Calvin Guthrie

CALVIN GUTH.RIE. 367 CALVIN GUTHRIE and BAKERY DRIVERS AND SALESMEN LOCAL UNION No. 567, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL 'SOUTH TACOMA MOTOR Co. and BAKERY DRIVERS AND SALESMEN LOCAL UNION No. 567, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Cases Nos. 19-CB-159 and 19-CA-3644. July 25, 1952 Decision and Order On December 27, 1951, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that both Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the-Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent Guthrie had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices, and recommended dismissal of these allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent Company filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. No excep- tions were filed by Respondent Guthrie. The Respondent Company's request for oral argument is denied inasmuch as the record, including the brief and exceptions, in our opinion, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties. The Board 1 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 Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the following additions and modifications 2 1. We find, like the Examiner, that employee Johnson caused Re- spondent Guthrie, business agent of the Clerks Union, to take up with Respondent Company on April 6, 1950, a grievance concerning the failure of management to give the salesmen the share of the proceeds of the "house deals" which the salesmen were entitled to receive under their contract. We find, also, that the Respondent Company believed that either Johnson or Pevey, another salesman, was responsible for 1 Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peter- son]. e As no party has excepted to the Trial Examiner 's findings that Respondent Guthrie violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, but did not violate Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act, we adopt those findings. _ 100 NLRB No. 58. - 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .the filing of this grievance, which resulted in a settlement unfavorable to management, and that, as a measure of reprisal Respondent Com- pany after April 6, 1950, as found by the Trial Examiner, discrimi- nated against Johnson and Pevey in the allotment of cars to fill orders obtained by them, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 3 2. We find that Johnson was discharged because of the Company's belief that either he or Pevey had filed with Guthrie the complaint concerning the house deals, a protected concerted activity, and because of Johnson's adherence to the Teamsters. We find, therefore, like the Trial Examiner, that Johnson's discharge violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. In reaching this conclusion, we have relied on the following considerations : The Company conceded that Johnson was a competent salesman. In fact, both before and during his employ by the Company he had won various awards for his ability as a salesman. After April 6, Sheehan, the Respondent Company's general man- uger, on several occasions expressed to Jaques, the new-car sales manager, the belief that the "house deals" complaint had been filed either by Johnson or Pevey, and stated that as soon as it had been determined who was responsible, that person "would be dealt with accordingly." As already found, Sheehan lost no time in punishing the two suspected salesmen by discriminating against them in the allotment of cars. While this discrimination ceased with respect to Pevey after he protested, it continued unabated with respect to Johnson. As Sheehan, despite repeated inquiries, was unable to confirm his suspicion that Johnson had filed the complaint regarding the house deals, no further action was taken against him until management learned that on September 30, 1950, at the Roberts' house party, John- son had signed a card for the Teamsters. Management's knowledge of this fact was amply demonstrated by the conversation of October 2, 1950, between Jaques and Wallerich, vice president of the Company. Wallerich's remarks reflected a knowledge of what had happened at the house party and it is significant that in those remarks reference was made by Wallerich to Johnson, both in connection with the Rob- erts' house party and in connection with the identity of the person who filed the house deals complaint. The record shows, as the Trial 8 The Examiner found that , in reprisal for the filing of the grievance of April 6, 1950, the Respondent Company also required the salesmen to work every Saturday , instead of every other Saturday , as they had done theretofore . However, we are not convinced that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that this change in schedule was instituted for discriminatory reasons rather than for the economic reasons alleged by the Company. There is undisputed evidence in the record that the volume of business on Saturday was at least as great as on other days . Moreover , as management 's revenue from house deals had been decreased by the April 6 settlement , the Company had less incentive to maintain the old Saturday schedule which required management representatives to supplement the efforts of the salesmen . Accordingly, unlike the Trial Examiner , we do not find that the change in Saturday schedules violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act CALVIN GUTHRIE 369 Examiner found, that the Company was opposed to the replacement of the Clerks Union by the Teamsters as the representative of its employees, because of the higher wage scales in Teamsters' contracts outside Tacoma. Accordingly, on October 2, the Company had two 'reasons to be displeased with Johnson-(1) his apparent responsi- bility for the house deals complaint, which had caused the Company considerable financial loss, and (2) his known affiliation with the Teamsters. Johnson was discharged the following day. The Company contends that Johnson was discharged solely because of the "Adler incident," which occurred on October 2, about the same time as Jaques' talk with Wallerich. However, even accepting Shee- han's version of this incident, we do not believe that Johnson's conduct was so provocative that he would have been discharged on that account, absent the other factors mentioned above. The Adler incident arose when on October 2 a wrecked car recently purchased by a Mr. Adler from the Respondent Company as a house deal was towed into Respondent Company's service station. When Sheehan deplored the damage to the car, Johnson, according to Shee- han, said: "I don't feel bad about him [Adler] wrecking his car." When pressed for an explanation by Sheehan, Johnson added : "He wouldn't buy the car from me. He bought the car from you, and he made a house deal out of it so that he could get a discount." Sheehan thereupon remonstrated with Johnson, denying that any discounts were given on house deals, and declaring that the Company had a right to make house deals. After discussing the incident with Wallerich, Sheehan determined to discharge Johnson. Johnson's comment to Sheehan,' as quoted above, was prompted by the fact that Adler's minor son had been a prospect of his, and Johnson had suggested that, because of the boy's minority, the car be bought by his father. However, the father thereafter made his purchase as a house deal, thereby depriving Johnson of a full commission. Never- theless, there was nothing in Johnson's remarks to imply, and Sheeha n admittedly did not construe them as implying, that the Company knew of Johnson's previous contact with the Adlers, and consciously circum- vented Johnson in dealing with Adler. Johnson's resentment, as ex- pressed in his remarks, was primarily directed against Adler rather than against management. While there may have been implicit in his remarks some criticism of the Company's alleged practice of paying discounts on house deals, such criticism, even if not justified, would seem to be no more than the voicing of a grievance against a manage- ment practice. It is clear from the record that grievances of a similar nature, such as protests against alleged discrimination in the allotment of cars, or with respect to the proper distribution of commissions be- tween salesmen who had both contacted the same prospect, were fre- 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD quently brought to the attention of management by salesmen, without incurring reprisals. Under all the circumstances, we find that the Adler incident was merely utilized as a pretext for Johnson's discharge, the true reason therefor being, as found above, his apparent responsibility for the filing of the "house deals" complaint and his action in signing a Teamsters' card. We find, therefore, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that Johnson's discharge violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. Order Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that: 1. South Tacoma Motor Co., Tacoma, Washington, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : (a) Cease and desist from encouraging membership in Automobile Salesmen Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Associa- tion, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, or discouraging membership in Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, or in any other labor organization of its employees by discharging, refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating against, them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment. (b) Depriving any of its salesmen of their legitimate allotment of cars or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,-affiliated with American Fed- eration of Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec- tively with representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any and all such ac- tivities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi- tion of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. (c) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (1) Offer to Tracy E. Johnson immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of wages he may have suffered as a result of the discrimi- nation against him, in the manner described in the Section of the In- termediate Report entitled "The Remedy." CALVIN GUTHRIE 371 (2) Upon request, make available to the Board for inspection and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due under this Order. (3) Post on its premises in Tacoma, Washington, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, Seattle, Washington, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent Company's authorized representative, be posted by the aforesaid Respondent Company immediately upon re- ceipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the aforesaid Respondent Company to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (4) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, Seattle, Washington, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent Company has taken to comply therewith. IT Is F JRTHER ORDERED that the remaining allegations of the com- plaint concerning violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act be, and they hereby are, dismissed. II. Calvin Guthrie, secretary-treasurer and business agent of Auto- mobile Salesmen Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Association, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, shall: (a) Cease and desist from threatening employees of South Tacoma Motor Co., Tacoma, Washington, and members of Automobile Sales- men Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Association, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, with loss of employ- ment, other reprisals, or loss of membership in Clerks Union if they join or assist Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization, and from restraining or coerc- ing said employees and said members in any like or related manner in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. (b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (1) Copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and 4 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words , "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof, the words , "A Decision and Order." If this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substi- tuted for the aforesaid words, "A Decision and Order ," the words, "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order " 227260-53-vol. 100-25 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD marked "Appendix B," 5 to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, Seattle, Washington, shall, immediately upon receipt, thereof, be duly signed by Calvin Guthrie, and shall be posted :ind maintained by him for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places in the local business office of Automobile Sales- men Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Association at Tacoma, Washington, where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by him to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. (2) Additional copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report,'and marked "Appendix B," to be furnished by the aforesaid Regional Director, shall be signed by Calvin Guthrie and shall be forthwith returned by him to the said Regional Director. The notices shall then be posted, Respondent Company willing, on the bulletin board of South Tacoma Motor Co., where notices to employees are customarily posted, and shall remain posted for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter. (3) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps Respondent Guthrie has taken to comply therewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint concern- ing violations of Section 8 (b) (2) be, and they hereby are, dismissed. This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words , "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof, the words, "A Decision and Order." If this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substi- tuted for the aforesaid words, "A Decision and Order" the words , "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." Intermediate Report and Recommended Order STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon two separate charges duly filed by Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called Teamsters , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel and the Board ,, by the Regional Director of the Nineteenth Region ( Seattle, Washington), issued his consolidated complaint ' on September 21, 1951, against Calvin Guthrie, herein called Respondent Guthrie, and South Tacoma Motor Co., Tacoma , Washington, herein called Respondent Company, and collectively herein called Respondents, alleging that the Respondent Company had engaged in , and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136 , herein called the Act, and that Respondent Guthrie had engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 1 By order dated September 21, 1951, the aforesaid Regional Director consolidated Case No 19-CB-159 and Case No. 19-CA-364. CALVIN GUTHRIE 373 Copies of the consolidated complaint, charges, notice of hearing, and order of consolidation were duly served upon each * Respondent and upon Teamsters. With respect to the unfair labor practices of the Respondent Company, the complaint alleged in substance that (1) since on or about April 11, 1950,' the said Respondent engaged in certain acts and conduct and made certain state- ments which interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; and (2) discriminatorily dis- charged Tracy E. Johnson on October 3, and since that date has refused to reemploy him, because (a) Johnson had engaged in concerted activities with his coworkers for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, (b) Johnson had designated Teamsters to represent him as his col- lective bargaining representative and encouraged other employees of the Respond- ent Company to do likewise, and (c) Respondent Guthrie had requested Johnson's• discharge even though Respondent Company has reasonable grounds for believing that the discharge request was for reasons other than Johnson's failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership in Automobile Salesmen Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Association, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, herein called Clerks Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices of Respondent Guthrie, the complaint alleged in substance that he (a) on or about October 2, caused Respondent Com- pany to discharge Johnson, and thereafter refuse him reinstatement, for reasons other than Johnson's failure to tender his periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership in Clerks Union; (b) on or about September 27, engaged in surveillance of the Respondent Company's employees, and others' attendance at a Teamsters organizational meeting; and (c) since on or about September 27, threatened Respondent Com- pany's employees, and others, with expulsion from the Clerks Union should they authorize Teamsters to represent them as their collective bargaining represent- ative or should they become members of Teamsters. Each Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was duly held in Tacoma, Washington, from October 8 ,to 13, 1951, both dates inclusive, before the undersigned, the duly desig- nated Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, each Respondent, and Teamsters were represented by counsel. All parties participated,in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues. At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, counsel for Respondent Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint for lack of proof. De- cision thereo; was reserved. At the conclusion of the taking of the evidence, counsel for each Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. Decision was reserved. The motions are disposed of in accordance with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations hereinafter set forth. Oral argu- ment, in which counsel for all parties participated, was then had. The parties were then advised that they might file briefs with the undersigned on or before October 31, 1951. A brief has been received from counsel for the for the Re- spondent Company which has been carefully considered by the undersigned. 2 Unless otherwise noted, all dates refer to 1950. 8 At the request of counsel for the Respondent Company, the time was extended to November 9. 1951. 374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL .LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE ]BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY - South Tacoma Motor Co., a Washington corporation , has-its principal offices and place of business in Tacoma , Washington, where it is engaged in the sale and service of new Chevrolet automobiles and trucks and in the sale of used automobiles, trucks, automotive parts, accessories , and equipment. The Respond- cut Company's annual sales, particularly those of 1950 , exceed $1,000,000. The said Respondent operates under, and by virture of, a franchise or sale agreement granted to it by General Motors Corporation , Chevrolet Division. All the new Chevrolet automobiles and trucks purchased by Respondent Company are shipped to its premises from a General Motors Corporation plant located in the, State of Oregon. Upon the above undisputed facts, the undersigned finds that the Respondent Company is , and during all times material herein was, engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. The undersigned further finds that it will ef- fectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction over the Respondents. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Auto- mobile Salesmen Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Associa- tion, each affiliated with American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the Respondent Company. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background 4 'During all times material herein, the Clerks Union, of which Respondent Guthrie has been its secretary-treasurer and business agent since January 1947, and the Tacoma Automobile Dealers Association, Inc., herein called the Asso- ciation, of which Respondent Company has been a member for many years, have had a contract or contracts affecting, among other things, the wages, hours, and working conditions of the employees of the individual members of the Asso- ciation. In the latter part of March or early in April 1950, Tracy E. Johnson, a sales- Man for the Respondent Company, telephoned to Respondent Guthrie and re- quested a copy of the current contract between the Clerks Union and the Asso- 4 Since the events detailed in this section occurred 6 months prior to the service of the charges upon the Respondents herein they do not constitute unfair labor practices They are material and relevant, however, to a consideration of the Respondents', especially that qR Respondent Company's, subsequent conduct and practices and to a determination of the issues raised by the pleadings herein regarding events which transpired within the permis- sive period. Cf N. L. R. B. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc, 303 U. S 261; N. L. R B. v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc, 303 U. S. 272; N. L. R. B. v. Newport News Shipbuilding d Dry Dock Co., 308 U S. 241. The same procedure has been followed, with judicial approval, in considering unfair labor practices of labor organizations under the amended Act, which under the original Act were not unfair labor practices. N. L. R. B. v. Local 74, 181 F. 2d 126 (C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B. v. National Maritime Union of America, 175 F. 2d 686 (C. A. 2). 'CALVIN GUTHRIE '375 ciation. When Guthrie inquired the reason for the request, Johnson replied that the Respondent Company's salesmen believed that they were not receiving their full share of the "house deals." a Guthrie then asked if Johnson wanted to file a formal complaint. The latter replied that he was not ready to do so, at that time.' Guthrie then stated that be would supply Johnson with a copy of the contract. A few days later, Guthrie called at the Respondent Company' s premises and informed Glenn W. Jaques, Respondent Company's then new-car sales man- ager, that he had some papers for Johnson and since Johnson was not there, asked whether he could leave the papers with Jaques. Jaques declined to accept the papers and suggested that Guthrie put them in Johnson's desk. Guthrie -then stated, according to Jaques' credited testimony, "the salesmen were wise to the house deals, and something should be done about it"; when Jaques asked Guthrie "to elaborate" the latter said, "Well, so you might as well go ahead and pay off on the deals now, and then pull it back to some $15, $20, or $25, as a token payment per month per salesman in the future" ; and after Jaques advised Guthrie to take the matter up with General Manager Guy K. Sheehan, Guthrie went to Johnson's desk, deposited some papers therein, and left the premises.' Several days after he received and read the contract, and after discussing the house deal clause with some of his coworkers, Johnson telephoned Guthrie and told him that, in his opinion, the Respondent Company was not correctly living up to the terms of the contract respecting the house deals and requested Guthric, to take the necessary action with respect thereto. In reply to Guthrie's inquiry as to whether he desired to file a formal complaint, Johnson replied in the affirmative. Pursuant to arrangements made by and between Guthrie and Sheehan, a meet- ing of all the salesmen, Sheehan, and Guthrie was had on the night of April 6. Bill Leak, a representative of the Industrial Conference Board, was present at Sheehan's request. There, after a lengthy discussion of the contract's house deal clause between Sheehan, Leak, and Guthrie,' it was finally agreed that the manner in which the Respondent Company was interpreting the clause was erroneous and that in the future it would accept the Clerks Union's interpretation with which interpretation Leak concurred. The salesmen, after taking a vote among 'themselves outside the presence of Guthrie, Sheehan, and Leak, stated that the agreement' was satisfactory to them. During the course of the aforesaid meeting, Sheehan asked Guthrie, according to credited testimony of Johnson and salesman Kenneth Hopper, what salesman "'House deals" means automobiles and trucks sold by management. Pursuant to the ternrs of the Association and Clerks Union contract, management was to prorate the cony missions made on the said sales among the salesmen in the employ of the respective dealer over and above three sales if the dealer employed three or more salesmen. Other provisions for the division of the commissions are set forth in the contract when the dealer has lets than three salesmen. 9 Johnson testified that he desired to read the contract before deciding whether he should request Guthrie to take action. ' Guthrie denied that he made the above-quoted statements attributed to hint by Jaques. The undersigned rejects Guthrie 's denials Jaques impressed the undersigned as a credible and forthright witness. Furthermore, according to Johnson's credited testimony, Jaques told him, during a conversation he had with Jaques about the contract , that on the day Guthrie put the contract in his desk Guthrie remarked to Jaques, "the boys were wise to the house deals and [management] had better divvy up on a few of them for a couple of months, and then they might get by on $25 or $30 a month." 8 From time to time, Johnson and several other salesmen expressed their thoughts about the matter under discussion. 9 The agreement was to pay the salesmen a pro rata share of the commissions on all house deals over three and the payments were to be made retroactive to March 1. 376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD made the complaint about the house deals but Guthrie refused to reveal that person's identity. Sheehan also remarked that, according to Johnson's credited testimony,10 if his interpretation of the contract was erroneous then he might departmentalize the salesmen; that is, place two salesmen exclusively selling new cars, two exclusively selling used cars, and the other two exclusively selling new and used trucks." B. Interference, restraint, and coercion by Respondent Company; Johnson's discriminatory discharge About a week or 10 days after the afore-mentioned meeting of April 6, Sheehan Instructed Jaques to keep a closer check on the salesmen and to see that they did not congregate nor engage in "bull sessions." Jaques testified, and the undersigned finds, that during a course of several conversations he had with Sheehan'12 Sheehan asked him who asked Guthrie for a copy of the collective bargaining contract and "what salesman or salesmen filed the formal complaint with Guthrie ; that he replied that he did not know ; that Sheehan stated that his belief was that Pevey or Johnson was "the trouble- maker"; that Sheehan stated he suspected Pevey or Johnson as the person who questioned Sheehan's interpretation of the contract's house deals clause ; that Sheehan also said that as soon as it was ascertained who actually made the complaint, "they would be dealt with accordingly" ; and that Sheehan further remarked that in the future, Sheehan exclusively would allocate the cars among the salesmen 12 Jaques further testified that "the first thing in retaliation" Sheehan ordered all salesmen to work at the Respondent Company's place of business every Saturday ; 11 that Sheehan discriminated against Pevey and Johnson in the allotment of cars;" that on many occasions Sheehan sought to elicit from him the name of the person who was responsible for lodging the complaint with Guthrie about the house deals ; and that Sheehan continued to believe it was either Johnson or Pevey who had filed the complaint; and that on occasions Sheehan would suggest that probably two other named salesmen were responsible for filing the complaint 1e On September 25, Sheehan and several other officials of the Respondent Com- pany held their usual monthly meeting 14 with the salesmen. Normally, these 101n the main, salesman Dallas Pevey's version of Sheehan's remarks about depart- mentalizing the salesmen is substantially in accord with Johnson's testimony. 11 By so doing, the salesnren's commissions would, by necessity, suffer because those selling new cars would not be in a position to sell trucks or used cars, those selling trucks would be prohibited from selling new or used cars, and the used-car salesmen could not sell either trucks or new cars. 12 These talks took place over a period of a few days. The record indicates, and the undersigned finds, that these talks started about a week or 10 days after the April 6 meeting. 13 Up to that time, Jaques and Sheehan jointly allocated the cars. 14 Prior thereto the salesmen worked "on the floor" every other Saturday, except during the period of about a week each year when the new models were being displayed. 10 Pevey testified credibly and without contradiction that after noticing that for several months he and Johnson were not receiving their full quota of cars, he complained to Jaques about the matter and that thereafter he received his normal quota but Johnson did not. Pevey further credibly testified that he advised Johnson to complain to Jaques about not receiving his share of cars, but that Johnson refused to do so because Johnson felt that he did not care to fight over the division of cars 10 Hopper credibly testified that a few days after the meeting of April 6, Jaques told him the "management was out to get the man that turned in the complaint on the house ,deal " 11 Counsel referred to these meetings as "monthly meetings" although they were not regularly held each month. CALVIN GUTHRIE 377 meetings were confined exclusively to discussions regarding the sales end of the Respondent Company's business. At this particular meeting, however, a lengthy talk was given by Sheehan and another official regarding the merits and advantages of the Respondent Company's collective bargaining contract compared with the contracts then in force covering automobile salesmen in other areas in the State of Washington, including the Seattle, Washington, contract which Teamsters then had with the automobile dealers of that city 13 According to Hopper's credible testimony, Sheehan closed his remarks by stating, "the contract we were working under was the best working agreement the auto- mobile salesmen in Tacoma had ever enjoyed; that if [the salesmen] didn't think along that same line, that [the salesmen] should not be in the automobile business."" On September 27 Teamsters held an organizational meeting at its Tacoma, Washington, hall which was attended by some of the Respondent Company's salesmen.` On September 30 most of the Respondent Company's salesmen and their respective wives attended a party given at the home of salesman James Roberts. Jaques and his wife, although he was no longer in the employ of the Respondent Company, also attended. During the course of the evening, the subject of unions was discussed . There was also a discussion regarding the Taft-Hartley Act, the merits of the Teamsters' Seattle contract, and the fact that Teamsters was soliciting signatures from among the Tacoma automobile salesmen to certain cards in order to secure a Board-conducted election. When it was revealed that all the salesmen present, except Johnson and Henry Peterson, had previously signed Teamsters' cards, Johnson asked for, and received from Hopper, a Team- sters' card. Johnson thereupon signed the card and handed it to Hopper. Peterson declined to sign. On October 2, the first workday following the Roberts' party, Sheehan ad- dressed the salesmen's daily sales meeting,21 and then told them, among other things, that Clerks Union was holding a special meeting on October 4. Sheehan also told the salesmen, according to Pevey's credible testimony, that an official of the Clerk's Union would attend, that the salesmen should attend because "several things" would probably be clarified at this meeting." Jaques testified that on the day before the Roberts' party, he was at the place of business of the Respondent Company and saw Vice President C. W. Wallerich; that during his conversation with Wallerich, he told Wallerich, among other things, that since leaving the employ of the Respondent Company," he had been employed only for approximately 5 weeks ; that Wallerich responded, "Well, per- is At the time of this meeting , Teamsters was attempting to organize the Tacoma, Washington, automobile salesmen. In his remarks, Sheehan did not specifically allude to the Seattle contract. The other official, however , did so. The record reveals , and the undersigned finds, that the Seattle contract was more advantageous , from the salesmen's point of view, than the Respondent Company's. 19 Pevey's account of Sheehan 's closing remarks are in substantial accord with Hopper's version thereof. 20 This meeting is discussed more fully below. 21 These meetings are usually conducted by the new -car sales manager. Only occasionally does Sheehan attend. 22 Hopper credibly testified that at the October 2 sales meeting Sheehan also said that in case a vote was taken at the October 4 Clerks Union meeting the salesmen should vote according to their desires "so that nothing would be put over" on them. Johnson, Pevey, and Hopper each testified , and the undersigned finds, that he did not know that the Clerks Union had called a meeting for October 4, until he was so informed by Sheehan on October 2 23 Jaques voluntarily quit the Respondent Company's employ about July 1, 1950. 378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD haps you could use your bonus," . . . I will get the records together, and if you come on back tomorrow we will see if we can get together" ; that he returned the next day ; that Wallerich was engaged at the moment ; that Wallerich re- quested that he wait until he was free ; that he told Wallerich he would return "the first of the week" ; and that when he saw Wallerich shortly before noon on Monday, October 2, the following ensued : , The opening statement by Mr. Wallerich was that in checking he found business was not as good as he had anticipated. This left a little lull, and the general conversation followed, which turned into a practical discussion of a change of heart regarding the bonus. And Mr. Wallerich then stated emphatically that he had heard things that he could not attribute to me, lead- ing into a conversation regarding the house party at Jim Roberts' house. He seemed to be very well informed as to the conversations that had transpired, and we again got into a discussion of the Taft-Hartley Act, which we had discussed prior to my employment, and the sum and substance of the meeting was that time would tell whether I was to receive a bonus or not 26 * * * * * Naturally in the conversation in regard to the house party various names were mentioned, and more prominently that of Tracy Johnson, and I assured Mr. Wallerich to the best of my knowledge that due to the fact that I did not know who had requested the copy of the contract, that I did not believe that Tracy Johnson had ; and we talked about that for some period of time. He seemed to have more information than I did, so naturally we talked in generalities. * * * * s I told Mr. Wallerich that I had been contacted by [Teamsters to help organize the Tacoma automobile salesmen] and had refused. * * * * He said he had been informed that I was' the one behind all of the . . . union activities . . . but that he could not believe it.. . . Wallerich's testimony regarding Jaques consists mainly of a complete denial of Jaques' testimony. Specifically, he denied knowing of the Roberts' party of September 30, until Sheehan told him about it sometime in November ; that he did not discuss with Jaques on or before October 2, the invitation extended to Jaques by Teamsters to aid its organizational drive ; 2' that Jaques never made any reference to, or mention of, attending the Roberts' September 30 party in any conversation he had with Jaques; and that he never told Jaques that he knew "all about [the Roberts'] party." As found above, Jaques was a credible and honest witness. It was evident to the undersigned that Wallerich, while he was on the witness stand, was with- holding the true facts regarding this case. Under the circumstances, the under- signed finds Jaques' versions of what transpired in his talks with Wallerich on September 29, 30, and October 2 Y to be substantially in accord with the facts. 14 Jaques had an agreement with the Respondent Company whereby he was to receive a year-end bonus as new-car sales manager ; that he received such compensation in January 1950, based upon the amount of business done in 1949. According to his testi- mony, it was his understanding that he would receive a bonus based upon the amount of business done during the first 6 months of 1950. 26 At the time of the hearing, Jaques had not received the 1950 bonus. 26 Wallerich testified that he discussed this matter with Jaques sometime in the spring of 1951. 27 Wallerich did not deny that he conversed with Jaques on the above-mentioned dates CALVIN GUTHRIE 379 About 10 or 10: 30 on the morning of October 2, Sheehan and Johnson became involved in an argument about a car owned by a man named Adler. The car had been wrecked and that morning it had been towed into the Respondent Company's service station. It seems that Johnson had attempted, sometime previous to October 2, to sell a car to young Adler, but could not do so because the young man was under the age of 21. At the time Johnson spoke to young Adler about the purchase of a car, Johnson suggested that the car be purchased by the young man's father. The father did purchase the car but did so through Wallerich. By §o purchasing the car, Johnson received no commission on the deal. This per- turbed Johnson, but he made no mention of his feelings to anyone connected with the Respondent Company until the day the car was brought into the service station badly wrecked. The record is clear that Johnson and Sheehan engaged in a very heated argument over the car, that Sheehan resented Johnson's insinua- tions that the Respondent Company cheated Johnson out of the deal and had sold the car to Adler at a discount. Early in the afternoon of the same day, October 2, Sheehan informed Wallerich of his argument with Johnson and advised Wallerich that he "had made up" his mind to discharge Johnson. Wallerich, according to Sheehan, replied, "You are the manager of the place. Do what you wish to do." 28 After discussing the Johnson matter with Wallerich, Sheehan telephoned Guthrie, told him about Johnson's remarks of that morning, and then advised Guthrie that he had decided to discharge Johnson. Sheehan testified that Guthrie neither approved nor disapproved of the contemplated action2B Guthrie, on the other hand , testified that after Sheehan told him about Johnson 's remarks and the decision to discharge Johnson, he replied, "Okay, Mr. Sheehan. Remem- ber, I will see Tracy, there are two sides to every story. And I hung up." Johnson credibly testified that on the morning of October 3, he was alone in the office of the new-car sales manager ; that he overhead a conversation between Sheehan and Wallerich ; that he heard either Sheehan or Wallerich mention his name and Hopper's name ; that he heard Wallerich ask Sheehan whether Guthrie or Guthrie's union had been notified ; and that apparently Sheehan answered in the affirmative for Wallerich then said, "Well, go ahead and let Johnson go, and we will see what happens, or we will see what comes about." Johnson further credibly testified that upon leaving the office of the' new-car sales manager, he told Fred Hoiland, the used-car manager, that he overheard Sheehan and Wal- lerich discuss his probable discharge; that Holland said, "Well, maybe I can find out something about it"; and that Holland departed, remained away about 10 minutes, and when he returned he merely shook his head without making any comment. That afternoon, October 3, Sheehan discharged Johnson. On the night of October 4, Johnson attended the special meeting of the Clerks Union, which, as found above, Sheehan suggested that the Respondent Company's salesmen attend. There, Johnson informed International Representative Paul Hanson, who presided at the meeting, of his discharge. Hanson referred him to 28 Sheehan testified that this conversation with Wallerich lasted about 15 or 30 minutes. Wallerich testified, "Mr Sheehan came into my office and told me what he had planned on doing I suppose more or less to see whether I had any objection to it, and I told him that I saw no reason why he shouldn't go ahead with what he said he wanted to do; and that was the end of it. As I [testified] the other day, I was very involved in other transactions , and I didn't want to be bothered with this , putting it in a blunt way." Wallerich further testified, "I didn't talk to [Sheehan] very long about it." 2e Sheehan testified that he called Guthrie before he actually discharged Johnson in order to obtain Guthrie's "clearance" although he knew that clearance was not necessary since the contract with Guthrie's union permitted discharges without consultation with, or approval of, the said union. 380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR .RELATIONS BOARD Guthrie. Johnson then told Guthrie that he had been discharged and asked Guthrie if he could help him. Guthrie replied , "Well, I don't know as there is anything I can do, but what is your story ." Johnson then told Guthrie, in the presence of two officers of the Clerks Union, his version of what transpired between him. arid Sheehan on October 2. Guthrie then stated , to quote Johnson, "he did not know what he could do about it ; that Mr . Sheehan had told him that I had made some kind of remark . . . about that I wished a man had got killed." On October 5 or 6, Guthrie and Johnson again met . Johnson asked Guthrie whether the latter "had done anything" about his discharge, to which query Guthrie replied in the negative. Johnson then asked Guthrie if he would help him collect $49.19 due him from the Respondent Company. Guthrie replied that he would not, adding that Johnson should seek the aid of Teamsters. When Johnson insisted that it was Guthrie's duty to help collect the money, and not Teamsters, Guthrie remarked, "Don't kid me. You have already been there." When Johnson realized that it would avail him nought to argue further with Guthrie, he said, "Oh, skip it, I will pay my dues." Guthrie replied, "I can't accept them. You have got to take . . . this withdrawal card." Guthrie there- upon reached into his pocket, took out a withdrawal card bearing Johnson's name, dated October 2, and handed it to Johnson. Upon the entire record in the case, as epitomized above, the undersigned is convinced, and finds, that Johnson was discharged on October 3, and thereafter refused reinstatement , because he had filed the house deals complaint with Guthrio and because he had signified on September 30, by signing a 'teamsters card, that he preferred to have Teamsters represent him rather than the Clerks Union. The credible evidence clearly shows , as summarized above, Sheehan's hostility toward Teamsters and his unmistakable preference for Clerks Union. Sheehan's feelings with respect to these two unions was brought about, no doubt, by the realization that if the salesmen repudiated Clerks Union and affiliated themselves with Teamsters, the Respondent Company would be faced with the demand for a collective bargaining contract similar in terms to the contract Teamsters had with the Seattle, Washington, automobile dealers. Sheehan did not want to be faced with such a demand, and with the ensuing possibility of hav- ing to execute such a contract, and therefore attempted to nip in the bud the sales- men's campaign to change affiliation by discharging Johnson, a known Teamsters advocate, so as to demonstrate to Johnson 's coworkers that adherence to Team- sters might lead to their discharges . The undersigned also finds that Johnson's remarks to Sheehan on October 2, although reprehensive in nature, was not the motivating reason for Johnson's discharge, but they were merely seized upon by the Respondent Company as a pretext. Accordingly the undersigned finds by that discharging Tracy Johnson on October 3, 1950, the Respondent Company violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act, thereby interfering with, restrain- ing, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 thereof. The undersigned further finds that, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, the Respondent Company (1) compelled all its salesmen to work on its premises on Saturdays because the said salesmen engaged in protected concerted activities by having the Clerks Union require Respondent Company to comply with the terms of its collective bargaining contract with respect to house deals, and (2) discriminated for a period of time against Johnson and Pevey in allotting cars to them because the Respondent Company suspected Johnson or Pevey, or both, of filing the house deals complaint with Guthrie's union. CALVIN GUTHRIE C. Restraint and coercion by Guthrie 381 Dick Sifford, a member of Clerks Union and a salesman employed by a Tacoma automobile dealer. other than the Respondent Company, credibly testified that (,n or about, September 20, another automobile salesman, named Beachwood, circulated a petition30 among some Tacoma automobile salesmen "requesting the Teamsters Union to become [the Tacoma salesmen's] future representa- tive" ; that about an hour after Beachwood had requested him and several others to sign the petition, Guthrie approached him and "several of the boys" e. and said, among other things, to quote Sifford, "It is too bad that the circulation [of the petition] was made by [Beachwood] ... anybody , . . found out that had signed those things, might as well look for a new job in the future, because they, would be out of [the] union." On September 27, Teamsters held an organizational meeting at the Teamsters Hall in Tacoma, Washington. As soon as Guthrie became aware that such a meeting was to be held, he admittedly attempted to communicate with the various members of the executive board and the trustees of the Clerks Union in order to inform them of the scheduled meetings' Boucher credibly testified that Guthrie telephoned him on September 27, told hint of the Teamsters meeting and then asked him "to go down and see who was: going to this meeting" ; that he informed Guthrie that he could not accompany Guthrie because of prior engagements ; and that on September 28 or 29, Guthrie: came into the place where he then was working and told him that anyone" who signed the Teamsters' petition, which was then being circulated among the Tacoma automobile salesmen, would "automatically [be] discharged out of their [en.ployment] and out of the union." Pevey credibly testified that he attended the September 27 Teamsters meeting;, that when he arrived at the Teamsters Hall, he saw Guthrie and Hyde "driving' up and down in front of the place" ; and that "at the end of the meeting [Guthrie] was parked opposite my automobile, which was sitting down a block away." Guthrie testified, and the undersigned finds, that he asked Hyde "to go with [him] clown there" ; that he and Hyde sat across the street from the Teamsters' Hall where "some of the cars were parked" ; that they recognized some of the persons who entered the Teamsters Hall ; and that he and Hyde remained in the vicinity of the Teamsters Hall until about 10: 30 that night. At the special October 4 Clerks Union meeting, which Sheehan advised Re- spondent Company's salesmen to attend and over which Hanson presided, a mem- ber complained from the floor that Guthrie had been threatening members with loss of their jobs if they supported the Teamsters organizational campaign. Hanson replied that no one would lose his job nor be expelled from Clerks Union for "signing a petition" for Teamsters. Even though Guthrie attended the, meeting, and presumably heard Hanson's statement that no one would lose his job nor be expelled from Clerks Union for aiding the Teamsters' campaign, Guthrie, nonetheless, about 2 or 3 weeks after the aforesaid meeting, stated to Hopper, according to the latter's credible testimony, "anyone that was known to have signed a [Teamster] petition could not be working in the City of Tacoma." The above recital of the credible evidence, coupled with Guthrie's above-sum-' marized admissions, leads to the inescapable conclusion that by Guthrie' s state- ment to Sifford on or about September 20, by his statements to Boucher on Sep- tember 28 or 29, by his statement to Hopper sometime in the latter part of Sifford described the petition as being a "little square piece of paper." si Two of the "several" were members of Clerks Union - ss Guthrie was able only to contact President Clarence Hyde and Trustee Joseph A. Boucher. 83 Presumably meaning any member of Clerks Union. 382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD October, and by keeping under surveillance the September 27 Teamster meeting," Guthrie infringed upon the Respondent Company's employees' rights as guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that by the above-referred-to statements and conduct Guthrie violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. The undersigned further finds, contrary to the General Counsel's contention, that Guthrie did not "cause or attempt to cause" Johnson's discharge. The record is clear, and the undersigned finds, that Sheehan had definitely decided to discharge Johnson before Sheehan spoke to Guthrie on October 2. Therefore, the undersigned will recommend that the allegations of the complaint that Guthrie caused or attempted to cause Johnson's discharge in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act, be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent Company and Respondent Guthrie, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the business operations of the Respondent Company, set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and such of them as have been found to be unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent Company and Respondent Guthrie have engaged in unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that they, and each of them, cease and desist therefrom and take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. Since it has been found that Respondent Company discriminatorily discharged Tracy E. Johnson on October 3, 1950, and thereafter refused to reinstate him, because he had engaged in protected and concerted activities with his fellow workers, as more fully set forth above, it will be recommended that Respondent Company offer Tracy E. Johnson immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and that the said Respondent Company make whole Tracy E. Johnson for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by payment to him of a sum of money equivalent to the amount he normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of his discharge to the date of Respondent Company's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period. Back pay shall be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company ui The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by the Respondent Company and Respondent Guthrie are of such character and scope that in order to insure the employees here involved their full rights guaranteed by the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent Company and Respondent Guthrie cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing the employees of Respondent Company and all members of Clerks Union " Since it has been found that the evidence does not support the allegations of the complaint that Respondent Guthrie caused or attempted to cause Respondent a} Boucher credibly testified, and without contradiction, that the night of the Teamsters' September 27 meeting, Guthrie telephoned him and asked him "to go down and see who was going to this meeting." 85,90 NLRB 289. 86 May Department Stores, etc., 326 U. S. 376. CALVIN GUTHRIE ' 383 Company to discharge Johnson, the undersigned will recommend that the allega- tions of the complaint with respect to this matter be dismissed. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and Automobile Salesmen Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Associa- tion, each affiliated with American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations .within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Tracy E. Johnson, thereby discouraging membership in Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, and encouraging membership in Automobile Salesmen Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Association, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, the Respondent Company has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Company has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. By threatening the members of Automobile Salesmen Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Association, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, and the employees of Respondent Company with discharge and expulsion from the said union if they assisted, joined, or supported Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, affiliated with the American Fed- eration of Labor, Respondent Guthrie has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 6. The Respondent Guthrie did not cause or attempt to cause the discharge of Tracy E. Johnson and, therefore, the said Respondent Guthrie did not violate Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] Appendix A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations 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 by reprisals or threats of reprisal interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist BAKERY DRIVERS AND SALESMEN LOCAL UNION No. 567, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD or TEAMSTERS , CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent ,384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that such right may be affected by an agreement which requires membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to TRACY E. JOHNSON immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by him and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against him. WE WILL NOT encourage membership in AUTOMOBILE SALESMEN UNION LOCAL No. 1048, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, or discourage membership in BAKERY DRIVERS AND SALESMEN LOCAL UNION No. 567, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, by discriminatorily discharging any of our employees or discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment All our employees are free to become or remain or refrain from becoming or remaining members of Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that such right ,may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. SOUTH TACOMA. MOTOR CO, Employer. Dated --------------------- By -------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) . This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Appendix B NOTICE To ALL MEMBERS OF AUTOMOBILE SALESMEN UNION LOCAL NO. 1048, RETAIL CLERKS 'INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFFILIATED WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION or LABOR Pursuant to the recommendations 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, I hereby notify you that : I WILL NOT threaten employees of SOUTH TACOMA MOTOR CO or any mem- ber of AUTOMOBILE SALESMEN UNION LOCAL No. 1048, RETAIL CLERKS INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, with loss of employment or other reprisals if they join or assist BAKERY DRIVERS AND SALESMEN LOCAL UNION No. 567, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,- WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, or any other labor organization. I WILL NOT in any like or related manner coerce said employees or said members in violation of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Dated ------------------ CALVIN GUTHRIE. ------------------------------------------ (Secretary -Treasurer ) ( Business Agent) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date .hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.