South Bay Daily Breeze

SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE 61 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a recommended order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Warehouse and Mail Order Em- ployees Union, Local 743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization of our employees by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire and tenure of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization, to form labor organi- zations, to join or assist Warehouse and Mail Order Employees Union, Local 743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, 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 bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any and all such activities except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act , as amended. WE WILL offer Penny Powell and Lula Booth immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and will make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of our discrimination against them. All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of Warehouse and Mail Order Employees Union , Local 743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. ALEX . WASLEFF BUILDING MAINTENANCE COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted fear 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Southern California Associated Newspapers, a corporation d/b/a South Bay Daily Breeze and David Clark. Case No. 921-CA- 3850. February 9, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On June 8, 1960, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in. the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at- tached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its power in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Kimball]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The 130 NLRB No. 14. 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record, and hereby adopts the evidentiary findings of the Trial Examiner, but not his conclusions or recommendations inconsistent with our decision herein. As the record shows, the Charging Party, David Clark, was em- ployed by the Respondent as a flyboy in the mailroom. His duties con- sisted of taking newspapers from a conveyor to the mailroom and there preparing them for further distribution. On or about December 15, 1959, Clark joined Mailers Local No. 9, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO. On December 18, Circulation Manager Howard Collins inquired whether he had been contacted by the Union. Clark informed Collins that he was a member of the Union. On the follow- ing day, Collins offered Clark a promotion to district manager trainee, a newly created position. Clark refused the new job, and was there- upon released by the Respondent, even though this required the Re- spondent to temporarily assign Clark's work to other employees for more than a month. When Clark returned to pick up his pay he had occasion to converse with Collins, at which time Collins made the state- ment that the mailroom was not yet ready for a union. The Trial Examiner found that Collins believed taking Clark out of the mailroom would delay or impede union organization, and that upon learning of Clark's union membership Collins refused to permit him to continue his current job in the mailroom based on the belief that the new job might prevent him from being represented by the Union. We agree with these findings. However, the Trial Examiner recom- mended dismissal of the complaint, on the theory that the promotion offered Clark would not in fact have inhibited union organization nor prevented Clark's continued representation by the Union. We disagree with the Trial Examiner's theory, for reasons stated in recent decisions.' We adhere to the principle that changes in the terms and conditions of employment based upon the fact or absence of union membership or designation are discriminatory within the mean- ing of the Act. To decide otherwise would in effect allow an employer who wished to get rid of an employee for antiunion reasons to do so by offering the employee an alternative of a promotion or a discharge, hardly within the contemplation of the Act. We do not accept the Respondent's defense of economic motivation, as we find no support for it from any credited testimony. We like- wise do not accept the Respondent's assertion in its brief that "the fact that the conduct was motivated by anti-union consideration is im- material." Accordingly, we find that by questioning Clark about his union membership, and by offering him a promotion and then precipi- 1 TV. L. Rxve8 Company, 125 NLRB 772; Combtined Century Theaters, Inc, et al., 123 NLRB 1759 SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE 63 tately discharging him with the antiunion motivation found by the Trial Examiner, the Respondent has violated Section 8 ( a) (1) and (3) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found the Respondent has engaged and is engaging in un- fair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act. As Respondent has discriminatorily discharged and thereafter failed to reinstate Clark, we shall order that the Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges pre- viously enjoyed. We shall also order that Respondent make Clark whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the dis- crimination against him by payment of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of such discrim- ination to the date reinstatement is offered; the backpay to be com- puted in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. In accordance with our usual practice, the backpay is to be tolled from the date of the Intermediate Report to the date of this Order. Custom Underwear Manufacturing Company, 108 NLRB 117. It will also be ordered that the Respondent preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents all pertinent records neces- sary to compute the amount of backpay due under this order. 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 the Respondent, Southern Cali- fornia Associated Newspapers, a corporation, d/b/a South Bay Daily Breeze, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Mailers Union No. 9, Interna- tional Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion of its employees, by discharging them or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or conditions of their employment. (b) Interrogating its employees concerning their membership in or activities in behalf of said Union, or any other labor organization, in a manner constituting interference, restraint, and coercion in viola- tion of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights as guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act : 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Offer David Clark immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section above. (b) Post in its plant at Redondo Beach, California, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social secu- rity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to compute the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 2In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted tor the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order," APPENDIX 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, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL offer to David Clark immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prej- udice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and will make whole said employee for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against him. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their mem- bership in or activities on behalf of Mailers Local No. 9, Inter- national Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the Union named above, or any other labor organization, to bargain SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE 65 collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective 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 membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in the Act, as amended. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named Union, or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATED NEWS- PAPERS, A CORPORATION D/B/A SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE 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 AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This matter was tried in Los Angeles, California , on March 15 and 17, 1960. The question presented is whether one David Clark's termination from Respondent's em- ploy was a violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. Upon the entire record , consideration of briefs submitted by General Counsel and Respondent, and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and it is found that Respondent is en- gaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. Its business is that of a publisher in Redondo Beach, California, in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.' H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Mailers Union No. 9, International Typographical Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act .2 'Respondent is engaged in the business of publishing, selling, and distributing news- papers , including a daily newspaper called the South Bay Daily Breeze Respondent holds membership in and subscribes to interstate news services , to wit, Associated Press and United Press International , and publishes nationally syndicated features and adver- tises nationally sold products . Respondent in the course of operating such business re- ceived a gross annual income in excess of $200 000 , and its purchases of newsprint originating outside the State of California exceeded $10,000 in value in 1959 2 Although the status of the labor organization was put in issue by the answer, Respond- ent stipulated to the status of the labor organization during the course of the hearing. 597254-61-vol. 130-6 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Background and Events David Clark, the Charging Party, a youth 19 years of age, was previously em- ployed by Respondent for about 3 years commencing in 1954. At that time he was delivering newspapers to homes under the supervision of district managers of Re- spondent, including Harold Collins, who is presently the circulation manager. After approximately a year's absence he returned to work in Respondent's mailroom as a flyboy. The flyboy in the newspaper business is apparently someone who is en- gaged in taking the newspapers from the press or from the conveyor leading from the press prior to further handling. While Collins knew David as a newspaper car- rier he became interested in him and he testified that he was instrumental in obtain- ing David's job as a flyboy with Respondent. The record reflects that David and Collins were good friends as well as Collins and David's father, Bernard Clark. A topic of frequent conversation among all three was the best way in which David could enhance his prospect for a career by attending school. At Bernard Clark's request Collins urged David on many occasions to complete his education. David Clark last worked for Respondent on or about December 19, 1959, a Sat- urday, except for a brief period on December 21. At the time of his termination he was working in the mailroom of Respondent and the record reflects that on week- ends two other teenage boys also were employed in the mailroom. The seven dis- trict managers who were in charge of the boys that delivered papers to homes also performed some of the mailroom work that in other newspapers was ordinarily per- formed by members of the Mailers Union. David had received periodic raises in pay during his year and a half as a flyboy, and on December 19. 1959, his rate of pay was $1.50 an hour. On this day his hourly 'rate was increased to $1.67 an hour. lie was paid at this rate for December 21 and for 3 -extra days which. he did not work. Bernard Clark testified that he was dissatisfied with David's rate of pay and with the long hours that he worked on Saturdays and that he was aware of the fact that union mailers in the Los Angeles area were earning is excess of $3 an hour. He was a member of a printers local of the International Typographical Union. On or about November 1, 1959, he approached an official of the Mailers local of the same Union and complained, according to him, about the long hours David and the two other teenage boys were working on weekends. As a result of this Fred Leathern, an organizer for the Union, came to the Clarks' residence on Tues- day, December 15, 1959,' in the morning. On this occasion, in the presence of his father, David was initiated into the Union as a journeyman . Leathern testified that David was not a qualified journeyman and that he only had to pay an initiation fee of $10 rather than the usual one of $105 . He explained this deviation from normal practice of eliminating an apprenticeship period and accepting a reduced initiation fee as occurring in connection with organizing new plants. On December 24, 1959, David , in a signed affidavit given to a Board agent, re- cited that Respondent had seven full-time and seven part-time mailers. Leathern and David Clark both testified David had told Leathern that David and two other teenage boys were the only employees in the mailroom. At other points the record reflects that David testified that Dennis Dairies was a mailer at least until Decem- ber 15, and there were two employees who •were union mailers who worked for Respondent on Wednesday nights . The record- is clear that Leathern did not inquire from David as to the identity or addresses of the two teenage boys who worked with David in the mailroom on weekends. Bernard Clark who was present during this conversation at first testified that Leathern told David that it was a condition of being admitted to the Union that David keep his flyboy job with Respondent. He then changed his testimony and stated that the only condition that Leathern mentioned was that David stay on with the Daily Breeze Leathern testified that he told David that if he lost his job through no fault of his own, the Union would get him another part-time job. At this time the Clarks knew that journeymen mailers were receiving in excess of $3 an hour in the Los Angeles area. Collins approached David the following Friday, which was December 18, and inquired whether he had been contacted by the Union and David informed him that he had However, David told him that he did not have a union card. David's affidavit to the Board dated December 24, 1959, reflects a statement that on De- cember 19, 1959, he told Collins one of the reasons he could not accept a new job offered to him by Collins was because he had joined the Union. His testimony is to the contrary. According to Collins the reason he asked David on December 18 SOUTH BAY DAILY BREEZE 67 whether he had been contacted by the Union was because some printers had told him there were men around the building for the Mailers Union and asked David if he had been approached by them. Collins, on December 19, offered David a job which would pay him $1.67 an hour and would permit him to work more desirable hours on Saturdays. This raise in pay and shorter Saturday hours had been an objective of the Clarks for several months. The testimony of the Clarks that the increased cost of insurance and gaso- line was stated to Collins as a reason for refusing the new job on December 19 and 21 is not credited. Collins testified that he did not recall mention of this in his dis- cussions with David and his father. When the Clarks testified that neither inquired from Collins as to the basis' of reimbursement for the use of David's car it was manifest that not only was this a fictitious reason for declining the new job but also it was not given to Collins as a reason. In view of Bernard Clark's other testimony and the equivocal nature of his testi- mony with relation to his conversation with an insurance agent in approximately June 1959, no probative weight is given to his testimony that he had reason to believe increased insurance rates on David's car would eventuate if he used it in business based on this June 1959 conversation. At any rate, there is no basis in the record to find that the Clarks had a reasonable basis to believe David would not be reimbursed for any increased insurance costs. David Clark was asked the following question referring to a conversation with Collins on Saturday, December 19, and gave the following answer: Q. During the conversation during the 19th, Mr. Clark, did you give as a reason for not taking this job the fact that you were attempting to obtain a job as a mailer in- Los Angeles.where you could work two shifts a week with many less hours and make more money than you'were making at the Daily Breeze? A. No. On Monday I said that. In his testimony at another point in the record he denies that he told Collins work- ing in Los Angeles for more money was a reason for his refusing the new job offered him by Collins. It is clear that on Monday, December 21, Collins made it clear to David that if he did not accept the new job he could no longer keep his job as flyboy. After David left ,the employ of Respondent on December- 21 he went to work that evening as a journeyman mailer at approximately double the hourly pay he -had earned while working for Respondent. He also testified that the new job for David which he labeled a trainee had been approved by a Mr. Curry, the publisher, on December 15, and although David was at work on December 16, 17, and 18 he did not tell him of the new job until the morning of December 19. He also testified that he had a discussion with Curry on the evening of the 18th. As a reason for not telling David previously about the new job, Collins stated that it was his practice to hand the man who received a raise his check at the end of the pay period and offer him congratulations. Re- spondent's pay period ended on a Friday, and David received his regular pay the following Tuesday. Collins testified on a Thursday and he stated he was going to inform two ,men on that,day they were to receive increases when he gave them their checks. He also testified that Friday was .the end of the' pay period and Tuesday was the day the employees received their checks. David Gagnon, an employee of Respondent, testified he was present at the con- versation of December 19 between David and Collins. His testimony is credited that David did not state to Collins the reason he did not take the new job was because the car insurance would be too expensive. He also testified credibly that on December 21 Collins pointed out to David that the new job would be more compatible with his schooling and future career. His credited testimony was also to the effect that David told Collins that he could not take the new job with Re- spondent and that he would be working just a couple of nights a week for $24 a night and that he would have more time for his studies Fred Leathern, an organizer for the Union, testified that his Union was interested in organizing only employees who worked inside the mailroom of publishing estab- lishments. However, a copy of a collective-bargaining contract was introduced indicating that a bargaining unit of Leathem's local incorporated in a collective- bargaining contract job descriptions including "conveying of newspapers by trucks anywhere in the plant " Respondent's brief cited another case in which another Mailers local stipulated a bargaining unit which included in the job descriptions "all employees doing work pertaining to mailing including delivering papers to mailers. carriers, agents or newsboys." American Publishing Corporation, et a[, 121 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD NLRB 115. This would apparently cover the jobs of Respondent's district managers. It is found that the trainee job offered to David by Collins was a better job at in- creased pay and that it was the type of job David and his father had been trying to get for David with Respondent. Discussion and analysis On the basis of the foregoing, it is found that both Clarks and Collins, the prin- cipal actors, testified falsely to material facts. Leathem's testimony is open to sus- picion also and is rejected insofar as it supports the testimony of the Clarks. Gag- non's testimony which was of minor significance is the only portion of the record that does not contain obvious errors or misstatements of fact. Being unable to rely on the version of the main witnesses with respect to the events in question, findings will be made on what appears to be the most plausible hypothesis. After Leathem's visit to the Clark home on December 15 he probably went to Respondent's plant and talked with some employees. News of this related to Col- lins induced him to ask David on December 18 as to whether he had been contacted. In view of the fact the record does not contain any indication that Leathern ap- proached any official of Respondent on behalf of David it would appear that Lea- them was under the impression from his initial contact with David that there were more mailers to be organized, perhaps seven full-time and seven part-time, as David told the Board representative on December 24, 1959. Leathem's apparent lack of interest in the other two teenage boys who worked on weekends suggests that David was regarded as one of the purported full-time mailers. When Leathern visited the plant of Respondent he ascertained that there were no full-time mailers except David and either had no interest in or was unsuccessful in organizing the district managers who did some mailing work. In any event he never did approach management with respect to representing any of its employees. The Clarks' eagerness to have David earn more money for shorter hours probably led David to exaggerate the number of mailers employed by Respondent when talking to Leathem. It is clear that Collins offered David a job which was a better one and for more pay. It also seems clear that the reason David did not accept it was because of Leathem's assurance that if he lost his job through no fault of his own he could get a couple of nights' work a week at double the hourly rate. The objection with respect to the increased automobile expenses was invented to convince the Union he was being given a worse job be- cause he had joined the Union. This objection of increased auto costs was not conveyed to Collins by either of the Clarks. Although the job Collins offered David was substantially better and of the type he and his father had been trying to obtain for some months, the prospects of getting 2 nights' work at double the pay seemed more attractive and David-declined the job offered by.Collms. Collins apparently mistakenly believed that giving David a better job and taking him out of the mailroom in some way would delay union organization of the mail- room. One of the anomalies of this record which is totally unexplained is that two union mailers whom Collins knew as such, worked for Respondent on Wednesday nights. In short it is found that Collins offered David a better job based on the belief that it might prevent David from being represented by the Union in Re- spondent's mailroom. The fact that David would not be permitted to continue his flyboy job along with the spurious reasons given by Collins for not telling David about the new job until December 19 after he learned David had been contacted by the Union on December 18 support this finding, as well as Collins' own testi- mony that Respondent's mailroom was not ready for a union. In making a resolution as to whether unfair labor practices were committed by Respondent, the following sections of the Act are pertinent: SEC. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of 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). SEC. 8. (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer- (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7; JOURNAL GAZETTE COMPANY 69 (3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization: . . . . The General Counsel in his brief cites Continental Oil Company v. N.L.R.B., 113 F. 2d 473 (C.A. 10), and Southeastern Pipe Line Company, 103 NLRB 341, for the proposition that transfer of an employee to another job may be an act of discrimination even though the job was better. An examination of those cases re- veals the employees were transferred to less desirable jobs Here David was offered a better job. Here the evidence preponderates that in David's new job with Re- spondent he could have remained a member of the Union and if the Union had so desired it could have attempted to represent him in collective bargaining . Accept- ing David's testimony that he was the only full-time mailroom employee, I do not find that the offer to him of a better job in any way inhibited union organization or constituted conduct in any way proscribed by Section 8 of the Act. The fact that Collins mistakenly was under the belief that David's transfer might tend to im- pede union organization in the mailroom is not regarded as sufficient to establish an unfair labor practice in the context of the facts here presented. Respondent's action in offering a better job if anything would provide an example for encourag- ing union membership. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent is engaged in commerce and in activities affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the com- plaint. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Journal Gazette Company and American Newspaper Guild, AFL- CIO. Case No. 13-CA-3469. February 9, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On October 27, 1960, Trial Examiner Arnold Ordman issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recom- mended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respond- ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together with a sup- porting brief. 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, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations i of the Trial Examiner. 'As no exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's recommendations that the Section 8(a)(3) allegations be dismissed and that the customary posting of a notice be dispensed with, we adopt them pro forma 130 NLRB No. 5.