Associated Wholesale Grocery of Dallas, Inc.

ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE--GROCERY OF DALLAS, INC. 41 ing membership in the Union, the Respondents have engaged in and are ' engaging. in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (4) of the Act_ 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondents have not engaged in any unfair labor practices by reason of the termination of employment of Teroy Riggans, C. L. Vinson, Rubin Garza, and Perfecto Tey. 6. The Respondents have not engaged in any unfair labor practices by reason of conduct alleged in the complaint to have interfered with, restrained , or coerced employees except insofar as such conduct has been found hereinabove to have violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.? Associated Wholesale Grocery of Dallas, Inc. and -Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 745, AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-928. October 18, 1957 DECISION AND ORDER On December 10, 1956, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 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 copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- ceptions to the Intermediate Report. - The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner -at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, Respondent's exceptions, 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 that Respondent unlawfully discharged the economic strikers by its letter of August 29, 1956.. The intent of the letter, to advise the strikers that their employment terminated by their failure to return to work, is clearly apparent,, despite the attempt to shift the onus of severing the employment relationship upon the strikers. We do not expect an employer at the onset of a strike to measure each phrase in a communication to his strikers against Board prece- dents, but neither are we disposed to resolve every ambiguity, in- tentional or otherwise in such a letter, in the employer's favor. Re- spondent chose to tell its employees that their failure to report for work meant that their employment was ended. Only a close reading of the remainder of the letter makes it possible to decide that Re- 119 NLRB No. 9. 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spondent perhaps only meant to intimidate the strikers into returning to work. Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc., 108 NLRB 933, in which the Board refused to find an employer's letter to economic strikers to be a dis- charge, is distinguishable on its facts.' In the instant case, Respond- ent made it plain that any employee who did not return by August 29 would be reemployed only upon written application, thus creating an inference, not present in Kerrigan, that a new employment relation would be established for those who returned after the deadline date. Furthermore, the Respondent here effectuated the threat of its dis- charge letter by paying the strikers off for all work done before the strike, thereby ensuring that any rehirings would be on a new and different basis. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Associated Whole- sale Grocery of Dallas, Inc., Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in, or activity on behalf of, Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 745, AFL- CIO, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by dis- charging, refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. (b) Threatening to discharge employees for engaging in protected, concerted activities. (c) 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 Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 745, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to the employees listed in Appendix A, attached hereto, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially ' While agreeing that the Kerrigan case is distinguishable on its facts, Member Murdock notes that he found the employer's letter in that case also to constitute a discharge. ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERY OF DALLAS, INC. 43 equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report en- titled "The Remedy." (b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records, social-security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the right of re- instatement under the terms of this Order. (c) Post in conspicuous places at its Dallas, Texas, warehouse, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B." 2 Copies Of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Six- teenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's au- thorized representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. MEMBERS RODGERS and BEAN , dissenting : If our colleagues of the majority, in finding an unlawful discharge here, had decided to overrule Kerrigan Iron WVorks, Inc., supra, we would still dissent but we would nevertheless understand the logic of their position. By distinguishing this case from Kerrigan in most superficial aspects, the majority not only reaches what we believe to be an incorrect result, but does so through a rationale which makes it impossible to predict what the Board will decide in any other similar situation. Summaries of the facts in these two cases will underscore their fundamental similarity. In Kerrigan, the employer sent the following letter during an eco- nomic strike : You are hereby notified that work will be available . . . April 23, 1952. You are notified to return on that date and failure to do so will be deemed an indication on your part that you do not desire reemployment in our plant, and your employment will thereupon be permanently terminated. No discrimination or hard feelings will be held against anyone and there will be no change in seniority, wage rates, vacation pay, In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted before the words , "A Decision and Order," the words, "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." 44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD holiday pay, or your life insurance and hospitalization for you and your family. So if you want to work for us, your job will be here Wednesday for you to report to. The parties stipulated that the employer treated this letter as a termi- nation notice to the strikers, and that no other termination notice wasp issued to those employees who did not return. On or before the dead- line date, 35 strikers returned to work. After the deadline, 18 strikers returned, of whom 14, whose jobs had not yet been filled, were. rein- stated. In the instant case, Respondent's warehouse employees went out on strike on August 27, 1956, after negotiations over economic issues broke down. That day, Respondent sent the following letter to each of the strikers : You have walked off your job and refused to work without the Company's consent. Unless you return to work at your regular time on Wednesday, August 29, 1956, your employment with this Company is termi- nated and your former job will be permanently filled. None of the strikers had returned by August 29, and on that date, Respondent sent another letter to its employees reading as follows : On August 27th the company wrote you that you had walked off your job without permission and refused to work, and that if you did not return to work by Wednesday, August 29th, at the regular time your employment would be terminated and your former job permanently filled. You failed to report for work and your employment is termi- nated. Enclosed find the company's check for work done by you before you walked off your job. The company will now hire new employees to permanently fill the job you and others held with the company before the strike. If, promptly after the strike ends, or sooner if you desire, you wish to be re-employed by the company you should make written application to the company. If, at the time of such application, your former job has not been permanently filled, the company will re-employ you to work at your former job upon the same terms and conditions of your former employment. Thereafter, on various dates between September 10 and Novem- ber 13, 1956, the day preceding the hearing herein, 12 of the strikers returned and, as far as the record shows, were reinstated without discrimination. The strike was still in effect on the hearing date, but as of that date, every striker who requested reinstatement had been reinstated without loss of seniority or other employment rights pre- viously enjoyed. ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERY OF DALLAS, INC. 45 The majority relies on two items which it believes distinguish Kerrigan from this case. They relate to inferences to be drawn from the wording of the letters rather than from the total strike situation of which the letters are a part. Thus, the majority points to phrases in Respondent's letter of August 29, which imply that the strikers would only be reemployed after they had made written applications. We believe that this places an unwarranted emphasis upon a phrase which can as reasonably be interpreted to mean that when the strike ends the employees whose jobs had not been permanently filled would be reinstated. That this is a more logical interpretation of the entire communication from Respondent, appears from the last sentence. of the letter in which each striker is told that if his job has not been permanently filled he will be reemployed "upon the same terms and conditions" of his former employment. The letter contains no threats of loss of seniority or of those fringe benefits such as insurance or hospitalization which are normally disrupted when a break in em- ployment tenure occurs. Moreover, we note that the letter sent to the strikers in the Kerrigan case also speaks of permanent termination upon failure to return as an indication that the strikers do not desire "reemployment." Secondly, the majority sees a significant difference between Kerrigan and this case in that the Respondent here mailed each striker a check in payment for services performed before the strike. We fail to see in what respect it is discriminatory to pay strikers what they have already earned. It would be much more reasonable, in our opinion, to find that failure to pay the strikers for work already performed was discriminatory. But in any event, the distinctions drawn by our majority colleagues between Kerrigan and this case, invalid as they appear to us, are nevertheless of little importance when contrasted with the basic similarity of these two matters. Notwithstanding that the Em- ployer's letter in Kerrigan referred to permanent termination of the strikers if they did not return by the deadline date, the majority decision in that case found that the letter was only one element of the Employer's conduct, and that its subsequent reinstatement of all strikers who applied after the deadline, without discrimination, negates any inferences which the letter may have raised. What the employer did in Kerrigan, the Respondent did here. From the date of the strike to the date of the hearing, a period of 21/2 months, Respondent reinstated every striker who wished to return, without discrimination. Respondent endeavored to induce the strikers to return by sending the letters of August 27 and August 29, and insofar as it was successful, Respondent fulfilled its obligation to reinstate them upon the terms and conditions previously in effect. Therefore, because this case, in our opinion, is squarely in accord on its facts 46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc., and because we cannot attach to certain phrases of the August 29 letter the paramount importance which the majority does in overriding Respondent's other conduct, we would reverse the Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions, and dismiss the Section 8 (a) (3) allegations of the complaint. APPENDIX A (Employees Who Received the Discharge Letter of August 29) B. R. Watkins Celestus Smith R. M. Taylor Stanley Prda B. A. Riley J. D. Barnes Travis Martin J. W. Young Albert Bell T. W. Jones K. O. Lasater Billy Gene Dugger Y. G. Lopez John Kennedy C. R. Johnson Geo. Mikuda Robert E. McCullough Billy Thorp Herman Moore Chas. L. Reed Earnest Wilpitz W. B. Neely H. Al. Ables James N. Schoonover Calvin Perry Forest L. Johnson C. E. Hines Don L. Poindexter L. D. Folsom Garland Mack W. L. Headrick Clarence Dodd Alex Smith Raymond Johnson J. R. Bunch, Jr. Leon Lee, Jr. John Vargas Clifford Beamon Bobby Jackson E. P. Ybarra Tommy J. Thomas APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 discourage membership in or activity in behalf of Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 745, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization of our em- ployees, by discharging, refusing to reinstate or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge for engag- ing in protected, concerted activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self -organiza- tion, to form, join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERY OF DALLAS, INC. 47 or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to the following named employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without 'prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as the result of our discrimination against them : B. R. Watkins Forest L. Johnson T. W. Jones J. R. Bunch, Jr. Herman Moore R. M. Taylor Don L. Poindexter Billy Gene Dugger John Vargas Earnest Wilpitz B. A. Riley Garland Mack John Kennedy Bobby Jackson H. M. Ables Travis Martin Clarence Dodd Geo. Mikuda Tommy J. Thomas Calvin Perry Albert Bell Raymond Johnson Billy Thorp Celestus Smith C. E. Hines K. 0. Lasater Leon Lee, Jr. Chas. L. Reed Stanley Prda L. D. Folsom Y. G. Lopez Clifford Beamon W. B. Neely J. D. Barnes W. L. Headrick C. R. Johnson E. P. Ybarra James N. Schoonover J. W. Young Alex Smith Robert E. McCullough ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERY OF DALLAS, INC., 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. INTERMEDIATE REPORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE Charges having been duly filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing thereon having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, and an answer having been filed by the above -named Respondent, a hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein 48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD called the Act, was held in Dallas, Texas, on November 14, 1956, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. As to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleges and the answer denies that the Respondent : ( 1) on August 27, 1956, threatened to discharge all employees who had joined a strike which began that day; (2) on August 29, 1956, discriminatorily, and to discourage concerted and union activities, discharged employees listed in Appendix A, attached hereto; (3) by such conduct prolonged the strike of its em- ployees; and (4) by such conduct interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. At the hearing all parties were represented , were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue orally upon the record , and to file briefs, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. General Counsel argued orally. A brief has been received from the Respondent. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the one witness, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Associated Wholesale Grocery of Dallas, Inc ., is a Texas corporation, having its principal office and place of business in Dallas, Texas, where it is engaged in the purchase, sale, and distribution of groceries and related products at wholesale. During the 12-month period immediately before the hearing, the Respondent purchased such products valued at more than $ 17,000,000, of which total more than $6,800,000 worth were shipped in interstate commerce to its Dallas warehouse from points outside the State of Texas. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Dallas General Drivers , Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 745, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 1 During the late summer of 1956 the Respondent and the Charging Party failed to agree upon terms of a contract . At the beginning of the workday on August 27, a strike of the Respondent's warehouse employees began. There is no claim that the strike was caused by the employer's unfair labor practices. It is therefore found that at its beginning the strike was economic in nature, and as such was protected, concerted activities. The same day, August 27, the Respondent, by its general manager, J. D. Simril, sent to each of the striking employees the following letter: You have walked off your job and refused to work without the Company's consent. Unless you return to work at your regular time on Wednesday, August 29, 1956, your employment with this Company is terminated , and your former job will be permanently filled. This letter was received by the 36 employees listed in Appendix B, attached hereto. On August 29, Simril sent the following letter. It was received by the employees listed in Appendix A, attached hereto. On August 27th the company wrote you that you had walked off your job without permission and refused to work, and that if you did not return to work by Wednesday, August 29th, at the regular time your employment would be terminated and your former job permanently filled. You failed to report for work and your employment is terminated. Enclosed find the company's check for work done by you before you walked off your job. The company will now hire new employees to permanently fill the job you and others held with the company before the strike. If, promptly after the strike ends, or sooner if you desire, you wish to be re-employed by the company you should make written application to the com- ' All of the essential facts found in this section were introduced into the record by way of stipulation of the parties. ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERY OF DALLAS, INC. 49 pany. If, at the time of such application, your former job has not been permanently filled, the company will re-employ you to work at your former job upon the same terms and conditions of your former employment. After receipt of the above letter, 12 of the striking employees returned to work. These 12, and the dates they returned, are listed in Appendix C. As a witness, General Manager Simril testified, and it is found, that he hired no new employees, as replacement for the strikers, between August 27 and 29. Actually, none were hired "permanently" for 45 days after August 27. There can be little question, it appears to the Trial Examiner, that the employer's letter of August 27 threatened with immediate discharge all strikers who did not return by August 29. The language is clear and unmistakable. From it no striker could reasonably gather that the employer had filled the vacancy caused by his participating in an economic strike and therefore he might not be able to get his job back. The deadline is explicit: if he did not report at the time set, he was "terminated." Additional proof that the threat was real and not merely a plea is found in the fact that it was literally carried out an August 29. The employees' final paycheck was therein enclosed. He was fired. The latter letter also makes it plain that the employer had not, until that date, hired replacements. The Trial Examiner concludes and finds: (1) By its letter of August 27 the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their right to engage in concerted activities, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act; and (2) by discharging employees for engaging in protected concerted activities, the Respondent thereby discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment to discourage union and concerted activities, within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. These findings and conclusions appear to find ample support in the case cited by General Counsel-United States Cold Storage Corp., 203 F. 2d 924, certiorari denied 346 U. S. 818-wherein the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said (at p. 927) : The Board . . . [held] that respondent's telegram . did not constitute a mere statement of respondent's right to replace economic strikers but actually operated as a notice of discharge to the striking employees to be effective 24 hours after its receipt if they had not by then reported back to their regular jobs. . . We think the Board was correct in its application of the law to the facts of the case. By striking in support of economic demands the employees clearly engaged in concerted activity for "mutual aid or protection" within the intend- ment of § 7 of the Act. . . They did not by striking in these circumstances cease to be employees and their discharge for engaging in the strike was ac- cordingly a violation of § 8 (a) (1) of the Act. N. L. R. B. v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Company, 304 U. S. 333, 347, 58 S. Ct. 904, 82 L. Ed. 1381. It is clear from the authorities that in a situation like the present the employer is free to hire replacements for the strikers at any time prior to their uncon- ditional request for reinstatement, but on the other hand the cases uniformly hold that it is an unfair labor practice to discharge economic strikers prior, as here, to the time their jobs are filled. Contrary to the contention of counsel for the Respondent in his able brief, the Trial Examiner does not consider that the cases therein cited are in point sufficiently to govern. It is further found that, with the exception of employees named in Appendix C, the employees discharged on August 29 have remained on strike up to and in- cluding the time of the hearing. Ample evidence supports General Counsel's allegation, and it is found, that the strike on and after August 29 was because of the discriminatory discharges on that date, and was prolonged by the Respondent's unfair labor practices. Sufficient and timely notification of the Union's claim in this respect is contained in the original charge in this case, filed on August 31 and immediately served upon the Respondent. In short, the strike, theretofore economic in nature, was on August 29 converted by the Respondent's illegal conduct on that date into an unfair labor practice strike. IV. THE 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 Respondent 's operations described in section 1, above, have a close, 476321-58-vol. 119--5 50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The policies of the Act require that the strikers who have not abandoned the strike and have not returned to work be offered immediate reinstatement with back pay. Because they continued on strike after they were discharged, the discharged strikers are entitled to back pay only from the date when they have indicated their desire to return to work under the conditions existent at the beginning of the strike by abandoning the strike or otherwise, rather than from the date of their discriminatory discharges, on the theory that the loss of wages could not conclusively be attributed to the discharges until the strikers have indicated their willingness to return to work. (See United States Cold Storage Corporation, 96 NLRB 1108, 1112.) There is no evidence in the record that, up to the date of the hearing in this matter, the aforementioned conditions for an award of back pay were present. The Trial Examiner will therefore recommend that the Respondent offer the strikers listed in Appendix A immediate and full reinstatement to their old or sub- stantially equivalent jobs, without loss of seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary to provide employment for the discharged strikers, any employees hired after August 29, 1956. (This offer should be made to all listed in Appendix A, despite the fact that, on various dates, those listed in Appendix C returned to work. The present state of the record does not disclose whether or not the former strikers, listed in Appendix C, were in fact reinstated to their former or substantially equivalent jobs, without loss of the rights abovementioned.) The Trial, Examiner will also recommend that the Respondent make whole the strikers listed in Appendix A for any loss of pay suffered by them by paying to each of them a sum of money equal to that which each normally would have earned from the date of the abandonment of the strike to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period, and in a manner consistent with Board policy as set out in F. W. Woolworth Company (90 NLRB 289) and Crossett Lumber Company (8 NLRB 440). It will further be recommended that the Respondent, upon reasonable request, make available to the Board and its agents all payroll and other records pertinent to an analysis of the amount due as back pay. Since the violations of the Act which the Respondent committed are persuasively related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the Respondent's conduct in the past, the preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted unless the recommenda- tions are coextensive with the threat. In order to make more effective the inter- dependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and thereby minimize industrial strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record as a whole, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 745, AFL-CIO, 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 em- ployees, as found herein, thereby discouraging membership in, and activity on behalf of, the above-named 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 interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in 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. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERY OF DALLAS, INC. APPENDIX A (Employees Who Received the Discharge Letter of August 29) 51 B. R. Watkins Celestus Smith R. M. Taylor Stanley Prda B. A. Riley J. D. Barnes Travis Martin J. W. Young Albert Bell T. W. Jones K. O. Lasater Billy Gene Dugger Y. G. Lopez John Kennedy C. R. Johnson Geo. Mikuda Robert E. McCullough Billy Thorp Herman Moore Chas. L. Reed Earnest Wilpitz W. B. Neely H. M. Ables James N. Schoonover Calvin Perry Forest L. Johnson C. E. Hines Don L. Poindexter L. D. Folsom Garland Mack W. L. Headrick Clarence Dodd Alex Smith Raymond Johnson J. R. Bunch, Jr. Leon Lee, Jr. John Vargas Clifford Beamon Bobby Jackson E. P. Ybarra Tommy J. Thomas APPENDIX B (Employees Who Received the Letter of August 27) Albert Bell Tommy J. Thomas John Kennedy Clifford Beamon Billy F. Thorp K. O. Lasater J. R. Bunch, Jr. B. R. Watkins Y. G. Lopez Clarence Dodd Earnest Wilpitz Robert E. McCullough L. D. Folsom J. W. Young George Mikuda W. L. Headrick Charles L. Reed Travis H. Martin C. E. Hines Stanley Prda Herman Moore C. R. Johnson H. M. Ables W. B. Neely Forest L. Johnson Raymond Johnson Calvin Perry B. A. Riley T. W. Jones Don L. Poindexter Celestus Smith Leon Lee, Jr. John Vargas R. M. Taylor J. D. Barnes E. P. Ybarra APPENDIX C (Strikers and Dates of Return to Work) B. R. Watkins____________ 11- 5-56 Billy Thorp______________ 9-15-56 T. W. Jones______________ 9-14-56 Leon Lee, Jr-------------- 9-10-56 W. L. Headrick ---------- 9-13-56 Bobby Jackson____________ 9-10-56 Raymond Johnson --------- 9-13-56 Calvin Perry_____________ 11-13-56 L. D. Folsom ------------ 9-24-56 J. W. Young______________ 9-15-56 J. R. Bunch, Jr----------- 9-14-56 H. M. Ables_____________ 10- 1-56 APPENDIX D 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 Re- lations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Dallas General Drivers, Ware- housemen & Helpers, Local No. 745, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organiza- tion of our employees , by discriminatorily discharging , refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT threaten with discharge or other reprisal our employees for engaging in protected, concerted activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor or- ganizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized • in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL offer to the following named immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as the result of our discrimination against them: B. R. Watkins Stanley Prda Travis Martin T. W. Jones Y. G. Lopez Geo. Mikuda Herman Moore W. B. Neely Calvin Perry Don L. Poindexter W. L. Headrick Raymond Johnson John Vargas E. P. Ybarra Celestus Smith B. A. Riley J. W. Young K. 0. Lasater John Kennedy Robert E. McCullough Chas. L. Reed H. M. Ables Forest L. Johnson L. D. Folsom Clarence Dodd J. R. Bunch, Jr. Clifford Beamon Tommy J. Thomas R. M. Taylor J. D. Barnes Albert Bell Billy Gene Dugger C. R. Johnson Billy Thorp Earnest Wilpitz James N. Schoonover C. E. Hines Garland Mack Alex Smith Leon Lee, Jr. Bobby Jackson ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERY OF DALLAS, INC., 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. Montgomery Ward & Co. and Retail Clerks International Asso- ciation, Local Union 345, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC- 1815. October 18, 1957 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION On March 28, 1957, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Third Region among employees in the agreed appropriate unit. Following the election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots, showing that 16 votes were cast against, and 13 for, the Petitioner. On April 2, 1957, the Petitioner filed objections to the election. On April 25, 1957, the Acting Regional Director issued and served upon the parties his report on objections, recommending that the objections be overruled because not sufficiently specific under the Board's Rules and Regulations. On June 24, 1957, the Board issued its Decision and Direction, remanding the case to the regional Director for investi gation of the issues raised by the objections.' On July 29, 1957, the Regional Director issued and served upon the parties a supplemental report on objections, recommending that the objections be overruled and that the Board issue a certification of 1 118 NLRB 310. 119 NLRB No. 3.