene Fausto immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed , and make him whole for any loss of
pay suffered by him as the result of the discrimination against him.
WE WILL, upon request , bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of our employees in the appropriate bargaining unit, concerning
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or other terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached , wE WILL embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All of the Company 's production , maintenance, shipping, and receiving
employees employed at its plant at 1580 East Industrial Street, Los Angeles,
California , excluding office clerical employees , professional employees,
guards, watchmen , and supervisors as described in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the above -named Union or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain , and to refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of the above -named or any other labor organization.
E.P. Co., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NoTE.-We will notify the above -named employee , if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act of 1948 , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 849 South
Broadway, Los Angeles, California , Telephone No. 688-5229.
Drug King, Inc. and Retail Store Employees Union , Local 428,
Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO. Case No.
20-CA.-3372. March 4,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 29, 1965, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
157 NLRB No. 30.