Epps Supermarket

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 1228 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

_1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
izations , to join or assist General Sales Drivers & Allied Employees Union,
Local No. 198, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, 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.
WE WILL offer to Brendan Coughlin, Donald Elgie, Ralph Gonzalez, and
Robert W. Shephard immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the interference, restraint, coercion, and discrimination against them.
All of our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming
,or remaining members in good standing of General Sales Drivers & Allied Em-
ployees Union, Local No. 198, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor organization.
MIAMI COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY,
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 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.
Employees may communicate with the Board's Regional Office, 112 East Cass
Street, Tampa 2, Florida, Telephone Number, 223-4623, if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Epps Supermarket and Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 455, AFL-
CIO, Retail Clerks International Union, AFL-CIO. Case No.
23-CA-1375. September 28, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 27, 1962, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report.
The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not en-
gaged in certain other unfair labor practices as alleged in the com-
plaint. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Interme-
diate report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member, panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
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 Interme-
diate Report and the entire record in the case, including the Respond-
138 NLRB No. 132.
EPPS SUPERMARKET 1229
ent's exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner.2
i In the absence of exceptions , we adopt pro forma the Trial Examiner 's recommended
dismissal of the complaint concerning Store Manager Hamann 's alleged interrogation of,
and threats made to, employee Smith on February 5, 1962.
2 The notice appended to the Intermediate Report is hereby amended by deleting the first
sentence appearing below the signature and substituting therefor the following: "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."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed February 7, 1962, and an amended charge filed March 22,
1962, by Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 455, AFL-CIO, Retail Clerks International
Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Twenty-third Region, issued his complaint dated March 23, 1962, against Epps
Supermarket, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. The Respondent's answer to the complaint
denies the allegations of statutory violations set forth therein. Copies of the com-
plaint, the charges , and a notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Houston, Texas, on April 30, 1962, before
the Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel. All parties were represented by counsel or
other representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine
witnesses and to introduce evidence was afforded all parties. After the close of
the hearing the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs which have been care-
fully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. PERTINENT COMMERCE FACTS
The complaint alleges and the answer admits that the Respondent is a Texas
corporation which operates a chain of retail grocery stores in Texas; that during
the year preceding issuance of the complaint the Respondent sold products valued
in excess of $500,000 and during the same period purchased goods within the State
of Texas valued in excess of $100,000 from firms which themselves purchased goods
valued in excess of $100,000 directly from points outside the State of Texas; that
a substantial portion of these goods purchased by the Respondent originated outside
the State of Texas. The Respondent's answer concedes that it is an employer
engaged in interstate commerce and that its operations affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. In the circumstances I find that
exercise of the Board's jurisdiction over the Respondent's operations will effectuate
the purposes of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint as amended and as revised by the General Counsel's voluntary
deletion of certain allegations sets out various acts of interference, restraint, and
coercion of employees by the Respondent's supervisors and officials in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, including interrogation of employees concerning
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their union sympathies and activities, surveillance of their union meetings, and a
threat to discharge employees for engaging in union activities. The last stated
allegation, the threat to discharge, was dismissed at the hearing on motion of the
Respondent at the close of the General Counsel's case-in-chief for failure of proof.
The General Counsel's brief requests reconsideration of this dismissal. Upon con-
sideration of this request I find no reason for changing my ruling.' Thus there
remains for present determination only whether the Respondent engaged in unlaw-
ful surveillance and interrogation.
In December 1961 the Union began organizing the Respondent's store employees.
In the course of its campaign the Union held several meetings at the home of
employee Doris Jean Goettee. Allegedly Store Manager Hamann unlawfully en-
gaged in surveillance of the January 29 meeting at Mrs. Goettee's home.
Myron Gray, the Union's special representative, and employees Larry B. Cox
and Joe Maxey were among those who attended the January 29 meeting at Mrs.
Goettee's house. In sum their credited testimony shows that Hamann sat in his
parked automobile on the street near Mrs. Goettee's house just before the meeting
was to begin and that after Gray and the employees entered the house Hamann drove
slowly past the house several times. Finally, after Mrs. Goettee's husband photo-
graphed Hamann with a flash exposure as he drove by he departed from the area.
The next day, Gray, accompanied by Jack Sandlin and E. A. Speight, representatives
of two other labor organizations, called on Hamann at the Respondent's store.
Gray testified that Speight requested Hamann to stop interrogating the Respond-
ent's employees concerning their union activities and to cease engaging in surveil-
lance of their meetings. Hamann replied he was doing nothing wrong whereupon
Gray asked him whether he had driven past Mrs. Goettee's house the preceding
night. Hamann acknowledged he had done so and, according to Gray, gave as
his reason the fact he could not believe that his employees were "going union" and
he wanted to find out for himself who was attending the meetings. Sandlin also
testified that Speight had asked Hamann not to interrogate employees and that
Gray had asked Hamann whether he knew it was unlawful to engage in surveillance
of union meetings. To this Hamann replied, according to Sandlin, that he had not
known his conduct was unlawful. He admitted that he had spied on the employees
at their meeting but explained that he had merely wanted to see for himself who
was attending because he could not believe that his employees would go to such a
meeting.
Hamann testified that he does not even know where Mrs. Goettee lives although
he knows the general location of the subdivision. He related that on January 30 he
had received information from Irby Epps, one of the Respondent's owners, concern-
ing price changes of store commodities. Ordinarily Hamann receives this information
and then passes it on to the managers of the Respondent's other stores. On this
occasion, however, he decided not to convey the information by telephone to Man
ager Davis of the Respondent's Pasadena store, but arranged to visit Davis at his
home that evening so that he could see his new house while he, at the same time,
gave him the information concerning the prices. When Davis spoke to him by
telephone that afternoon he did not give Hamann the street number of his house
but merely a general description and information concerning the location. Hamann
had never before been to the house. He related that he left his store at 8:20 or
8:30 p.m. and headed in the direction of Davis' home but then got lost somewhere
along the way. At one point he parked his automobile by the side of the road and
tried to orient his position by reference to a roadmap notwithstanding the fact that
he did not know the name of the street where he was then located and assertedly
was unable to find any street signs in the area. He circled around for about 15
or 20 minutes trying to discover Davis' locality until finally someone jumped from
behind an automobile and set off a flash. At this point he gave up his hunt and
went to Mr. Epps' house and reported to him what had occurred Hamann confirmed
that the next day, which he says was Wednesday, January 31, Union Representative
1 The alleged threat to discharge involved a statement by the Respondent's store man-
ager, Gilbert E. Hamann, to an employee, Smith, to the effect that the Respondent would
be compelled to terminate the employment of certain part-time employees and school help
and to replace them with colored porters if the Union were to succeed in organizing the
Respondent's employees because the Respondent would then not be able to afford payment
of the wages the Union would demand for such employees I did not regard this as a
threat to discharge employees because of their union activities but rather as a prediction
of an eventuality resulting from the Union's expected wage demands which would involve
replacement of employees with less costly help I am not persuaded by the General
Counsel's arguments in the brief to change my view.
EPPS SUPERMARKET 1231
Gray asked him at the store whether he knew it was unlawful to engage in surveil-
lance and that he told him that he did not know this. When Gray accused him of
having been near Mrs. Goettee's house the preceding night, Hamann admittedly did
not reply. He denied having said to Gray that he could not believe that his em-
ployees were "going union."
Concerning the interrogation of employees, the record contains the following
testimony. Employee Joe Maxey testified that on January 18 or 19, 1962, J. C. Epps,
requested him to accompany him to the bank. On the way they discussed Maxey's
activities as a college student and continued this conversation on the return trip.
As they neared the store, Epps asked whether Maxey knew of the Union's organizing
activities. Maxey acknowledged that he did. Then Epps asked whether he had
signed a card for the Union. Maxey denied having done so. Epps proceeded to
disparage the Union and expounded on the disadvantages of unionization. He
inquired of Maxey whether he had been contacted by representatives of the Union
at the store. Maxey admitted there had been several conversations but disclaimed
interest in the Union. Maxey stated that most of the foregoing conversation about
the Union, lasted about 10 minutes as he and Epps sat in a parked automobile
behind the store.
Maxey further testified that Assistant Store Manager Guy Cauthen, concededly
a supervisor, had asked him on the day after the January 28 meeting at Mrs. Goettee's
house, attended by Maxey, how he felt about the Union, whether he had attended
the meeting of the preceding night, and whether he would attend the meeting to be
held that night.
Epps recalled the trip to the bank with Maxey and his conversation with him. He
maintained it took place on January 22 or 23. He acknowledged a discussion with
Maxey about the Union which he admittedly started. He claimed the subject was
raised by his inquiry about Maxey's college career in the course of which he pointed
out the union activities in the store of which he was sure Maxey was aware. Maxey
he said, claimed no interest in the Union and stated his desire to be let alone. Epps
expressed his certainty that Maxey would have no interest in the Union because of
his college career and the fact that he would not continue in the supermarket busi-
ness. Epps insisted this was the entire discussion about the Union and that it lasted
only 2 or 3 minutes. He denied asking Maxey whether he had signed a card for the
Union.
Cauthen testified that he had spoken to Maxey about the Union on February 8
and not before. He associated this date with that conversation because of the
,distribution at the store of a circular which he had seen notifying the employees
of a union meeting that night. Maxey's name was listed on the circular as a member
of the union organizing committee. This prompted Cauthen to remark to him that
he was the last person in the world he would have expected to get mixed up with the
Union. Maxey, he claimed, replied that he had his views and Cauthen his. Nothing
further was said.
Harold W. Smith, Jr., had been employed by the Respondent until February 5,
1962, under a public school distributive education program which, by arrangement
between the school and the Respondent, permitted Smith and others like him to
obtain practical education while being compensated for their work. He testified
that sometime near the end of January or beginning of February 1962 Cauthen had
asked him how he felt about the Union. Smith indicated he was unsympathetic,
whereupon Cauthen patted his back and told him he was a "good boy" and to "keep
it up." Cauthen did not refute this testimony.
Smith further testified that in the first week of February 1962 his schoolteacher
informed the class that the employment of students working for the Respondent had
been terminated. Smith left the school and went directly to the Respondent's
store to see Hamann. The latter was at his home and Smith went there. He sought
Hamann's explanation for the loss of his employment and was informed that the
school had been responsible for this action. In the course of the ensuing discussion
Smith volunteered his disclaimer of connection with the Union, whereupon Hamann
remarked "what did you attend the damn meetings every night for?" Smith replied
he had endeavored to learn what the Union could do for him. This point was dis-
cussed and then Hamann stated disbelief that the Union could muster a 30-percent
showing-of-interest among the employees to enable it to obtain a Board election.
Smith stated his contrary belief. Next Hamann said he could, and according to
Smith did, name each person who had attended a certain union meeting and also
named the Union's organizers. This he followed with derogatory remarks concern-
ing specific employees supporting the Union, particularly those who were ungrateful
for his asserted past considerations. He disparaged union men as thugs who beat
up workers and concluded with a prediction that if the Union were successful the
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent would be compelled to replace its part-time help with Negro porters who
would be compensated by tips from customers.
Hamann acknowledged Smith's visit to his house to discuss his termination. After
being informed that the Respondent had not been responsible for this action Smith
remarked that he had no use for the Union and wanted no part of it. Thereupon,
Hamann testified, he asked why Smith had gone to the "damn meetings." Hamann
was unable to recall what else was said , but admitted telling Smith "in generalities"
he knew who attended the meetings . He claimed this information had been dis-
seminated by Mrs. Goettee. He denied naming the Union's organizers. His com-
ment about replacement of part-time help by porters to be compensated by tips
came in his discussion with Smith about the Union's scale for the "carryout boys."
He had merely pointed out that the Respondent could not afford to retain these boys.
under that scale.
Findings
I am convinced that Hamann 's presence at Mrs. Goettee 's home as the Respondent's
employees were gathering for their union meeting was not an innocent coincidence
but that he had come there deliberately to learn which employees were attending
the meeting . His explanation that he had lost his way en route to another location
several blocks away and that he had several times driven by Mrs. Goettee's house
trying to get his bearings is implausible . I do not believe it. If , as he testified, there
were no street signs ( although as Cox pointed out there really were ) in the area
with which he claimed total unfamiliarity he certainly would not have been helped
by driving about as he did. One would have expected him to ask for directions
from one of the several persons he admittedly saw near their homes. It would
have been reasonable for him to have retraced his steps and to have gone to the
nearest available public telephone to call the person whose address he was seeking.
He did none of these things because he had not lost his way but was intentionally
where he was to engage in surveillance . Mrs. Goettee 's house was on an obscure
side street and not on a main road leading to Hamann 's destination . The distance
from her house to Davis' house to which Hamann claims he was headed could,
so far as this record is concerned, be one or more miles .2 The Respondent did
not show otherwise notwithstanding its obligation to meet the prima facie case
established by the General Counsel's evidence. No logical reason was furnished
to explain satisfactorily how, if Hamann were lost, he just happened to have blun-
dered into the exact location where the employees were meeting. To attribute this
to coincidence defies belief. It is immaterial whether this conduct occurred during
the union meeting of January 29 as related by the General Counsel 's witnesses or
at the January 30 meeting as claimed by Hamann . Whatever the day, his conduct
was for the same purpose . I am, however , satisfied from the credited testimony of
Gray, Cox, and Maxey that Hamann's surveillance occurred on January 29 and
that he was visited the next day, at the store he managed, by Gray and the repre-
sentatives of the other unions . I credit Gray 's and Sandlin 's testimony that on this
occasion Hamann explained that he had driven by the place of the union meeting
to ascertain which employees were attending . In view of this admission I have nog
doubt that Hamann had engaged in unlawful surveillance as alleged by the General
Counsel and find that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
I credit Maxey 's testimony that Epps , interrogated him concerning his union ac-
tivities . I am convinced that Epps , who opened the discussion about the subject„
used the occasion of his trip to the bank with Maxey as a means of conveying to
him his desire that he refrain from participation in these activities and that in the
course of his conversation he sought to learn from Maxey whether he had become
involved with the Union.
As noted, Smith 's testimony that Assistant Manager Cauthen had questioned
him in the latter part of January or early February about his union sympathies was
not denied by Cauthen. I credit Smith's testimony that such interrogation occurred
and that Cauthen upon being advised by Smith that he was not interested in the
Union encouraged him to maintain this attitude . I further find, in accord with
Maxey's credited testimony, that Cauthen had asked him on January 29 whether
he had attended the union meeting of the preceding night and whether he would
attend the meeting to be held that night. Cauthen may have observed to Maxey
that he had not expected him to get mixed up with the Union after his name'
appeared on the February 8 union circular as a member of the organizing com-
2 The General Counsel submitted with his brief a copy of a map of the city of Houston-
published as an official document by an agency of the city. I reject the request to take
administrative notice of the map.
EPPS SUPERMARKET 1233=
mittee. It does not follow from this that he could not also have had the earlier
conversation with Maxey which the latter related.
I find that Epps' interrogation of Maxey and Cauthen's interrogation of Maxey
and Smith were violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. These inquiries concern-
ing the union activities and sympathies of employees , occurring in a context of
union animus and Hamann's unlawful surveillance , tended to impress on the em-
ployees that the Respondent was not just casually concerned with the identification
of the Union 's adherents . On the other hand the Respondent 's determination in
securing such information tended reasonably to intimidate its employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights.
As to Hamann 's conversation with Smith, it is undisputed that Smith was asked
why he had attended the Union 's meetings . I do not, however, regard this inquiry
as aimed at uncovering the identity of union adherents or the union activities or
sympathies of employees . Apparently Smith had erroneously felt that the Re-
spondent had discharged him because of his union activities despite Hamann's
contrary explanation. Smith 's volunteered insistence that he had not been connected
with the Union had provoked Hamann 's response which in context had no coercive
implication. Concerning Hamann 's naming of employees who had attended union
meetings, I can perceive how this might have caused reasonable apprehensions by
employees that Hamann was engaging in surveillance of their union activities. On
the other hand Hamann testified without refutation that he had merely repeated in-
formation that Mrs. Goettee, at whose home the meetings were being held, had'
freely spread . In this circumstance employees could also reasonably have under-
stood that Hamann had acquired knowledge of their attendance at meetings from
this source . There is no need to determine which of these constructions is more
impelling as the record contains other evidence which clearly supports the findings
already made of unlawful surveillance or attempts to create the impression of such
surveillance by Hamann . Accordingly , I shall recommend dismissal of the complaint
allegations concerning Hamann 's comments to Smith.
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 the Respondent 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 thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative
of Section 8(a)( I) 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.
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. Epps Supermarket is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the
Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the-
Act.
2. Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 455, AFL-CIO, Retail Clerks International'
Union , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By engaging in surveillance of the union activities of employees and by inter-
rogating them concerning their union activities and sympathies , the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and'
upon the entire record in this proceeding , I recommend that Epps Supermarket,
Houston, Texas, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from the following:
(a) Interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees engaging in union
activities by surveillance of their union activities or by creating the impression
thereof , or by interrogating them concerning their union sympathies and activities.
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 455, AFL-CIO, Retail Clerks International Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively with representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
engaging in such activities, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its store in Houston, Texas, where the aforestated unfair labor
practices occurred, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix.' 13
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-third
Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Re-
spondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and main-
tained by it for a period of 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.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order what
steps it has taken to comply therewith .4
3. It is recommended that all allegations of the complaint as to which specific
findings of violation have not been made be dismissed.
8 In the event that these Recommendations be adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations 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."
4In the event that these Recommendations are adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region In
writing within 10 days from the date of receipt of this Order what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their right to engage in or to refrain from engaging in union activities by
surveillance of their union activities or by creating the impression of such
surveillance, or by interrogating them concerning their union activities and
sympathies.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, or to join or assist Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 455, AFL-CIO,
Retail Clerks International Union, AFL-CIO, 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 engaging in such activities
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining, members of any labor organization.
Epps SUPERMARKET,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 6617
Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston 2, Texas, Telephone Number,
Capitol 8-0611, Extension 296, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.