Modern Chevrolet Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1968

169 N.L.R.B. 809 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

MODERN CHEVROLET CO.
M. G. Inman , Sr. and M. G. Inman, Jr., Partners,
d/b/a Modern Chevrolet Company and
International Association of Machinists &
Aerospace Workers, District 31, AFL-CIO
Modern Chevrolet Company and District 31, Inter-
national Association of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases
23-CA-2593 and 23-RC-2892
February 14, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On October 3, 1967, Trial Examiner George A.
Downing issued his Decision in the above-entitled
consolidated proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondents had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommended that those allegations be
dismissed. In addition, the Trial Examiner recom-
mended that the election held on February 22,
1967, be set aside, and that the petition in Case
23-RC-2892 be dismissed. Thereafter, the Re-
spondents and the General Counsel each filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
briefs in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or-
ders that the Respondents, M. G. Inman, Sr. and
M. G. Inman, Jr., partners, d/b/a Modern Chevrolet
The telephone number of Region 23, which appears at the bottom of
the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, is amended to
read: 228-0611, Extension 4721
809
Company, Orange, Texas, their agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for cer-
tification in Case 23-RC-2892 be, and it hereby is,
dismissed, and that all proceedings held thereunder
be, and they hereby are, vacated.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE A. DOWNING, Trial Examiner: These con-
solidated proceedings were heard at Orange, Texas, on
June 5 and 6, 1967, pursuant to due notice. The amended
complaint in Case 23-CA-2593 which was issued on
May 18, 1967, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, on charges and amended
charges dated January 19 and 20, February 21, March 9,
15, and 22, and April 28, 1967, alleged that Respondents
engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act in specified respects as
more fully set forth in section II, A, infra. Consolidated
therewith for hearing and decision were certain objec-
tions to conduct affecting the results of the election in
Case 23-RC-2892, the evidence on which the Regional
Director found to be directly related to the evidence bear-
ing on the unfair labor practices charges.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS; THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
I conclude and find on facts alleged in the complaint
and admitted by answer that Respondents are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act' and that the
Charging Party is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction and Issues; the Representation
Proceeding
The organizational activities, which began on January
12, 1967,2 originated as a result of the rejection of an
earlier request for Saturdays off made by a committee on
behalf of employees of all the automobile dealers in
Orange. On January 12 John F. Foster, a business
representative of the Union, was called into a meeting of
all employees at Roy's Trim Shop for advice and
assistance. Foster informed the employees that he saw no
alternative but for them to give the Union an authoriza-
tion to represent them in approaching the dealers for
Saturday off "and some other little incidentials." White
authorization cards were passed out and signed by a
1 Respondents operate a Chevrolet dealership in Orange, Texas, engag-
ing in the retail selling and servicing of automobiles They purchase and
receive annually directly from extrastate points goods valued in excess of
$50,000 and their annual retail sales exceed $500,000
2 All events herein occurred in 1967 unless otherwise stated
169 NLRB No. 117
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
number of Respondents' employees (among others) and
thereafter additional signatures were obtained from time
to time on the same type of card as well as on a yellow
one. Both cards, though phrased somewhat differently,
authorized IAM in simple language to represent the
signatories in negotiating agreements with the employer
in matters of collective bargaining; i.e., wages, hours, and
working conditions. A number of Respondents' em-
ployees signed both types of cards under different dates.
On January 25, the Union filed a representation peti-
tion in Case 23-RC-2892 specifying a unit of all of
Respondents' service department employees, with the
usual exclusions, and on the same date the Regional
Director by letter notified Respondents of the filing. On
January 27 Foster wrote Respondents claiming majority
representation and making a formal request to bargain.
Pursuant to a stipulation for a consent election approved
on February 9, an election was held on February 22 with
the result hinging on certain challenged ballots. On
February 28 the Union also filed objections to conduct
allegedly affecting the result of the election, and on April
28 the Regional Director issued his report on the chal-
lenged ballots and on the objections. In brief the Regional
Director sustained certain challenges, overruled others,
and found that in four other cases the challenges would
rest on the outcome of the Union's charges filed in the
complaint case which the Regional Director concluded
had merit and on which he forthwith issued a complaint.
On May 15 the Board approved the Regional
Director's report, including his recommendation that if
the counting of certain ballots did not resolve the election
issue the Regional Director should consolidate the hear-
ing on the remaining objections with the hearing in the
complaint case. After the issuance of the amended com-
plaint on May 18 the Regional Director ordered that con-
solidation on May 19.
The issues herein involve complaint allegations, denied
by answer, that Respondents engaged in various acts of
interference, restraint, and coercion (e.g., interrogation,
promises of benefits, and threats of reprisals); that it dis-
criminatorily discharged Henry Collins on January 14,
John Ashby on February 16, and Jerry Myers, Gregory
Dawson, Jr., Nancy Toups, and Roger W. Bryan on
February 17; and that it refused to bargain with the
Union on and after January 27. A subsidiary issue con-
cerns Ashby's status as an alleged supervisor.
Aside from the discharges of Ashby, Bryan, Dawson,
and Myers the objections to the election included the cir-
culation by Respondents among the employees of a
defaced facsimile of the Board's official ballot. The Union
also contended at the hearing that any conduct found
herein to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) or (3) after the fil-
ing of the petition should be considered as interference
with the election.
We consider preliminarily the issue as to Ashby's
status.
B. The Alleged Supervisory Status of John G. Ashby
On January 3 Respondents made effective a major
change in the organizational setup of its service depart-
ment . Prior to that date, James Horton was service
manager and beneath him were Billy Jacobs, parts
manager , and Robert Horton, shop foreman over the
mechanics , the latter position being supervisory at the
time. In late 1966, Respondents found it necessary to
replace James Horton as service manager because of ill-
ness and decided further to replace Robert Horton as
shop foreman because the latter had not worked out
satisfactorily in that position. Both Hortons were moved
down to their former jobs as mechanics and Billy Jacobs
was made service manager over both parts and shop.
Ashby, who had been in charge of new-car warranty and
service (frequently called APA work in the record) was
made shop foreman in place of Robert Horton though the
evidence is in conflict as to whether he exercised super-
visory powers as the latter had done.
Ashby testified that Jacobs never told him that he had
the same authority as Robert Horton but told him instead
that if "anything major" came up, it would be up to
Jacobs to take care of it. Ashby testified that he spent ap-
proximately three-fourths of his time processing paper-
work (APA's) in connection with new-car warranties and
that he also performed repair order or service writeup
work. Though the repair orders, when written up, were
distributed by Ashby, the distribution was a routine one,
e.g., tuneup work was assigned to the tuneup man, trans-
mission work to the transmission man, etc.
Jacobs admitted that Ashby never hired or fired anyone
and made no recommendations for hiring and firing. He
admitted further that he himself transferred Gregory
Dawson from the main shop to Chevy Town without
discussing the matter with Ashby. A final commentary on
Ashby's lack of authority over the shop was Jacobs' dis-
avowal of the purchase of a $10 part which Ashby made
in Jacobs' absence and Jacobs' statement to Ashby that
he had no authority to make such a purchase without
Jacobs' permission . Of significance also was the fact that
Ashby's "promotion" to shop foreman brought with it,
not an increase, but a slight decrease in his salary ($1.67
a week) and the further fact that the average earnings of
a line mechanic were some $10 a week more than Ash-
by's salary.
Inman , Junior, testified that Ashby was made shop
foreman more or less on a trial basis and that though
Ashby had "all of the responsibilities of the shop
foreman," restrictions were put on his authority after the
union activity began, in that he directed Jacobs to inform
Ashby not to hire or fire anyone without first discussing
the matter with them.
By brief, Respondents rest their claim of supervisory
status largely on the point that Ashby's job title was shop
foreman and that he succeeded Robert Horton, admit-
tedly a supervisor, as shop foreman. The job title, of
course, does not resolve the question, for what is deter-
minative is whether Ashby assumed with the job the same
supervisory authority which Horton had.
I conclude and find on a preponderance of the evidence
that he did not. Ashby was put on the job on a trial basis,
he never hired or fired anyone, never made a recommen-
dation, never disciplined anyone, and had no authority to
grant time off. The major part of his time was spent on
doing paperwork which entailed no supervision and the
remainder was spent in writing up service orders and in
routinely distributing them to the mechanics. Jacobs
reserved to himself authority to pass on all major matters
and ultimately made an issue out of a trivial purchase
which Horton made without his permission.
I therefore conclude and find that Ashby neither had
nor exercised any of the facets of supervisory authority
as specified in Section 2(11) and that to the extent that he
exercised any authority, as in the distribution of repair or-
ders to the mechanics, it was purely on a routine basis.
MODERN CHEVROLET CO.
C. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
The bulk of the 8(a)(1) conduct herein was attributed to
Service Manager Billy Jacobs, with other single incidents
being charged to C. G. Shawd, who was Respondents'
labor relations consultant after February 15, and to Pat
Collier, manager of the Chevy Town location. We begin
with Jacobs' conduct.
Gregory Dawson testified that some time before he
signed a union card on January 27, Jacobs talked with
him about the Union, asking what he thought about it,
whether he had talked to any of the union men, and
whether any of them had tried to get him to sign a card.
Jacobs also asked whether Dawson was going to sign a
card and when Dawson replied he did not know, Jacobs
stated it would not do Dawson any good to sign and that
it would be better if he did not do so because Jacobs
would give him a raise. Dawson later signed a card
because he did not get the raise.
Jacobs made' no denial of that conversation though he
answered negatively a blanket question whether he at any
time interrogated employees about their feelings or sym-
pathies toward the Union and answered similar a blanket
question whether he ever threatened employees with the
loss of company benefits.
Earnest Allemand testified that between January 11
and 27 Jacobs discussed the Union with him in the
presence of C. V. Brookins and that Jacobs said, among
other things, that about the only thing the Union could do
would be to put a Negro in the stall next to him. Jacobs
admitted the conversation, and though denying that he
made the statement in the exact terms of Allemand's
phrasing, admitted that he told Allemand that if the shop
went Union and if a Negro were put in there, there would
be nothing the Company could do about it.
Calvin Foster testified that while having coffee with
Jacobs at a nearby cafe in January, Jacobs stated in the
presence of Pop Seruntine and Harold Yates that, "Oh,
while it's fresh on my mind ... if the Union comes in. .
. I guess you will know that you will lose ... your
hospitalization, uniforms, and paid vacations. You would
lose your benefits ... from the company." Foster
testified further that a week or two later Jacobs asked
what he thought about the Union.
Jacobs did not specifically deny the latter conversation
though he made a general denial of interrogations. He ad-
mitted discussing company benefits on one occasion at
the cafe with Yates and Charles Ebarb, and though he
could not recall that either Foster or Seruntine was
present, he conceded that Foster "could have come in."
Jacobs testified the discussion concerned what might take
place if the Union were voted in and that he volunteered
the information that it was possible the company benefits
could be changed, such as insurance and uniforms or va-
cations.
Roger Bryan, who was hired on January 25, testified
that when Jacobs was interviewing him for employment,
Jacobs asked if he were for the Union. Bryan replied that
he did not know what kind of union Jacobs was talking
about and Jacobs explained that the Union was trying to
get into the dealerships and that, if Bryan were to join it,
he would have to take tests to be a journeyman and that
Jacobs did not think Bryan was experienced enough to
make a journeyman. Jacobs also asked whether Bryan
had ever joined a union before and Bryan answered that
he had belonged to one a long time ago. Thereupon
Jacobs stated that he would hire Bryan on a week-to-
811
week basis.
Jacobs admitted that he discussed the Union with
Bryan but testified that Bryan brought up the matter of
the Union and volunteered that he wanted to do whatever
the Company wanted him to do. Jacobs explained that it
was not a matter of what the Company wanted Bryan to
do and that it would not attempt to tell him what to do if
an election were ever called.
Jacobs was also a participant in the incident which in-
volved Shawd, though he did not testify concerning it.
William T. Barnes testified that some 10 days prior to the
election Jacobs called him out to test drive a car and in-
troduced him to Shawd, who also went along. Following
the test they went to a cafe for coffee where Shawd in-
formed Barnes that he was there on Inman's behalf about
the Union and asked what the employees at the shop
thought about it. Barnes at first demurred that he did not
know whether he should talk about the Union because it
might cost him his job. Shawd assured him that if he
would say nothing about their conversation, they (Shawd
and Jacobs) would not say anything either. Barnes then
stated that for himself he thought the Union was alright
and asked what Shawd thought of it. Shawd replied he did
not believe that a small dealership could operate under
union conditions.
Shawd admitted the ride and the conversation, ad-
mitted he was not along for testing the car, and testified
he wanted to explain to Barnes the Company's views on
the union question and win his support because he had
learned from the Company that Barnes was a person who
would be a good leader and who might influence other
people. Shawd denied that he interrogated Barnes about
his personal feelings concerning the Union but testified
he asked Barnes primarily what it was that the men ex-
pected or hoped to get by having a union.
Gregory Dawson, who was discharged on February
17, testified that on the morning of that day while riding
with Pat Collier from the main location to Chevy Town,
he and Collier began talking about the Union. Though
Collier stated that he thought the Union was okay, he did
not want it because if it were to get in the Company would
lay him off and close Chevy Town down. Collier con-
tinued that if Dawson did not join the Union he would
have the Company build a shelter under which Dawson
could work on the cars out of the sun and rain. Dawson
agreed that if he were to get a raise and if a place were
built in which he could work, he would not sign for the
Union.
Collier denied that he threatened Dawson with closing
down Chevy Town in the event the Union were voted in
and in fact denied that he talked with Dawson about the
Union at all. In fact, Collier at first denied riding with
Dawson in an automobile except on the occasion when he
first took Dawson out to Chevy Town, but on cross-ex-
amination he admitted he had gone with Dawson on
several occasions to move cars back and forth. Collier
also admitted that he made statements at the Chevy
Town location about having a canopy in the back where
the cars could be polished and cleaned, out of the
weather.
Concluding Findings
As is seen from the foregoing summary, four witnesses
attributed to Jacobs interrogations concerning their union
sentiments, promises of benefits if they would refrain
from signing a union card, and threats of the loss of
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
benefits or of other reprisals if the Union should come in.
Jacobs was also present when Shawd interrogated
another witness concerning union sentiments among the
shop employees.
Jacobs, though making a general denial of interroga-
tions and threats, admitted that he discussed the Union
with'the employees but sought to phrase his own state-
ments in terms which would minimize their coercive
aspects. He did not, however, deny Dawson's testimony
concerning the promise of a raise. In view of the cumula-
tive weight of the opposing testimony and the substantial
confirmation furnished by Jacobs himself, I credit the
testimony of Dawson, Allemand, Foster, and Bryan and
I find that Jacobs made the statements which they
testified to.
As for the Barnes-Shawd testimony there was no con-
flict on the point that Shawd's interrogation concerned
the union sentiments among the shop employees. It is im-
material that Shawd did not seek directly to have Barnes
disclose his own personal feelings.
The issue between Collier and Dawson is to be viewed
against the background furnished by the conduct of
Jacobs and Shawd. Jacobs had previously interrogated
Dawson concerning his intention of signing a union card
and had promised him a raise. Under Dawson's
testimony Collier followed through with a further promise
to build a shelter in which Dawson could work out of the
weather and with a warning that the Union's advent
would lead the Company to close Chevy Town. Further-
more, Collier's testimony was contradictory on the
matter of automobile rides with Dawson and he also ad-
mitted that he made statements at Chevy Town concern-
ing the building of a canopy under which Dawson's job
could be performed. I therefore credit Dawson's
testimony.
][ therefore conclude and find that by interrogating em-
ployees concerning the union sentiments of themselves
and of fellow employees and concerning their intentions
of signing union cards,3 by threatening employees with
the loss of benefits, with closing its place of business, and
with other reprisals if the Union should come in, and by
promising an employee a pay raise and improved working
conditions for the purpose of discouraging his support of
the Union. Respondents interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
D. Discrimination
1. The discharge of Henry B. Collins
Henry B. Collins was hired primarily as a porter and
his principal duties were washing and cleaning cars. Col-
lins attended the meeting at Roy's Trim Shop on the
evening of January 12 (see section A, supra), signed a
union card, and on the next morning so informed a fellow
employee, Pop Seruntine, who then and later made cer-
tain antiunion statements.
It is unnecessary to go into details concerning Collins'
discharge early on Saturday morning (January 14)
because the General Counsel was unable to trace Serun-
3 The interrogations occurred in a setting with the other conduct of
threats and promises of benefits which plainly created a coercive at-
mosphere. Cf. International Ladies Garment Workers' Union, 142
NLRB 82, 114-115
tine's knowledge to Respondents or responsibility for his
statements. Furthermore Inman , Junior, testified that the
first information he received about any union activity was
a telephone call from Business Representative Foster on
Saturday afternoon stating that Foster understood that
Inman had fired "one of his boys" and putting Inman on
notice that he would get in trouble if he fired any more of
them. Though the General Counsel points to certain
suspicious circumstances surrounding the discharge and
the causes assigned to support it, suspicion is an in-
adequate basis for finding discriminatory motivation
where, as here, the General Counsel's case is so fatally
lacking in the essential factor of knowledge of union ac-
tivities.
2. The discharge of Nancy Toups
Nancy Toups was one of five employees who were
discharged on February 16 and 17 and whose cases, the
General Counsel contends, must be considered together
because they followed "a common pattern." I shall con-
sider Toups discharge separately, however, because the
evidence does not support the General Counsel's conten-
tion in her case.
Thus Toups was an office clerical employee who
served as title clerk and who wrote Inman's personal let-
ters. She was not within the bargaining unit as were Ash-
by, Myers, Dawson, and Bryan; she did not attend union
meetings as they did; and she did not sign a union card or
wear a union button as they did. Indeed, Toups par-
ticipated in no union activities as such though she did en-
gage in early January in discussions of the Union with fel-
low employees who expressed interest in it as a means of
getting Saturdays off, a desire which Toups shared and
which she discussed with her supervisor, Office Manager
Norman Whitaker.
Furthermore, there was little or nothing in Toups'
testimony which will support a finding that she was dis-
criminatorily discharged and she fully confirmed the
causes which Respondents assigned . Thus she admitted
that Whitaker had threatened her "a few times" with
discharge because she "goofed off" quite a lot and
because she "played around" in the office with Joe Dean
and Jerry Myers.
Whitaker informed Toups that she was discharged
because of her office manners and the way she answered
the telephone and that the order to discharge her came
from Inman. Sometime later Toups asked Inman why she
was discharged and he assigned the same reasons which
Whitaker had given. Whitaker did not testify, but Inman
testified that he and Whitaker discussed their mutual
complaints about Toups, which included her "goofing
off' and not answering the telephone properly, as well as
making errors in her clerical work. Inman denied that her
union activity was the reason for her discharge and
testified he had no idea she was connected with the Union
in any way.4
On this record I conclude and find that the General
Counsel failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that Toups was discharged because of her union
membership or activities.
4 The Union called Toups to the union hall after her discharge and filed
a charge in her behalf which she later attempted unsuccessfully to have
dropped
MODERN CHEVROLET CO.
3. The discharges of John G. Ashby, Gregory Dawson,
Jr., Jerry Myers, and Roger W. Bryan
Ashby was discharged on February 16 and Dawson,
Myers, and Bryan on February 17. All of them signed
union authorization cards, attended several union
meetings, and wore union buttons on the job for some
time prior to their discharges.
a. John G. Ashby
On February 15 Ashby and Service Manager Jacobs
were involved in three separate incidents. In the first one
Jacobs criticized Ashby for being away from his desk and
asked why he was not doing anything. Ashby explained
that he had gone up front to pick up some papers and
while there had answered a telephone call from a
customer. Ashby testified that Jacobs had never talked to
him in such a manner before.
The second one concerned a complaint to Jacobs from
a customer's wife that a repair bill was too high. Ashby
had previously reduced the bill some $10 after discussing
it with the mechanic and so informed Jacobs. Despite
that, a disagreement arose between them, and Jacobs,
who thought the bill was still too high, made a further
reduction of some $6 or $7.
Finally during Jacobs' absence from the office Ashby
signed an order for a $10 part which was badly needed in
the shop. Jacobs brought the bill back to Ashby and
inquired who bought the part and Ashby stated that he
had done so. Jacobs stated that no one could buy anything
for the shop at any time except through Jacobs. Ashby
explained that Jacobs was not present, that as shop
foreman he thought it was one of his duties, and that if
Jacobs was afraid to own up to the bill, Ashby would in-
form Inman that he himself had bought it. The part was
later put into use.
Ashby testified that at the end of the next workday
Jacobs approached and stated he would like to remain
Ashby's friend but was going to have to let him go
because he could not get along with anyone. Ashby com-
mented that he believed Jacobs was referring to himself,
because Jacobs had "tried to put [him] down the day be-
fore." Jacobs replied that "[Y]ou just don't go into the
boss and tell him that you are going to leave or give him
2 weeks' notice that you are going to leave."
Jacobs made no denial of Ashby's testimony concern-
ing the discharge interview and testified that he
discharged Ashby after discussing with Inman a com-
plaint which Ashby made to the latter of a shortage in his
paycheck. Inman testified in turn that Ashby's complaint
resulted from a changeover made to comply with the
Wage and Hour Law, which ,became effective around
February I and which resulted in a small reduction in
Ashby's paycheck. Ashby pursued the matter with Inman
in a belligerent mood despite Inman's explanations and
finally stated that' if he did not get more money and if
Inman did not get the matter straightened out he was
going to quit. Inman, promised that when Jacobs got back
to the office he would talk with Jacobs and would let
Ashby know their decision. Ashby's testimony was in
substantial accord,
Inman testified further that he and Jacobs talked about
the matter that night and decided to let Ashby quit the
next morning. However when Ashby came in the next
morning he asked for leave to go to Detroit because of the
illness of his father and was gone for about a week.
813
Although Ashby was on the job another week before his
discharge, Inman said nothing to Ashby concerning his
quitting, and Ashby's pay was in fact straightened out.
b. Gregory Dawson, Jr.
Dawson was hired in November or December 1966, as
a porter at the main shop but was later transferred to
Chevy Town where his job was washing and cleaning
cars under the supervision of Pat Collier. Dawson's con-
versations with Jacobs and Collier concerning the Union
are summarized in section C, supra, the latter occurring
on the morning of the discharge.
Dawson testified that he washed some six cars that
morning and that Collier complimented him on his work
and also suggested that because it was getting warm,
Dawson should go up to the office, clean up, and rest for
a while. When lunchtime came Dawson first fixed a flat
tire on his own car and went on to lunch. Upon returning
he resumed his job of washing a car and while he was so
engaged Collier came up and told Dawson he had been
noticing Dawson all morning, that Dawson had been
"fumbling around" with his car all day and had not done
"a dam[n] thing," Collier handed Dawson his check and
told him to get off the lot and not to be caught down at the
main shop either.
Dawson admitted that he got no permission to change
his tire but testified that he was allowed an hour for
dinner, that the tire changing took about 20 minutes and
his lunchtime only another 15 or 20 minutes.
Collier made no denial of Dawson's testimony con-
cerning the work which Dawson did on the morning of
the discharge. He testified that Jacobs transferred
Dawson to him on a trial basis to see whether Dawson
would work out under close supervision and that he
worked Dawson for a week. For the first 2 or 3 days Col-
lier was well pleased with Dawson's work but from then
on Dawson got worse and worse. Among other things
Dawson began to work on his own car during worktime
and Collier warned him not to do so. Thereafter he caught
Dawson working on his car again and warned him a
second time. On the Friday of the discharge he found
Dawson working on his car again, so he went to the main
location and told Inman he did not want Dawson any
more and that he had come to get Dawson's pay. Inman
agreed that Collier should let Dawson go. Inman's
testimony was to similar effect.
c. Jerry W. Myers
Myers was hired by Jacobs in late December as a parts
man. Myers was without prior experience in that job and
testified that Jacobs informed him he was being hired on
a 2-month trial basis, that he was to give a week's notice
if he decided to quit, and that Jacobs would give him a 2-
week notice if Jacobs decided to terminate him. Prior to
January 28 Myers and Joe Dean worked in the parts de-
partment, but Jacobs then brought in Mike Toliver, who
had prior experience as a parts man.
Myers denied that Jacobs ever criticized him about his
work but admitted that Jacobs sometimes spoke to him
about being behind on it. Myers admitted further that
after Toliver came in Jacobs spoke to him about reducing
the hours of work and also spoke of reducing the work
force. Myers at first stated he would give notice and quit
but on reconsidering stated he would keep on working.
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jacobs discharged Myers during the workday on
February 17, calling him from his work while he was
waiting on a customer. Myers testified that Jacobs re-
minded him of their agreement when Myers was hired,
stated that he was not satisfied with Myers' work because
he was not efficient enough and was not learning the job.
Jacobs paid him in full and gave him a week's advance
pay. Myers referred to other employees who had been
fired that day and asked whether the union activity had
anything to do with the firing, but Jacobs denied that it
had.
Jacobs' testimony was in substantial accord with
Myers' insofar as the hiring and firing interviews were
concerned, but he testified that he criticized Myers on a
number of occasions concerning his neglect of his job, his
wasting of time, and his failure to turn out work which
Jacobs assigned to him. Because Myers was an inex-
perienced parts man, Jacobs began to look for one with
more experience and, finding Toliver, brought him in as
leadman on January 28.
Inman testified in turn to complaints both from
customers and from mechanics about the service given
them by Myers and about his "goofing off' on the job.
Inman discussed the complaints with Jacobs and in-
structed Jacobs to straighten Myers out. Toliver and
Nancy Toups also testified concerning Myers' conduct
and concerning complaints about his work and Toliver
testified to hearing Jacobs warn Myers about the need for
getting out work.
d. Roger W. Bryan
Roger Bryan was hired by Jacobs as a paint-and-body
man on January 25 under the circumstances recited in
section C, supra. A week before his discharge on Febru-
ary 17, Bryan complained directly to Inman because of a
shortage in his paycheck and because he was not being
paid for writing estimates. The next day Jacobs called
Bryan into the paintroom and asked why he had gone to
Inman. Jacobs also reminded Bryan that he had been
hired on a week-to-week basis and stated that Bryan's
work was not satisfactory and that he was going to give
Bryan one more week to improve his work. Jacobs
referred both to the fact that Bryan was not putting out
enough work and that his painting was not good enough.
Around quitting time on Friday, February 17, Jacobs
called Bryan in and' stated that he was letting Bryan go
because his work was not good enough and he was not
putting out enough work. Jacobs also referred to the hard
feelings between them and reminded Bryan again of the
agreement that he had been employed on a week-by-week
basis. Bryan testified that his earnings in the final week of
his employment amounted to $161, the largest amount he
had earned while working for Respondents.
Jacobs testified to complaints from a customer con-
cerning Bryan's failure to complete a paint job on time
and to rejection by another customer of a job which
Bryan had done. In both cases Jacob had to call on
another body man to complete the job. Jacobs testified he
did not consider Bryan to be a qualified or capable paint-
and-body man and that some of his jobs had to be done
over after his discharge.
Bryan admitted that a customer complained about one
of his jobs and admitted further that he did not always
complete his jobs within the promised time.
Inman testified that he discussed with Jacobs the
matter of employing Bryan and directed Jacobs to hire
Bryan on a temporary basis "so we don't have any
problem with this union stuff of getting rid of him if he is
not a body man." Inman testified further that Jacobs in-
formed him later he was not convinced that Bryan was
capable and therefore put him only on small jobs. Follow-
ing Bryan's complaint to him about the pay shortage,
Inman talked again with Jacobs, who commented again
on Bryan's lack of ability. Inman directed Jacobs to give
Bryan another week within which to prove himself. Dur-
ing that week Bryan's deficiencies continued and Inman
directed Jacobs to discharge Bryan.
In addition to the testimony which related directly to
the individual dischargees, Respondents also offered
further testimony by Inman in explanation both of the
timing and of the number of the discharges. Thus Inman
testified that after he got Foster's call on January 14
warning him against firing other employees, he was ad-
vised by the attorney who represented all of the Orange
dealers that he should not fire anyone while the union ac-
tivity was going on because of the danger of unfair labor
practice charges. Though as time went on Inman felt that
other employees should be discharged, he tolerated them
because of the pending organizational activities. After
retaining Shawd, however, and being informed that he
could be subjected to charges after the election as well as
before, he decided to make the discharges at once
because, "They were causing us trouble and weren't
doing their jobs right."
Inman admitted that there had been no occasion when
he had terminated five employees in 2 days but explained
that he had not previously been confronted with a situa-
tion where there occurred at one time a reorganization of
the service department, organizational attempts by a
union, and the need to conform Respondents' operations
to the Wage and Hour Law. Inman testified further that
it was around late January that employee derelictions
became most noticeable but acknowledged that the time
coincided with receipt of the representation petition and
of the Union's request for recognition. Inman also
pointed out that he had retained other employees (Robert
Horton and Barnes) who were "real strong" for the
Union because they were doing their jobs satisfactorily.
Concluding Findings
Pertinent, of course, to the issue of discriminatory
motivation are the findings of Respondents' prior unfair
labor practices as made in section C, supra, particularly
on the conduct of Jacobs and Collier. The interrogations
which they engaged in and their promises and threats
were plainly reflective of Respondents' union animus
and, when coupled with the timing, circumstances, and
number of the discharges, served to establish a prima
facie case for the General Counsel that all four of the
discharges were discriminatorily motivated.
Turning to the question whether Respondents'
evidence was sufficient to overcome that prima facie
showing, I find that despite the General Counsel's claim
that all four cases followed a common pattern, analysis of
the entire evidence showed that Respondents were suc-
cessful in establishing their defense in two cases -Myers
and Bryan -but not in two others-Ashby and Dawson.
Though my conclusions require that the discharges be
separately considered, the following facts are of general
application.
The actual reorganization of the service department
was concluded by the first of January and Respondents'
MODERN CHEVROLET CO.
alleged dissatisfaction with the performance of the em-
ployees was of no acute concern until after the Union de-
manded recognition. Also of common application were
the precipitate nature of the discharges and their un-
precedented number. Turning specifically to Ashby and
Dawson, there were further obvious deficiencies in
Respondents' defense.
In Ashby's case, Respondents' brief is based almost
completely upon a summary of Ashby's testimony, aside
from contending that Ashby was a supervisor, the argu-
ment proceeds as follows:
John Ashby had several arguments with Billy
Jacobs a short time before his dismissal and the cul-
mination came when he went in to Major Inman and
gave him two weeks' notice. The company was ac-
tually going to let him go before the two weeks were
up, but he had to make a trip to Detroit for some
family illness; therefore, he was not discharged until
his two weeks' notice had transpired. The time of his
discharge in relation to the others was merely coin-
cidence.
That statement is factually incorrect in a number of
particulars. First, the record showed that the arguments
between Jacobs and Ashby did not occur until the day be-
fore the discharge or some 2 weeks after the alleged
notice to quit. In the second place, Ashby's contemplated
quitting was contin ent on a conference between Inman
and Jacobs, after which Inman was to let Ashby know
whether his pay was to be adjusted, or whether Inman
would accept the, notice to quit.
Though Inman talked with Jacobs as agreed, he said
nothing further to Ashby, whose pay was in fact
straightened out in his subsequent paychecks. Further-
more, in discharging Ashby, Jacobs did not rest his action
on Ashby's alleged notice to quit but on his alleged ina-
bility to get along with others. Since the record is wholly
silent on what that claim related to it may be assumed (as
Ashby charged) that Jacobs was referring to the three in-
cidents in which he himself was involved with Ashby the
day before and which constituted obvious attempts by
Jacobs to invoke trivial matters as ostensible basis for a
discharge for "cause."
Thus not, only was there inconsistency between the
ground assigned by Jacobs and that on which, Respond-
ents presently rest their defenses but both grounds were
baseless in fact. I therefore find, as previously stated, that
Respondents' evidence was insufficient to overcome the
General Counsel's prima facie case, and that Ashby was
discharged because of his union membership and activi-
ties.
In Dawson's case there is to be noted not only the
events on the day of the discharge but Jacobs' prior inter-
rogation and promise of a raise. Collier added a further
promise on the morning of the discharge and also a warn-
ing that Chevy Town would be closed down. Further-
more, Collier made no denial of Dawson's testimony con-
cerning the work which Dawson did that morning nor that
he praised Dawson for the job he was doing. Against that
background Collier precipitately discharged Dawson on
the ground that he had done no work at all and had
ignored a prior warning about working on his car during
worktime. The latter claim was also baseless under
5 Inman's reference to the pending union activities in directing Jacobs
to hire Bryan on a temporary basis was reflective of concern about com-
pliance with the legal advice he was currently receiving. It cannot be con-
815
Dawson's undenied testimony that he changed his tire on
his dinner time.
Thus in whatever light Respondents may have ap-
praised Dawson's prior job performance, it was plain that
the events on the day of the discharge refuted the grounds
which Jacobs assigned and on which he procured from
Inman authorization for Dawson's discharge. I conclude
and find therefore that Respondents' evidence did not
overcome the preponderant weight of the General Coun-
sel's case that Dawson's discharge was discriminatorily
motivated.
In contrast to Ashby and Dawson, Respondents'
evidence was sufficient to overcome the General Coun-
sel's prima facie case as it concerned Myers and Bryan,
both of whom were hired on a trial basis. Myers' inex-
perience not only led to the hiring of Toliver but also
resulted in the need either to reduce the workforce or the
hours worked in the parts department. Myers was the log-
ical choice under Respondents' evidence, which fully
established a continuing record of poor performance and
of Jacobs' complaints.
In Bryan's case Respondents' evidence established
that Bryan's work was unsatisfactory during the short
period of his employment on a week-to-week basis and
that Bryan did not improve after he was given a final
week's notice within which to prove himself. Aside from
that the evidence indicated that Jacobs resented the fact
of Bryan's complaint to Inman and that resultant "hard
feelings" also played some part in Jacobs' decision to let
Bryan go. In any event I conclude and find that the
General Counsel did not establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that the discharge was motivated by Bryan's
union activities.5
E. Objections to the Election
The only objection to the election, which is not em-
braced within the foregoing evidence of unfair labor prac-
tice, related to the circulation of a defaced facsimile of the
Board's official ballot. It is undisputed that on February
21, Jacobs circulated among the employees at Inman's
direction a sample of the Board's official ballot on which
Inman had placed an X in the "NO" box. Jacobs was in-
structed not to try to influence the employees one way or
another and there is no evidence that he did so. Robert
Horton testified that prior to that time someone had
marked an X in the "YES" box of the ballot which was
posted on the bulletin board but that Inman shortly
replaced it with a new one.
For reasons which are stated in Allied Electric
Products, Inc., 109 NLRB 1270, I conclude and find that
Respondents' conduct tended to interfere with a free
choice in the election, and was improper.
F. The Refusal to Bargain
1. The appropriate unit; the Union ' s majority
The complaint alleged and Respondents stipulated at
the hearing that the unit as described in Conclusion of
Law 3, infra, is an appropriate one.
strued as anticipatory of a discharge later to be made in the event Bryan
personally should join the union activities
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The parties also stipulated to a list of some 24 em-
ployees as being properly within that unit as of January
27, with the General Counsel contending and Respond-
ents denying that Collins and Ashby were also to be in-
cluded. I have found that Collins was not an employee
after January 14 (section D, (1) supra) but Ashby, not
being a supervisor, is to be counted (section B, supra). I
therefore find that there were 25 employees within the
unit on January 27.
The General Counsel offered authorization cards
signed by some 22 employees on or before January 27, 18
of whom (including Ashby) were within the appropriate
unit. During the hearing, Respondents checked the signa-
tures on the cards against their employment records and
thereafter announced they did not question the authen-
ticity of the signatures.
Respondents sought, however, to contest the validity
of four of the authorizations by calling C. V. Brookins,
William H. Jordan, Ferdinand Duos, and Charles L.
Ebarb, but their testimony wholly failed to raise any sub-
stantial question. They all signed voluntarily cards which
in simple and unambiguous language authorized the
Union to represent them in matters of collective bargain-
ing. Their claim was that they understood or were in-
formed that the representation was to enable them to get
Saturdays off, which was, of course, the goal at the time
of the initial meeting with Foster on January 12. See sec-
tion A, supra. That purpose was plainly consistent with
the purposes stated in the authorizations, which specifi-
cally included hours and working conditions. Further-
more even were the four cards eliminated, there remained
a total of 14 out of 25, or a clear majority in the unit.
I therefore conclude and find that on and after January
27, the Union represented a majority of the employees in
the unit.
2. The request and the refusal to bargain
On January 28, Respondents received Foster's letter
dated January 27, in which Foster claimed majority
representation, offered to submit proof, if there were
good-faith doubt, to an impartial third party, and
requested Respondents to recognize and to bargain with
it.
Respondents did not answer that request, and it de-
fends that failure on two bases. The first was that Inman
had already received the representation petition and had
agreed to the election, and the second was that Respond-
ents had a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority
status.
The first point requires only brief consideration. To
begin with Respondents did not sign the Stipulation for
Consent Election until February 8. Furthermore, it is
established law that a union's filing of a representation
petition does not of itself suspend an employer's bargain-
ing duty unless there is other evidence of a good-faith
doubt. Irving Air Chute Company, Inc., 149 NLRB 627,
628, Dixie Highway Express, Inc., 153 NLRB 1224,
1241-42, and cases there cited.
On the issue of good-faith doubt, Respondents rely
upon the testimony of three witnesses concerning their at-
tempts prior to January 27, to retract the authorizations
which they had signed. William H. Jordan first spoke to
Jacobs about his desire to get his card back and was
directed to Inman. Ferdinand Duos went with Jordan to
see Inman , who informed them he did not know what to
do but who directed them to a lawyer in Orange. The
lawyer in turn prepared a letter to Foster which they
signed and in which they stated they did not wish to have
anything to do with the Union and wanted their cards
back. Charles L. Ebarb testified that after talking with
Jordan he, too, added an authorization requesting return
of his own card but that he did not talk either with Inman
or Jacobs about it. None of the cards were returned.
Even considered along, it is difficult to see how that
testimony will support a good-faith doubt of majority.
Foster's letter, received after Jordan and Duos conferred
with Inman, claimed a majority as of January 27, and of-
fered to prove it before a third party. Not only did
Respondents fail to make known their alleged doubt but
they ignored completely Foster's request and his offer to
prove the majority. If Respondents had chosen to accept
Foster's offer they would readily have ascertained that
the Union had a clear majority even if all questioned
cards were eliminated.
Aside from that however, the evidence showed, as
found in preceding sections of this Decision, that Re-
spondents engaged in a series of unfair labor practices
which began before receipt of the Union's request and
which continued up to the time of the election, including
the discriminatory discharge of two union supporters.
Such a course of unlawful conduct was directly at odds
with Respondents' present representations of good-faith
doubt. Though an employer may in good faith insist upon
a Board election as proof of the Union's majority, it un-
lawfully refuses to bargain if its insistence on an election
is motivated not by a bona fide doubt of the Union's
majority but rather by a rejection of the collective-bar-
gaining principle or by a desire to gain time within which
to undermine the union and to avoid its statutory bargain-
ing obligation. Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263,
1264-65, enfd. 185 F.2d 732, 741-742 (C.A.D.C.);
Overnite Transportation Company, 129 NLRB 1026,
1033-34, enfd. 308 F.2d 279, 283 (C.A. 4). Here though
consenting to the election, Respondent utilized the time
to dissipate the Union's majority status, and by its con-
tinuing unlawful conduct made the holding of an impartial
election impossible.6
I therefore conclude and find on the entire evidence
that by refusing to bargain on and after January 28, 1967,
Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (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. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices
proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By discharging John G. Ashby and Gregory
Dawson, Jr., because of their union membership and ac-
tivities, Respondents engaged in discrimination to
discourage membership in the Union, thereby engaging
6 Here as in Irving Air Chute Company, Inc, supra, the Union filed
meritorious objections alleging that Respondents engaged in conduct
requiring that the election be set aside.
MODERN CHEVROLET CO.
in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
3. All service department employees employed by
Respondents at their Orange , Texas, places of business,
but excluding office clerical employees, managerial em-
ployees , salesmen, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
4. At all times since January 27, 1967, the Union has
been and now is the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all the employees in the above-
described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other terms and conditions of employment.
5. By refusing on and after January 28, 1967, to bar-
gain with the Union , Respondents engaged in unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
7. By engaging in unfair labor practices as found in
sections II, C and D, supra, and by circulating among the
employees a defaced facsimile of the Board 's official bal-
lot, Respondents engaged in conduct which improperly
affected the results of the election.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
as specified below which I find necessary to remedy and
to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to
effectuate the policies of the Act. For reasons which are
stated in Consolidated Industries Inc., 108 NLRB 60, 61,
and cases there cited, I shall recommend a broad cease-
and-desist order.
Although I have found the Union's objections to the
election were meritorious and that the election should be
set aside, I have also found that the Union had a majority
in the appropriate unit on the date of its request to bargain
and that Respondents' actions before and after that
request were designed to undermine and destroy that
majority and exhibited a complete rejection of the collec-
tive-bargaining principle. I therefore find it necessary in
order adequately to remedy the unfair labor practices
herein found and to effectuate the policies of the Act to
order Respondents to bargain, upon request, with the
Union. Webb Tractor and Equipment Company, 167
NLRB 383, and cases there cited at fn. 8. 1 shall recom-
mend further that the petition in Case 23-RC-2892 be
dismissed and that all proceedings held in connection
therewith be vacated.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
M. G. Inman, Sr. and M. G. Inman, Jr., partners, d/b/a
Modern Chevrolet Company, their agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union sentiments or those of fellow employees or
concerning their intentions of signing union cards.
817
(b) Threatening employees with the loss of benefits,
with closing its places of business , or with other reprisals
if the Union should come in.
(c) Promising employees pay raises , improved work-
ing conditions , or other benefits to discourage their sup-
port of the Union.
(d) Discouraging membership in International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District
31, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by
discharging employees or in any other manner dis-
criminating against them in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of employment.
(e) Refusing to bargain, upon request, with said Union
as the exclusive representative to their employees in the
appropriate unit herein found with respect to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing their employees in the exercise of the right of
self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or
assist International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, District 31, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain
from any or all such activities except to the extent per-
mitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Offer to John G. Ashby and Gregory Dawson, Jr.,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges , and make each of
them whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered
by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which
he would have earned from the date of his discharge to
the date of the offer of reinstatement , less his earnings
during said period (Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB
440), said backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in
the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, together with interest thereon
at the rate of 6 percent per annum . Isis Plumbing & Heat-
ing Co., 138 NLRB 716.
(b) Notify the said John G. Ashby and Gregory
Dawson, Jr., if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records , social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Bargain , upon request, with International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 31,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of their em-
ployees in the appropriate unit herein found with respect
to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment.
(e) Post in their offices, shops, and other places of
business at Orange , Texas, copies of the attached notice
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
marked "Appendix."7 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, after
being duly signed by Respondents' representative, shall
be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith.8
I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the petition in Case
23-RC-2892 be dismissed and that all proceedings held
in connection therewith be vacated.
7 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words " a Decision
and Order "
8 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read - "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 23, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give
evidence , the National Labor Relations Board found that
we violated the National Labor Relations Act and or-
dered us to post this notice to assure you that:
WE WILL NOT question you coercively concerning
your union sentiments or those of your fellow em-
ployees or about your intentions of signing union
cards.
WE WILL NOT threaten that you will lose your ex-
isting benefits , with closing any of our places of busi-
ness, or with reprisals of any other kind if the Union
should come in.
WE WILL NOT promise you pay raises, improved
working conditions , or benefits of any other kind to
discourage you in your support of the Union.
WE WILL NOT discharge you or treat you dif-
ferently in any way because you join or favor Inter-
national Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers , District 31, AFL-CIO, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with said Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers as the exclusive representative of our em-
ployees in the appropriate unit noted below.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of your rights
to organize yourselves , to form , join, or help unions,
to bargain as a group through a representative you
choose, to act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refuse to do any
or all of those things except to the extent permitted
by Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
Since the Board has found that we discharged John
G. Ashby and Gregory Dawson, Jr., because of their
union membership and activities and thereby vio-
lated the law, WE WILL offer them full reinstatement
to their former positions , without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges , and WE WILL
make each of them whole for any losses in earnings
which they incurred as a result of our discrimination
against them, including interest at 6 percent.
WE WILL bargain upon request with International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
District 31 , AFL-CIO, as your exclusive represen-
tative in the appropriate unit noted below with
respect to wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment.
The appropriate unit is:
All service department employees employed by
us at our Orange , Texas, places of business, but
excluding office clerical employees , managerial
employees , salesmen, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
You and all our employees are free to become or
remain , or refrain from becoming or remaining members
of any labor organization except to the extent provided in
Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Dated By
M. G. INMAN, SR. AND M.
G. INMAN, JR., PARTNERS,
D/B/A MODERN CHEVROLET
COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
Note: We will notify the above-named employees to
be offered reinstatement, if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train-
ing and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 6617 Federal
Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas
77002, Telephone 228-4721.