John H. Scheidel, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 1, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 489 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

JOHN H. SCHEIDEL, INC. 489
John H . Scheidel , Inc. and Amalgamated Food
Employees Union Local 196 , affiliated with Amal-
gamated Meatcutters & Butcher Workmen of
North America, AFL-CIO. Case 4-CA-5443
October 1, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On June 15, 1971, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further found
that Respondent had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended that those allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief;
the Union filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision; and the Respondent filed cross-exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in
support of the Trial Examiner's Decision and its
cross-exceptions.
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.
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, the cross-excep-
tions, and the briefs, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
Labor Relations Board, for the Regional Director for
Region 4, (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued a complaint
on February 26, 1971, against John H. Scheidel, Inc., herein
called the Respondent or the Company, alleging that it
discharged Richard Rokoskie in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein
called the Act, and also that it engaged in certain conduct
alleged to be independently violative of Section 8(a)(1)
thereof.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial
Examiner John P. von Rohr in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
on March 29 and 30, 1971. All parties were represented by
counsel and were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to file briefs.
Briefs were received from the General Counsel and the
Respondent on April 26, 1971, and they have been carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
John H. Scheidel , Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is
engaged in the operation of a retail food store at Spring
City, Pennsylvania.
During the year preceding the hearing herein , Respon-
dent purchased goods and materials from outside Pennsyl-
vania valued in excess of $50 ,000. During the same period it
did a total volume of business in excess of $500 ,000. The
Respondent concedes , and I find , that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 196,
affiliated with Amalgamated Meatcutters & Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Alleged Discrimination Against Richard
Rokoskie
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
the Respondent, John H. Scheidel, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN P. VON ROHR, Trial Examiner : Upon a charge filed
on December 14, 1970, the General Counsel of the National
The Respondent retail food store involved in this
proceeding is known as the Spring Valley IGA. At one time
this store was owned and operated by two Rokoskie
brothers as a copartnership, one of them being Richard
Rokoskie, the alleged discriminatee herein. About March
1968, the D. H. Delp Company, a grocery and meat
wholesaler, took over this store due to indebtedness
incurred to it by the partnership. At this time Richard
Rokoskie was hired by Delp as a manager in its Leesport,
Pennsylvania, store.
John H. Scheidel was appointed manager of the Spring
Valley store when Delp took over in March 1968. Although
the record is not clear as to the details, Scheidel
subsequently incorporated (Scheidel is president of the
Respondent) and he became the owner and operator of the
store.
193 NLRB No. 76
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In November 1969, Scheidel hired Rokoskie, who at this
time was still employed at the Delp Leesport store, to head
the meat department of the Spring Valley IGA. It is
Respondent's position that Rokoskie, who was discharged
on December 5, 1970, was a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act and that therefore his discharge was not violative
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. For the reasons noted below, I
find merit to this defense.'
Preliminarily, a question of fact arises as to whether
Rokoskie had ever been designated by Respondent as the
meat department manager. In this connection, Scheidel
testified that at the time he hired Rokoskie he informed him
that he was being hired as meat manager, informed him
that he was to have 100 percent control of the meat
department, and also that he told him to "run it like you did
before I came here . . . any questions that you havejust ask
me the questions and I'll answer or help you." On direct
examination, Rokoskie testified that Scheidel did not
inform him that he was to be in charge of the meat
department. However, on cross-examination, after first
testifying that he "could not recall" having been told that
he was the meat manager, Rokoskie testified as follows:
Q. Well, let me ask you this. Oh, by the way-I'll
back up for a minute dust to clarify the record. The deli
and meat were together, were they not, sort of one
operation?
A. More or less, yes, sir.
Q. Was there a grocery manager?
A. A grocery manager?
Q. Yes.
A. I think so.
Q. You mean you don't know? I mean you where
there for a year. Was there a man called by anyone or
designated as a grocery manager?
A. I would say yes.
Q. But there was not a meat manager, designated
by anybody as such?
A. If you change the situation around to a later date
I would have to say yes.
Q. What date might you be talking about?
A. I don't remember when Mr. Swartz had a
problem with his [sic] and he missed a few weeks of
work. Then Mr. Scheidel closed the service meat
department and Chester came over to work with me in
the self-service meat department.
Aside from the foregoing, Rokoskie testified, "My co-
workers probably thought of me as a manager, yes." As
indicated below, several of the meat department also
testified to this effect. Accordingly, and in view of all the
foregoing, I find that Rokoskie was designated as the meat
department manager and that this was so understood by the
meat department employees.2
I It is to be noted that this is not the case where an admitted supervisor
was alleged to have been discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act The General Counsel here contends that Rokoskie is an employee, not
a supervisor , and the case was litigated on the basis of General Counsel's
allegation that Rokoskie was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act
2 It is noteworthy also that Rokoskie was hired by Respondent to
replace a former manager of the meat department
3 Swartz's wages had increased to about $176 per week at the time of
Rokoskie 's termination.
4 The other employees were docked if they did not put in a full 40-hour
Rokoskie was hired at a salary of $200.20 per week, this
being a $25 weekly increase from what he had been paid by
Delp. Except for Scheidel, this put Rokoskie as the highest
paid person in Respondent's employ. By comparison, at the
time of Rokoskie's employ the grocery manager received
$150 per week, and Chester Swartz, a highly skilled and
experienced meat cutter, received approximately $156 per
week.3 Although Rokoskie punched a timeclock, he was
given the discretion to put in 40 to 48 hours per week,
depending on what he thought necessary, but in any event
received his full weekly salary of $200.20. Scheidel did not
check the timecard of Rokoskie but did so of other
employees.4
At the times material hereto there were approximately 10
employees in the meat department. These included the
delicatessen employees, the delicatessen department having
been consolidated with the meat department not long after
Rokoskie was hired. Although Rokoskie does not have the
authority to hire or fire, the evidence establishes that he
does have authority to effectively recommend such action.
Thus, it is undisputed that Shirley Fries, an employee who
sliced luncheon meat in the meat department for about 4
months, was discharged on Rokoskie's recommendation .5
It is further undisputed that in September 1970, Barbara
Hall, a delicatessen employee, was hired by Respondent on
the recommendation of Rokoskie. Rokoskie testified that
Scheidel handles any discipline that is necessary and that
all employees go to Scheidel when they want time off.
Although Ronald Christman, a 3-1/2 year meat department
employee, testified that he usually sought Scheidel's
permission for time off, he testified also that in these
instances , "I usually say something to both Mr. Rokoskie
and Mr. Schetdel . . . I'd usually let them both know." He
later added, "Naturally, if both of them weren't there, I
only went to one." Rokoskie does not, however, participate
in the determination of employee wage increases.
While Rokoskie testified that he spends the majority of
his time cutting meat (he estimated this to be 90-95 percent)
the record leaves no doubt but that he was in charge of the
day-to-day operations of the meat department, this
including the responsible direction of the other meat
department employees. Thus, Rokoskie acknowledged that
Scheidel spent "very little time" in the meat department
and that much of this was attributable to the fact that the
coffee pot was in the back room. As to directing the meat
department employees, Rokoskie further acknowledged
that he could use his "own judgment" in telling the other
employees what to do. Such directions included the
assigning of delicatessen employees to the meat room to
assist in the weighing and wrapping of meat , directions to
employees concerning the forms and thicknesses into which
meat would be cut, seeing to proper staggering of
week Swartz testified that he was paid time and a half for over 40 hours, it
appears that the other employees were also so paid.
5 Concerning this occurrence, Scheidel credibly testified that Rokoskie
came to him and recommended that she be discharged , at this time stating
that this employee "couldn't read a scale" and "didn't have all her
marbles " Although I do not credit all Scheidel's testimony , in this instance
I credit his testimony over Rokoskie who, in response to a leading
question, testified that Scheidel initiated the discussion concerning Fries'
discharge Without further elaboration , Rokoskie at this point merely
testified, "John and I both felt it [Fries' work] was not satisfactory."
JOHN H. SCHEIDEL, INC. 491
employees lunch hours, and the like Ronald Christman, an
employee called by the General Counsel, testified that he
looked to Rokoskie for directions concerning the perform-
ance of work in the meat department. Similarly, Chester
Swartz testified that Rokoskie gave him various instruc-
tions and work assignments. Significantly, each of these
employees testified that they regarded Rokoskie as "boss"
of the meat department.
Aside from the foregoing, as manager of the meat
department Rokoskie had other responsibilities and duties
which put him apart from other meat department
employees. Thus, Rokoskie placed the orders for meat
purchases; he was authorized to extend weekly credit to
amounts as high as $4000; he was authorized to price meat
items and/or place them on sale without consulting with
anyone else; 6 and he conferred with salesmen and suppliers
concerning meat department matters when they came to
the store.
In view of all the foregoing, and particularly in view of his
authority effectively to recommend hiring and firing, his
responsible direction of the work of other employees, the
fact that the employees thus regard him as "boss," and his
other duties consistent with his managership of the meat
department, I find and conclude that Rokoskie is a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act.7 In numerous
similar situations the Board has found meat department
managers to be supervisory employees. Buckeye Village
Market, Inc., 175 NLRB No. 46; Gerbes Super Markets,
Inc., 176 NLRB No. 1; Agawam Food Mart, 162 NLRB
1420; Nitro Supermarket, Inc., 161 NLRB 505; Bruno's Food
Store, Inc., 131 NLRB 1023; The Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Company, Inc., 128 NLRB 342; Food Haven, Inc., 126
NLRB 666; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 124 NLRB 908; The
Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 119 NLRB 1257.
Accordingly, having found Rokoskie to be a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act, it is recommended that the
allegation that he was terminated in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act be dismissed.
B. The Wage Increase; Alleged Unlawful
Interrogation
An organizational campaign among Respondent's em-
ployees began on November 6, 1970.8 On this date
Rokoskie met with two union organizers on Respondent's
parking lot and from them obtained union authorization
cards and a copy of the Union's current contract with an
association of retail food store employers in the Philadel-
phia area. I here reach a conflict in the testimony, a
6 The larger weekly meat sales , however, are usually determined by the
wholesaler who fixes the price schedule
r It is well settled that an employee need not be invested with each of
the supervisory indicia set forth in Section 2(11) of the Act The possession
of any one of the authorities specified therein places the employee vested
with this authority in the supervisor class Ohio Power Co v N L R B, 176
F.2d 385, 387 (C A 6), cert denied 338 U.S 899 Nitro Supermarket, Inc,
161 NLRB 505, 510-511
8 Mary Smith, a union organizer , testified that she "would say" that the
organizational activities at Respondent's store began in mid-October, 1970
I do not credit this testimony , for there is absolutely no evidence of any
activity prior to the date mentioned above
9 Although Swartz could not recall the exact date, he did testify that it
was in the first part of November 1970 when Rokoskie and he agreed to
display the contract to Scheidel
resolution of which is relevant to the issue of the alleged
unlawful wage increase, discussed below. Rokoskie testified
that upon procurement of the latter document, he gave it to
employee Chester Swartz to read over the weekend. He said
that on the morning of November 10, 1970, a Tuesday, he
discussed the matter with Swartz and they decided that they
would show the contract to Scheidel. The foregoing
testimony of Rokoskie was corroborated by Swartz.9
Continuing with Rokoskie's testimony, Rokoskie said that
on November 10, shortly after his conversation with
Swartz, he went up to Scheidel, handed him the contract,
and stated, "John, here. These people are trying to organize
your store." Conceding that Rokoskie gave him a copy of
the contract and that at this time he learned of the
organizational activity, Scheidel asserted that this took
place on November 19 rather than on November 10. I
credit the testimony of Rokoskie and find that he gave a
copy of the union contract to Scheidel on November 10,
while at the same time advising him that an organizational
campaign was underway.'°
It is undisputed that all of the employees, with the
exception of the meat manager, were granted wage
increases by Respondent effective as of November 14, 1970,
these increases being reflected in the paychecks they
received on November 18. Concerning this wage increase,
Scheidel testified that on about November 2, 1970 he
notified Sarah Yeager, an accountant clerk employed by
the Delp Co. who prepares Respondent's payroll, that he
intended to grant a wage increase. Yeager also testified that
she received a telephone call from Scheidel on or about this
date and that he notified her to this effect. However, as
reflected in the testimony of Scheidel and Yeager, it is clear
that at this time Scheidel did not give Yeager any names of
employees who were to receive increases, nor at this time
did he give any indication as to the amounts that would be
involved. i i
Although the parties stipulated that the November 14
wage increases ranged from 254 to 834 per hour, it
appears from the employees who testified that the bulk of
the increases were of the more substantial nature, these
including the following hourly raises : Ronald Christman,
75 cents; Dorothy Yeager, 82-1/2 cents; Christine Bronson,
80 cents; Monika Howard, 75 cents; Barbara Hall, 70
cents; and Chester Swartz, 35 cents.
Pointing to Scheidel's conversation with Yeager on
November 2, 1970, Respondent asserts that since this
occurred prior to any union activity, the wage increase of
November 14 cannot be held to have been motivated by
reasons proscribed by the Act. However, while it appears
10 Union Representative Smith corroborated Rokoskie concerning his
obtaining the contract and authorization cards in the parking lot on
November 6. 1 should further point out that in crediting Rokoskie over
Scheidel with respect to the date on which Scheidel was given the contract,
I have also taken into account the fact that documentary evidence in this
case establishes Scheidel to have given incorrect testimony as to another
date Thus, although Scheidel insisted that a letter from the Union
requesting recognition (G C Exh 3) was received by Respondent on
December 3 rather than on December 2, 1970, a postal registry return
receipt for this letter shows on its face that in fact it was delivered to
Respondent on December 2, 1970.
11 Thus, concerning her telephone conversation with Scheidel, Yeager
testified, "All he said was , ' I am going to give raises to the employees and
I'll let you know later.' "
492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
undoubtedly true that Respondent had planned on giving
some wage increases prior to the union activity, upon the
entire evidence and for the following reasons I am
persuaded that the increases ultimately granted would not
have been nearly as numerous or as substantial had it not
been for the intervening union activity. In the first place,
the November 14 wage increase was the first time
Respondent ever gave a wage increase to all employees at
the same time; 12 in the past these generally have been
granted on an individual basis.13 This thus represents a
departure from past practice. Secondly, Scheidel testified
that his decision to give the employees the raise in question
was predicated on (I) his discussions with a competitor, as
well as with his father who also runs a retail store, wherein
he discovered that the rates he was paying the employees
were "unbelievably low" and (2) his receipt of complaints
from the meat department employees to the effect that
other stores were paying higher wages than they were
receiving. These latter complaints, he said, were made by
the employees "a month or two" prior to the November 14
wage increase . The fact is that if indeed Scheidel received
any such complaints, the evidence reveals that he had
already responded to them within a month or two prior to
November 14. Thus, Yeager, who received a wage increase
of 82-1/2 cents on November 14, had already received a 25
cent hourly increase as recently as within the second or
third week of October 1970. Similarly, Hall, who received
70 cents on November 14, had been given a 25 cent raise in
the preceding month; and Bronson, the recipient of 80
cents on November 14, was given a 25-cent increase in
August.14 Thirdly, I think it more than coincidence that the
wage raises given to the six employees, as hereinabove set
forth, all of whom were meat department employees,
brought these employees to the almost identical wage levels
for their respective job classifications as set forth in the
prevailing union collective-bargaining agreement.15 A copy
of this contract, it will be recalled, was given to Scheidel just
4 days prior to the granting of the wage increases.
It is well established that Section 8(a)(1) prohibits
conduct by an employer "immediately favorable to
employees undertaken with the express purpose of
impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against
unionization and is calculated to have that effect." 16 In
view of all the foregoing, I find that Respondent granted
the November 14 wage increase for the purpose of
influencing the employees against unionization. By such
conduct, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
There remains the allegation that Respondent interrogat-
ed employees concerning their union membership and
activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. As
previously noted, on December 2, 1970, Respondent
received a letter from the Union in which it claimed a
majority and requested a meeting to negotiate a contract.
According to the testimony of employee Ronald Christ-
man, upon receipt thereof Scheidel came up to him with the
12 Testimony of Dorothy Yeager.
13 As reflected in the testimony of employee witnesses
14 Further , not only had Respondent thus responded to the so-called
employee complaints , but the testimony of employee witnesses reflects that
it was not Respondent 's practice to grant successive wage increases within
such short intervals of time, this again reflecting a departure from
Respondent 's past policy.
letter, handed it to him, and asked if he had signed a union
card. Christman responded that he had. Employee Monika
Howard also testified that at about this time Scheidel came
up while she was working and asked if she had signed a
union card. She said she responded affirmatively. Employ-
ee Dorothy Yeager testified that upon receipt of the
Union's letter Scheidel broached her and stated, "I got a
letter from the Union and I see the majority of the meat
department signed. Did you sign a card?" Testifying that
she advised him that she had, she said he then stated,
"That's a shame." With respect to all the foregoing,
Scheidel testified that he did not "explicitly" ask the
employees if they had signed a union card, but testified "in
conversation, it's possible they told me." I credit the
testimony of the employees that they were questioned in the
manner set forth above.
Standing alone, I would be inclined not to regard the
spontaneous questioning of a few employees as to whether
they signed a union card after receipt of a letter requesting
recognition as independently violative of the Act. However,
since the interrogation here occurred in the context of an
unlawful wage increase which was granted shortly thereaft-
er, and also since the questioning of one of the employees
was coupled by Scheidel's overt expression of displeasure
when she conceded that she had signed a card, from Board
precedent it would appear that the evidence preponderates
in finding that such interrogation was violative of Section
8(a)(1). I so find.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent 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 of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices it will be recommended 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
conclusions , and upon the entire record in this case, I
hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
is For example , the raise given to Barbara Hall , employed as a
delicatessen clerk on June 26, 1970, put her weekly wage rate at about
$104. This is comparable to the contract 's weekly wage rate for this job
classification set at $103 for employees employed 3 months and $106 for
employees employed during their second 3 months.
16 N LR B v Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405.
JOHN H. SCHEIDEL, INC.
3. By the granting of wage increases under the
circumstances described herein and by coercively interro-
gating employees concerning their union membership and
activities, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent has not committed unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 17
ORDER
Respondent, John H. Scheidel, its officers, agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully granting economic benefits, or announc-
ing the grant of economic benefits, for the purpose of
undermining the Union;
(b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union membership and activities;
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act. However, nothing herein
shall be construed to require the Respondent to rescind or
discontinue new wage rates or other benefits previously
granted.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its store at Spring City, Pennsylvania, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of said
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 4, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative , shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.19
IT In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
493
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
is In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment 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 "
19 In the event that 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 4, in writing , within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps have been 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 NOT grant you wage increases or other
benefits to discourage you from designating Amalga-
mated Food Employees Union Local 196, affiliated
with Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen
of North America, AFL-CIO, or any other union, as
your representative for collective bargaining. However,
nothing requires us to discontinue any benefits
previously given to you.
WE WILL NOT question you about your union
membership or activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, except to the extent that such rights may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment where
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
JOHN H. SCHEIDEL, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
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, 1700
Bankers Securities Building, Walnut & Juniper Streets,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Telephone 215-597-7601.