Silver's, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 202 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Silver's, Inc. and Robert E. Amerson . Case TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
7-CA-5649.
April 28,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On January 6, 1967, Trial Examiner Thomas A.
Ricci issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as,amended, and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. He also found that Respondent had not
engaged in another unfair labor practice alleged in
the complaint and recommended dismissal of that
allegation. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief,
and the Respondent filed an answering 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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the briefs,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS A. Ricci, Trial Examiner: A hearing in the
above-entitled proceeding was held before me on
November 2, 1966, at Detroit, Michigan, on complaint of
the General Counsel against Silver's, Inc., herein called
the Respondent or the Company. The complaint alleges
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
After the close of the hearing briefs were received from
the Respondent and the General Counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witness, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Silver's, Inc., a Michigan corporation, is engaged in part
in the business of selling office furniture, with its principal
office and place of business in the city of Highland Park,
Michigan. During the year ending December 31, 1965, a
representative period, the Company received gross
revenue from the sale and distribution of office furniture in
excess of $500,000. During the same period the
Respondent caused to be transported and delivered to its
Highland Park place of business furniture valued in excess
of $500,000, of which a quantity valued in excess of
$50,000 was transported and delivered directly to its place
of business from points outside the State of Michigan. I
find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 299, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that Silver's, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
i In the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The
Discharge of Robert Amerson," it is stated that "[t]here is
nothing to indicate that his [Amerson's] performance improved "
In fact, however, Supervisor Hill testified that Amerson's work
did improve shortly before his discharge, and that he (Hill) had
discussed this fact with his superior, Jones We do not believe,
however, that this evidence materially detracts from the
Examiner's ultimate findings There is no evidence that this
evaluation of Amerson's performance had ever been conveyed to
Silver, who had been absent from the plant from June 29 until July
10 and who would not, therefore, have been personally conversant
with Amerson's improvement during this period Moreover, Silver
primarily based the discharge on Amerson's second accident
within a 3-week period, and only secondarily on his recollection of
Amerson's previously inadequate performance of his duties
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Teamster Local 299 began to sign up the Company's
approximately 16 drivers and warehousemen in the first
week of July 1966. On the 13th it demanded recognition as
majority representative, a request that was not granted. A
representation election petition (Case 7-RC-7443) was
filed on July 22, the election held on August 10, and the
results certified 10 days later adverse to the Union.
Objections were filed, but later withdrawn.
Robert Amerson, a driver who had worked about 3
months, was discharged on July 12, the day before the
demand for recognition reached the Company; a few days
later, on about July 15, the Company's president gathered
this group of employees-limited to the drivers and
warehousemen-in the coffeeroom, and spoke to them for
about an hour. The complaint alleges that President Ira
Silver threatened economic reprisals and promised
improvements in working conditions, in order to defeat the
organizational campaign, and discharged Amerson
because he had signed a union card and further to curb
such activities generally. There are further allegations of
unlawful interrogation of employees by other supervisors.
The Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
164 NLRB No. 42
SILVER'S INC. 203
A. Interference, Restraint , and Coercion
While the date of Silver's talk to the assembled
employees is not fixed with unanimity on record, it
certainly took place within the week following July 13.
Silver had returned from overseas on the 10th, and learned
what was going on. Four employees testified to what Silver
said. Understandably their recollections varied somewhat,
but in substance they were fairly consistent. Willie
Bergamy, 11 years-on and off-a truckdriver, said the
meeting lasted an hour and that Silver spoke much about
the Company's policies "about the Union. It concerned the
union mostly, and he said if we get a union in there that all
of the benefits we had would be dropped." Silver
mentioned the Christmas bonus, loans by the Company to
employees, insurance benefits, and taking care of
employees in case they were hurt on the job. According to
Bergamy, Silver spoke of the Teamsters being "no good,"
and why had the employees not chosen the "AFL-CIO"
instead. The president also explained how Teamsters
"didn't have many colored drivers" (most of the
employees here involved are apparently Negroes), and that
"he wasn't going to have Hoffa running his business."
Silver also said, still according to Bergamy, that he and his
brother "had enough money they could live happily ever
after."
Calvin Brantley, an employee for 5 years, quoted Silver
as saying he intended to establish a profit-sharing plan,
and "from that lead into about the Teamsters union ... he
said he would close the business up. He owned the
building and he would sell the building. He didn't need the
business any more because he could practice law ... he
didn't want Jimmy Hoffa and his racketeers coming in
there telling him how to run his business ... how many
trucks we see coming in with Negroes driving ... Jimmy
Hoffa didn't care about the little man."
Robert Knoll, a former employee, testified Silver started
by saying ". . . as you know, there have been fellows
around trying to see about getting a union . . . he didn't
want a union ... why didn't you pick the UAW instead of
the Teamsters." Silver spoke of the profit-sharing plan,
and added "there would be no profit sharing for union
members ... him and his brother would no longer be a big
father to the so-called employees ... if there was going to
be a union he would run it strictly by the book." Still
according to Knoll, Silver reminded the men of the
benefits they had enjoyed, and then added ". . . him and
his brother didn't need the business anyway. They could
sell and go into law."
Jesse Hill, a supervisor who later was discharged,
testified Silver spoke of a proposed profit-sharing plan and
retirement program he envisaged, detailed past benefits,
and added "if the union came in, it would be run by the
book."
Silver denied having made any threats at the meeting
but his total testing on the subject was vague, ambiguous,
and unconvincing. At one point he said flatly the purpose
was to discuss the advantages of profit sharing. More
revealing, in the light of the record as a whole, was his
more expansive statement:
To explain to them what we were attempting to do,
and how we were attempting to do it, and a lot of these
people I would say you have to do a lot of diagraming
for them, and explain to them the advantages and
disadvantages of various things and I have always
been able to mingle with all of the employees and talk
to most of them, and not sit on my pillow in my office
and try to act like a boss.
I have been able to talk with them like a normal man
and explain various things to them, a lot of them do
not understand unless you go into this diagraming
with them.
Silver admitted discussing the Union, but said it was the
employees who asked him about it, and that he explained:
If they wanted to go union, it was up to them.
Anything my employees want to do, it is up to them to
make their own decisions, but I explained to them the
circumstances that we as a company and myself once
a union does come in there that I am no longer their
father, which I have been to these people for a
number of years.
Most employees have been there for a number of
years, they get sick, they want to take vacations, the
kids get sick, they have problems with their family,
and I have been able to lend them money, and get
them clothes, and I said when the union comes in,
some of these things in here, when they have personal
problems, will no longer go to me. They will go to the
union.
Silver added he could not remember whether he had
mentioned Hoffa at the meeting.
Silver's assertion that the purpose of the meeting was to
explain a profit-sharing plan so the employees could
understand it, is suspect first of all because he also said
that as of this time "the kind of plan" it would be was not
yet known. "We still haven't decided it now, sir." This
means there were no details then that could be
"diagramed." These workmen-limited to drivers and
warehousemen-were the only group, among the overall
complement of about 75 employees in the Company, who
were carrying on union activities, the only persons whom
the Union had sought to represent only a few days earlier.
Silver's explanation that the other classifications were not
called together to hear him because they were more
intelligent suffers equally from the apparent fact that all
he had to say then was that there would one day be some
sort of profit-sharing benefit. The meeting lasted an hour;
what diagraming of benefits he did must therefore have
concerned other benefits that in his opinion required
discussion at this particular moment. In conflict with his
oral testimony, Silver's prehearing affidavit says it was the
employees who asked him to speak to them of the profit-
sharing plan. The affidavit also contains the following
statement: "At this meeting I explained benefits which our
employees have at the company such as the handling of
garnishments, legal work and accounting services, the
lending of money and the payment of hospital bills for
employees."
At the hearing Silver denied having voiced any threats
to the employees, but his affidavit also reads: "At this
meeting I told the employees, that this company was the
type company that where the two people involved, my
brother Jerome and myself could sell out. I told them we
have had substantial offers to sell which would make us
extremely wealthy if we sold. I told the employees that we
were hanging on to the company for the benefit of the
employees."
In the light of Silver's implicit admissions, the
implausibility of his assertedly limited motive in the total
204
circumstances, and of the demeanor of the witnesses, I
credit the employees. Accordingly I find that he called the
meeting to make them understand his intent to withhold
past benefits in employment in the event they persisted in
their attempts to bargain with him collectively through a
union of their choice, and that he threatened to
discontinue the entire business in retaliation for their
union activities. By such threats of economic reprisal the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Following Silver's speech, the same group of employees
for the most part were assembled to hear the company
comptroller, Herner, speak of the profit-sharing plan
again . The testimony as to the details of what he said are
not very full on the record, but it appears that he spoke of
the Company one day intending to contribute 10 percent of
its profits to such a fund and in turn distribute it among the
employees on a prorata basis commensurate with their
respective individual earnings . How detailed the
information was is difficult to understand in view of the
further testimony of both Silver and the comptroller that a
definitive plan had not been decided upon, and indeed is
still totally in the air.
Employees Knoll and Brantley, as well as Supervisor
Hill, testified they had heard nothing of profit sharing
before Silver spoke of it at a meeting of July. The other
employee witnesses were not asked this question. John
Jones, another foreman, said he had heard "approximately
a year" before the hearing that the Company
"contemplated the institution of a profit sharing plan,"
that he had never discussed it with company officials, and
that it "was discussed with the employees ... within the
last ... 6 months." Asked had he ever told employees in
his department about it, he said flatly, "I know nothing
about it." Herner, the comptroller, testified that Silver had
asked him to research the possibility of a workable plan
perhaps a year before July 1966, but as to whether
employees had been advised, his best effort was that at the
last Christmas party "it was discussed on an informal
basis amongst the various employees of the company we
were seriously contemplating going into a profit sharing
plan . I stated I was investigating their initiating the
profit sharing plan." He was sure no formal announcement
had ever been made to the employees. Whatever the
Respondent's internal planning may have been, it is clear,
and I find that no real notice had been given the employees
before the Union's move to organize the drivers and
warehousemen. Silver's announcement to these
employees, therefore, in the middle of July, coupled with
his statements of how they would suffer at his hands if the
Union prevailed, and so timed with the demand
recognition, was a promise of benefit intended improperly
to influence their decision. I therefore conclude that by
such promise of benefit the Respondent also illegally
coerced the employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
statute.
Management representatives learned of the
organizational campaign before the demand telegram of
July 13. Amerson, then a truckdriver, and Bergamy,
testified that on the morning of July 11 Foreman Jones
called them to the office to inquire had they signed union
cards; they denied the fact, although they had done so.
Bergamy added Jones called them liars for the denial.
Amerson said the foreman went on to say he had once
been a member of Teamster Local 600, which "wasn't any
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
good and we would just be in more trouble if we got the
union in there .... he would tell Ira Silver none of his boys
signed a union card," and that "anything occurred, for us
to contact him and he would take care of it." Bergamy's
version is that Jones said "some of the fellows around the
company were making trouble for the company, and that
he always take care of the employees. . . . "
Bergamy also testified that after the inquiry by the
foreman, Ira Silver called him to the office alone and
asked had he signed a union card. He denied it again, and
Silver then told him there would be a profit-sharing plan
and the older employees would have an advantage.
Bergamy was 11 years with the Company. He said he
needed to have his teeth repaired more than a profit-
sharing plan, and Silver then promised to help him. (At the
hearing Bergamy said the denture was in fact being made
at Silver's expense.)
Both Jones and Silver denied having interrogated any
employees. Jones admitted he called Amerson and
Bergamy to his office but said it was only to explain a
twice-a-day delivery system that was being instituted. He
also denied having discussed the Union with them. At one
point he denied unequivocally talking of the Union with
any employees. But he also vacillated. He said he had
learned of the union activities of employees "indirectly,"
"through the grapevine," and that he was involved in a
conversation with employees Dave Emig and Bob Vogen,
and that he told them he had once been in a
union-Local 600-but had been dissatisfied. Jones'
earlier affidavit, given to a Board investigator, contains the
admission that he asked ". . . are you fellows interested in
or mixed up in that mess over there. I was referring to the
problems in the furniture warehouse and truck driver area
involving matters such as delivery problems, union
problems, or problems related to the contentions between
the department."
Silver's determination to root out the union campaign,
even by resorting to unlawful threats, is clear. Jones'
denials are unpersuasive and evasive. Based upon the
total record and the demeanor of the witnesses, I credit
Amerson and Bergamy, and find that Jones and Silver
interrogated them concerning their union activities. In the
light of the other statements-that the employees would
be taken care of-such questioning was coercive within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and, I find, an
unfair labor practice.'
There is also the testimony of Brantley that he was
called into Ira Silver's office one morning where he found
the president, his brother Jerome, Herner, the company
accountant, and Gerald Bohnut, Brantley's immediate
supervisor. Brantley said he was the only employee
present, and that Ira Silver started by saying he knew
Brantley had gone into the Union. When Brantley asked
how did Silver know, the answer was that Silver had "a list
of every man that went into the Union," and that he
[Silver] "could close the business or sell it." Then Herner
added "they could sell the business if the Union comes
in." Herner testified but did not mention this incident.
Silver's was a general denial. In the light of the entire
record, I credit Brantley's testimony. I also find that by
telling Brantley he had a list of all union members among
the employees, Silver created the impression of
surveillance over union activities, and thereby violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I
I Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591.
SILVER'S, INC. 205
B. The Discharge of Robert Amerson
Amerson was hired as a truckdriver in March 1966,
and discharged on July 12. His duties were to make route
deliveries of office furniture to the locations of purchasers
throughout the city. He signed a union card a few days
before the discharge, and, it will be recalled, was
questioned about it by one of his supervisors, Jones, but
denied the fact.
During the afternoon of July 12, in inclement weather
and difficult driving conditions, as he was making a street
turn a woman ran into the rear of his truck and damaged
her automobile. Amerson reported the accident to the
office by telephone, and when he returned to the plant at
or about 5 p.m. was called into the office of President
Silver. In the interval the lady had herself telephoned the
Company and claimed reimbursement for the claimed
property damage, and Silver learned about it. In the office
Silver told Amerson he had "had two accidents and I can't
afford you." Amerson had in fact, 2 or 3 weeks earlier, run
his truck into a private automobile, with a claim against
the Company resulting. Amerson said Silver had two
checks already prepared when he entered the office, one
for the current portion of a week he had worked, and the
second representing a full week's severance pay. As he
was handing Amerson the checks, according to the
employee, Silver asked "did you sign one of the union
cards?" Amerson denied.
With Silver's general reaction to the union campaign so
clearly established by what he said and did apart from this
discharge conversation, I believe Amerson's testimony,
despite Silver's contradiction, that the president asked
him about signing a card that day also. As to the reason for
the discharge, Silver testified that it was because of the
two accidents in so short a period, and the resulting danger
of increase in insurance costs, Amerson's general
incompetence in not making the proper amount of
deliveries as scheduled, his poor appearance with respect
to clothing and such things, and a generally poor attitude.
Foreman Jones testified that Amerson had been hired as a
probationer, and had been so advised in the beginning.
That Amerson was not qualified in the opinion of the
Respondent is true. He admitted he was reprimanded "a
few times" by Hill, his more immediate superior; he
sometimes brought merchandise back undelivered and
was criticized. There were other occasions when he was
urged to better performance. More than once he was told
he was improving, to keep up the good work. Whether or
not the word probation was used at the initial hiring is of
no moment, for Supervisor Hill said directly that because
of Amerson's poor performance he had placed him on
probation once. More important, and, I believe, perhaps
determinative here, is the further fact, related by the
General Counsel's own witness Hill, that "two or three
weeks" before his termination the Company had decided
with finality to release Amerson. A man was hired to take
his place, Amerson was told he would have to go and
advised of the precise terminal date, and for a week or so
took the new man on the route to show him how to do the
job. With time the Company thought the replacement to be
less capable than Amerson and placed him in the
stockroom instead. It was decided to continue with
Amerson. Then came his second accident and the union
activities. Why did they fire him?
But the real question in this case is not why did the
Company release him on July 12. It is, instead, whether
the preponderance of the substantial evidence on the
record in its entirety supports an affirmative finding that
the reason for the discharge was to curb union activities,
either by Amerson personally or on behalf of employees
generally. The facts give rise to a strong suspicion of illegal
motive. For one reason or another Silver was thinking of
the Union at the very moment of the discharge. This was
not the first time Amerson had been asked; only a few
days earlier Foreman Jones wanted to know had he signed
up. It would seem the Company at least suspected, if it did
not know, Amerson's true feelings. And the union animus
generally, expressed both before and after the discharge,
is clear enough.
However, if fairness requires that the record as a whole
be considered, there are other aspects of the situation that
cannot be ignored. There is no real proof that the
Company knew, before the discharge, that Amerson
favored the Union. He did no more than sign a union card,
and denied it when asked. Supervisor Hill testified
generally that he and Foreman Jones discussed "the
problems with the Union" several times, but his earlier
affidavit reads: "I never discussed Amerson's union
sympathies with any other supervisor." Hill also said at
the hearing that he knew Amerson "supported the Union."
Again his affidavit weakens the testimony: "Amerson and
Bergamy were very close, and I felt, I felt certain Amerson
also supported the Union." And about 2 weeks after
July 12 Amerson telephoned Jones to inquire about certain
pay due his sister for work performed at the foreman's
home. He said that Jones then asked him "what did you
tell that damn lie for, lie to me in regards to signing a card
for the teamster's union." This time Amerson answered
yes. Jones contradicted this testimony, but it is of little
moment, for by that time much had happened, and the
representation petition had been filed. In a sense even
Silver's question-during the terminal conversation-may
not be as significant in support of the complaint as at first
appears. If it is to be said he discharged Amerson because
the man was known, or believed to favor the Union, the
intent existed before the critical question was put. But the
pay and severance checks were already made out when
Amerson entered the office, so that the final action had
already been determined. But in that event there would
have been no purpose in the inquiry at all.
It is against the light of these weaknesses of one aspect
of the case, that the other aspect-the unquestionable fact
that Amerson had given sufficient cause for dismissal
entirely apart from the union activities-takes on a very
persuasive color. He had virtually been discharged only 2
weeks before. In effect, while he was breaking in the new
man, Amerson was working out the period of his discharge
notice. There is nothing to indicate that his performance
improved. The testimony that the new man was not
retained on the delivery route because of his
incompetence, and not because Amerson changed, stands
uncontradicted. Against such an immediate background,
the repeat error of a second accident cannot be summarily
swept aside as a probable cause for discharge.
It may well be that another mind sitting in judgment
could arrive at a different conclusion. Suspicion apart, I
must find that the evidence does not suffice to support the
complaint allegation with respect to Amerson's discharge.
I shall therefore to that extent recommend dismissal of the
complaint.
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 Respondent's
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relationship 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
The Respondent must be ordered to cease and desist
from restraining and coercing the employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and to post adequate notices.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and on
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By telling its employees that benefits such as per-
sonal loans, Christmas bonuses, and insurance coverage
would be withheld from them if they persisted in joining
Teamsters Local 299, by promising to establish a profit-
sharing plan to discourage self-organization by the
employees, by coercively interrogating them concerning
their union activities, by telling employees that
management knows the identity of all union adherents,
and by threatening to discontinue the business in order to
stop union activities, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The, aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and on the entire record in the case, I recommend
that Silver's, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from telling its employees that
benefits such as personal loans, Christmas bonuses, and
insurance coverage will be withheld from them if they
persist in joining Teamsters Local 299, or any other labor
organization, promising to establish a profit-sharing plan to
discourage self-organization by the employees, coercively
interrogating employees concerning their union activities,
telling employees that management knows the identity of
all union adherents, threatening to discontinue the
business in order to stop union activities, or in any like or
related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in their exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following action which I find will effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Detroit, Michigan, plant, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region
7, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.3
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be
dismissed to the extent that it alleges illegal discrimination
in employment with respect to Robert E. Amerson.
2 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
3 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the
Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that benefits such
as personal loans, Christmas bonuses, and insurance
coverage will be withheld from them if they persist in
joining Teamsters Local 299, or any other labor
organization, promise to establish a profit-sharing
plan to discourage self-organization by our employees,
coercively interrogate employees concerning their
union activities, tell our employees that management
knows the identity of all union members, or threaten
to discontinue the business entirely in order to stop
union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join Local 299, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in
any other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of any labor
organization.
SILVER'S, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan
48226, Telephone 226-3244.