Joe's Auto Parks, Car Wash & Service Stations

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 28, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 1092 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
L & R Auto Parks, Inc. d/b/a Joe's Auto Parks, Car
Wash & Service Stations and Miscellaneous Ware-
housemen , Drivers & Helpers Local 986, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America
L. & R. Auto Parks, Inc. and Miscellaneous Ware-
housemen , Drivers & Helpers Local 986, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Cases
21-CA-10098 and 21-RC-12167
August 28, 1972
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On March 23, 1972, Trial Examiner Martin S.
Bennett issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions 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
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's
rulings,' findings, and conclusions and to adopt his
recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders
that Respondent, L & R Auto Parks, Inc., d/b/a
Joe's Auto Parks, Car Wash & Service Stations, Los
Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
on June 24, 1971, in Case 21-RC-12167, be, and it
hereby is, set aside and that Case 21-RC-12167 be,
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 21 for the purpose of conducting a new
election at such time as he deems that circumstances
permit the free choice of a bargaining representative.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
1 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial
Examiner's resolutions with respect t6 credibility unless the clear prepon-
derance 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 have carefully examined the record and find no basis for
reversing his findings.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARTIN S. BENNETT, Trial Examiner: This matter was
heard at Los Angeles, California, on December 14 and 15,
1971. The complaint, issued August 20, thereafter amend-
ed, and based upon charges filed June 22, June 28, and
August 6, 1971, by Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers
& Helpers, Local 986, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, herein the Union, alleges that Respondent, L &
R Auto Parks, Inc. d/b/a Joe's Auto Parks, Car Wash &
Service Stations, engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
By order dated August 25, 1971, the Regional Director
for Region 21 ordered consolidated with the foregoing case
a hearing on objections to an election conducted in Case
21-RC-12167. That representation matter arises as follows.
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Censent
Election entered into between the Charging Party and
Respondent on May 18, an election was held on June 24,
1971, among the approximately 55 eligible voters in an
ostensibly appropriate bargaining unit. Of these eligibles,
34 cast votes against the Union, 10 voted in its behalf, and
4 ballots were challenged. Objections were filed by the
Union which in essence attacked the same conduct
challenged in the instant unfair labor practice complaint.
Briefs have been submitted by the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS.
L & R Auto Parks, Inc. d/b/a Joe's Auto Parks, Car
Wash & Service Stations, a California corporation main-
taining its principal office in Los Angeles, California, is
engaged in the operation of parking lots, service stations,
and a car wash facility in the Los Angeles area. It annually
enjoys revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchases and
receives materials valued in excess of $10,000 which are
shipped to it directly from points outside the State of
California or directly to firms located within that State
which in turn ship said materials directly to Respondent. I
find that the operations of Respondent affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers & Helpers Local
986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
198 NLRB No. 154
JOE'S AUTO PARKS 1093
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES asked if he belonged to the Union. Respondent attacks
A. Introduction and the Issues
The Union commenced an organizational campaign
among the employees of Respondent's various Los Angeles
facilities in April of 1971, this leading to the election it lost
on June 24, 1971. Attacked herein by the General Counsel
are the discharge of Ricardo Cabrera' on or about June 21,
1971, various allegations of interrogation, promises of
benefits, threats of loss of benefits, and the creating of the
impression of engaging in the surveillance of union
activities.
The managerial staff of Respondent includes President
Arthur Lumer, Vice President Harry Lumer, Vice Presi-
dent Jack Lumer, secretary of the corporation Gabriel
Rubin, and Supervisor Al Lumerman, the latter a nephew
of the Lumers. Thus this is in essence a family business.
The record amply discloses, and I find, that all five are
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act
and agents of Respondent.
Initially, it is in order to point out that the respective
versions of the case are diametrically opposed. On
Respondent's thesis, the various members of the family
were indifferent to or unaware of the activities directed by
the Union towards its employees, depicting a scene of
innocence. For example, Al Lumerman testified that he
spoke about the Union to almost every employee, but that
in each and every case, the employee introduced the topic;
this I find incredible and do not accept. On the General
Counsel's premise, the conduct went beyond this portray-
al; I agree. It may be also noted that there are numerous
minor conflicts, favorable or unfavorable to both sides,
which are not treated herein as they would unduly lengthen
this decision and do not affect the conclusions arrived at.
B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
Around April 15, 1971, Cabrera and several other
parking lot attendants decided that they would attempt to
organize Respondent. Cabrera, whose discharge is treated
below, contacted Union Organizer Rudy Heredia that
night and the two met the following morning. Cabrera
signed an authorization card and was given five or six
cards for signature; he returned the signed cards at lunch
that day. Later that month, the Union picketed three of
Respondent's parking lots. On May 18, the parties agreed
to and set an election for June 24.
According to Benjamin Alvarez, an attendant at one of
the lots, on or about May 17, Supervisor Al Lumerman
asked whether he had signed a union card or had attended
a meeting; Alvarez denied doing so. Lumerman then stated
that Respondent had treated the men well, that it gave
workers who committed errors another chance and that if
the Union came in, Respondent would "throw out whoever
made the slightest error." Thereafter, on two or three
subsequent occasions, Lumerman came to the lot and
Alvarez as a disgruntled witness due to his discharge in
June and Lumerman completely denied ever discussing the
Union with Alvarez despite his daily visits to the lot. As
noted, he gave some highly improbable testimony as to his
conversations with employees and I credit Alvarez herein.
On Friday, June 18, the Union held a dinner meeting at
a restaurant. Parking lot attendant Jose Morales, who then
worked for another employer weekends as a guard,
attended and wore his guard's uniform. On June 21,
Lumerman came to Morales' lot and asked how the dinner
had fared; Morales pleaded ignorance. Lumerman replied
that he knew Morales had attended, that he knew where he
parked his car, described the location, and declared that he
had worn his uniform. He added that he knew the meeting
would not be successful because he had a man planted
"back there." I do not credit Lumerman's testimony that
he learned of the meeting on June 22 or 23 from another
named employee who did not testify herein?
Morales further testified that Jack Lumer queried him
early in June about the Union. Lumer then told him, inter
aha, that if the Union won the election, Respondent would
split up, with Al Lumerman taking so many lots and Jack
Lumer taking the others; Lumer generally denied this. In
view of some very untenable testimony given by him, as
well as by Harry Lumer concerning the discharge of
Cabrera, I do not credit his denial. In addition, Jack Lumer
referred herein to Morales as a trustworthy employee and
not a liar.
Again, on June 18, Jack Lumer asked Morales if he was
for or against the Union and added that he had to have an
answer by Monday, June 21. He again stated that
Respondent would split up the lots in the event of a union
victory.3
Harry Lumer was Cabrera's supervisor. Beginning late in
April, according to Cabrera, and continuing through the
union campaign, he regularly told Cabrera that he would
work only 40 hours a week under the Union; Cabrera was
then averaging 50 to 55 hours a week. And, on June 18, he
told Cabrera that all those who wanted the Union should
leave Respondent because if the Union won, the Company
would be divided as Respondent was too small to have a
Union and everyone would lose his job.
Also participating in this conduct was Secretary Gabriel
Rubin. He appeared at the lot on or about May 24 and told
Cabrera, according to the latter, that any S.O.B. who
wanted the Union would be fired; Rubin's denial is not
credited herein.
I find that by interrogating employees concerning their
union activities, threatening employees with economic
reprisals because of same, and creating the impression of
surveillance of a union meeting, Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act. See e.g., American National Stores, 195
NLRB No. 3. It follows that the election in Case
21-RC-12167 is to be set aside. Dal-Tex Optical Co., Inc.,
137 NLRB 1782, 1786.
I Also named in the transcript as Cabrerra to Morales, and I base no adverse finding thereon Jack Lumer also made a
2 After the June 24 election, Lumerman asked Morales if he had signed a similar remark and this is viewed similarly
letter and given it to the Union; Morales had in fact signed a paper at the 3 This last statement is not explained further. As I view it, and I so find,
June 18 meeting Here, I credit Lumerman's testimony that he asked this it raises the spectre of the loss of employment
question after receipt of a charge in the unfair labor practice case referring
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The Discharge of Ricardo Cabrera
As found, Cabrera and several other parking lot
attendants agreed, on or about April 15, to attempt to
organize Respondent's installations. Cabrera contacted
and met with organizer Heredia at Cabrera's lot the
following morning. The latter gave Cabrera a number of
union cards and Cabrera returned them signed, including
his own, that same day. Later that month, the Union
picketed three of the lots and the parties ultimately agreed,
in May, upon an election on June 24. The General Counsel
contends that the discharge of Cabrera on Monday, June
21, was discnminatonly motivated.
Cabrera was not a novice, having entered the employ of
Respondent in May 1968. Respondent contends, and this
is treated below, that he had been laid off or discharged a
number of times; but, in each instance, he was promptly
rehired after a short period of no longer than several days.
His last prior layoff was for two days late in March or early
in April allegedly because of two customer complaints.
On Friday, June 18, Cabrera picked up his paycheck
from Jack Lumer at approximately 6 p.m., after turning in
his daily receipts to Harry Lumer. Neither man said
anything to Cabrera about his termination. Cabrera
attended the union dinner meeting that evening which has
been discussed above. He reported for work at 6:45 a.m.
on Monday, June 21, and discovered that he had been
replaced by another attendant. According to Respondent,
the replacement was contacted Friday evening. For
reasons set forth below, I find that Respondent made the
decision to discharge Cabrera and get a replacement after
the union meeting.
Cabrera went across the street where Harry Lumer was
stationed and asked why he had been discharged. Accord-
ing to Cabrera, Lumer replied that he no longer worked for
Respondent, rhetorically asked how Cabrera had enjoyed
the June 18 dinner, declared that this was the reason he
was no longer employed there, and added that two tickets
were missing from his daily report on the previous Friday.
Dissatisfied with this, Cabrera went to see Jack Lumer,
asked for a reason, and the latter similarly told him that
Cabrera knew the reason, that he had gone to the dinner
and that two tickets were missing.
At this point, it is in order to explain that the latter
reference is, in essence, a reference to a "hot car." In the
industry, this means that an employee has not issued a
ticket for a parked car and has pocketed the parking fee,
despite the regular inspection of the lots by management to
detect this practice. This technique is facilitated by the fact
that business concerns arrange to park a block of cars on a
monthly fee basis. Such cars normally carry decals,
although not in every case, identifying the employer, in this
case , a Peck construction company. There is evidence from
Respondent that Cabrera claimed on June 18 that several
cars, not ticketed by him and not carrying decals, were
Peck cars. The record amply demonstrates that a "hot car"
is a common problem in the business.
Respondent indeed contends that Cabrera was dis-
4 Respondent adduced evidence from the night man at Cabrera's lot,
Pablo Cadazos , as to unsuccessful attempts by Cabrera and Union
Organizer Heredia to get him to testify herein concerning "hot cars" on
June 18 Cadazos ' English was poor and he referred to his unwillingness to
charged for having a number of "hot cars" on the lot that
day and presented evidence that it discovered three cars
and two cycles which fell into this category, this leading to
its decision to discharge him. Thus, on Friday evening, it
obtained a replacement for him. For a number of reasons,
set forth below, not necessarily in order of significance, I
do not credit Respondent's testimony and credit Cabrera's
version of the statements made to him on June 21 as to the
reasons for his discharge which perforce, on a preponder-
ance of the evidence, substantiates the General Counsel's
position.4
(1) Initially, Cabrera had been an employee for over
three years. According to Harry Lumer, he had been
discharged four or five times and had been an unsatisfacto-
ry employee on "many, many occasions." These discharges
resulted from "hot cars," an overcharge, and surliness to
customers; there is also evidence that he inflicted $230
worth of damage to a parked car. His reinstatements were
generally attributed to the intercession of his wife. This, it
may be noted, was denied by Mrs. Cabrera, a most
impressive witness whom I credit.
Stated directly, if what Respondent attributed to Cabrera
was true, it would be almost a miracle for any lot operated
by him not to have been bankrupted. A sagacious
employer does not tolerate a thief and a menace for 3 years
and Respondent's executives indeed conveyed an impres-
sion of sagacity.
(2) Highlighting the former view is the fact, as President
Arthur Lumer testified, that Respondent has a high
turnover of personnel which runs as high as 10 to 20
percent a month. This is obviously an industry which lacks
ideal working conditions and the conclusion is warranted
that this employer overlooks irregularities.
(3) Thus, as Rubin testified, it is normal procedure for an
attendant to steal some money daily because good
attendants are hard to find. He stated that, "If they do not
become too greedy, we let it pass." Rubin initially testified
that the taking of the fees of two cars may or may not
reflect a greedy attendant, depending upon whether this is
done daily. He also testified that an attendant would be
terminated because of five or six "hot cars" a day and also
that he, Rubin, would complain if there were two or three
daily. In sum, I find that this is a basic aspect of the
business, at least in the lots of Respondent, which is
tolerated by Respondent until the small transgressor
becomes a larger one in Respondent's eyes.
(4) The last of Cabrera's previous discharges took place
early in April; according to Rubin, this resulted from the
loss of customers. Cabrera was reinstated several days later
after Jack Lumer asked Rubin to give him another chance.
Jack Lumer claimed herein that this resulted from a plea
from Cabrera's wife for reconsideration, this denied by
Mrs. Cabrera whose testimony has been previously
credited. Rubin testified that this termination was not
made permanent because of the absence of a replacement
for Cabrera. But there is testimony from Jack Lumer that
Respondent always has a long file of available replace-
"fie " A fair reading of his testimony is that he was most reluctant to get
involved, that he would not lie, and that he wished to do "no favor for no
side "
JOE'S AUTO PARKS
ments and, indeed, utilized this file on June 18, the date of
Respondent's last and final decision to terminate him, and
there is no claim that there was a sudden inflow of
applicants. The inference is therefore warranted, in view of
the large turnover Respondent consistently suffered, that it
had a roster of potential replacements in April.
(5) Rubin presented other highly questionable testimony.
He testified, contrary to his prior testimony concerning the
toleration of occasional "hot cars," that Cabrera was short
on his receipts every day between April 1 and 15, as well as
from May 15 to June 15; on the last date, Rubin left on his
vacation. Yet he departed and did not recommend that
Cabrera be discharged, this but three days before Respon-
dent's other executives decided to discharge him, although
Rubin did not consider him a good attendant. In this
respect, it is to be noted that Respondent's records reflect
no significant change in receipts in this lot after Cabrera's
replacement took over. Although Rubin claimed that it
takes time to refurbish the patterns of a lot, it ostensibly
does not take time to reflect an improvement in a "hot car"
situation.
(6) The testimony of Harry Lumer does not withstand
close scrutiny. He initially denied any awareness of the
union meeting on June 18 or that he had mentioned it to
Cabrera. But his cross-examination discloses the following.
He successively testified that "I never knew anything about
a dinner"; that he learned of it about a week later; that "I
never knew anything about a dinner"; that "I never found
out anything about it"; and that "I think Jack [Lumer] is
the one mentioned it. As a matter of fact, Jack Lumer did
mention it to me." It is readily apparent that he strove
mightily to avoid disclosing any knowledge of this meeting.
(7) A consideration of the alleged conduct by Respon-
dent's executives on June 18 serves only to confirm the
porosity of its position. Stated simply, there was a helter-
skelter series of communications among Harry Lumer,
Jack Lumer, and Al Lumerman which would take
considerable space to fully set forth and evaluate, but it
may best be likened to a baseball play from Tinker to
Evers to Chance.
Cabrera and Harry Lumer agree that the latter visited
Cabrera's lot on the morning of June 18. As found, this was
the occasion when Lumer uttered the threat found above
to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. According to
Lumer, he suspected the presence of "hot cars," checked
the lot again that afternoon, contacted Jack Lumer, and
advised the latter of the presence of "hot cars". Al
Lumerman, having previously worked at this lot, it was
decided that he would check the lot that afternoon. There
is some razzle-dazzle as to precisely who sent Al Lumer-
man to check the lot, but he did so and advised Harry
Lumer that there were indeed "hot cars" on the lot.
The affidavit of Harry Lumer is significant herein. He
deposed that he contacted Jack Lumer after being advised
by Al Lumerman as to his findings and told him that
Cabrera "was running a crooked lot and we should let him
go. Jack agreed with me and I told him Cabrera would
come to see him later that day to pick up his paycheck.
Jack should fire him."
This puts into perspective the res gestae of Cabrera's
discharge. It is undisputed that at the end of the day, after
1095
all this colloquy, Cabrera turned his daily report to Harry
Lumer. According to the latter, Cabrera referred to
reimbursing Respondent for "hot cars" but Harry Lumer
ignored this and told Cabrera to proceed to another
installation and receive his check from Jack Lumer.
The story now becomes stranger. Cabrera proceeded to
the other lot, got into line, received his check from Jack
Lumer and was told nothing. Jack Lumer originally
testified that there were about 40 employees in line and
that Cabrera picked up his check and "ran away." In his
affidavit, Jack Lumer merely said that there were 15 in line
and that Cabrera left before he could say anything. This I
do not credit. Bearing in mind the testimony of Jack
Lumer that the replacement had been contacted earlier
that day at 4 p.m., it defies credence that neither executive
saw fit to discharge Cabrera pursuant to a previously
arrived at decision. It would be the simplest of matters to
ask the man, apparently the only man to be discharged that
day, to stand aside momentarily and then converse with
him.
I therefore conclude that Respondent did not decide to
discharge Cabrera on the afternoon of June 18, that on a
preponderance of the evidence its decision followed the
union meeting that night, and that the decision to
terminate Cabrera, with 3 years' tenure and the key union
organizer, stemmed from his attendance at the meeting of
which Respondent was aware. I also deem it significant
that, on Respondent's version, prior disciplinary action for
3 years had entailed only a short layoff, this consistent with
Rubin's testimony that competent attendants were scarce. I
find, in view of all the foregoing considerations, and upon
the entire record in the case, that Respondent discharged
Cabrera on June 21, 1971, because of his union activities,
thereby engaging in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(3)
and, derivatively, Section 8(a)(1) 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. L & R Auto Parks, Inc. d/b/a Joe's Auto Parks, Car
Wash & Service Stations is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers & Helpers
Local 986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Ricardo Cabrera for engaging in
union activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing, and by interrogating employees
concerning their union activities, threatening employees
with economic reprisals because of same, and creating the
impression of surveillance of union activities, Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Ricardo Cabrera.
I shall, therefore, recommend that Respondent offer him
immediate and full reinstatement to his former job, or if
this job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges. See The Chase National Bank of the City of
New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico Branch, 65 NLRB 827.
I shall further recommend that Respondent make him
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a
result of his discharge, by payment of a sum of money
equal to that he normally would have earned from said
date to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement,
less net earnings during such period, with backpay and
interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed
by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, and
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDERS
Respondent, L & R Auto Parks, Inc. d/b/a Joe's Auto
Parks, Car Wash & Service Stations, Los Angeles,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in, or activity in behalf of
Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers & Helpers Local
986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor
organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard
to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition
thereof.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union
activities, threatening employees with economic reprisals
because of same , and creating the impression of surveil-
lance of union activities, or in any manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, except to the extent such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized
by 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) Offer Ricardo Cabrera immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job, or if this job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the
discrimination against him in the manner provided above
in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and make available to the National Labor
Relations Board and its agents, upon request, for examina-
tion and copying, all payroll records, social security
payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to determine the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at all its facilities in Los Angeles, California,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 21 shall, after being duly signed by Respondent,
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained 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 Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) 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.?
It is further recommended that the objections to the
election conducted on June 24, 1971, in Case
21-RC-12167, be sustained, that the election be set aside,
and that a new election be conducted.
S In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order , and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
8 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a judgement of a United
States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
r In the event this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify
the Regional Director for Region 21 in writing , within 20 days from the date
of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL offer Ricardo Cabrera immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job, or, if this job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privi-
leges , and we will make him whole for any loss of
wages suffered as a result of our discrimination against
him.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activity
in behalf of, Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers &
Helpers Local 986, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization of our
employees, by discharging employees, or by discrimi-
nating in any manner in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition thereof.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their
union activities, threaten employees with economic
reprisals, create the impression of surveillance of union
activities, or in any manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
JOE'S AUTO PARKS 1097
teed under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the
above-named or any other labor organization , except to
the extent such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment , as authorized by Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office,
Eastern Columbia Building , 849 South Broadway, Los
Angeles , California 90014 , Telephone 213-688-5329.
L & R AUTO PARKS, INC.
(Employer)
D/B/A JOE 'S AUTO PARKS,
CAR WASH & SERVICE
STATIONS
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)