Petco, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1978

238 N.L.R.B. 1297 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

ANADITE INDULSTRIAL SUPPILY C(O.
Petco, Inc., Interstate and Maynard Halhorson. Case
27-CA-5319
September 29, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
ANt) MURPHIY
On June 21. 1978. Administrative Law Judge Earl-
dean V.S. Robbins issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and counsel for the Gen-
eral 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Petco, Inc.. Interstate.
Commerce City, Colorado. its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
1 Respondent and counsel for the General Counsel have each excepted to
certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Las Judge. It is the
Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative l.as Judge's
resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all ot
the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Stan
dard Dr Wall Products, Inc, 91 Nl RB 544 119501. enlid 188 F 2d 362 (. A
3. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for revers-
ing her findings
In sec. 111i of her Decision, the Administrative l.aw Judge committed an
obvious inadvertent error in failing to include a finding that Respondent
violated Sec 8(aX I I of the Act bs telling its employees that it was withhold-
ing a wage increase because of the ongoing union organizational activity)
inasmuch as a finding of that violation was included in the ('onclusions of
I aw. We hereby correct that error
DECISION
SIATEMENT OF THE (CASF
EARI.IDAN V. S.R BBINS., Administrative lIaw Judge:
This matter was heard before me in Denver. Colorado. on
March 30 and 31, 1978. The charge was filed by Maynard
Halvorson, an individual, and served on Petco. Inc.. Inter-
state. herein called Respondent. on April 11. 1977. The
complaint. which issued on May 31. 1977, alleges that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)( 1) and 13) of the Act.
The principal issue herein is whether Respondent dis-
patched Haivorson to less profitable job assignments be-
cause ot' his union activities.
LUpon the entire record.' including min observation of thc
witnesses, and after due consideration of' the briefs filed b3
the General Counsel and the Respondent. I make the tol-
lowing:
FI i)INIGS OF I (CT
1. JLRISI)l lION
Respondent. a \Wyoming corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Commerce Cits. Colorado, is
engaged in the interstate transportation of petroleum prod-
ucts. Respondent, in the course and conduct ofl its business
operations, annually receives gross revenues in excess of
$500.000, of which in excess of $50,000 is received for its
services in transporting goods and materials across state
lines.
The complaint alleges. Respondent admits. and I find
that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and
in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2). (6), and (7) of the Act.
11. I ABOR O(R(GANZATI)ON
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. ('haufieurs.
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, ILocal 961. herein
called the Union, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. il1 A I 1(1it) I'NFAIR I A(BOR PRA( l( FS
A. .acts
Respondent is a common carrier of petroleumn products,
including asphalt, propane and light oils, gas, and diesel
fuel. It operates in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. Respon-
dent's principal customers are major oil companies. Its
business is seasonal with a substantial drop in volume dur-
ing the winter months. The peak season is in the summer
with the heaviest volume in August.
Around January and February, Respondent normally
employs about 40 drivers; however. they do not all work
full time. During the peak summer months, the driver com-
plement increases to about 60. Drivers are paid on a mile-
age basis plus a flat rate to load and unload. At the time
material herein, the fiat rate ,was $7 tor gas, diesel. and road
oil and $10 tfo propane. [)rivers receive an increase in the
base mileage rate of a half cent a mile after 2 sears and an
additional hal' cent after 4 years.2
Respondent's employees are not represented bs an,,
union. However. a number or its driver employees are
Teamsters members or former Teamsters members. In
Upon the joint morion of General Counsel and Respondent, the record
herein is reopened tor the limited purpose of receising intor evidence Joint
txh I. a seniority list of Respondent's driver emplosees
2 During the first 6 months of 1977. the base mileage rate 'aas 12 cents per
mile for plains driving and 13 cents per mile lor mountaln driring Alter 2
Nears, the rate increased to 12 5 cents and I 5 cents, respectl.els. and alter
4 sears Io 1t cents nd 14 cents.
238 NLRB No. 182
1297
DE CISIONS OF NATIONAI LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
January 1977.1 the Union began a campaign to organize
Respondent's drivers. Drivers Maynard Halvorson and Oli-
ver Carver were the principal union activists. Halvorson
solicited signatures on approximately 14 authorization
cards.
On January 31. the Union filed a representation petition
in Case 27 R' 5436. An election was held by mail ballot
and the tally of ballots was on May 17.
Driver Harry Albertson testified that Respondent held a
meeting of some of the drivers about 2 or 3 weeks after the
petition was filed. Chris Markley, Respondent's secretary-
treasurer. was the principal spokesman for Respondent. He
said he did not think it was a good idea to have the Union.
One of the employees asked why the union instigators were
not at the meeting. An employee also said that Halvorson
had been an instigator in the attempts to organize Frank
Cline, another common carrier, and asked if Markley had
known that would he have hired Halvorson. Markley said
that if he knew he was going to cause all those problems, he
probably would not have hired him.4 Markley testified that
he does not recall making this latter statement.'
According to him, during a regularly scheduled quarterly
meeting Respondent held of its driver employees in March.
an employee asked if Respondent had gotten the rate in-
crease for which it had applied and when were the drivers
going to get a wage increase. He does not recall exactly how
he responded to the question but he thinks he said that they
were not sure what could be done, that the', could not
promise a wage increase because they had not yet received
the requested rate increase. According to Markley, this is
the same meeting about which Albertson testified.
Halvorson testified that in the first part of February, after
the petition was filed, he and several mechanics were pre-
sent in the shop when Markley told them all the Union
could do was promise a bunch of things and could not pro-
duce anything, so why waste their time and money joining
the Union. He also said "We got our rate increase and we'd
be giving you drivers a penny a mile [increasej if it wasn't
for the Union hanging over our heads right now." Markley
asked if anyone had any opinions. Halvorson said he could
not see anything wrong with the Union because the drivers
were then paying $85 a month for health and welfare out of
their checks plus $17 a month for the Union: and that with
union representation, they would get health and welfare but
would only have to pay the $17. Although Halvorson is not
absolutely sure whether it was during this conversation or
later, Markley' also said that Respondent had to hire law-
yers, etc., in case the Union won. He thinks it was during
this same conversation, at the time that Markley said the
drivers would have received an increase but for the IUnion.
Markley did not testify with regard to this conversation.
I credit Albertson and Halvorson, whom I find to be
honest and reliable witnesses. Although Markley testified
3 All dates hereinafter will be 1977 unless otherwise indicated.
4Albertson also testified on cross-examination:
Q. In )your opinion, was Mr. Markley responding to this question in a
joking manner?
A. As far as I could tell, yes, he was.
Markley admits that he had knowledge prior to the filing of the petition
that Halvorson was a union supporter. According to him, various drivers
would give him unsolicited reports that authorization cards were being dis-
tributed.
that he does not recall making one particular statement, he
does not deny the statements attributed to him by Albert-
son and Hfalvorson.
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by Marklev's statement that if he had known that Halvor-
son was going to cause problems, he probably would not
have hired him. It is immaterial that the statement was
made in response to a direct question from an employee, or
that Albertson perceived the response as being made in a
joking manner.
The remaining issue is that of the alleged assignment of
Halvorson to less profitable jobs. Halvorson was employed
by Respondent as a driver from July 21, 1975, until June
25, 1977. At the time of his hire he was an experienced road
oil hauler. Early in his employment with Respondent, he
was trained to haul propane. As of February, he was one of
five driver employees who could haul propane.
For about 6 months prior to November 1976. Halvorson
hauled gas almost exclusively. The loads were fbr various
accounts and had various destinations. In November. ac-
cording to Halvorson, Bob Klomhaus. a driver who hauled
almost exclusively for Continental Oil, quit; Halvorson
took over the Continental runs. From November 1976
through January 1977, Halvorson hauled almost exclusively
for Continental.
In early February. dispatcher Sterling "Pete" Kunz asked
Halvorson to pick up a load of propane from Pieance
Creek. According to Halvorson, Kunz said it would be for a
couple of days. However, Halvorson was never returned to
the Continental run. Instead, he continued hauling propane
for a new account, Hy-Trans. and the Continental runs
were spread among a number of drivers.
General Counsel argues that Halvorson suffered eco-
nomic discrimination because of his transfer from the Con-
tinental Oil account, his assignment to Leadville and Cli-
max runs, and the type of equipment to which he was
assigned. I find the evidence insufficient to support these
contentions. Although Halvorson apparently did not like
the equipment, there is nothing to indicate that it was any
different from that of much of Respondent's equipment,
and he had made Leadville and Climax runs at various
times in his employment. Similarly. the Continental Oil job
was not the first dedicated.6 or semidedicated run to which
Halvorson was assigned. In each prior case, the runs lasted
only for a comparatively short period of time. It is not even
the first time that he hauled principally for Continental.
Thus, from July 21 to August 18, 1975, he hauled princi-
pally for Accent Petroleum to Colorado Springs. From Au-
gust 19 to September 5. he hauled principally for Continen-
tal. From October 14, 1975. to January 12, 1976. half of his
runs were for Continental. From April 19 27, 1976, all of
his runs were to Merino for Koch Oil. From June 1- 11,
1976. almost all of his runs were for Continental. From
June 25 to July 16 half of his runs were for Continental.
True, his Continental run which began in November 1976
lasted for a longer period of time than any of the others and
certainly that run came closer to being a truly dedicated
6 A dedicated run is where a client, by specific arrangement, uses the truck
of a common carrier on a steady,. continual basis. Continental was not a true
dedicated run but operated in much the same way
1298
PEFCO. INC.. INTERSTA :TE
run than any of the others, but there is nothing in the rec-
ord to indicate, aside from the Continental run from May
1975 through January 1977. that the same driver continued
indefinitely once assigned to a dedicated run.
The Continental run pattern started in May 1975 when
Respondent hired Small, an ex-Continental driver who had
a personal relationship with the Continental dispatcher.
Small continued this run until he quit in May 1976. At that
time. Robert Klomhaus took over the run and continued it
until he quit in November 1976: then Halvorson was as-
signed to the run. He was either assigned the run by Super-
visor Carl Hardin or, according to Halvorson. Hardin was
instrumental in securing the assignment. However, the run
was operated differently after Klomhaus left. Klomhaus
and Small had keys to the Continental bulk plant and they
were dispatched directly by the Continental dispatcher.
Halvorson did not have a key and he was dispatched by
Respondent.
Markley's undenied testimony, which I credit, is that in
January 1977, Jim Karl, district traffic manager for C(onti-
nental Oil, expressed his displeasure when Marklev casually
mentioned that a Petco truck was being dispatched directly
from the Continental office.'
Markley testified that this was one of the reasons the
Continental run was spread among a number of drivers.
Another reason was an increase in propane business. In all
the circumstances, I find that the evidence is not sufficient
to establish that Respondent changed its method of han-
dling the Continental run and transferred Halvorson to the
Hy-Trans run for other than legitimate business reasons.
However, another pattern developed in February which I
conclude did result in economic discrimination against Hal-
vorson. Although the Hly-l'rans runs were profitable on a
daily basis. Hlalvorson worked fewer days. Ile was given
almost no dispatches other than ily-Trans. and there sim-
ply were not enough of those. Thus. by March he was expe-
riencing a substantial drop in income. IHis monthly income
from November through June was:
Dav .v IW orAkd 'r "
Nov.: 25
Dec.: 24
Jan.: 17
Feb.: 14
Mar.: 12
Apr.: 21
May:
June: 15
11 Iages
$997.04
1.362.40
1.006.88
920.04
743.89
927.18
695.86
844.98
A comparison of his wages for the corresponding months
in 1975 and 1976 shows:
1975 761:
Nov.: 729.43
Dec.: 635.24
Jan.: 852.09
Feb.: 607.30
Mar.: 1,103.60
Apr.: 1.095.57
May: 1,212.61
June: 1,185.83
197h 77'
997.04
1,362.40
1,006.88
920.04
743.89
927.18
695.86
844.98
A comparison of Halvorson's wages with those of other
truck drivers whom Markley testified he considered to he in
a comparable wage bracket" and others that ;General
Counsel argue are comparable4 shows: '
8/75--12/75 1976 1/77--6/77 1/76-6/76 2/77--6/77 2/76-6/76
16/
Halvorson 4,906.22 13,075.39 5,138.10 6,101.00 4,138.84 5,248.91
Brooks 4,426.00 12,233.90 7,118.20 5,529.96 6,001.77 5,038.98
Helman 3,480.38 12,576.27 6,340.24 6,376.74 5,267.71 5,456.60
In effect. Melvin Johnson, terminal manager at Continental's Denver
terminal from August 1976 to June 1977. admits that Klomhaus was often
directly dispatched by Continental. He further testified that this was the only
exception to the practice of funneling all orders through the dispatch office of
the carrier involved, and that in late September or possibly October, Conti-
nental ceased requesting Klomhaus by name According to him, there were
two reasons for this change. One, it was the time of the seasonal slow down;
and two, another carrier, P.I.E.. was able to take more of their rush loads.
I Markley testified that by direct dispatch, he was referring to two different
practices. One. where the Petco driver would go directly to the Continental
yard seeking a dispatch The second circumstance was when Continental
made requests by name. Johnson admits that Klomhaus was requested by
name. According to Markley, he understood that it was the dispatching of a
driver from Continental's yard which Karl found most objectionable Karl
was concerned that this might be considered legal control of the truck.
I February is normally a slack month.
LO This information comes from the freight bills lor loads hauled by Hal-
vorson. Halvorson's paycheck for May includes eight items for which there
are no freight bills in the record and thus no dates. The 14 freight bills in the
record cover 12 dates There is a discrepancy between the freight bills and
the February dispatch sheets. I find the freight bills to be inherenily more
reliable since they conform with the payroll record.
" The total amount of wages paid includes payment for miscellaneous
jobs and corrections of past payroll checks which varied in ans one month
from a total of $4 to a total of $18.06
I' These wages include an insignificant amount paid tir miscellaneous
jobs. May includes a $106.52 balance for guarantee It includes an additional
amount in March, April, and May charged in the payroll records to I.. Jones
There is no explanation of this in the record. The additional pay he received
in March was $126.16; in April, $148.59; and in May, $55.71.
" Markley testified that he considered Boulton, Robb, Helman, and Gregg
Carlson as comparable: however, it is unclear upon what he bases this opin-
ion It might possibly be from an exhibit prepared by him in preparation for
the trial. I find this exhibit to be unreliable, however, since it differs in some
respects from the payroll records. The comparison herein does not include
Gregg Carlson because the period of his dnving employment did not start
until the latter part of May 1976. He apparently did not work in December
1976 nor the first half of January 1977, and he quit during the pay period
ending Ma3 15, 1977.
1 General Counsel argues that Jerome Brxooks, Harry Albertson, and Ted
Seyfer should also be compared. Some of these employees are in the 2- to 4-
year bracket. Since the difference in pa) is roughly 4 percent, I consider it
insignificant for purposes of comparisons herein.
V" 'acation pay is not included.
16 This includes $341 charged to L.. Jones on the payroll record.
r This includes $330 charged to L. Jones on the payroll record
1299
)1'( ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Albertson
Seyfer
Boulton]J
Robbd/
Average:
3,755.95 11,246.79
3,832.53 11,664.82
4,032.36 10,991.33
9,414.54
4,072.24 11,600.43
From the above, it is apparent that Halvorson experi-
enced a substantial loss in income at a time when other
drivers who had grossed less than Halvorson throughout his
employment were enjoying an increase in earnings over
that of the corresponding months in 1976. Further, this de-
crease continued even though Respondent's road oil busi-
ness was burgeoning to the point where its drivers could not
handle the orders and Respondent hired owner-operators
along with their equipment.?"
Markley admits that Halvorson was not dispatched to
haul road oil but contends that this was because Halvorson
refused to haul road oil. Markley and Halvorson agree that
in March Hlalvorson complained to Markley that he was
not getting enough work. Markley told him that was typical
of the business but he had a lot of road oil work coming up
and he would be able to use HaIlvorson for that. Halvorson
said he preferred gas. According to Markley. thereafter he
checked his payroll and Halvorson's relative position to
other drivers appeared normal. Other drivers were also ex-
periencing a decrease at that time.
Markley further testified that sometime in April. in the
driver's room, he asked Halvorson, "would you haul road
oil" and Halvorson said no. Halvorson denied that he ever
refused to haul a load of road oil during the spring of
1977?2 He did testify, however, that he talked to Markley in
the drivers' room in April, at which time he mentioned that
he needed some runs to make some money.
I credit Halvorson that he did not refuse to haul road oil.
The freight bills on loads hauled by him indicate an em-
ployment history with Respondent of accepting various
kinds of jobs-long runs, short runs, even city runs that
paid only $4 or $5. He hauled various kinds of loads and,
even considering his preference for gas, in February, when
he was asked to haul propane, he did so without question.
This is not the record of a prima donna hauler who refuses
to haul certain types of products. particularly at a time
when he was experiencing a substantial drop in income. In
May he even took a week's vacation without pay. during
which time he worked for another employer.
Even assuming that Hal'orson did turn down a road oil
job in April, I find it incredible that Markley would believe
he was refusing to ever haul road oil. His application
showed he was an experienced road oil hauler and that he
had hauled a load of road oil on March 31. This is true
particularly when Respondent had more business than driv-
ers and even though a number of its own trucks were idle,
was reduced to utilizing owner-operators to whom it had to
pay a percentage of the gross revenue. Furthermore, Mark-
lev was not the dispatcher.
la Boulion transferred to the shop in June. This does not include his shop
wages of $106 for June.
i' Robb was employed on November 28. 1975,
2" This began around the first ofi April
i1 He testifed that he never refused such a load that he can remember, that
it is a possihiliti. but he is "pretty sure" he did not.
In view of all of the circumstances including the tim-
ing,22 the pretextual nature of the reason given for not dis-
patching Halvorson to road oil jobs. Markley's statements
found above to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
other expressions of animus by Markley, and Carl Har-
din's 23 statement in response to a query from a driver em-
ployed by another company that Halvorson no longer
worked for Respondent, he was a union man, he tried to
organize Respondent, he did not make it and was gone I
find that in retaliation for his union activities, Respondent
dispatched Halvorson in a manner designed to reduce his
earnings. Accordingly, I find that Respondent thereby vio-
lated Section 8(a)( ) and (3) of the Act.
CONC I USIONS OF LANV
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6). and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By dispatching Maynard Halvorson in a manner de-
signed to reduce his wages because of his activities on be-
half of the UJnion, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
4. By telling employees that it would not have hired a
fellow employee if it had known that the employee had
sought union representation at his previous place of em-
ployment: and by telling employees it was withholding a
wage increase because of the union activities of its employ-
ees, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)( 1 ) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Ttit REMI H)Y
Hlaving found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent dispatched Maynard
Halvorson in a manner designed to reduce his wages in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, it is recom-
mended that Respondent make Halvorson whole for any
loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him, with interest thereon to be computed in the manner
prescribed in F. W Woolworth Company,. 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
( 1977)24
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act as amended, I hereby issue the tollowing recommend-
ed:
22 Respondent received mail service of the representation petition on Feb-
ruary 10.
21 Hardin was an admitted supervisor durng the period of the discrimina-
See enerall Plumin non
2
"See, generalls, mvis Plumbing & Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
6,195.35
5,808.20
4,234.04
6,037.14
5,838.75
4,698.76
5,046.87
5,376.35
4,156.36
5,326.58
5,123.82
4,801.29
3,295.65
4,837.18
4,780.89
4,069.51
4,382.88
4,444.81
3,771.39
4,630.44
1300
ANADITE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.
ORDER2
The Respondent, Petco, Inc., Interstate, Commerce City,
Colorado, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dispatching employees in a manner designed to re-
duce their wages because of their union activities.
(b) Telling employees that it would not have hired a fel-
low employee if it had known that the employee sought
union representation at his previous place of employment.
(c) Telling employees it was withholding a wage increase
because of their union activities.
(dl In any like or related manner interfering vwith, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Maynard Ilalvorson whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him in the manner set forth in the section herein
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records and reports and all other records required to
ascertain the amounts, if any. of any hackpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its place of business in Commerce City, Colo-
rado, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."26
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 27, after being duly signed by its autho-
rized representative, shall be posted by Respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
25 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided b) Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
2, In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
Nori( E To EMPI OYEES
POSTElD BY ORDER ()F- tH-
NATIONAL LABOR RELAT()IONS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act, and has ordered us to post this notice and we intend to
carry out the order of the Board.
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain as a group through a representative of
their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any5 and all of these things.
WE sWILL NOT do anything that interferes with, re-
strains, or coerces you with respect to these rights.
WE WILL NO1 dispatch our employees in a manner
designed to reduce their wages because they' engage in
union activities.
WE 5WILI NOT tell our employees that we would not
have hired a fellow employee if we had known that he
sought union representation at his previous place of
employment.
WE W'lll NOT tell our employees we are withholding
a wage increase because of their union activities.
WE "'ILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in the Act.
WE WILi make Maynard Halvorson whole for any
loss of pay he may have suffered because we dis-
patched him in a discriminatory manner, together with
interest as provided by the Board's Order.
PETCO, INC., INTERSTATE
1301