The Divigard Baking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 363 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

THE DIVIGARD BAKING COMPANY 363
7. By discriminatorily terminating the employment of Druwhit 's 17 aluminum
fabricating employees in the manner set forth above, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (3) and (1)
of the Act.
8. Inasmuch as Druwhit Metal Products Company, A.J. Architectural Products,
Fletcher Aviation Company, and A.J. Industries , Inc., are, for the purposes of this
case, a single employer, they are jointly and severally liable for the unfair labor
practices found.
9. Inasmuch as the Druwhit Metal Products Company, A.J. Architectural Products,
Fletcher Aviation Company, and A.J. Industries , Inc., business operations affect com-
merce , the aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
The Divigard Baking Company and International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America , Local 677. Case No. 1-CA-4718. June 24, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 30, 1965, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision
together with a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief
in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner)
'We agree with the Trial Examiner ' s general conclusion that the Respondent violated
Section 8 ( a) (5) and ( 1) of the Act since July 28, 1965 , because it refused to bargain with
the Union at that time when the Union, in fact , represented a majority of its employees
In so finding , we rely particularly on the evidence which shows, as detailed in the Trial
Examiner 's Decision , that , both prior and subsequent to the Union's request to bargain,
the Respondent embarked on an intensive antiunion campaign by interfering with and
coercing its employees to such an extent as to make a free election impossible In these
circumstances , we find that the Respondent was not motivated by a good -faith doubt of
the Union 's majority status, but that the real reason it rejected the Union ' s July 28
request to bargain and insisted on a Board election was based on a desire to gain time
within which to undermine the Union's support Joy Silk Mills, Inc v N L B B , 185
F 2d 732, 741 (CA.DC.), cert denied 341 U.S 914
153 NLRB No. 36.
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
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
Respondent, The Divigard Baking Company, Wolcott, Connecticut, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges filed on August 25 and October 5, 1964, and
January 14, 1965, by the above-named labor organization, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board issued his complaint and amended complaint on
October 9, 1964, and February 4, 1965. The Respondent filed answers. The
amended complaint alleges and the answer denies that the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held
in Waterbury, Connecticut, on February 23 and 24, 1965, before Trial Examiner
C. W. Whittemore.
At the hearing General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel
and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence pertinent to the issues, to
argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from General Counsel
and the Respondent.
Upon the record thus made, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Divigard Baking Company is a Connecticut corporation with principal office
and place of business in Wolcott, Connecticut, where it is engaged in the production
and distribution of bakery products.
The Respondent annually receives directly from points outside the State of Con-
necticut materials valued at more than $50,000.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it is here found that the Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II THE CHARGING UNION
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Local 677, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees
of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The setting and major issues
Conduct alleged in the complaint to have violated various sections of the Act began
shortly after Fred Divigard, treasurer and operating head of the Respondent , accord-
ing to his own testimony became aware of the Charging Union's efforts to organize
a unit of his employees in July 1964 . After learning of such efforts , also according
to his testimony , he called a meeting of the unit employees and threatened to close
the plant , under circumstances more fully described below. The threat was not effec-
tuated after a spokesman for the employees told him that they had acted "hastily"
and really did not want the Union. Shortly after the meeting Divigard received a
written demand from the Union for recognition and negotiations . The complaint
alleges and the answer admits that at all times since receiving this demand the
Respondent has refused to bargain with the Union . Whether or not such refusal was
unlawful is an issue to be resolved here.
Not long after refusing to bargain Divigard himself appointed three employees as
a committee to deal with him concerning problems of working conditions , and on at
least one occasion so dealt with it. The question as to whether or not the formation
of this committee was violative of the Act is in issue.
THE DIVIGARD BAKING COMPANY 365
On January 12, 1965, Divigard admittedly discharged employee Lucien Perillo,
known to him as the union leader among his employees. This discharge is in issue,
as are other actions and conduct alleged to have interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
B. Unlawful conduct before the demand for recognition
After learning of the organizational efforts among his 10 driver-salesmen and
mechanics, Divigard called them all to a special meeting on July 27, 1964. Accord-
ing to his own testimony he lost his temper and declared that "those bums on Baldwin
Street [where the Local's office is located] were not going to run my business." In
the presence of these employees he called his downstairs office and directed that "blue
[discharge] slips" be made out at once. He then left the meeting to permit the employ-
ees to talk over what they wished to do in view of his plain ultimatum. Upon his
return he was told by employee Recchia, of long seniority, that they had "acted has-
tily and really didn't want the Union." Apparently as a result of this "vote of confi-
dence," Divigard did not carry out his threat of dismissing them and closing the
plant.'
The above-described conduct of Divigard constituted interference, restraint, and
coercion of employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
C. The refusal to bargain
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it is here found that an appropriate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining at the Respondent's plant consists of
all driver-salesmen and mechanics, exclusive of other categories.
It was agreed by the parties at the hearing that on or about July 25, 1964, there
were 10 employees in this unit
Documentary and oral evidence establishes that shortly before or on July 22,
1964, 8 of the 10 employees had signed cards specifically designating the Teamsters
as their bargaining agent for purposes of collective bargaining. No evidence was
adduced to show that at any time thereafter have any of these eight employees revoked
such authorizations. It is therefore concluded and found that on July 22, 1964, and
at all times since that date the Union has been the exclusive bargaining representative
of all the Respondent's employees in the above-described unit.
On July 28 the business representative of Local No. 677, the Charging Union,
wrote a letter to the Respondent claiming majority representative status and asking
for a date to begin negotiations for a contract.
On July 31 counsel for the Respondent wrote to the Union declaring that the Com-
pany would not recognize it unless and until certified by the Board
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it is here found that since July 28,
1964, the Respondent has refused to bargain with the Charging Union as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit.2 By
such conduct the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
D. Other interference, restraint, and coercion
It is undisputed that at the July 27 meeting called by Divigard he was told, in effect,
that one of the reasons for their organizing was the lack of "a pay raise," according to
the testimony of employee Recchia. None had been granted in the preceding 2
years. Shortly after this meeting and after the Respondent's admitted refusal to bar-
gain, Divigard unilaterally granted substantial increases to at least three of the
driver-salesmen.
'Despite Divigard's admissions as to his heated words about the Union and that he
had finally obtained from them a "vote of confidence," he apparently would have it be-
lieved that his threat to fire his employees was because of an increase in the price of
flour. The validity of so absurd a contention, in view of the admitted circumstances,
requires no further comment.
2I find without merit the Respondent's claim that at no time has the Union been chosen
"by a majority of the employees as their unequivocal representative." It introduced no
credible evidence to rebut that adduced by General Counsel to the effect that each of the
card signers was well aware at the time of signing that he was authorizing the Union
to serve as his bargaining representative And to the issues in this case it is irrelevant
that the Union, following Divigard's coercive meeting of July 27, withdrew its petition
for certification. It has long been held by the Board and the courts that an employer
may not take advantage of its own unlawful conduct and avoid its obligations
under the Act
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
And about the same time Divigard and Sam Zotto, supervisor of the drivers,
informed employees that they were working on details of pension and insurance bene-
fits for them.
While at the time of the hearing such pension and insurance plans apparently had
not been put into effect, the implied promise of their forthcoming and the actual grant-
ing of wage increases were plainly designed to discourage membership in and activity
on behalf of the Union. Especially is this so since the action was unilateral and took
place at a time when the Union was the exclusive bargaining representative of all
employees in the unit affected. By such action the Respondent further interfered
with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the
Act.
E. Domination of a committee formation
Having evaded his obligation under the Act to bargain with the Union, about a
month after his threat to close the plant Divigard proceeded to appoint a three-man
committee with whom he could deal for all employees in the unit concerning their
problems. Without permitting these employees even the privilege of selecting their
own representatives, he designated the individuals with whom he chose to deal Soon
after appointing this committee, he summoned them to a meeting, and assigned them
the task of trying to work out some solution to the problem of tardiness, which was
and had been common at the plant.
Although there is no evidence that except for this one meeting the committee has
actively functioned, it has never been disestablished or disavowed. Divigard's hesi-
tancy in using it finds ready explanation in the fact that in early October he received
an amended charge alleging further violations of the Act in his forming of the
committee.
I conclude and find that Divigard dominated and interfered with the formation
and administration of this employee committee, and thereby further interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
F. Divigard's continued coercion of Lucien Perillo and the unlawful discharge
The credible testimony of employee Lucien Perillo, in part either admitted or not
disputed by Divigard, is the basis for the following findings concerning the employer's
treatment of him, appropriately termed by General Counsel as "harassment," and
which led up to the eventual discharge in January 1965.
(1) Shortly after Perillo, admittedly known to Divigard as the leader of the orga-
nizational campaign , was interviewed by a Board agent in early September 1964, the
employer called him into the office and declared: "You got two strikes against you,
this is the third one, going around shooting your mouth off " He instructed Perillo
to "keep quiet," and said that since he came there he had been having a lot of union
trouble
(2) A few days later the Board agent came to town to interview others. The same
afternoon Perillo was instructed by Divigard not to talk union "to my men anywhere
on the premises and while you are working for me." Later still the same day Perillo
telephoned to two fellow employees. Two or three days later Divigard called him
into the office and ordered him to stop calling up "his men" and talking "about the
union."
(3) About a week before the Board agent's second visit, Divigard posted a new
seniority list. While the evidence is clear that Perillo's place upon that list was in
accordance with his actual length of service, and that he was not in fact "bumped"
from his regular route, it appears that he feared some adverse change and protested
to Divigard. "I know why you put that list up there." Divigard replied, "That's right.
It's going to hit you where it hurts you the most, in your pocketbook." He added,
"I don't have to get these trucks fixed like I have been doing. I can get an old beat-up
ti uck and get you killed on it. I could have you pinched every day for speeding until
you blow your license and I have to get rid of you."
(4) Sometime after receiving, in October, the complaint and notice of hearing
(originally set for December 2, 1964), Divigard warned Perillo• "If you testify, you
better win, because I will haunt you down and make you get fired on every job you
get, and if I got to pay five thousand dollars to get you fired, I will get it done; and if
you are on State aid, collecting checks, I will have your checks stopped until you
blow everything you got." Divigard also said he had had the employee's bank
accounts checked.
(5) In November counsel for General Counsel came to Waterbury and inter-
viewed Perillo in preparation for the pending hearing. After this meeting Perillo
learned from his wife that a fellow employee, Varrone, had been trying to reach
him. He called Varrone, who asked what he had been doing at the office. Perillo
THE DIVIGARD BAKING COMPANY 367
told him. That same evening Divigard called Perillo at his home, ordered him to
stop talking to the men about the Union, and again warned him, "If you testify, you
better win, because your soul belongs to God and your ass belongs to me." 3
(6) Early in January Perillo received a letter from the same counsel regarding a
meeting at a local motel Otther employees apparently were sent similar letters. On
January 6 Divigard telephoned to Perillo and, according to Divigard's own admis-
sion, told him, `'You can vote for the President, you can vote for the Governor, but
you can't vote for the Union." When the employee asked what he was selling, Divi-
gard queried. "You mean you didn't get a letter to meet Kelleher up at Schrafft's at
7 o'clock?" Divigard then said, "If you go to the meeting, I know you are against
me. Don't go, I'm going to go up there with Larkin [counsel for the Respondent]
and straighten this out."
In this context of repeated threats and warnings Divigard finally fired Perillo on
January 12. The employee reported somewhat late that morning, as had happened
frequently ever since he had been employed there, and as records show was a common
cccurrence for most of the drivers. Nothing was said to him, however, and he left
on his route, after obtaining permission from Supervisor Zotto to return early that
afternoon He completed his route and returned. He was met by Divigard. It is
undisputed that Zotto confirmed the fact that he had given Perillo permission to
come in early. Later that afternoon Divigard sent Peri:lo the following wire "Due
to your inability to work on time we find it necessary to discharge (you) without
further notice." And in his notification of the discharge to the State Unemployment
Commission Divigard stated only that Perillo had been fired because he was late 69
percent of his working days.
At the hearing, under repeated prodding by his counsel, Divigard voiced some 8 or
10 additional reasons for the discharge. Whatever degree of credibility might have
been attached to the Respondent's claimed reason for the discharge as given in the
wire and to the commission, it was completely swamped and smothered by Divigard's
testimony at the hearing, adding reasons enough to have warranted, if believed, dis-
charge of the employee each day from his date of hire. I conclude that all reasons
advanced by Divigard were either false or used as mere pretexts to hide the one genu-
ine reason, made clear to Perillo for months prior to the action-his union adherence
and his probable appearance at a Board hearing to testify against the Respondent.
I conclude and find that Perillo was discharged to discourage union membership
and activity. This discrimination constituted interference, restraint, and coercion of
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
IV. FHE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent, described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged it. unfair labor practices, I will
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It will be recommended that, upon request, the Respondent bargain in good faith
with the Charging Union and, if an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
It will be recommended that the Respondent disestablish and cease to recognize
the employee committee described herein as the representative of any of its employees
in dealing with it regarding any term or condition of employment.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer immediate and full reinstate-
ment to Lucien Perillo to his former or substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for
any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, by payment
to him of P_um of money he normally would have earned as salary and commissions,
absent the discrimination against him, from the date of the discrimination to the date
of offer of full reinstatement, in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W Wool-
worth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and with interest as prescribed in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
3 Divigard admitted that he might have used this expression
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finally, in view of the serious and extended nature of the unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America , Local 677, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
2 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Lucien
Perillo, as described herein, to discourage membership in and activity on behalf of
a labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of the
employee committee , described herein, the Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
4. All driver-salesmen and mechanics at the Respondent 's Wolcott, Connecticut,
plant, excluding office clerical employees , professional employees , guards, all other
employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act , constitute a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5 By virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act , at all times since July 22, 1964 , and con-
tinuing to date, the above-named labor organization has been the exclusive represent-
ative of all employees in the above -described unit for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other terms
and conditions of employment
6. By refusing to bargain in good faith with the above -named labor organization
as the exclusive repiesentative of all employees in the said unit, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act
7. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pur-
suant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , it is hereby
ordered that the Respondent , The Divigard Baking Company , its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local 677,
or any other labor organization , by discharging or refusing to reinstate employees,
or by discriminating against them in any other manner in regard to their hire and
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Threatening employees with economic reprisals or promising and granting
benefits to discourage membership in and activity on behalf of the above -named or
any other labor organization , or to induce employees to refrain from testifying at a
Board hearing or from meeting with a Board agent.
(c) Creating among employees the impression of surveillance of their activities
on behalf of the Union through use of informers or other sources of information.
(d) Dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of the
employee committee described herein or of any other labor organization of its
employees.
(e) Recognizing or dealing with said employee committee as a representative of
any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances or any
terms or conditions of employment.
(f) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local 677, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of all its employees in the appropriate unit described herein , with respect
to wages , hours, or other terms and conditions of employment.
(g) In any other manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action , to effectuate the policies of the Act-
(a) Offer Lucien Perillo immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and
THE DIVIGARD BAKING COMPANY 369
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by
season of such discrimination, in the manner set forth above in the section entitled
,,The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of the Order.
(c) Notify Perillo, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(d) Withdraw all recognition from the employee committee described herein as
the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it concern-
ing any terms or conditions of employment, and completely disestablish said commit-
tee as such representative.
(e) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 677, as the exclu-
sive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit found herein, with respect
to wages, hours, grievances, or other terms and conditions of employment, and if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(f) Post at its plant in Wolcott, Connecticut, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 4 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 1, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the
Respondent, be posted 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 to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps have been taken
to comply herewith.5
4 In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 be 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".
In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall read, "Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date
of this Order, what steps the 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 conduct our labor relations in compliance with the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we notify you that:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discourage you from being members of International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Local 677, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with reprisals, or grant any benefits, to discourage
you from joining any union.
WE WILL NOT deal with the employee committee set up in the summer of 1964
on any matters relating to your working conditions.
WE WILL offer reinstatement to Lucien Perillo, and give him backpay.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the union named above and,
if an understanding is reached, sign an agreement covering such understanding.
The unit represented by this union includes all driver-salesmen and mechanics,
but excludes all others.
WE -,,'ILL NOT violate any of the rights you have under the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, to join a union of your own choice or not to engage
in any union activities.
THE DIVIGARD BAKING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
796-027-66-vol. 153-25
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NoTE.-We will notify Perillo, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States , of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of
1948, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Boston
Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street , Boston , Massachusetts , Telephone
No. 523-8100 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Harold Gorlick and Morris Gorlick, Co -Partners, d/b/a Thrifty
Supply Company and Teamsters Local Union No. 174, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America , Independent
Thrifty Supply Co. of Tacoma , Inc. and Teamsters Local Union
No. 599, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Independent. Cases
Nos. 19-CA-2949 and 19-CA-0951. June 24, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 15,1965, Trial Examiner Louis S. Penfield issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a brief in support of its exceptions.
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 these cases to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep-
tions and brief, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts
the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations
except as modified below.
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, as modified
herein, and orders that Respondent, Harold Gorlick and Morris Gor-
lick, Co-Partners, d/b/a Thrifty Supply Company, Seattle, Washing-
ton, and Thrifty Supply Co., of Tacoma, Inc., Tacoma, Washington,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as so modified.
153 NLRB No. 34.