Invalex Sales Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1965

152 N.L.R.B. 773 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

INVALEX SALES Co., INC. 773
Invalex Sales Co., Inc., and Invalid Walker and Wheel Chair Co.
and Chauffeurs , Salesdrivers & Helpers Union Local 572, affil-
iated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Case No. 21-CA-6009d.
May 21, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 25, 1965, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Decision 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 Decision. He also found that Respondent had not
engaged in other unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of
these allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel 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 National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
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 Decision,
the exceptions and the supporting brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and orders that
Respondent, Invalex Sales Co., Inc., and Invalid Walker and Wheel
Chair Co., Long Beach, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.
1 Inasmuch as we are adopting the Trial Examiner 's decision to credit Thompson as
against Creasy with respect to their conversation in April 1964, we find it unnecessary
to pass upon the Trial Examiner's finding that even Creasy's version of Thompson's
statements does not support a finding of unlawful interrogation.
We are also adopting the Trial Examiner's recommendation to dismiss the complaint
to the extent it alleges that Amos was unlawfully discharged . We find that Amos' walk-
ing o8 the job without permission precipitated his discharge and that no union activity
or any other protected activity was a motivating factor. In reaching this conclusion
we assumed for purposes of this case that Amos' activity on behalf of a general wage
increase was protected under Section 7 of the Act.
152 NLRB No. 78.
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter was heard before Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett at Los Angeles,.
California, on October 21 and 22, 1964. The complaint 1 alleges that Respondent,
Invalex Sales Co., Inc., and Invalid Walker and Wheel Chair Co., had engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Briefs have been submitted by the General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Invalex Sales Co., Inc., and Invalid Walker and Wheel Chair Co. are California
corporations operating an integrated business enterprise at Long Beach, California,
where they are engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of hospital sup-
plies. During 1963, Invalex Sales Co., Inc., manufactured products valued in excess
of $500,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped directly to
points outside the State of California. During the same period, Invalid Walker and
Wheel Chair Co. purchased and received products valued in excess of $50,000 which
were shipped to it directly from points outside the State of California. I find that the
operations of Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers & Helpers Union Local 572, affiliated with Internationar
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues; introduction
In Case No. 21-RC-8922, an election was conducted by the Board among the
approximately 25 or 26 employees of Respondent on April 17, 1964, and the Union
lost. The General Counsel contends that Respondent engaged in various acts viola-
tive of Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act during the preelection period and, further, that it
discharged James Amos on June 9, 1964, because of his union and concerted activities.
Respondent admits the discharge of Amos on this date, but assigns misconduct and
violation of plant rules as the reasons for the discharge. There is no evidence of any
prior unfair labor practice history on the part of Respondent.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Clyde Creasy, then an assembler for Respondent, testified that about 1 week before
the election of April 17, 1964, President Lee Thompson called him into his office,
asked why the men wanted a union, and also asked if Creasy knew who had started
the union movement; Creasy replied in the negative. According to Thompson, and I
so find, he called Creasy into his office on this occasion, stated that he had learned the
Union was petitioning for an election, and asked if management's attitude toward the
employees was "wrong." 2
'Issued September 16, 1964, and based upon charges filed June 15, July 9, and Sep-
tember 9, 1964.
2 Creasy left the employ of Respondent on June 19, 1964, prior to his testimony herein.
In connection with the discharge of Amos, treated below, Respondent streseec its claim
that Creasy was a rank-and-file employee and not an assistant foreman. I credit this
and find that Creasy, who voted In the election and was paid the same wage as another
assembler, was not a supervisor, although as an employee of long tenure he functioned
occasionally as leadman While James Amos, whose discharge Is discussed below, re-
ferred to Creasy as "assistant foreman" it is Clear th'it he was not Indeed, Creasy
admitted to Vice President Gerry Thompson, about 2 months after Amos' discharge, that
he had not considered himself an assistant manager and had not told Amos that he,
Creasy, was assistant foreman. I therefore do not credit Creasy's testimony that he was
assistant foreman and had been so designated by Thompson.
INVALEX SALES CO., INC. 775
The General Counsel relies upon other testimony by Creasy that, approximately
several days later, Thompson told him that if the men had come to him he would have
endeavored to help them find "a good union" but that his hands were tied. He added
that "Whoever started it better make sure what he was doing ." While this equivocal
statement lends itself to the interpretation that a threat was uttered, it equally permits
the view that the speaker was expressing the hope that the leader of the union move-
ment was knowledgeable in this area and was able to distinguish between effective or
ineffective , large or small , and affiliated or nonaffiliated labor organizations, or was
familiar with unions. Stated otherwise , it does not , on a preponderance of the evi-
dence, contain a threat of reprisal for engaging in union activities , Likewise , even on
the face of Creasy's testimony , I see no basis for concluding that the previous isolated
act of interrogation was coercive under Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act.
Shortly before the election , Thompson spoke with employee Kirk Tillman . He told
Tillman that he did not care how he voted in the election , that he wanted him to hear
both sides , and that ". . . we would take a loss in both wages and other benefits if
the Union got in. He said that the profit sharing plan would be gone ..." 3
While the evidence would appear to be on the skimpy side , it demonstrates a threat
on the part of President Tillman that union organization would cause economic detri-
ment to employees . I accordingly find that this threat was coercive and that Respond-
ent has thereby engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See
N.L.R.B. v. J. Weingarten , Inc., 339 F. 2d 498 (C.A. 5). Cf. The J. S. Dillon & Sons
Stores Co ., Inc. v. N L.R . B., 338 F. 2d 395 (C.A. 10).
C. The discharge of James A mos
James Amos, a shipping clerk for approximately 14 months, was discharged on
June 11, 1964, the decision having been made about 5 p in. on June 9. The General
Counsel contends that Amos was discharged because of his union and concerted
activities and that Respondent utilized certain conduct by Amos on June 9 as a pre-
text to cover its true motive. Respondent basically relies upon the circumstance that
Amos clocked out early at 12:30 p.m. on June 9, allegedly because of illness, and
because he had not cleared this with an appropriate representative of management.
It has also adduced evidence that Amos, although not appearing ill, left early,
consistent with his intent expressed that morning, to avail himself of unutilized sick
leave. Indeed, Amos admittedly told his coworker, James Morford, that very morn-
ing that he intended to go to the office and quit Respondent's employ. Similarly, he
admittedly told coworker Merle McCormick, about 12.15 p.m. that day, substantially
that "I have some sick leave coming, I think I will be sick this afternoon." 4
Amos, on leaving the plant shortly after 12:30 p.m., claimed that he looked into
Foreman Claude McCormick's office before departing; that McCormick was not
there; and that he therefore told Creasy he was leaving. It would seem that he did
not wait for McCormick or inquire as to his whereabouts. McCormick was positive
that he was in his office from 12:10 to 12.45 p.m. on that day and that he well
remembered this because it was a matter of current concern at the time. As Amos left
the plant, he observed Vice President Thompson alighting from his car, but said
nothing to him about getting permission to leave, testifying, "I didn't think it was
necessary" because he had previously spoken with Creasy. Amos admitted that there
was a well-known rule in the plant forbidding departure "without permission of
supervision." The record also shows that General Manager Venable was on the
premises and that he can readily be reached by means of an intercom system.
Turning initially to the union activities of Amos, it is undisputed that during the
period preceding the April 17 election he advocated union representation to some
employees, distributed six union cards, and obtained two signed cards from employees
Merle and John McCormick. Precisely how long prior to the election this activity
took place is not disclosed . It is also undisputed that management , in the persons of
Foreman McCormick and Vice President Gerry Thompson, believed Amos to be in
3 This finding is based upon Tillman's affidavit , which Tillman , although not recalling
the conversation, admitted to be correct Thompson did not recall this conversation
and I find that the adopted affidavit of Tillman, a witness who displayed reluctance
to give testimony adverse to his employer, merits credence herein
4 McCormick, Creasy, and Amos were together on June 9 during the 12 to 12 30 lunch
period. According to McCormick, Creasy announced that he had some unused sick leave
and would utilize it to visit Las Vegas According to Creasy, it was McCormick who
stated that he, McCormick, had some unused sick leave. Both agree, however, that
Amos then spoke up and stated that he also had some sick leave. He further stated,
according to Creasy, "I think I will start mine today"
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
favor of union representation. President Lee Thompson, father of Gerry Thompson,
whose earlier conduct has been described above, was not involved in the decision to
discharge Amos and indeed was out of the city at the time.
Amos did not report for work on June 10 and, contrary to a plant rule, did not
call in, admitting that he could have arranged to do so. Nor did he report for work
on June 11. At 10:30 or 11 a.m. on June 11, he telephoned Foreman Claude
McCormick and, as he testified, "Told him that I would try to be in the next day."
According to McCormick, Amos stated, "I can't come in today, but I will be in
tomorrow." McCormick then informed him that he was discharged. Around noon
on June 11, Amos' health having improved most rapidly, he went to the plant to
argue about his discharge. It is undisputed that the decision to discharge him was
made late in the afternoon of June 9 because of his conduct that day and not because
of his failure to call in on June 10 and 11, although the latter conduct would have
constituted recognized grounds for discharge. There is no evidence that he received
any medical attention and the nature of his ailment is not revealed.
It is readily apparent that Amos' union activities were remote with relation to the
time of his discharge, for they took place at an undisclosed time prior to the April
election, presumably at least some weeks earlier. And there being no evidence that
he or anyone else, for that matter, engaged in any union activities subsequent to the
Union's defeat in the election, the inference is warranted that the topic of union
representation had become dormant. See Generac Corp., 149 NLRB 980.
However, Amos testified that in a conversation with Foreman McCormick after his
return to the plant on June 11, McCormick said that there were various reasons why
Amos had been discharged; that Amos had lost interest in his job; that there had been
short shipments; and that "I had helped instigate a union there."
McCormick claimed that he told Amos, "When a man just walks off the job I have
no alternative but to let you go." Amos disputed this and McCormick repeated the
reason, adding, "Besides you are not satisfied anyway. You and I would be much
better off if you were somewhere where you were better satisfied " Amos repeatedly
maintained that he was satisfied and McCormick responded that such was not the
case. McCormick added, ". . . you have been for and against everything around
here. . . You were for the Union, you were for this meeting we had . You are
against the work you have to do out there. You are against everything." Amos
insisted that he was satisfied with his work and McCormick again repeated that he
had no alternative but to discharge him because he had walked off the job Amos
then claimed that McCormick was discharging him "because of the union." McCor-
mick replied, "No, I didn't say that, and that's not the reason." At that point,
General Manager Warren Venable entered the room and spoke to Amos who replied
that he did not want to talk with Venable. On cross-examination, McCormick was
asked, "You said one of the reasons you gave him on the day he was fired, as an
excuse for not being satisfied was that he was for the union and for the meeting,
among other things')" and replied in the affirmative.
In fact, Amos was not satisfied with working conditions in the plant, as appears
below. And, as is readily apparent, although contending at 10:30 or 11 a.m. on
June 11 that he could not get in that day, but would make an effort to get himself to
work on June 12, he was able to make an appearance at the plant at noon on June I1
when he learned that events had taken a turn to his disadvantage. Accordingly, I
credit the testimony of McCormick as to this conversation. Furthermore, a literal
reading of the testimony of McCormick does not warrant the conclusion that it was
an admission that the union activities of Amos played a part in the decision to dis-
charge him. It rather was McCormick's opinion that one of the reasons or factors
demonstrating Amos' dissatisfaction was his earlier union activities, particularly so in
view of McCormick's testimony that he denied, in the same conversation, that Amos'
union activities were the reason for his discharge.
This presents for consideration the other facet of the General Counsel's argument,
viz, that Amos was discharged for engaging in concerted activities. The record
discloses the following. Amos testified that on three or four occasions between
April and the first of June, he spoke with Foreman McCormick; 5 that he also spoke
on three or four occasions during the same period with President Thompson; and that
the topic uniformly was his request that a pay raise be given. He specifically urged
that the workday be reduced from 9 to 8 hours with daily earnings unchanged. It is
clear that his request was applicable to all personnel.
5 Amos testified that In this first talk he used the word "we" to reflect coworkers "I was
associated with there " There is no evidence that this reflects anything more than his
self-appointed advocacy.
INVALEX SALES CO., INC. 777
On the first occasion, according to Amos, Foreman McCormick told him that
Respondent was considering a change to the 8-hour day; as will appear, this did take
place. Amos further testified that about 1 week before his discharge he visited
President Thompson in the latter's office. Vice President Gerry Thompson was
present and it would seem that this was his last contact of this type with Thompson.
He told Thompson that he was seeking an 8-hour day and a pay raise.6 Thompson
replied that if Amos wanted to earn more money he should turn to some other type
of work because the shipping department was one of the lower paid departments in
the industry and he, therefore, could not make the earnings he desired with Respond-
ent. He offered to help Amos find another job, stating that he had similarly helped
other employees in the past.
Thompson testified that after Amos stated he wanted to earn more money, he,
Thompson, explained that this was impossible in Respondent 's employ. Thompson
suggested that he take some courses and go into the Buildings Trades and also
offered to consider him for another position in the plant . Amos only replied that
he wished to earn more money. Gerry Thompson , who placed the talk in May, cor-
roborated his father. He testified that his father told Amos that he would be happy
to try to locate him elsewhere in a higher paying position if Amos could qualify.
As is readily apparent, all versions are substantially similar except in one respect-
Amos testifying that President Thompson referred to him as a "good" employee,
whereas both Thompsons are silent in this respect.
The record also discloses that Respondent took favorable action in the area of the
wage increase, substantially as sought by Amos. Foreman McCormick, the only
witness questioned on the matter, testified that in May or June there was a meeting
of all the employees, that a general discussion [apparently about working conditions]
took place, and that on this occasion Amos spoke up in favor of an 8-hour day. On
June 5 or 6 Respondent reached a decision to grant a plantwide wage increase and
this was announced to the employees on June 11. Indeed, an exhibit offered in
evidence by Respondent reflects these wage increases and Amos was one of those
named in the list of employees so rewarded. Also disclosed is the amount of the
wage increase which is approximately that advocated by Amos.
The question immediately is posed whether Amos was engaged in "... concerted
activities for ... mutual aid or protection...." within the meaning of Section 7 and
therefore acquired the protection of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.7
The problem is, so far as this record discloses, that Amos was a self-appointed
representative of his fellow employees . There is not a scintilla of evidence that he
had as much as one conversation with a coworker on the topic of a pay raise as a
result of which his activities might be regarded as a concerted activity. The deci-
sions apparently regard this as a must. See Mushroom Transportation Company, Inc.
v. N.L.R.B., 330 F. 2d 683 (C.A. 3), where the court points out the requirement of
an "object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action or that it had some
relation to group action in the interest of the employees." '[Emphasis supplied.]
See also N.L.R.B. v. Ryder Tank Lines, Inc., 310 F. 2d 233 (CA. 4); N.L.R.B. v.
Gibbs Corporation, 284 F. 2d 403 (C.A. 5); and N.L.R.B. v. Westinghouse Electric
Corporation (Ansonia Plant), 179 F. 8d 507 (C.A. 6).
While it may not take much , at least some concerted planning or action seems to
be required. See International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (Walls
Manufacturing Company) v. N.L R.B., 299 F. 2d 144 (C.A.D.C.); Salt River Valley
Water Users' Association v. N.L.R.B., 206 F 2d 325 (C.A. 9); and Tanner Motor
Livery, Ltd., 148 NLRB 1402. Indeed, in Ryder, the court referred to one con-
versation as "not worthy to be dignified as concerted activity."
It is obvious that Amos sought the increase for all employees, but I am not aware
that this has been considered a "concerted" activity. Webster's Third New Interna-
tional Dictionary Unabridged (1963) defines "concerted" as "mutually contrived or
planned; agreed on; performed in unison; done together." Its predecessor, the
Second, also defines the word as "mutually contrived or planned; agreed on, as con-
certed schemes or signals." Similarly the noun "concert" is defined in the Second,
to the extent here relevant, as follows: "Agreement in a design or plan; union formed
by mutual communication of opinions and views; accordance in a scheme; harmony;
simultaneous action." As an example, it quotes from Swift "All these discontents,
how ruinous soever, have arisen from the want of a due communication and concert."
6 Amos apparently made the identical statement to both McCormick and Thompson
in his numerous contacts with them.
7 While Section 9(a) grants an employee the right to present grievances , this is a
proviso creating an exception to the right of a union to be the "exclusive" representative
of all the employees . Moreover , Section '8(a) (1) is specifically linked to Section 7 of
the Act.
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I believe that the absence of any evidence that Amos acted in concert with his
coworkers, and indeed his own testimony warrants the conclusion that he was a
self-appointed advocate albeit in a worthy cause, is diapositive of the General Coun-
sel's position herein. And while he did speak in front of coworkers on one occasion,
there is no evidence that he was their spokesman.8
In view of the foregoing considerations, I deem it unnecessary to treat fully with
the facts surrounding the actual discharge. True, some of Respondent's assigned
,reasons for the discharge appear to be afterthoughts to bolster the basic assigned
reason for the discharge; namely, Amos' early departure from work on June 9
without permission from management. On the other hand, the evidence surrounding
his departure that day lends support to Respondent's contention that he was not ill
and that his departure was planned, and so stated by him, in order to avail himself
of unused sick leave. His rapid recovery in approximately 1 hour on June 11 would
also so indicate.
In addition, he agreed with his coworker, Morford, that on the morning of June 9
he told Morford that he intended to quit Respondent's employ. And, as noted, he
admittedly told coworker Merle McCormick at 12:15 p.m. that he intended to be
ill that day and Vice President Thompson was so advised that afternoon.
Moreover, Respondent had previously decided to grant the wage increase sought
by Amos and he was among the recipients who, of course, included both those who
had voted for the Union as well as those who had opposed it in April. This hardly
supports the General Counsel's theory as to Respondent's pretextual motivation.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing considerations, I shall recommend that this
allegation of the complaint be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, and occurring in con-
nection with its operations set forth 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 Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recom-
mend 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. Invalex Sales Co., Inc., and Invalid Walker and Wheel Chair Co. is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers & Helpers Union Local 572, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening employees with the loss of economic benefits in the event of
unionization, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a)( I) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not otherwise engaged in unfair labor practices.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur-
suant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , it is recom-
mended that Respondent , Invalex Sales Co., Inc., and Invalid Walker and Wheel
Chair Co , Long Beach, California, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall-
'In Bonded Armored Carrier, Inc, 147 NLRB 100, the Board found it violation of
Section 8(a) (1) In not dissimilar circumstances However, I am not certain from the
quoted testimony therein whether the Board found a violation because the employer
thought the dischargee was engiamg in a concerted activity or whether he was in fact
so engaged While in a Section 8(a)(3) situation an emplo}er is equally guilty of com-
mitting an unfair labor practice because the discharge Is based upon an erroneous belief
that one is engaged in union activities, a different criterion appears to exist here Stated
otherwise, In the present Issue, the concerted activities must exist.
INVALEX SALES CO., INC. 779
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with loss of economic benefits in the event of
unionization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
,employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers & Helpers Union Local 572, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any
or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant at Long Beach, California, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecu-
tive 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.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.10
G In 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"
iu In 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner or the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of economic benefits in the event
of unionization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to form labor organizations, to join
or assist Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers & Helpers Union Local 572, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Help-
ers of America, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
INVALEX SALES CO., INC., AND
INVALID WALKER AND WHEEL CHAIR CO.,
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.
Employees may communicate with the Board's Regional Office, 849 South Broad-
way, Los Angeles, California, Telephone No 688-5204, if they have any questions
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.