Ernie Grissom Chevrolet, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1967

168 N.L.R.B. 1052 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ernie Grissom Chevrolet, Inc. and Automotive
Salesmen's Association (A.S.A.), Independent.
Case 7-CA-5972
December 29, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On August 15, 1967, Trial Examiner John F.
Funke issued his Decision in the above-entitled
case, finding that Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, 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 Examiner's Decision, and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 the case, and hereby
adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that Respondent, Ernie
Grissom Chevrolet, Inc., Mt. Clemens, Michigan,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as modified herein:
1. Delete paragraph 2(d) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order and the Armed Forces para-
graph immediately following the signature line in
the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
2. Delete the fourth indented paragraph of the
Appendix and substitute therefor:
Since the Board found that we violated the
law when we refused to allow the strikers to
return, WE WILL pay our employees for any
pay or other financial loss they may have suf-
fered between March 6 and 17, 1967.
1 Although the Trial Examiner does not explicitly make credibility
resolutions, by setting forth in his Decision an account of the events lead-
ing to the violations, he has impliedly credited testimony of the General
Counsel's witnesses and rejected conflicting versions. Respondent's ex-
ceptions are in large measure directed to such credibility resolutions It is
the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolu-
tions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all the
relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(C.A. 3). We find no such basis for disturbing the Trial Examiner's credi-
bility findings in this case.
2 We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's statement in his section entitled
"Conclusions of Law" that the Board's Decision in Louisville Chair Com-
pany, Inc., 161 NLRB 358, is resjudicata upon the 8(a)(^) issue herein
While that decision is relevant and controlling on the facts, we note that
the doctrine of res judicata does not apply.
We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act in refusing reinstatement to the
strikers on March 6, even if, upon Respondent's statement that it would
not take them all back, some of them expressed an intention to return only
if all were reinstated. The record shows that they were economic strikers,
none of whom had been replaced, and all of whom were therefore entitled
to be returned to work. Under these circumstances, and as jobs were
available for all, an application seeking reinstatement of all the strikers is
not conditional. Cactus Petroleum, Inc. 134 NLRB 1254,1260-6 1.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed
March 15, 1967, and amended charge filed April 12,
1967, by the Automotive Salesmen's Association
(A.S.A.), Independent, herein the Union, against Ernie
Grissom Chevrolet, Inc., herein Grissom or the Respond-
ent, the General Counsel issued complaint alleging
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the
Act. Respondent's answer denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was
heard before me at Detroit, Michigan, on June 7 and 8,
1967. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were
given leave to file briefs and briefs were received from the
General Counsel and Respondent on July 24.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses while testifying, I make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Michigan corporation having its prin-
cipal place of business at Mt. Clemens, Michigan, where
it is engaged in the retail sale of new and used automo-
biles. During a representative year it purchases automo-
biles and related products valued in excess of $900,000
of which goods and materials valued in excess of
$100,000 are purchased and delivered to it from points
outside the State of Michigan. During a representative
year Respondent sales are in excess of $900,000.
I find Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
168 NLRB No. 145
ERNIE GRISSOM CHEVROLET, INC. 1053
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. The refusal to bargain
On December 6, 7, and 8, the Regional Director for
Region 7 conducted representation elections at approxi-
mately 135 automobile agencies in the metropolitan area
of Detroit, including Grissom.' On February 7, 1967,2
the Union was duly certified as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees of Grissom in a unit
described as: All new and used car and truck salesmen at
the Respondent's operations excluding office clerical em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act,
and all other employees.
Following the elections and prior to certification
Respondent and other agencies had filed timely objec-
tions to the elections which were overruled by the
Regional Director on February 7 when certification
issued.3 Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations, Respondent filed a request for review
and exceptions to the supplemental decision of the
Regional Director. On April 27 the request for review
was denied by the Board.4
On February 23 Duane Ashley, counsel for the Union,
sent Respondent a letters reading:
Attn: Mr. Ernest K. Grissom
Dear Sir:
The Automotive Salesmen's Association (A.S.A.),
Independent , requests that you be present at a meet-
ing at which the Union will set forth its demands in
behalf of your sales employees.
The meeting will take place on February 27, 1967
at 1:00 P . M., in Room 1830 , First National Building,
Detroit , Michigan 48226.
While this meeting will be a joint meeting with
other dealers , it is not intended to deprive you of
your right to bargain with the Union as a separate
unit if you so desire.
Frederick Colombo, attorney for the Respondent
and for other dealers, testified that he attended the
meeting on February 27 as requested and that a
Timothy Mulroy and John W . George, Sr.,
represented the Union . (Representatives of other
dealers were also present .) At this meeting the union
representatives presented Colombo with a proposed
contract which "except for the changes in commas,
cross tees and dotting eyes, this was the contract the
dealers were going to sign or else the salesmen would
go out on strike on March I st." Colombo told Mul-
roy that his dealers would negotiate separate con-
tracts and that he would send a copy of the contract
to all his clients. He also indicated that a request for
review of the Regional Director's supplemental deci-
sion was pending and that until that matter was de-
cided he did not feel his clients were obligated to
bargains On March 1 the employees of Grissom
struck in what is referred to by the Union as a
"demonstration strike." 7
2. The strike
Frederick D. George, secretary of the Union, testified
that on February 28 the membership of the Union voted
to engage in strike action on March 1 to obtain recogni-
tion from the dealers where the Union had been certified
following the December elections. On March 1 the em-
ployees of the certified agencies went on strike at 12 p.m.
The employees of Respondent joined the strike on that
day. On March 5 a meeting of the executive officers of
the Union was held and it was determined to call off the
strike on the next day, March 6, at 12 p.m. George stated
that the dealers were called and asked to take the men
back and that he talked to Ernie Grissom and asked Gris-
som to have Hugh Lennox, the strike captain, call him
after telling Grissom the strike was off. Lennox later
called and told George that Grissom would not put the
men back to work.8 The next day George and a salesman
from another dealer went to Grissom, talked to Ernie
Grissom who told them he did not want the men back and
that they could continue picketing. George had no further
contact with Grissom.
Harry Stephen Morris, a salesman, testified that he
went on strike on March 1 because the dealers would not
agree to a contract on that date. All of the salesmen but
three at Grissom walked out. The men picketed at the
Gratiot Avenue entrance to Grissom. On March 6 Hugh
Lennox, strike captain, received a call from the Union
and was told that the strike was over. Morris and Lennox
went into the office, saw Ernie Grissom (his son Ken was
also present) and told him the strike was over and they
would all come back to work. Grissom was told that they
would all come back or none would and Grissom told
them that one employee, Bill Gonyeau, would never
come back because he had been too "enthusiatic" on the
picket line. When Grissom repeated that certain em-
ployees would not be reinstated the salesmen resumed
picketing. Later Gonyeau told the salesmen he did not
want them hurt because of him and Lennox and Morris
returned and told Grissom they would return without
Gonyeau. Grissom said he did not want any of them
back.9 Picketing was again resumed . Sometime after
picketing resumed Ernie Grissom told the men that there
was no use in reinstating the men because they would
only go out again in 10 days in any event. During these
conversations, according to Morris, Ernie Grissom told
him he would never sign a contract with the Union and
that the men were wasting their time.
On March 16 Grissom told the salesmen that he was
willing to take all the men back and asked for a vote. The
1 Case 7-RC-7473.
Unless otherwise noted all dates hereafter refer to 1967
$ G.C. Exh. 2. (The ruling on objections and certification were one
document.)
4 G.C Exh. 3.
5 Resp ]Exh. 1. This letter was also sent to other dealers.
6 The request for review was filed March 1.
7 The testimony of George is in substantial agreement with that of
Colombo.
8 While this testimony was excluded as hearsay, the credited testimony
of Lennox, however, confirms the fact that he was told by Grissom that he
did not want any of the men back
9 It was stipulated that on March 6 none of the salesmen had been
replaced.
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men unanimously voted to go back and all returned on
March 17.
Hugh Lennox testified that he was steward for the
salesmen and cocaptain with Morris of the pickets. On
March 6 he was told by Ernie Grissom that he was to call
the Union, he did call and was told the strike was over.
He and Morris then talked to Ernie Grissom and told him
the men were ready to go back to work. According to
Lennox, Grissom told him he would not take Gonyeau
back. When Morris and Lennox reported this to the
pickets, Gonyeau said he would "not hold things up."10
Morris and Lennox then reported this to Ernie Grissom
who told them he would not take anyone back. This, ac-
cording to both Morris and Lennox, was the second con-
versation they had with Ernie Grissom on that day.
Leroy Trubiano testified that on March 13 Grissom
called five of the strikers" to his conference room and
told them the strike was washed up and that he would
take most but not all of the men back. (To the best of Tru-
biano's recollection Gonyeau and Clark Surrato would
not be taken back.) The conditions of reemployment were
that the men would turn their union cards in and give a
statement that they would resign from the Union and not
have anything to do with it as long as they worked for
Ernie Grissom. Grissom told them to give him an answer
in about an hour. The men left and continued picketing.12
Trubiano also testified to a meeting attended by all
strikers after March 6 in Grissom's conference room at
which they were given a copy of the Union's proposed
contract but he was unclear as to what else took place.
(The probable date of this meeting according to other em-
ployees, was either March 8 or 9.)
Richard Buggy, a salesman, testified that at the sales
meeting held on March 1 the salesmen were told by Ernie
Grissom that anyone going on strike was to leave his keys
on Grissom's desk and that if they walked out they were
"done." He also told them he would not sign a contract
with any union. The men turned over their keys and
walked out at noon.
On March 13 Buggy went into Grissom's office with
Lennox, Derwa, Steiner, and Trubiano where they were
told that some but not all could come back to work.
Gonyeau and Surrato were mentioned as salesmen who
would not be taken back. The men simply returned to
picketing as a result of this meeting.13
Ernie (Grissom testified that the picket line was
established at his place of business on March 1 without
notice as to the reason. No demands were made upon him
except for the written demand for a meeting made by
Duane Ashley in his letter dated February 23.14 On
March 6' Grissom talked to Lennox and Morris in the
presence of his son, Ken Grissom. Morris told him the
strike had been called off and Grissom replied that not all
the men would be taken back. Lennox then told him that
the men would be out again in a couple of days anyway
and Grissom said that they might as well continue to
picket. Gonyeau, according to Grissom, was not men-
tioned and there was no second meeting with Lennox and
Morris.
On or about March 8 Grissom gave a copy of the
Union's proposed contract15 to his salesmen at a meeting
in his conference room. He particularly pointed out to his
salesmen the charges embraced in Schedule A of the con-
tract which created a trust fund. The pertinent paragraphs
of the contract read:
BENEFIT PROGRAM
The Company shall pay into a statutorily created
Trust Fund the sum of $5.00 per car. Such a fund
shall be created at the time the fund shall be actuari-
ally feasible. At such time the Company shall have
the right to cut off all benefits included in the Trust
Agreement. Said agreement shall be a complete sub-
stitution for the benefits included in the fund and
prior to the cutoff date provided by the Company.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Company shall add to the cost of motor vehi-
cle $5.00, which shall be charged against the
salesman who receives the commission , as dues, but
shall not affect the amount of commission he
receives.
On March 13 Grissom again met with his salesmen in
his conference room where he told them their union
leadership was very weak, that they were walking for
nothing and asked them to sign an affidavit repudiating
the Union as their bargaining representative. These af-
fidavits were to be sent to the National Labor Relations
Board. He also told them they could throw their cards in
if they wanted to. At this point Grissom, according to his
own testimony, stated the men were willing to return
without two unnamed employees. Nevertheless the men
returned to picket duty following this meeting. Grissom
admitted that either at this meeting or.at some other time
he told his employees he would not sign a contract with
the Union.
On March 16 Grissom held another meeting with his
employees at which the salesmen told him they were
willing to return to work and all, except George Flood,
returned on March 17. 16
The testimony of Ernie Grissom with respect to the
meetings held on March 6, 9, 13, and 16 was cor-
roborated by that of his son Ken Grissom.
B. Conclusions
I agree with the General Counsel that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act when it refused to bargain
with the Union after it filed its petition for review of the
Regional Director's supplemental decision and certifica-
tion of the results of the election on March 1. The
Board's Rules and Regulations, Section 102.67(b), pro-
vide that the filing of such a request shall not operate to
stay action taken by the Regional Director. No applica-
tion for a stay was taken by Respondent and the request
was denied on April 27. Under such cit cumstances I find
the Board's Decision in Louisville Chair Company, Inc.,
10 This part of Lennox's testimony is corroborated by Leroy Trubiano,
another striking employee.
11 The five strikers called in were Trubiano, Richard Buggy, Ted
Steiner, Hugh Lennox, and George Derwa.
11 This was their answer to Grissom's request
13 This testimony was corroborated in substance by George Derwa
who also testified that he was present at the meeting called by Grissom at
which copies of the Union's proposed contract was given out.
14 Resp. Exh 2.
is Resp. Exh. 1.
is Flood's failure to return to work was due to his own volition , accord-
ing to Grissom.
ERNIE GRISSOM CHEVROLET, INC. 1055
161 NLRB 358, controlling. The Board there adopted the
decision of the Trial Examiner that, absent an application
for a stay, Respondent was obligated to bargain with the
representative certified by the Regional Director. I find
the case resjudicata upon this issue.
I also agree with the General Counsel that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act when it refused
to reinstate the striking employees upon their uncondi-
tional application to return to work on March 6. In so
finding, I do not see that it is necessary to decide either
whether the strikers at first conditioned their offer upon
reinstatement of all the strikers or whether two meetings
were held with Ernie Grissom on that day. The Board
held in Cactus Petroleum, Inc., 134 NLRB 1254, 1261,
that "It is well established, however, that applications for
reinstatement by unfair labor practice strikers are not
made conditional merely by insistence that all be given
their jobs back or none would return."" It is only to those
unsophisticated in the nuances of labor law that it would
appear that an offer to return made contingent upon a
condition was an unconditional offer. I therefore find that
on March 6 the strike was converted into an unfair labor
practice strike. Is
I also find that Ernie Grissom's statements to his em-
ployees that he would never sign a contract with the
Union and his request made on March 9 that they turn in
their cards and sign affidavits repudiating the Union con-
stituted violations of Section 8(a)(1).
Contrary to the General Counsel, I do not find that the
Respondent's request for review of the Regional
Director's decision constituted an unfair labor practice.
If the Board's Rules and Regulations cannot be used by
Respondents either by way of appeal or review without
subjecting Respondents to a charge of unfair labor prac-
tice then perhaps the Board should issue a caveat to that
effect. Otherwise the action of the General Counsel and
approval by the Board would partake of entrapment.
There is nothing in the record before me to indicate
Respondent's request was taken solely for the purpose of
delay.
Since I have already found that Respondent, by refus-
ing to bargain while its request for review was pending be-
fore the Board, engaged in a violation of Section 8(a)(5)
I find it unnecessary to pass upon the General Counsel's
contention that the case falls within the Joy Silk
doctrine.' 9 I also find it unnecessary to pass upon his con-
tention that Respondent attempted to bypass the certified
representative' of its employees by its meetings with the
employees on March 8 (or 9), 13, and 16. The bargaining
order recommended should suffice.
tions of employment it shall be recommended that
Respondent shall, upon request, bargain collectively with
the Union and embody any agreement reached in a signed
document.
Having found that Respondent discriminated against
the 14 employees named below by refusing to reinstate
them to their former positions upon their unconditional
offer to return to work on March 6 in order to discourage
their union membership it shall be recommended that
these employees be made whole for any loss of pay and
other financial loss they may have suffered by reason of
said discrimination from March 6 to the commencement
of business on March 17. Loss of pay shall be computed
with interest in accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heatin,
Co., 138 NLRB 716. These 14 employees are:
Theodore A. Steiner Alvin Bracey
Clark E. Surrato Ray F. Bradshaw
Hugh Lennox Richard Buggy
Robert J. Morgan George C. Derwa
Stephen H. Morris George Flood
Lee Trubiano George Gonyeau
John L. West Joe Spanolo
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclu-
sions, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By requesting its employees to turn in their union
cards, sign affidavits rejecting the Union as their bargain-
ing representative, and telling them it would never sign a
contract with the Union, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By refusing to reinstate and reemploy the 14 em-
ployees above named upon their unconditional offer to
return to work on March 6, Respondent discriminated
against said employees with respect to their terms and
conditions of employment to discourage membership in
the Union and thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
3. By refusing to bargain collectively with the Union
as the representative of its employees in the unit found
appropriate herein the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit is: All new and used car and
truck salesmen at the Respondent's operations, excluding
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined by the Act, and all other employees.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices as defined in Section 2(6) and (7)^of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in and is engag-
ing in certain unfair labor practices I shall recommend
that it cease and desist from the same and take certain af-
firmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that Respondent refused to bargain col-
lectively with the duly certified representative of its em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate herein concerning
wages, rates of pay, hours, and other terms and condi-
11 Enforcement denied on other grounds 355 F.2d 755 (C.A. 5).
18 Since it was stipulated that none of the strikers had been replaced on
March 6 the issue is moot . Whether they were on that day economic
strikers or unfair labor practice strikers they were entitled to reinstate-
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record in this case, it is
recommended that Respondent, Ernie Grissom
Chevrolet, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Requesting its employees to turn in their union
cards, sign affidavits rejecting the Union as their bar3ain-
ment.
11 Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263 , enfd . as modified 185 F.2d 732
(C.A.D.C)
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Ing representative, and telling its employees it would
never sign a contract with the Union.
(b) Discriminating against any employee in regard to
his hire or other tenure or condition of employment to
discourage membership in Automotive Salesmen's As-
sociation (A.S,A.), Independent, by refusing to reinstate
him upon an unconditional offer to return to work.
(c) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
Automotive Salesmen's Association (A.S.A.), Independ-
ent, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit: All new and
used car and truck salesmen at Respondent's operations,
excluding office clerical employees, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act, and all other employees.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make the following employees whole for any loss
of pay or other financial loss each may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination practiced against him, in ac-
cordance with the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
Theodore A. Steiner
Clark E. Surrato
Hugh Lennox
Robert J. Morgan
Stephen H. Morris
Lee Trubiano
John L. West
Alvin Bracey
Ray F. Bradshaw
Richard Buggy
George C. Derwa
George Flood
George Gonyeau
Joe Spanolo
(b) Upon request recognize and bargain with the Au-
tomotive Salesmen's Association (A.S.A.), Independent,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of all em-
ployees in the above described appropriate unit and, if un-
derstanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) We will notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(e) Post at its place of business at 35500 South
Gratiot, Mount Clemens, Michigan, copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." 20 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.21
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that all allegations of
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the complaint not specifically found to be in violation of
the Act shall be dismissed.
20 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order."
21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 7, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT request our employees to turn in
their union cards, to sign affidavits rejecting the Auto-
mobile Salesmen's Association (A.S.A.), Independ-
ent, as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we will not
sign a contract with the above-named Union.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against our employees
by refusing to reemploy them when they make an un-
conditional offer to cease striking and return to work.
WE WILL pay our employees for any pay or other
financial loss they may have suffered between March
6 and 17, 1967, as the result of the discrimination
practiced against them during this period.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with
Automobile Salesmen's Association (A.S.A.), Inde-
pendent, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of our employees regarding wages, rates of pay,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment. The appropriate unit is:
All new and used car and truck salesmen at
the Respondent's operations, excluding office
clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined by the Act, and all other employees.
All of our employees are free to become and remain, or
to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the
above-named labor organization, except as such right
may be affected by a lawful union-security clause con-
tained in a collective-bargaining agreement with a union.
ERNIE GRISSOM
CHEVROLET, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By-
(Representative) (Title)
Note: We will notify any of the above-mentioned em-
ployees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
ERNIE GRISSOM CHEVROLET, INC. 1057
United States of their right to full reinstatement upon ap- defaced, or covered by any other material.
plication in accordance with the Selective Service Act If employees have any question concerning this notice
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan
days from the date of posting and must not be altered, 48226, Telephone 226-3200.