Parts, Jobbers, Warehouse, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 14, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 1093 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

PARTS, JOBBERS, WAREHOUSE, INC. 1093
Parts, Jobbers, Warehouse, Inc. and Sales Drivers &
Dairy Employees Local No. 166, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America. Case 31-CA-
4556
March 14, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
men & Helpers of America (herein called the Union). An
amended complaint issued September 10, 1974, supersed-
ing in all respects an original complaint that had issued
August 16, the amended complaint alleging that Parts,
Jobbers, Warehouse, Inc. (herein called Respondent), had
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
The parties were given opportunity at the hearing to
introduce relevant evidence, examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and argue orally. Briefs were filed for the
General Counsel and Respondent.
1. ISSUES
On October 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Richard J. Boyce issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
cross-exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts,as its Order the recommend-
ed Order, of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Parts, Jobbers,
Warehouse, Inc., San Bernardino , California, its
officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge 's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD J. BOYCE, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me in San Bernardino , California, on
September 26, 1974 . The charge was filed July 5, 1974, by
Sales Drivers & Dairy Employees Local No. 166, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
1 The amended complaint alleges the wage increases and certain
statements concerning profit sharing and other benefits as violations of Sec.
8(aX3) as well as 8(aX1). The General Counsel's brief, however, argues these
matters only as 8(axi) violations . In light of that position in brief, and
because no enhancement of remedy would come from findings of 8(aX3) in
addition to 8(axl ) violations on these points, they are dealt with in this
216 NLRB No. 189
The issues are whether Respondent:
1. In July 1974, granted wage increases to discourage
the Union; and by its president, Harry Sacks, interrogated
employees concerning union activities , threatened to close
the business if the employees chose the Union, and
promised profit sharing and other benefits to discourage
the Union , in each instance violating Section 8(a)(l).1
2. In July 1974, reassigned employee Stephen LaTurner
because of his union activities , violating Section 8(a)(3)
[and (1) ].
II. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a California corporation engaged in San
Bernardino in the nonretail sale of automobile parts. It
annually purchases and causes to be shipped into Califor-
nia, directly from out of State, goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000.
Respondent is an employer within Section 2(2) of the Act
engaged in and affecting commerce within Section 2(6) and
(7).
III. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Union is a labor organization within Section 2(5) of
the Act.
IV. • THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Evidence
Background An organizing drive began among Respon-
dent's warehouse and truckdriving employees in mid-June
1974. The Union, on July 5, petitioned the Board for an
election.2 On September 5, the Regional Director for
Region 31 issued a decision and direction of election.
Respondent, on September 13, requested Board review of
that decision and direction, the outcome of which was
pending at the time of trial.
Chronology. On the morning of July 1, Respondent's
president, Harry Sacks, engaged Harry Parsons, a receiving
clerk, in a conversation about the union drive.3 The place
was Sacks' office. Buddy Lopez, Respondent's warehouse
manager and a statutory supervisor, was present. Sacks
decision only in the 8(axl) context.
2 Case 32-RC-2846.
3 Parson's version of this conversation is adopted, because of his obvious
conscientiousness as a witness and the convincing detail of his testimony.
Sacks denied in general terms , without reference to any specific conversa-
(Continued)
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
asked Parsons if he was aware of union activities in the
warehouse, if he had attended union meetings, and if he
had signed a union card. Parsons answered yes each time.
Sacks then asked if Parsons knew who was leading the
union movement, and if he realized that his signing a card
amounted to a vote for the Union. Parsons replied
negatively both times. Sacks inquired, additionally, why
Parsons attended union meetings, whether he had made up
his mind about the Union, and what the "main problem"
was that caused the employees to be interested in the
Union. Parsons responded that he attended the meetings to
obtain information about the Union, that he as yet had not
made up his mind, and that the "main problem" was
money. That led Sacks to mention employees Rubin
Ortega and Gary Tiedge, whom, along with Parsons, he
characterized as his "most loyal," and to ask of their
attitudes about the Union. Parsons said he did not know.
During the same conversation, Sacks raised the subject
of converting the newly hired Stephen LaTurner from a
receiving clerk to a counterman and transferring him to
Barstow Motor Parks in Barstow, California. Sacks owns a
major interest in Barstow Motor Parts. Sacks, Lopez, and
Parsons looked at and discussed LaTurner's job applica-
tion, which indicated that he had had previous experience
as a counterman.
Later on July 1, as the employees were about to clock
out, Sacks and Lopez assembled 20 or so of them in the
telephone room at the warehouse. Lopez opened the
meeting by stating that Sacks had some things to say about
the union situation. Sacks thereupon declared that he knew
of the union drive; that, although he was not afraid of the
Union, he did not want a union in the warehouse; and that,
if the employees would tell him their grievances, he and
Lopez would correct them if at all possible.
With that, several of the employees voiced complaints.
Ron Bellman protested Respondent's reneging on a profit-
sharing plan that had been in the talking stages since the
Union's defeat in an election some 14 months before, and
that he had not received a promised raise; John Jones
commented on the low wages generally; Stephen LaTurner
asked how Respondent was able to open a new warehouse
in Riverside May I if it could not afford higher wages;
Shelton Ramer complained about the heat in the ware-
house because of an air-conditioner malfunction; and
Victor Abad mentioned that the public-address system did
not work.
Sacks responded that he could not afford union scale
and that higher wages would require increased production
or higher prices, but that he nevertheless was working on a
revised wage schedule, which he hoped to present to the
employees by the end of the week . He said, concerning
profit sharing, that he would be presenting a plan to the
employees for comment, on an individual basis, starting
Lion , that he had engaged in interrogation . That denial , as it might pertain to
this conversation , is not credited.
4 LaTurner, an impressively sincere and able witness , attributed this
remark to Sacks . Sacks testified that he could not recall making it. LaTurner
is credited.
e LaTurner is credited that Sacks mentioned the possibility of increased
job competition and layoffs , as against Sacks' testimony that he could not
recall saying that . LaTurner's version not only is consistent with the general
tenor of what Sacks said, but, as previously noted, he was an impresively
sincere and able witness.
the next day. He directed Lopez to get the air conditioner
and the P. A. system fixed. LaTurner said he hoped that
Sacks was not trying to buy off the employees, and Frank
Carso, a truckdriver, observed that Sacks was making these
concessions only because of the Union and that it was in
"bad taste." Sacks countered that he was not a criminal,
was not trying to buy anyone off, and that the Union had
nothing to do with it.
Despite Sacks' earlier disclaimer, one of the employees
asked him why he feared the Union. He answered that he
did not want someone telling him how to run his business;
that a union can drive a small business "up against a
wall." 4 He added that the increased costs of having a
union could create greater job competition by compelling
the layoff of all but the most productive.5 Sacks then
broached the prospect of closure. As he testified:
I pointed out to them that if a business is pressured-
once again we are talking about the economics of
running a business-that if a business is pressured into
a situation, whether due to exorbitant demands of
employees, landlord, or what have you, that it would be
necessary to close it down. And I pointed out to them
that during the past three months I closed two stores
down that also belonged to me, for that precise reason.
Harvey Parsons recalled that Sacks was even more
explicit concerning closure, testifying that he said "that
should the Union come in, that there wouldn't be a hope in
hell of having a closed shop, because he would close the
warehouse first." Ron Bellman tended to corroborate
Parsons. Bellman testified convincingly that Sacks stated,
without qualification or equivocation: "I will close the son
of a bitch down." 6
Sacks also said, at one time or another during the July 1
group meeting, that he would fight the Union "tooth and
nail," using every legal means ; and Lopez contributed that
he would quit if the Union came in, rather than lose his
authority to a union steward. In all, the meeting lasted 60
to 90 minutes.
True to his word, Sacks shortly held a series of individual
meetings with the employees in Lopez' office, each
employee being summoned over the now-functioning P. A.
system. LaTurner's turn came July 2, and lasted upwards
of an hour. Sacks told him Respondent's thinking
concerning both a new profit-sharing plan and a new wage
schedule. Showing LaTurner Respondent's 1973 tax return,
which revealed a taxable income that year of about
$25,000, he said annual profits exceeding $25,000 would go
into profit sharing . LaTurner asked what assurances the
employees had that these changes would be made and
adhered to. Sacks replied that his integrity was his
guarantee , cautioning, however, that he would be preclud-
e Referring to Bellman's testimony, Sacks testified : "I don't think I made
a statement of that nature . That would be rather a foolish statement for me
to make . There is over a half million dollars invested in that business, and I
doubt if we would close it down or make a statement to that effect." David
Sillik also testified about Sacks ' saying he would close the warehouse if it
went union, but remembered it as occurring during the July 5 group
meeting, discussed below . The weight of the evidence , including Sacks'
testimony quoted above in the body of this decision, compels the conclusion
that Sacks indeed threatened closure if the warehouse went union , and that
the threat was made at the July 1 meeting.
PARTS, JOBBERS, WAREHOUSE, INC.
ed from effecting the changes should Respondent first
receive notice of a Board election.
Sacks continued that he would fight the Union "tooth
and nail"; but that, should the Union win an election, that
would be no problem because he would bargain with it for
a year, then appeal the election. Finally, referring to
LaTurner's previous experience as a counterman as
revealed in his job application, Sacks posed the idea of
transferring him to Barstow Motor Parts to work as a
counterman at $3.10 an hour . LaTurner then was receiving
$2.35. Sacks elaborated that he first would like LaTurner to
work at a San Bernardino parts store by the name of
Marshall & Place, which Sacks owned, to verify his
qualifications . LaTurner responded that this sounded "real
good," but voiced regret that the opportunity had not
existed when he was first hired , explaining that he had his
integrity, too, and felt he "owed something" to Respon-
dent's warehouse employees committed to the union drive.
Sacks answered that LaTurner owned nothing to anyone.
Another summoned to Lopez' office July 2 was Harvey
Parsons . Sacks asked Parsons if the things discussed at the
July 1 group meeting would aid in changing the employees'
minds about the Union . Parsons said no, it was too late.
Sacks asked how long Parsons had worked for Respondent
and if he always had been treated fairly . Parsons answered
12 years and that, yes, he had been treated fairly. Sacks
mentioned that he probably had even loaned Parsons
money, and opined that if he were dissatisfied after 12
years on a job, he would look for another. He inquired if
Parsons had firmly decided for the Union, or was open to
reason regarding the changes mentioned at the July 1
meeting . Parsons said he was of an open mind , and Sacks
launched into a discussion of his profit-sharing and wage
proposals much as he had with LaTurner. Sacks made a
similar presentation of those proposals to David Sillik on
July 2, and to Ron Bellman and Gary Tiedge on July 3;
and presently to all of the other employees as well.
On July 5, at clock-out time, Sacks and Lopez again
assembled the employees in the telephone room . Beer was
served . Sacks announced that, since the July 1 meeting, he
had surveyed the wage levels of union shops in the area,
then presented his proposal for a revised wage schedule.
Some of the employees objected that it did not allow for
merit or seniority, and he said he would try to add those
refinements . Concerning profit sharing , Sacks said he
envisioned an arrangement in which 50 percent of the
annual profits above $25,000 would be used. He in
addition talked of an incentive or cost-of-savings plan,
noting that it would require an overhaul of employee
attitudes and effort.
Sacks further commented, during the July 5 meeting,
that the employees did not need a union; that they could
come to him directly for the solution to their problems. He
also said that if the warehouse went union , he might
transfer the account of Lobern Supply, a parts store over
which he has control, to another of his warehouses. That
would mean , he explained , that the warehouse in question
7 Ron Bellman and Harvey Parsons credibly testified of Sacks' reference
to moving the Lobern Supply account, Bellman recalling that it was made at
the July 5 meeting , Parsons thinking it was at the July I meeting. Bellman
1095
would lose about 90 percent of its business, with a
commensurate reduction in force.? Before the meeting
ended, Lopez repeated his earlier remark that he would
quit if the Union got in.
On July 6-the day after this second group meeting
-Sacks and Lopez talked to Parsons and Gary Tiedge in
Lopez' office, inviting their views on the gestating wage
and profit-sharing matters. After a time, Sacks appealed to
them that "the entire situation was lost" unless they and
another senior employee, Rubin Ortega, dissuaded the
other employees from supporting the Union. Sacks said it
was up to those three, with their years of experience, to
convince the others that the Union would be bad for them
and that they should withdraw their union cards. He
concluded that perhaps a company union could be set up.
On payday at the end of July, most of the employees'
checks reflected raises as of July 16, ranging to 50 cents an
hour. Sacks testified that Respondent previously based
raises on merit, coupled with cost-of-living increases about
every 6 months, the latest cost-of-living increases being in
November 1973 and June 1974. Sacks explained that the
July increases were prompted by employee complaints that
the June increases had been inadequate, and that the
formula underlying the July raises had been tailored after
the July 5 group meeting to reflect the employees' desire
for seniority and merit components. Sacks further testified:
There were changes made [in the wage plan] after July
6. I changed the plan and put it finally-I gave it to my
attorney on or about July the 10th for review, and after
several days review, his position was that since we had
discussed this prior to my receiving the notification [on
July 9 of the Union's petition for NLRB election], that
there was . . . no reason we couldn't put it into effect,
which we did.
The record suggests that the profit-sharing plan was
never put into effect.
The LaTurner Transfer. Stephen LaTurner began work-
ing for Respondent, as a receiving clerk, in early June 1974.
He had just graduated from college. On hisjob application,
he indicated that he had had counterman experience with
three previous employers.
As earlier related, Sacks on July 1 discussed with Lopez
and Harvey Parsons the thought of converting LaTurner to
a counterman at Barstow, citing his credentials as set forth
in the application; and on July 2 raised the idea directly
with LaTurner, proposing that LaTurner first work at the
Marshall & Place parts store in San Bernardino to verify
his qualifications . Also as previously related, LaTurner
expressed interest, the Barstow position entailing a sub-
stantial raise, tempered by concern about letting down
Respondent 's warehousemen.
LaTurner was shifted to Marshall & Place July 3, where
he did some counterman work but spent the bulk of his
time in chores similar to those he performed at Respon-
dent's warehouse. After 2 weeks, he was restored to his
former position at the warehouse, where he still remains.
He underwent no change in pay while at Marshall & Place.
seemed surer of the date than did Parsons ; his version accordingly is
accepted.
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sacks told him upon his return to the warehouse that it was
decided that he was not qualified for Barstow , a conclusion
repeated by Sacks in his testimony . As for why LaTurner
spent so little time doing counterman work at Marshall &
Place, Sacks testified that it only takes a couple of days to
evaluate one's competence in that role , and that, after that
evaluation was accomplished in LaTurner's case, he was
retained for a time at Marshall & Place to do other needed
tasks . Concerning why LaTurner could not have under-
gone the necessary evaluation without leaving the ware-
house , Sacks testified that counterman functions in parts
stores , such as Marshall & Place and the one in Barstow,
are quite different from those in a warehouse.
LaTurner probably was the prime mover behind the
Union 's drive among Respondent 's employees . He made
the initial contact with the Union, obtained and distributed
authorization cards , and arranged and attended a number
of organizational meetings.
B. Conclusions
The Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations. Respondent committed
numerous clear violations of Section 8(axl). To itemize:
1. Sacks' broadside interrogation of Harvey Parsons
the morning of July 1, covering whether Parsons was aware
of union activities in the warehouse , if and why he had
attended union meetings, whether he had signed a union
card and realized that his signing was a vote for the Union,
if he had made up his mind about the Union, who was
leading the union movement, what the "main problem"
was causing the employees to be interested in a union, and
the attitudes of employees Ortega and Tiedge concerning
the Union. Struksnes Construction Co., 165 NLRB 1062
(1967).
2. Sacks' raising the prospect to the employees, during
the July 1 and 5 group meetings , and during individual
conferences with employees in that period , of improved
wages and a profit-sharing plan. The timing of his bringing
these subjects to active concern , his commingling of their
mention with discussion of the union situation generally,
and his asking Parsons on July 2 if their mention had
changed the employees ' attitudes about the Union are
among the factors eliminating any doubt that Sacks'
purpose in these references was to discourage the Union.
3. Sacks' conveyance of the impression, during the July
I group meeting , that the warehouse would be closed if it
went union ; and his saying that the increased costs of
being unionized could compel layoffs .8
4. Sacks' inviting the employees , during the July 1
meeting, to voice their grievances (Northwest Engineering
Co., 148 NLRB 1136, 1140 ( 1964)); and his telling them at
the July 5 meeting that they did not need a union-they
could take their problems to him directly. E.g., Abex Corp.,
162 NLRB 328 (1966).
5. Sacks' asking Parsons, during their individual meet-
ing of July 2, if the matters raised in the July 1 group
9 "[A ]n employer is free only to tell 'what he reasonably believes will be
the likely economic consequences of unionization that are outside his
control,' and not 'threats of economic reprisal to be taken solely on his own
volition.' " N.LR.B. v. Gissel Packing Company, Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 619
(1%9). The consequences forecast by Sacks would not be outside
meeting had changed employee attitudes about the Union;
and if Parsons still had an open mind on the subject.
6. Sack's telling LaTurner on July 2 that proposed
changes in benefits would be withheld if an election
petition were filed.
7. Sacks' saying, at the July 5 group meeting, that he
might transfer the Lobern Supply account if the warehouse
went union, meaning a 90-percent loss of business with a
commensurate reduction in force .9
8. Sacks' appeal to Parsons and Gary Tiedge on July 6
that it was up to them and Rubin Ortega to persuade the
other employees to abandon their support of the Union.
9. The wage increases effective July 16. The Board
election petition was filed by the Union on July 5 and
received by Respondent on July 9. On July 10, Sacks
submitted the wage plan resulting in those increases to
Respondent's attorney, who later determined that the plan
permissibly could be effected. Not only the implementa-
tion of the increases, but the underlying decision, postdat-
ed the petition. Even disregarding the presumption of
impropriety that accompanies changes in conditions of
employment after a petition has been filed (Northwest
Engineering Co., 148 NLRB 1136, 1145 (1964)), these
increases plainly were intended to blunt the union drive.
They followed by only a month other substantial raises;
submission of the plan to the attorney followed Respon-
dent's receipt of the election petition by only a day; and
every reference to new raises, beginning with the July 1
group meeting and continuing through later individual and
group meetings, was in the context of the union threat.
Finally, Sacks specifically asked Parsons on July 2 if the
July 1 mention of improved wages and other benefits had
changed employee attitudes about the Union.
The Reassignment of LaTurner. LaTurner's 2-week
reassignment to Marshall & Place raises deep suspicions of
Respondent, 's motivation. Not only was LaTurner uniquely
prominent in the union drive, but the transfer occurred
within 2 days after Sacks began addressing himself to the
union threat at the warehouse through group and individu-
al meetings. Beyond that, Sacks on July 1 raised with
Parsons and Lopez the idea of reassigning LaTurner
during a meeting largely concerned with the union matter,
much as he did with LaTurner himself July 2.
On the other hand, Sacks credibly testified of a need for
a counterman at Barstow, and of the appropriateness of
testing LaTurner's aptness at Marshall & Place rather than
at the warehouse in question. Further, LaTurner expressed
to Sacks an interest in the Barstow position, albeit with
mixed feelings; LaTurner's application suggested that he
had had qualifying experience as a counterman; and
LaTurner's intelligence, as demonstrated on the witness
stand, plausibly would have made him a candidate for
promotion to a challenging position. Finally, LaTurner was
restored to his position at the warehouse only 2 weeks later,
with the question of union representation for the ware-
house employees still unresolved.
All things considered, and particularly LaTurner's return
Respondent's control unless Respondent 's role in a subsequent bargaining
relationship were one of abject docility-a supposition without warrant on
the present record.
9 See preceding footnote.
PARTS, JOBBERS, WAREHOUSE, INC. 1097
to the warehouse where he could continue to serve the
Union's cause, it is concluded that his reassignment to
Marshall & Place was not discriminatorily motivated
within Section 8(aX3).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees as found herein , Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices within Section 8(axl) of the Act.
2. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondent did not reassign Stephen LaTurner in
violation of the Act, nor did it violate the Act in any other
manner.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 10
Respondent , Parts, Jobbers, Warehouse, Inc., San
Bernardino , California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating its employees concerning
their union sympathies or activities , or those of their fellow
employees.
(b) Threatening to close its warehouse and transfer
accounts from it should its employees choose to be
represented by a union; and telling its employees, without
basis in fact , that the costs of unionization could compel
layoffs.
(c) Promising to grant , or granting, wage increases,
profitsharing benefits , and other benefits to undermine its
employees' support of any labor organization.11
(d) Telling its employees that improved benefits could
not be granted if a Board election petition were filed.
(e) Soliciting employee grievances for the purpose of
undermining their support of a labor organization.
(f) Asking any of its employees to persuade other
employees to abandon their support of a labor organiza-
tion.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Post at its San Bernardino warehouse copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 31 , after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative , shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for
60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered,
defaced , or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
That portion of the complaint found' without merit is
dismissed.
10 All outstanding motions inconsistent herewith are denied . In the event
no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 10246 of the Rules and
Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings , conclu-
sions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48 of
the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
11 Nothing herein shall be construed , however, to require Respondent to
retract the July wage increases . J. C. Penney Co., 160 NLRB 279, 288 ( 1966).
12 In the event the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board.""
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The hearing held in San Bernardino, California, on
September 26, 1974, in which we participated and had a
chance to give evidence , resulted in a decision that we had
committed certain unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , and this notice is posted pursuant to that
decision.
The National Labor Relations Act, as amended, gives
all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through a representative
they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such activities.
In recognition of these rights, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate our employees
concerning their union sympathies or activities, or
those of their fellow employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our warehouse and
transfer accounts from it should our employees choose
to be represented by a union; nor tell our employees,
without basis in fact, that the costs of unionization
could compel layoffs.
WE WILL NOT promise to grant, or grant, wage
increases, profitsharing benefits, and other benefits to
undermine our employees' support of any labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that improved
benefits could not be granted if a Board election
petition were filed.
WE WILL NOT solicit employee grievances for the
purpose of undermining their support of a labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT ask any of our employees to persuade
other employees to abandon their support of a labor
organization.
PARTS, JOBBERS,
WAREHOUSE, INC.