Sample Hart Motor Co.

518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region , in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order what steps it has taken to comply herewith.8 8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF MILK DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL UNION No. 584, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFERS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA AND 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 Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encourage employees of the Balsam Farm, Inc., Citrus Bowl, Inc., Robert H. Carr & Sons, or any other employer to engage in, strikes, concerted refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials , or commodities, or to perform any -services; nor threaten, coerce, or restrain Balsam Farm , Inc., or any other employer, where in either case an object thereof is to force Balsam Farm , Inc., Citrus Bowl, Inc., Robert H. Carr & Sons, or any other employer or person to cease doing business with Old Dutch Farms, Inc., or any other employer with which we have a dispute over the operation of a retail milk store in claimed violation of clause 66A of our contract with said employer. MILK DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL UNION No. 584, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, Dated ----- - - - By ----------------- Labor Organization. ------------------ ----- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Squibb Building, Fifth Floor, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, Telephone No. 751-5500, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Sample Hart Motor Company and General Drivers and Helpers Union Local No. 554, affiliated with .International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case No. 17-CA-2241. March 30, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On January 27, 1964, Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peterson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs. 146 NLRB No. 69. SAMPLE HART MOTOR COMPANY 519 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER The Board adopts as its order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner.' 1 The Recommended Order is hereby amended by substituting for the first paragraph therein the following paragraph: 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, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall: TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding was heard before Trial Examiner Ivar H. Peterson in Omaha, Nebraska, on October 22, 1963, on the complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board against Sample Hart Motor Company , herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Randall C. Sawyers on or about June 5, 1963 , and thereafter refused to reinstate him, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (3) and (1 ) of the Act.' The Respondent in its answer admitted the jurisdictional allegations and that it had discharged Sawyers, but denied having committed any unfair labor practices . All parties were represented and participated at the hearing, and were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross- examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record , and to file briefs. Briefs received from the General Counsel , the Respondent and the Union have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Nebraska corporation with its principal office and place of business in Omaha, Nebraska, operates a Ford automobile dealership and is engaged in the retail and wholesale sale and servicing of automobiles . Annually the Re- spondent sells goods and/or performs services valued in excess of $500 ,000, and annually purchases products valued in excess of $50 ,000 from sources outside the State of Nebraska. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union, General Drivers and Helpers Union Local No. 554 , affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 'The original charge was filed on July 19, 1963, and thereafter amended on July 25 and August 26, 1963. The complaint was Issued on September 5, 1963. 520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Respondent and the Union have had contractual relations since about 1955. The agreement effective from July 1, 1962, to June 30 , 1963, described the unit for which the Union was recognized as covering employees in the service , body, new car get-ready, and used car reconditioning departments . Two provisions in this agree- ment, which apparently had been in effect since the inception of contractual rela- tions, were as follows: ARTICE XI-COMPULSORY SERVICE MEETING Employees covered by this Agreement may be required to attend without compensation not more than two (2 ) service or service instruction meetings per month outside of the regular hours provided for in this Agreement. ARTICLE XII-NONPERFORMANCE COMPETITIVE WORK No employee shall solicit or perform work of the character performed by the Employer for any person, persons or organization other than in connection with his regular duties and under the supervision and management of the Em- ployer. Any employee so doing shall be discharged immediately . This shall not apply to work performed by the employee on his own personal car. Randall C . Sawyers, whose discharge is here involved , first went to work for the Respondent early in 1953 , as a bodyman. Sometime in 1954 he quit, but was rehired about a month later and worked continuously until his discharge on June 5, 1963. Throughout his period of employment his immediate supervisor was Otto Legaard, foreman of the body department . At the time of his discharge Sawyers was one of the two shop stewards, having served in that capacity for 3 or 4 years. He also had been a member of the Union's negotiating committee on all occasions when a new agreement was negotiated with the Respondent, and in July 1962 acted as the observer for the Union in a Board -conducted election among the Respondent's employees held pursuant to a petition filed by the Respondent (Case No. 17-RM- 217). Before the election, Sawyers was active in behalf of the Union , urging em- ployees to vote for the Union. On June 4, 1963, the Union and the Respondent held their first negotiating session to discuss the Union's proposals for changes in the contract expiring June 30. The Union's representatives were Bert Parker and Walter Thompson , business representa- tives of the Union, and Sawyers; the Respondent was represented by William Sample, vice president, and Rex Chandler , business manager. In the course of the negotiating meeting Sawyers, in response to Sample's criticism that the men were not producing enough to warrant any increased vacation benefits, said that if the service salesmen could bring in more work, the shop employees would have more work to do. Sawyers also urged that the contract provision requiring employees to 'attend compulsory service meetings on their own time should be changed. He pointed out that he and several other employees did outside work and attendance at these meetings cost them money and , if the service meetings were so important , the Respondent should be willing to compensate employees required to attend . To illustrate that his spare time was valuable to him, Sawyers said he had made about $2,000 during the past year in outside work. At this point Chandler remarked that Sawyers ' outside work was in violation of the contract, which Sawyers denied? In the afternoon of the following day, June 5 , Sawyers was summoned to Sample's office. Present were Sample , Chandler, and Edward Woodworth , Respondent's serv- ice manager. Sample asked Sawyers to repeat, for Woodworth's benefit, his criticism of the service department made the previous day at the negotiating meeting. Sawyers did so, and after some discussion of this subject Sample referred to Sawyers' com- ments of the day before to the effect that he had made about ,$2,000 the previous year in outside work. When Sawyers acknowledged that was correct , Sample said that such was in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement and that he was accordingly discharged . Sawyers was permitted to complete a job on which he was then engaged, and left the Respondent's employ the following day, June 6. The Respondent contends Sawyers was discharged because he admitted perform- ing competitive work in his spare time, in violation of the contract , and for no other 2 Sawyers testified that in reply to Chandler 's accusation of violating the contract "I said I didn't solicit any work at Sample Hart , I believe, was the words I used " He then went on to explain that by this he meant that the outside work he did was not of the type performed by the Respondent. SAMPLE HART MOTOR COMPANY 521 reason. Thus Sample, Respondent's vice president, testified that he discharged Sawyers "on his direct admission to my direct question he was performing competitive work" and because of "his direct answer to my direct question asking him if he knew he was violating the union contract and his answer was yes in those instances." Sawyers denied that he admitted violating the contract by performing competitive work. The General Counsel contends that the reason advanced by the Respondent for the discharge is but a pretext and that the true reason was Sawyers' activity in behalf of the Union, as a steward and member of the Union's negotiating committee. Sawyers had for some years performed a substantial amount of outside work dur- ing off-duty hours. In the 10 years of his employment he bought six or seven wrecked automobiles from insurance companies and repaired them at home for resale. After moving out to a 30-acre farm in 1956, he engaged in welding of farm machinery and equipment. He also did some restoration work, primarily woodwork and metalwork, on antique automobiles.3 On one occasion he did bodywork on a pickup truck, in exchange for some corrugated iron, and had the repaired vehicle painted at the Respondent's shop for which the owner paid the Respondent; in this instance he obtained the permission of his foreman, Otto Legaard. • Sawyers freely discussed his outside activities with his foreman, Business Manager Chandler, and others in the shop, and testified credibly and without contradiction that he had never been warned by management about engaging in such activity. The record shows that other employees also purchased and repaired wrecked automobiles, which they thereafter resold. Although the contract between the Union and the Respondent, from the outset of bargaining relations, had contained the provision prohibiting employees covered thereby from performing competitive work, Vice President Sample testified that the Respondent had had no occasion to invoke it, nor had any question arisen as to its interpretation or application, prior to the discharge of Sawyers. Two or three months before the termination of Sawyers, there had been some discussion among management officials concerning "rumors" that Sawyers' outside work was violative of article XII of the contract. The Respondent at that time engaged the services of the Pinkerton Agency to investigate Sawyers' outside activities. Sample testified that a written report was received from Pinkerton, but that no decision was made as a result thereof because "there wasn't enough evidence" to establish that Sawyers was performing competitive work. Sample further testified that the Respondent does not make a business of repairing antique automobiles and that he did not con- sider the repair of farm equipment to be competitive. There is no evidence that the Respondent, following the receipt of the Pinkerton report, made any further inquiry into Sawyers' outside activities. The testimony is in conflict as to whether Sawyers, in the two meetings with management on June 4 and 5, admitted that his outside work was competitive. Concerning the June 4 negotiating meeting, both- Chandler and Sample, the only representatives of Respondent present, testified that Sawyers in fact and in so many words admitted violating the contract in this respect. According to both of them, the Union had proposed deleting the competitive-work clause. Chandler testified Sawyers, in answer to management's statement that the clause should not be deleted and was not an issue, stated it was an issue because "people were doing outside work, and that he himself had done over $2,000 worth the previous year." Sample testified Sawyers' reason for urging elimination of the clause was that "several of the fellows and himself felt it was not needed in the contract and . they wanted to work on the outside," and said he was doing outside bodywork. Both testified that Sawyers, upon then being asked if he realized that he was thereby violating the contract, said he knew that he was. Sawyers, on the other hand, denied that he admitted having breached the contract, and testified his reference to outside work had to do with the Union's proposal to revise article XI which required employees to attend meetings without compensation. In this he was corroborated by Thompson, the Union's business representative, who testified Sawyers was not asked if he was engaged in competitive work but did say that he worked at home during off-duty hours to illustrate, in connection with the discussion of the compulsory-meeting provision, the importance of off-duty hours to himself and others. After the June 4 meeting ended Vice President Sample telephoned Respondent's labor counsel, John E. Tate, and inquired whether Respondent had the right to discharge Sawyers on the ground that he had admitted violating the contract. Tate's 3 Sawyers was interested in antique automobiles and was past president of an antique automobile club. He testified much of the work he did on antique automobiles was for fellow members and on a work-exchange basis. 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD advice was that Respondent had the right but he suggested calling another meeting, at which some other person would be present, to see whether Sawyers would make the same admission. Accordingly, Sample called Chandler, Sawyers, and Woodworth, the service de- partment manager, to his office the following day. Sample testified he asked Wood- worth to attend in order that he might hear directly Sawyers' criticism of the service department. After this subject had been discussed by those present, Sample, as he testified, "led them into the conversation-whether he [Sawyers] had been doing body work at home, at this time . . . I made a point to ask if it was competitive work." According to Sample, Sawyers answered that it was competitive and also answered affirmatively when Sample asked if he realized this was in violation of the contract. Chandler and Woodworth testified to substantially the same effect as Sample. However, Woodworth added that Sawyers said he had found it necessary, because "he wasn't getting enough work at Sample Hart," to supplement his income by work- ing at home and in that manner had earned $2,000 the previous year. Sawyers testified he was not asked what type of work he did at home or whether it was com- petitive, and denied that he admitted violating the contract. Upon a consideration of the entire record, and having observed the witnesses and their demeanor in testifying, I am unable to credit the testimony of Respondent's witnesses Chandler, Sample, and Woodworth that Sawyers expressly admitted per- forming work at home competitive with that done by the Respondent and that he further admitted that his outside work was violative of article XII of the contract. On the contrary, I credit Sawyers' testimony that he did not admit either that his outside work was competitive or that he had violated the contract. Sawyers im- pressed me as an honest , forthright witness, whereas I was not similarly impressed by Chandler, Sample, and Woodworth. Sample, in particular, seemed especially eager to emphasize that Sawyers knowingly made the admissions attributed to him; his account of the discussion of Sawyers' outside activities at both meetings seems patently artificial and implausible. Sawyers was familiar with the contractual prohi- bition and on the one occasion revealed by the record when he had done rather extensive bodywork on a pickup truck he had first obtained permission from his foreman. Considering the nature of his work in off-duty hours and the number of years he had been doing it without any attempt at concealment or suggestion from management that his outside activities were regarded as contractually prohibited, it strains credulity to the breaking point to believe that he would readily make the damaging admissions testified to by Respondent's witnesses. Aside from the fact that Sawyers' outside activities were common knowledge in the shop and at least in general known to Respondent's officials, Chandler and Legaard, the Respondent had these activities investigated by a Pinkerton operative shortly before the discharge and on the basis of the investigation report it had been concluded that evidence of violation of the contractual provision was lacking. The Respondent did not proffer the investigative report in evidence , and I infer therefrom that nothing in it contra- dicted Sawyers' description of the outside work he performed. In these circum- stances, I cannot and do not believe that Sawyers admitted having violated the contract, and I therefore find that he was not discharged for that reason. Having found that Sawyers was not discharged for the reason advanced by the Respondent, we turn to a consideration of whether the record establishes that the discharge was violative of the Act, mindful of the truism that an employer may dis- charge an employee "for a good reason , a poor reason , or no reason at all, so long as the terms of the statute are not violated," N.L.R.B. v. Condenser Corporation of America, 128 F. 2d 67, 75 (C.A. 3), and that the burden is on the General Counsel to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent's discharge of Sawyers was motivated by antiunion considerations. There is no dispute that the Respondent was well aware of Sawyers' membership in and activity in behalf of the Union. For several years he had been a shop steward, and as such had processed grievances on behalf of employees . In July 1962 he acted as the Union's observer at the Board election held on the Respondent 's petition, and prior to the election urged employees to support the Union . Since the inception of collective-bargaining relations between the Union and the Respondent he had served as a member of the Union's negotiating committee . In that capacity, the day before his discharge , he had participated in a bargaining session with Respond- ent's officials, in the course of which he voiced the view that the Respondent's service department was not sufficiently aggressive in bringing in work. He also urged that employees be compensated for attendance at compulsory service meet- ings, pointing out that their off-duty time was valuable and that he and others did outside work and, to illustrate the importance of employees' spare time , said he had made about $2,000 the previous year from outside work. SAMPLE HART MOTOR COMPANY 523 No claim is made .that Sawyers did not perform his work satisfactorily nor is there any evidence that he had been warned to cease doing any of the outside_ work he had been performing for years. Although Respondent's officials sought to create the impression that they were aware only of "rumors" regarding the nature of his outside activities, the fact is that Sawyers freely discussed these activities in the shop and with his supervisors. Certainly it seems reasonable to infer, as I do, that at least after the investigation of these activities which the Respondent had made 2 or 3 months before the discharge it was fully informed regarding them. But by the Respondent's own admission the evidence thus obtained did not warrant taking any action. There is no evidence that Sawyers' outside activities changed in the period following the investigation and prior to the discharge. In these circumstances, the reference by Sawyers at the June 4 meeting to his outside activities could scarcely have come as a surprise to the Respondent . Never- theless, promptly after the close of the meeting Sample called his labor counsel and asked whether Sawyers could be discharged on the ground that he had admitted violating the contract. Acting on the advice received , Sample convened the meet- ing of June 5, with Woodworth, the service manager, in attendance, ostensibly to hear the criticism Sawyers made of his department but actually to be a witness, should Sawyers repeat his remarks about performing outside work. The meeting began with a discussion of the subject which was purportedly the reason for the meeting, and then Sample "led" the conversation to a. discussion of Sawyers ' outside work. When Sawyers repeated that he had made about $2,000 the previous year in such work, - Sample said it was in violation of the contract and thereupon dis- charged him. In view of the Respondent's prior knowledge of Sawyers' outside activities, to which it had raised no objection, I find that the discharge was not motivated by such activities. Having discredited the Respondent's testimony that Sawyers ad- mitted he did competitive work in violation of the contract, and considering the timing and setting of the June 5 meeting at which Sample told Sawyers he was terminated, I think the inference is compelling that Sawyers was discharged because the day before , as a member of the Union's negotiating committee , he had criticized the Respondent's service department and had been outspoken in support of demands for changes and improvements in the collective -bargaining agreement . Sample, I am persuaded, seized upon Sawyers' statements about the outside work in which he was engaged as a pretext for charging him with violation of the contractual pro- hibition against performing competitive work and on that basis sought to justify discharging him .4 I find, therefore, that the Respondent discharged Sawyers be- cause of his statements and activity , as a member of the Union's negotiating com- mittee, in support of the Union's collective-bargaining demands, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and derivatively, Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent found to constitute unfair labor practices as set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Re- spondent described in section I, above , have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take appropriate affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. 4 Supportive of this conclusion Is the testimony of Wdllard von Tull , a fellow employee of Sawyers and still employed by the Respondent, who testified under subpena by the General Counsel . Somewhat reluctantly , but I am convinced truthfully, he related a con- versation he had with his foreman, Legaard. about 2 days after Sawyers' discharge, in which he asked why Sawyers had been discharged . Legaard replied, according to him, that the reason was Sawyers' "attitude toward . . . the office during the union negotia- tions," although working on automobiles at home was the "legal reason." Legaard ad- mitted Von Tull asked him why Sawyers was discharged ; he did not deny having made the statement attributed to him by Von Tull , but testified that his reply was Von Tull knew "as much about it as I do, or in that manner ." I credit Von Tull's testimony. 524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Since I have found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Randall C. Sawyers.on June 5, 1963, it will be recommended that Respondent offer him im- mediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered from the date of the discrimina- tion to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement. The backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula approved in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum, as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve and make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the computation of backpay due. As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are of a character striking at the root of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, it will be recom- mended 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 in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Sample Hart Motor Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. General Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No. 554, affiliated with Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Randall C. Sawyers, thereby discouraging membership in the aforesaid 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. 4. By the foregoing conduct the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced ,its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondent, Sample Hart Motor Company, Omaha, Nebraska, its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of General Drivers and Helpers Union Local No. 554, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organiza- tion, by discriminatorily discharging any of its employees or otherwise discriminat- ing in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-mentioned Union 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 protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Randall C. Sawyers immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges; and make him whole in the manner set forth above in the section en- titled "The Remedy" for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary and pertinent to compute the amount of backpay and ascertain the right to reinstatement. SAMPLE HART MOTOR COMPANY 525 (c) Post at Respondent's place of business in Omaha, Nebraska, copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are cus- tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of the Trial Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith .6 5 In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of. a United States Court of Appeals, the words "A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "A Decision and Order." 8In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, In writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the polices of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of General Drivers and Helpers Union, Local No. 554, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging any of our employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to our em- ployees' hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. 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 above-named union 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 collec- tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. WE WILL offer to Randall C. Sawyers immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named union or any other labor organization. SAMPLE HART MOTOR COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify the, above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon applica- tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's • Regional Office, 1200 Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, Telephone No. Baltimore 1-7000, Extension 731, if they have- any question concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions. .