Nash San Diego, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 5, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 86 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of NASH SAN DIEGO, INC.* and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS , DISTRICT No. 50 (INDEPENDENT)
Case No. 21-CA-666.-Decided June 5, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 10, 1950, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and modifications.2
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent in Novem-
ber 1949 and thereafter, violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by
(a) Foreman Hanson's interrogation of employees as to their union
authorizations, (b) Foreman Hanson's threat of discharge and further
threat to make it "tough" if the Union came into the shop, (c) Super-
intendent Tipton's solicitation of resignations of employees from the
Union, and (d) Superintendent Tipton's assistance to the employees
in drafting their letters of resignation from the Union.
In connection with items (c) and (d), above, we note that the
Trial Examiner found that Superintendent Tipton had induced the
employees to resign from the Union by threatening to withhold wage
increases and by promising that working conditions would be better
*Pursuant to an Order dated September 8, 1950, the name "Nash San Diego , Inc." is
substituted for the name "Earl Severin, Inc."
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Styles].
2 The Intermediate Report contains an inadvertent misstatement of fact which does not
affect the Trial Examiner 's ultimate conclusions or our concurrence therein . The Trial
Examiner found that employees Vance and Poteet did not authorize anyone to send their
letters of resignation to the Union . The record indicates that such an authorization was
given to the Respondent.
90 NLRB No. 24.
86
NASH SAN DIEGO, INC. 87
if the employees withdrew from the Union. We do not believe that
the evidence supports this finding and, accordingly, do not rely upon
it. Under well-established principles, however, it is sufficient that
Tipton solicited' the resignations and participated in their execution,
as found above, without regard to whether such resignations were
induced by the Respondent's threats or promises of benefit.-3
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the above-
described conduct, occurring after the Union made its claim of majority
representation, together with the Respondent's action in completely
ignoring the Union's request for a bargaining meeting,' constituted
a refusal to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8 (a) (5).
Under all of the circumstances of this case we conclude that the
Respondent never intended to bargain with the Union. Accordingly,
we fix the date of the violation as of November 12, 1949, when the
Respondent received the Union's request.
In its brief the Respondent contends that the unit should include
2 employees-a janitor and a pick-up man-not included in the unit
found appropriate by the Trial Examiner. Accordingly, it contends
that the unit contains 13 employees and that the 6 employees who had
designated the Union therefore did not constitute a majority. How-
ever, at no time during the hearing did the Respondent introduce any
evidence suggesting the existence of these 2 employees or the functions
performed by them. On the record before us we are satisfied that the
unit found by the Trial Examiner is appropriate; that at all material
times such unit contained 11 employees, and that the Union, at such
times, represented a majority of the employees therein.
The Respondent, however, contends that even if the Union had a
majority at the time it requested bargaining, it lost its majority fol-
lowing certain nondiscriminatory discharges. It is clear from the
record, however, that these discharges did not take place until after
November 1.2, when the Respondent received the Union's request to
bargain which it ignored. In fact, on November 17, 1949, when the
Respondent held its first antiunion meeting, the Union still represented
a majority of the employees in the unit.
Nor do we find any merit in the Respondent's contention that it can-
not be held to have violated Section 8 (a) (5) because the record fails
to demonstrate that the Union had obtained authorization cards from a
majority of the employees as of the time that it sent the letter request-
ing bargaining. It is undisputed that such a majority had been ob-
See, for example , Magnolia Cotton Mill Co., Inc., 79 NLRB 91; Macon Textiles, Inc.;
80 NLRB 1525.
4 We find the argument of Respondent that the Union 's letter of November 11, 1949, did
rot constitute a request to bargain to be without merit. The letter contained an express
demand for a bargaining meeting.
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tamed at least by the time the Respondent received the request. We
are not presented in this case with the issue of whether the refusal to
bargain was based upon a .good faith doubt as to the Union's majority,
for the Respondent never questioned that majority or asked that it be
proved.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Nash San Diego,
Inc., San Diego, California, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
(1) Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Association
of Machinists, District No. 50, as the exclusive representative'of all its
automotive mechanics, apprentices and helpers, lubricators, and parts
men; excluding all office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Association of
Machinists, District No. 50, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(2) Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Associa-
tion of Machinists, District No. 50, as the exclusive representative
of all its employees in the above-described unit with respect to griev-
ances, labor disputes, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a written agreement;
(b) Post at its shop in San Diego, California, copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked Appendix A.5 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall,
11 In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals
there shall . be inserted : in the notice, before . the words, "A DECISION AND ORDER," the
words , "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING.",
NASH SAN DIEGO, INC. 89
after being dilly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained
by it for sixty (60)-consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
.Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondentto insure that such
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region,' in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this order, what steps
the repondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
AVE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with,, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL As-
SOCIATI:ON Or MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 50, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of this union, or any other labor
organization, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-
named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in
the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and if
an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
written agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All automotive mechanics, apprentices and helpers, lubricators,
and parts men, excluding all office and clerical employees, watch-
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
men,. guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
NASH SAN DIEGO, INC.,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By -----------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Jack R. Berger, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the General Counsel.
Mr. Findlay A. Carter, (Carter & Potruch), of Los Angeles, Calif., for the
Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by International Association of Machinists, District
No. 50, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board,' by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los
Angeles, California), issued a complaint dated February 14, 1950, against Earl
Severin, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (Public Law 101), herein called the
Act. A copy of the charge was duly served upon the Respondent. Copies of
the complaint, accompanied by a notice of hearing, were duly served upon the
Respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in substance,
that the Respondent: (1) In November 1949, and thereafter induced its em-
ployees to revoke Union authorizations, and threatened closing its business
rather than permit a union in the shop ; (2) in November 1949, and thereafter
refused to bargain with the Union as the duly designated representative of its
employees in an appropriate unit ; and (3) by these acts has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
On February 28, 1950, the Respondent filed its answer, which denied generally
that the Board had jurisdiction and that it had engaged in any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at San Diego, California, on March 2
and 3, 1950, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues, was afforded all parties.
At the opening of the hearing motions made by General Counsel, to strike
certain portions of the Answer, were denied. Motions to revoke certain sub-
poenas, previously served upon Earl Severin, were denied. At the conclusion
of the hearing ruling was reserved upon the Respondent's motion to dismiss the
i The General Counsel of the Board and his representative at the bearing are referred to
herein as General Counsel, the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
NASH SAN DIEGO, INC. 91
complaint. The motion is. disposed of by the findings, conclusions of law, and
recommendations appearing below.
Counsel for each party argued briefly upon the record at the conclusion of
the hearing. A brief was received from counsel for the Respondent on April 3,
1950.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Earl Severin, Inc., a California corporation, with place of business in San
Diego, California, is engaged in the business of buying and selling new and used
automobiles and parts and accessories and in the servicing of such vehicles. It
operates under dealer franchise with both Willys-Overland Motors, Inc., and
Crosley Motors, Inc., each of Ohio. For the Crosley Motors the Respondent also
serves as distributor, carrying in stock vehicles for distribution to other dealers
in the vicinity.
Under its agreement with Crosley, the Respondent obtains new cars and parts
manufactured and assembled outside the State of California and transported to
the Respondent's place of business in California.
Under its agreement with Willys-Overland, the Respondent obtains new cars
• and parts manufactured in Ohio, transported to California to a local assembly
plant, and thence to the Respondent's place of business.
During 1949 the Respondent, under its agreement with Willys-Overland,
purchased for resale vehicles having a total value of $143,247.48, and parts
valued at $20,306.98.'
The Respondent denies that the Board has jurisdiction. In numerous decisions
the Board has asserted jurisdiction over concerns engaged in similar business!
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists , District No. 50 ( Independent) is a
labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and issues
On November 11, 1949, a majority of the Respondent's mechanics signed cards
authorizing the Union to represent them in collective bargaining. The same day
a Union representative sent to the Respondent, a letter admittedly received the
next day, asserting majority representation and requesting a meeting to negotiate
an agreement. The Respondent has never replied to this request ; thus is raised
the issue of refusal to bargain.
Shortly after receiving the Union's request to bargain, management called a
meeting of the mechanics, at which its antipathy toward Union organization
was admittedly expressed and other remarks were made claimed by the General
2 The amount of similar business done with Crosley is not revealed by the record. Severin
refused to produce records subpoenaed by General Counsel. Records as to Willys -Overland
business with Severin were produced by Willys-Overland.
s Adams Motors, Inc., 80 NLRB 236; Johns Brothers, Inc., 84 NLRB 294; Angelus
Chevrolet Co., 88 NLRB No. 174.
92 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Counsel to have been illegal interference. Thereafter a number of the mechanics
signed letters, prepared with management assistance, revoking' their Union
authorizations. Whether or not the Respondent coercively induced these reyoca-
tions-is in issue.
B. Refusal to bargain; interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Facts bearing upon these issues
The complaint alleges, the answer denies generally but without the support of
any evidence offered by.the Respondent, and the Trial Examiner finds that the
following unit of the Respondent's employees is appropriate for the purposes of
-collective bargaining as defined in Section 9 of the Act:
All automotive mechanics, apprentices and helpers, lubricators and parts
men ; excluding all office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, pro-
fessional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
On November 11, 1949, there were 11 employees in the Respondent's mechanical
and servicing department. On the same day 6 of these employees signed cards
authorizing the Union to represent them in matters of collective bargaining. It
.is therefore found that on November 11 and thereafter the Union was and has
continued to be the dilly designated collective bargaining representative of a
:majority of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit'
A few days after the employees had signed the authorization cards Foreman
John Hanson approached several of them at their work and asked if they had
,signed up for the Union. That he engaged in such conduct was conceded by
.Hanson, himself, as a. witness. To one of the employees Hanson said: ". . .
it will be awful tough on you boys if you do . . . I will put in a time clock
here and you will punch in and punch out . .. and there won't be any going
over and getting coffee in between."
On November 17, after the Union's request for negotiations had been received,
Severin and his general manager, Andrew Tipton, called the mechanics into
the office. In substance, Severin told his employees that while it was a free
country and they could join the Union if they wanted to, he could not operate
with a Union in the shop. He then proceeded to show business records to
them, indicating that for some months they had been operating "in the red."
Tipton also declared that the company could not operate with a union there,
and urged that the boys ought not to belong. As the men left the meeting Hanson
turned to the group and said that if the shop went union he would see them
all fired.'
On November 29 Tipton called employee William Yeager into his office and
asked him if he thought "the boys" would revoke their Union "pledges." 6 Yeager
agreed to explore that possibility. Tipton dictated a suggested text for a letter
which Yeager proceeded to submit to some of his fellow workers. Apparently
they decided to use Tipton's desire for revocations as a means of obtaining more
favorable wages and working conditions. In any event, they sought and ob-
tained an immediate audience with the manager. One employee asked for
`wage adjustments, another for paid vacations. Tipton said he would not grant
"The issue of subsequent revocations is discussed below.
The findings as to this meeting and Hanson's threat are based upon the credible testi-
mony of several witnesses, both for the General Counsel and for the Respondent,'a good part
of which is undisputed.
Tipton's testimony that Yeager broached the subject of revocations- 1s rejected as
incredible. Tipton's own antipathy toward unions is made amply clear by his testimony.
NASH. SAN DIEGO, INC. 93
a raise because they had joined the 'Union, and added that if they would sign
the revocation letters conditions would be a lot better after the first of the
year. The men then indicated that they would submit such revocations.
Tipton told them to write out their letters and bring them into the office for
typing.' That afternoon, upon Tipton's instructions, an office girl wrote letters
for the signatures of five of the six employees who had previously signed Union
authorizations. Four signed. The employer sent one copy of each letter to the
Union, another to the Regional Office of the Board.
2. Conclusions
The Trial Examiner concludes and finds that, by Foreman Hanson's interro-
gation of employees as to their Union authorizations and by his threat to have
them discharged or to make it "tough" if the Union came into the shop, the
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. It is also found that the respond-
ent interfered with its employees' statutory rights by Tipton's inducement of
Yeager to seek revocations. f rom his fellow-workers, by Tipton's more direct
solicitation of such revocations by telling them, assembled in his office, that
he would not grant a raise because they had joined, and by clear implication
assuring them that conditions would be better if they signed the proposed
letters.'
The Trial Examiner also concludes and finds that: (1) by the above-described
conduct, occurring after the Union had made its claim of representing the
majority of its employees; (2) by completely ignoring the Union's request for
a bargaining conference; and (3) by Severin's ultimatum to his employees
on November 17 that he could not operate his shop with a union in it, the Re-
spondent has refused and is now refusing to bargain with the Union as the
exclusive bargaining agent of all its employees in the appropriate unit. The
Respondent's position that its failure to meet and bargain with the Union was
justified because of the revocation letters is wholly without merit. It raised
no question of majority representation before revocations were induced by
itself. It may reasonably be inferred that: (1) the Respondent was satisfied that
the Union actually represented a majority, from Hanson's interrogation of the
employees; and (2) that had it not been made thus aware of the Union majority
it would not have solicited the revocations a
° The findings as to Tipton ' s remarks at the second meeting rest in large part upon the
testimony of employee Hill, a witness for the Respondent. Although he at first denied
that Tipton refused a raise because they had joined the Union , when faced with a sworn.
statement given to a Board agent soon after the event he admitted the accuracy of his prior
recollections.
8 "Interference is no less interference because it is accomplished through allurements
rather than coercion." (Western Cartridge Company V. N. L. R. B., 134 F. 2d 240, 244
(C. A. 7), cert. denied, 320 U. S. 746.)
9 The Trial Examiner can ascribe no weight to testimony elicited by the Respondent's
counsel from three employees called by himself ( Hill, Vance , and Poteet ) to the effect that
at the time of signing the letters , and at the hearing, they intended to revoke their Union
authorizations. All three, still employees of the respondent, were called from their work
to testify. In view of management's previous threats, they could hardly have been expected
to answer otherwise questions put by their employer's counsel. Moreover, on cross-
examination, Hill admitted having previously stated to a Board agent, in a sworn statement;
that "I feel that the reason I and the others agreed to withdraw from the union was because
the employer would discriminate and probably discharge us if we did not agree ." Vance
and Poteet also admitted that they had not drawn up their letters of revocation and had not
authorized anyone to send them either to the, Union or to the Board.
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In Medo Photo Supply Corp." the Supreme Court stated:
Petitioner cannot, as justification for its refusal to bargain with the union,
set up the defection of union members which it had induced by unfair labor
practices, even though the result was that the union no longer had the
support of a majority. It cannot thus, by its own action, disestablish the
union as the bargaining representative of its employees, previously desig-
nated as such of their own free will.
By thus refusing to bargain the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
. The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described 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
Because it has been 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.
The Respondent's unlawful conduct consisting of threats of reprisal and
promises of benefit, in the opinion of the Trial Examiner, discloses a fixed
purpose to defeat self-organization and its objectives. Because of this con-
duct and its underlying purpose, the Trial Examiner is convinced that the
unfair labor practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor
practices proscribed by the Act ; that the danger of their commission in the
future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past; and
that the preventive purpose of the Act will be thwarted unless the remedy
recommended is coextensive with the threat. In order, therefore, to make
effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, and to prevent a recur-
rence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which
burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act,
it will be recommended, in addition to the customary recommendation that the
employer bargain with the Union, upon the latter's request, that the Respondent
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the amended Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Machinists, District No. 50, (Independent),
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act;
2. All automotive mechanics employed by the Respondent, apprentices and
helpers, lubricators and parts men ; excluding all office and clerical employees,
watchmen, guards, professional employees, 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 ;
10 Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 321 U. S. 678, 687.
NASH SAN DIEGO, INC. 95
3. International Association of Machinists, Distirct No. 50 (Independent)
was on November 11, 1949, and at all times thereafter has been, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
Act ;
4. By refusing on November 12, 1949, and at all time thereafter, to bargain
collectively with International Association of Machinists, District No. 50, as
the exclusive representative .of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Setcion 8 (a) (5) of the Act;
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 3
(a) (1) of the Act;
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and
upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner recommends that the
Respondent, Earl Severin, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist` from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Association of Ma-
chinists, District No. 50, as the exclusive representative of all its automotive
mechanics, apprentices and helpers, lubricators and parts men ; excluding all
office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist International Association of Machinists,. District No.
50, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition
of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is found will effectuate the
policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain, collectively with International Association of
Machinists, District No. 50, as the exclusive representative of all its employees
in the above-described unit with respect to grievances, labor disputes, rates of
pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement;
(b) Post at its shop in San Diego, California, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region shall, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days,
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
96 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in writing,
within twenty (20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless, on or before twenty (20) days from
the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda
tion, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent
to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.40 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C.,
an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding
(including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together
with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof; and any party
may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support
of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement
of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof
upon each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs shall
designate by precise citation the portions of the record relied upon and shall
be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced.
Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be
promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said
Section 203.46 Should any party desire permission to argue orally before the
Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10)
days from the (late of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and rec-
ommended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said
Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, con-
clusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 10th day of April 1950.
C. W. WHITTEMORE,
Trial Examiner.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board,,and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
DISTRICT No. 50, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
NASH SAN DIEGO, INC. 97
a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8 (a) (3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain
members of this union, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named union
as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other
conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All automotive mechanics, apprentices and helpers, lubricators and parts
men, excluding all office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, profes-
sional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
EARL SEVERIN, INC.,
Employer.
Dated-------------------- 13y--------------------------------------------
(•Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
903847-51-vol. 90-8