King Dollar

WICKLAND OIL COMPANY 471 If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Telephone 752-2159. Wickland Oil Company; and Freeway Oil Company d /b/a King Dollar and Retail Clerks Union, Local 1364, Retail Clerks In- ternational Association, AFL-CIO. Case ?O-CA-300. Octo- ber 26, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On July 1, 1966, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices and recommending that thev cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief ui support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner 's Recommended Order.] These findings and conclu,ions are based, in part, upon the credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner to which the respondent has excepted, alleging that the Trial Examiner was biased and prejudiced After a careful review of the record, «e conclude that the Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all relevant evidence. Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing those findings, and we reject the charge of bias and prejudice on the Pait of the Trial Examiner. Standard Did Wall Ptoducts, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enid 188 F 2d 362 (C.A 3). DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE A charge was filed by Retail Clerks Union Local 1364, affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, against Wick- land Oil Company on May 21, 1965, and an amended charge was filed by the Union against Wickland Oil Company and Freeway Oil Company, d/b/a King Dol- lar, on September 15, 1965, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U S.C., Sec. 151, et seq., herein called the Act. Upon said charge and amended charge a complaint duly issued on September 24, 1965. 161 NLRB No. 39. 472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In substance, the complaint alleges that Respondents interrogated employees about their union membeiship and activity, threatened them with discharge unless they abandoned their union membership or activity, and granted a wage increase to induce them to abandon their union membership or activity; refused to reinstate two employees who made unconditional application to return to work following an allegedly unfair labor practice strike, and refused to bargain collectively with the Union, on request, although the Union allegedly represented a majority of the employees in a certain appropriate unit. The Respondents' answer, filed on Octo- ber 3, 1965, denied the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James R. Heming- way at Redding, California, between January 25 and 28, 1966. At the close of the hearing, the parties waived oral argument but requested time in which to file briefs. Time was fixed and was later extended. Within such time briefs were filed with the undersigned by both parties.' From my observation of the witnesses and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Wickland Oil Company hereafter called Wickland Oil, is a California corporation engaged in the wholesale sale and distribution of gasoline, automotive supplies and accessories, and sporting goods, among other things. It is the sole owner of the stock of Olive City Service, Inc., which operates a truck and automobile fueling station in Corning, California. Freeway Oil Company, doing business as King Dol- lar, herein called, when referred to individually, Freeway, is a California corpora- tion engaged in the retail sale of gasoline, automotive supplies and accessories, sporting goods, and other miscellaneous items at four automobile service stations, each with an adjoining store Freeway's stations are located one each in Redding and Red Bluff, and two in Chico, California. These two corporations, Wickland Oil and Freeway, are the Respondents herein. Respondents' answer admits that they are affiliated businesses under the common ownership, management, and control of John A. Wickland and that they constitute a single-integrated enterprise Actually, the stock in each corporation is held by Wickland and his wife. For convenience, these two corporations will be hereinafter called, in the singular, the Respondent. Wickland and his wife also are the majority holders of all the stock in Sure Save Stations, Inc., a California corporation, which also does business under the name of King Dollar. It, like Freeway, operates four different automobile service stations with adjoining stores, also under the trade name of King Dollar, one in Redding, one in Red Bluff, one in Orland, and one in Paradise, California. No motion was made to join Sure Save Stations, Inc., as a party. Respondent does, however, take the position that the stations operated by Sure Save should be included in any collective-bargaining unit which may be found to be appropriate Otherwise, this cor- poration is of no concern here. Freeway, in the course and condut of its business operations during the year pre- ceding the issuance of the complaint, sold goods and services valued in excess of $500,000, and, in the same period, it purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000, from Wickland Oil, which goods Wickland Oil had received directly from points outside the State of California. On these facts, I find that the Board has jurisdiction and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction. IT. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership, among others, employees of Freeway. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The controversy heie arose out of activities exclusively at Freeway's station 21 in Redding, California. The issues presented are whether or not (1) the Respond- ent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to recognize the Union as majority representative without a Board conducted election, (2) Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by certain interrogations, statements, and prom- ' Certain errors in the transcript of the proceedings having been noticed and ordered to be corrected. WICKLAND OIL COMPANY 473 ises of wage increases , and (3) Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by refusing to reinstate two strikers at the conclusion of a strike Because these issues are so interwoven , it will be necessary to consider all the facts first before conclusions are separately drawn. A. The facts 1. Chronology of events a. Union organizations and effoils to gain recognition On May 4, 1965, two of the employees, Rosella Black, a cashier in the store, and Bruce Fraser, a station attendant, visited the Union's offices, signed applications for membership, and asked the Union to organize the employees at Freeway's station 21. During the remainder of that day, Black and Fraser, assisted by two of the Union's business agents, signed up all other employees.2 At this time, the station manager was on vacation. On May 5, 1965, Hartley Weingartner, the Union's financial secretary, composed the following letter. May 5, 1965 Wickland Oil Company Orland California Dear Sirs: We hereby request recognition as the Collective Bargaining Representative for the employees of Wickland Oil Company King $ Stations, located at High- way 44 and Hilltop Road, Redding, California. Very truly yours, H. L. Weingartner, Fin. Sec. Retail Clerks Local # 1364 Recognition Granted by Wickland Oil Co. However, he did not mail the letter Instead, he waited until May 10, 1965, when the station manager returned from his vacation. Then Weingartner, accompanied by two business agents, took the letter to the station and handed it, in a sealed envelope, to the manager, Oliver (Sid) Lee. According to Lee, all that Weingartner or his companions said was that they would be back for his answer in a few days .3 However, Weingartner and Norman Stevenson, one of the two business agents with Weingartner, testified credibly that Weingartner told Lee that the Union had signed up a majority of the employees at the station and wanted recognition , that Wein- gartner had signed cards in his pocket, and that, if proof of majority were asked, he would submit the cards to a distinterested person such as a judge or minister, to be checked. They testified that Lee said he did not have authority to act on the Union's request and would have to refer it to someone higher up in the Company. Weingartner asked if he could do this in the next few days and let him know. Lee said he thought that would be possible. According to Lee, he did not open the letter to read it until after the union representatives had left and then he put the letter in his desk. Having heard nothing from the Respondent by May 14, Weingartner returned with Stevenson and asked Lee if he had "shown the letter," i.e., referred it to his superiors Lee told Weingartner that he had lost the letter. Although Lee spoke with the head office of the Respondent in Orland every day by telephone or radio phone, and, at the station about once a week with the operations manager, when the latter would visit there, Lee testified that he had not mentioned the letter to his superiors because he had mislaid it. I find it incredible that the station man- ager would have failed to disclose the visit of the union representatives and the pur- port of the letter even if he had mislaid the letter itself. Lee did, however, on May 14, 1965, give Weingartner the telephone number of Respondent's office in ,Orland. On the day after Weingartner's second conversation with Lee, Saturday, May 15, Lee testified he found the letter and drove with it to Chico, where the operations I It does not appear whether or not the attendant who was acting as manager in the latter's absence signed a card . This employee left Respondent's employ on May 9, 1965, before the Union presented its request for recognition. 8 1 attribute Lee's abbreviated memory to a possible lack of familiarity with the functional steps normally taken in a request for recognition , even though he had once been a member of another union. 474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD manager lived, and delivered the Union's letter to James Williams, the Respondent's operations manager. The latter testified that the letter rested on his radio from then until May 21, 1965, when President Wickland returned from a trip to Texas which he had begun on May 15, and that he then remembered the letter and delivered it to Wickland. Meanwhile, on May 14, after Lee had given him the Respondent's telephone number, Weingartner returned to his office and called the Respondent's office. Some- one there told Weingartner that Manager Fred Sammis was in Paradise, California, and gave him Sammis' telephone number there. Weingartner telephoned Sammis in Paradise, and the latter agreed to a meeting to discuss recognition on Monday, May 24, which would follow the date of Wickland's expected return. At the appointed time, Wickland and Sammis , accompanied by Lee Lopez, a Redding attorney, went to the Union's office in Redding and met with a sizable group of representatives of the Union, including Weingartner, Stevenson, Jack Hal- pin, who was the Union's attorney, along with a representative of the Central Labor Council and one from the Northern District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Work- ers. At the opening of the meeting, Weingartner or Halpin stated that the Union had application cards signed by a majority of the employees at the station located on Route 44 and Hilltop Drive and that it was asking Respondent for recognition. Lopez asked if the Respondent could see the cards. Lopez was familiar with labor relations law and procedure, and I infer that he fully expected a refusal. Halpin did refuse to show them at that time, but suggested that the cards be examined by a neutral person . Lopez said that that was not satisfactory. Halpin then said that the Union would show the Respondent the cards if the Respondent would agree in advance to recognize the Union in the event that the cards showed a majority. Lopez asked for a caucus and the Union's representatives left the room.4 When the Union's representatives returned to the meeting room, Halpin presented Lopez with a handwritten recognition agreement conditional on a showing of cards signed by a majority of the employees. Lopez said that the Respondent desired a 24-hour period in which to decide. The Union agreed to such an extension on condition that neither side would communicate with the employees in the interim. This was agreed When the meeting broke up, the union representatives led the Respondent's representatives through a room in which were visible to Lopez and Wickland a number of picket signs with the name King Dollar on them Following this meeting, Halpin caused to be prepared typed copies of his hand- written recognition agreement and had them delivered to Lopez. Before the deadline the next day, Lopez telephoned Halpin to say that the Respondent had decided not to recognize the Union as bargaining representative and that he was sending over a letter. Halpin testified (and Lopez denied ) that Lopez told Halpin in this conversation that he had advised his client that it would be a good idea to sign the recognition agreement. I found Lopez to be a credible witness and find that, if Lopez said anything about his advice to his client, Halpin misun- derstood him 5 Lopez' letter, delivered by hand to Halpin on the afternoon of May 25, 1965, concluded with the paragraph: We do not feel that you represent a majority of the employees at King Dol- lar Sure Save and we are not interested in the card check procedure as we feel that card checks are so notoriously unreliable, and we are only interested in a NLRB election. ' Several of the Union's representatives testified that during the first part of the meet- ing, Wickland expressed curiosity as to the kind of contract that the Union had in mind and that Weingartner sent Stevenson out to select copies of several contracts in the iner- chandising or retail field that would have comparable terms. Neither Lopez nor Wickland recalled any reference to a contract, to anyone's leaving the room to get copies, or to any discussion concerning contract terms I find it unnecessary to resolve the apparent con- flict because , in any event, I am satisfied that the parties did not reach the point of engag- ing in bargaining. 6I do not intend, by this finding, in any way to impugn Halpin's veracity . Where honest witnesses differ, their memories probably have recorded external sights and sounds differ- ently. The chance of inaccuracy in memory of spoken words is dependent not only upon a correct interpretation of what is said, but also upon an accurate initial recording of what is said . Therefore , the chance for misunderstanding an oral communication 1s great. Such a misunderstanding could, in this case have occurred if Lopez had said that he had told his client that it "wouldn't be a good idea to sign" the recognition agreement. I find that even expert listeners like court reporters often fail to hear such a contracted negative. WICKLAND OIL COMPANY 475 On the morning of May 25, Lopez communicated with a San Francisco lawyer to have him procure forms for an RM petition, intending to have the Respondent sign them after he had filled them out. The forms were sent to Lopez from San Francisco on May 26, but were never filled out because the Respondent chose to employ the services of the California Association of Employers and terminated Lopez' services The date of this change is not in evidence . On June 14, 1965, the afoiesaid Association, on behalf of the Respondent, filed an RM petition with the Boards On the morning of May 25, while the Union was waiting for Respondent' s deci- sion as to whether it would sign a recognition agreement conditioned on proof that the Union had cards signed by a majority of the employees, the Union called the employees to a meeting to vote on whether or not to strike if the Respondent should fail, by 3 p.m. that day, to agree to recognize the Union. The vote was unanimous to strike The General Counsel does not rely on the foregoing facts, alone, to prove that the Respondent in bad faith refused to bargain with the Union. He asserts that the evidence shows that the Respondent engaged in conduct designed to dissipate the Unions majority. Although the Respondent raises an issue concerning the appro- priateness of the unit in which the Union claimed a majority, I shall defer consid- ei ation of the appropriate unit as unnecessary to decide unless the evidence first supports the General Counsel's contention that the Respondent acted in bad faith. If the General Counsel has made out a case of bad faith, the question of the appro- priate unit may then be considered. b. Questioning and pioniues of wage increases Rosella Black, who, with Bruce Fraser, initiated the union organization , was ter- rninated on May 17, 1965. On May 20, 1965, between 9:30 and 10 p.m., Fraser approached Lee, who was just driving in to the station to do some work on the books, and, according to Fraser, said to Lee, "Sid, you and I have been friends for a long time, could you tell me something?" Lee answered, "Yes, what is it?" Fraser asked `Did you fire Roce because she joined the Union7" Lee replied, "No, she is in bad health " Fraser testified, and Lee denied, that Lee then said, "Now we have been friends for a long time and will you tell me did you get this Union thing started around here?" Fraser testified that he then told Lee that he and Black had gone to the Union "to see the people about it." Fraser quoted Lee as continuing. You iealize that you are not even old enough to vote in the Union," and as adding that the Respondent would contest the election and that it would be thrown out because two-thirds of the employees were not old enough to vote. Fraser also quoted Lee as saying that the Union had hurt him "while he was a shop stewaid or c.omething to do along thuse lines up at a mill, a sheet mill in Burney," and that the Board had gone behind the lines and organized the scabs that were working in there and that Halpin (the Union's attorney) had sold them down the river for a bundle of money "after working on the strike" for 9 months. Fraser quoted himself as saying, "I don't see how it [meaning either the Union at Burney or the Union's organization of the Respondent's station I hurt you. It would probably have improved your position somewhat." He quoted Lee as saying that it [meaning again uncertain] had cost him his job and that he was going to have to go. Fraser tes- tified that he left Lee to wait on a car and that then Lee had again asked him if he were old enough to vote, that there ensued a lot of words during which Fraser lost his temper, threw down his keys and stamps, telephoned his brother, presumably to come for him, and went home after telling Lee that he was quitting. Lee conceded that he had had a conversation with Fraser on May 20, 1965, which had commenced with Fraser's question about Black's discharge, as testified by Fraser. From that point on, however, Lee's version of the conversation was quite dissimilar. Lee's testimony portrayed the conversation, after Fraser' s question and Lee's reply. as an aigument in which Fraser had claimed a right to a small bonus (75 cents) for the sale of a tire.? He denied that he had asked Fraser if Fraser had "got this union thing started", Fraser had told him that he and Black had gone to the Union; telling Fraser that he was not old enough to vote; saying that the Respondent would contest the election because two-thirds of the employees were not old enough 6 Case 20-RDI-754. T Fraser was not asked , when he was on the witness stand, whether or not there had been any conversation about this bonus. 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to vote ; saying that Halpin had sold the Union down the river after getting a bundle; saying that the Board had gone behind the lines and organized the scabs at Burney; saying that the Union had fired him when he was shop steward; and he had, in fact, been a steward at Burney, although he admitted that he had worked at the mill at Burney,and that he had been a member of the Union there. . Although the Union filed a charge of discrimination against the Respondent based on the terminations of both Black and Fraser, their terminations were not alleged in the complaint to be violations of the Act. Fraser's testimony was offered solely in support of the allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion. In resolving the conflict in testimony as to what was said by Lee, I have considered the circum- stances of Fraser's quitting and' the possibility that his testimony might have been slanted because of resentment toward Lee. I have, however, rejected this as a reason for supposing that Fraser might have indulged in any fabrication in his testimony. Fraser, a young man of self-assured manner, appeared to be careful in most of his testimony. His testimony of his conversation with Lee was given at length without questioning about meaning and it lacked complete lucidity. Beyond this, it is fairly obvious that Fraser's memory had recorded a somewhat garbled version of certain of Lee's statements to him, resulting, in all probability, from Fraser's lack of fa- miliarity with the subject matter and from Lee's manner of speech, which tended to be rapid. On Fraser's testimony, I am unable to reconstruct accurately what Lee may actually have said to Fraser, but the tenor of Lee's words was plain The argu- ment about the tire sale bonus, as testified by Lee, might have entered the conver- sation, but I find that Lee, in substance, spoke to Fraser as the latter testified. In other words, Lee asked Fraser if he had been instrumental in getting the union movement started, and when Fraser admitted it, Lee, in effect reproved Fraser by intimating that he was too young to have good judgment. Earlrer.on the day of Lee's conversation with Fraser, May 20, 1965, the Respond- ent had hired William Morris to be Lee's successor as manager of station 21, effec- tive on June 1. During the, intervening period, Morris, who had been employed by the Respondent previously, was learning changes that had meanwhile been made in procedures or practices while he was away from the Respondent, and Lee remained in charge. Donald Street, a station attendant who had worked for the Respondent at the station here involved from August 28, 1964, until the time of the strike on May 26, 1965, testified that on May 21, 1965, the day after Lee's conversation with Fraser, Lee asked him to join him in a cup of coffee at the drive-in restaurant across the street from the station. There, Street testified, "Well, we got talking about when the three of us had to go to Red Bluff to work that station because of the contest we had between all the stations," 8 and that Lee said he had told Bill Morris, who was to replace him as manager, that Street would have a year's [week's] vacation coming up in August and that Lee also said that he had put Street in for a raise to take effect the first of June. Lee denied that he had told Street that he had told Morris that Street would have a vacation coming up in August, and he denied that he had told Street in May that he had put in for a raise for him. He testified that he had told Street about the raise he had put in for him before he had left on his vacation in April. Lee testified that he tells all new employees that they will get a week's vacation after a year and that he had so told Street when he hired him. But even if he had forgotten, at the time he hired Street, to tell him of his vacation benefit, I doubt that-a man could have worked for Respondent for almost 10 months and not have learned of Respondent's vacation policy from someone It does not appear logical that Lee would have considered it necessary to say anything to Street at that time about a vacation unless he was attempting to review the bene- fits Street was entitled to. I am not convinced that Lee was correct in testifying that it was in April that he had told Street he had put in a raise for him I notice that in instances where a manager's recommendation of a raise is approved by the respondent, it can become effective as early as the next payday. Lee did not tes- tify that he - had recommended that Street's raise be deferred from mid-April to June I .- The lapse of time, if Lee's testimony were to be taken as accurate, suggests that the recommended raise might have been disapproved . In Respondent's practice, recommendations for wage increases are made by managers in writing. Lee's recom- mendation of a'raise for Street should therefore , have been in Respondent's files and 9 The stations competed with each other to make the most sales in a contest , with the employees of the winning station being awarded a steak dinner. While the employees of the winning station were at that dinner , employees of the losing station had to operate the winning station. WICKLAND OIL COMPANY 477 its production might have dispelled doubt of the date Lee's recommendation of Street's raise was made. However, it was not produced by Respondent. Such pro- duction could have settled the issue .9 It might also show whether it had been approved or disapproved. In view of the improbability that the recommendation for Street's raise would have remained in limbo for so long as well as of the fact that I have found Lee's testimony not reliable in other respects, and the fact that one topic of conversation (the incident, just past, when three employees from station 21 had had to operate the Red Bluff station) as related by Street, helped to fix the date of this conversation as May 21, I credit Street's testimony of the date of the admitted conversation between him and Lee concerning his raise and I find that Lee on May 21, 1965, told Street that he had made a recommendation for a raise for him at that time. Dalene Thompson Linebarger testified that she had been in Respondent's employ in the store at station 21 (known then as Dalene Thompson and hereinafter called Thompson) during the peiiod from September 1964 through May 1965. Thompson testified that on May 24, 1965, Lee walked up to her in the store and asked her if she was going to walk out on him that day. When she said that she did not know, Lee told her that he knew of only one other employee who was going to walk out- naming Don Street. Thompson then quoted Lee as saying that he knew all about the Union and that it did not have a leg to stand on, and also as saying that he (Lee) had "put in" for a raise for Street, Willey, and herself. With respect to the foregoing testimony, Lee testified that he had not asked Thompson if she were going to walk out on him but that, before the strike, she had remarked to him, as he was walking out the door, that she did not know whether or not to walk out and that he had told her that she had a mind of her own and should make up her own mind. Lee denied the rest of Thompson's testimony of what he said to her. It is obvious that Thompson was confused about the date of the occurrence she testified to since May 24 preceded even the strike vote, but this confusion about dates is not exceptional with witnesses, and Thompson did testify that Lee had spoken to her (about walking out) after the strike vote meeting had taken place. As this had been on the morning of May 25, that must have been the date of Lee's remarks, if made. In assessing Thompson's testimony, I have given consideration to the fact that, although Lee's remark, according to her testimony, that he knew only one other employee who was going to walk out (Don Street) suggests that Lee had already questioned all the other employees and had learned that only Street was going to walk out, yet not one other employee who testified was asked if he had been so questioned by Lee. Failure to question other witnesses, of course, was not Thomp- son's fault, and, of course, Lee could have received the impression that Street would walk out through rumors or from overhearing speculative talk between other employees; so he need not have gained his belief if he actually had it, concerning the expected strike from questioning other employees. Actually, Willey was the only one who failed to join the strike; so, if Thompson's testimony was coirect, Lee was either making a false representation to her or his information was inaccurate. Thompson's testimony that Lee had told her that he had put in for a raise for Street, Willey, and herself is credible because it was conceded by Lee that he had put in a recommendation for a raise for Street, and Willey had not only, in fact, later received more pay but, as of June 15, 1965, he was promoted to service man- ager (the equivalent of assistant manager) on a salary. At one point in his testi- mony, Lee testified that he did not have any intimation that the employees were going to go out on stiike until they actually went out. Yet he had, on direct exam- ination, already testified, as heretofore related, that, before the strike, Thompson had said to him that she did not know whether or not she would walk -out; and, from the reply he made to her, according to his own testimony, that she would have to make up her own mind, he could not very well claim that he had not understood what she meant by "walk out." Hence, I find that Lee had advance notice of a strike and erroneously denied knowledge thereof. Even if I could excuse Lee's con- flicting testimony as unintentional, I should find it difficult to believe that Thompson would have volunteered to Lee, completely out of the blue, that she did not know whether or not she would walk out, under the circumstances testified to by Lee. Tak- ing all the evidence into account, and from my observation of the -witnesses, I ,credit O Because the General Counsel was relying on the testimony of his witness rather than upon a written document, and because that document -would have been in possesssion of the Respondent, it seems more logical to expect the document to be produced 'by Respond- ent if it would have been favorable to it. I presume , therefore, that It was not. 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thompson's testimony. Lee's mention of wage raises in conjunction with his remark that the Union did not have a leg to stand on, marks the assurance of a wage increase as designed to act as an inducement to Thompson to forgo further interest in the Union. c. The strike and further offers of wage increases On Wednesday, May 26, most of the employees went on strike. Of those who had signed cards for the Union, only Willey failed to strike. The strikers took turns on the picket line, assisted by Fraser and Black, whose employment had been pre- viously terminated. On the morning of May 29, 1965, employees Sills and Freed were picketing one side of the station. They called Manager Morris over to them and asked him if they could talk with him. When Morris went over, Sills and Freed asked if they could have their jobs back if they returned then. Morris said they could. Sills, at the same time, asked Morris about the possibility of their getting a raise. Morris told them both to come in at 2 p.m. and he would talk to them. Although Morris was not yet officially the manager, Lee had turned over to Morris the matter of hiring employees to keep the station operating. At 2 p.m. that day, Freed, at least, returned and Morris spoke with him in the store. Freed had been hired in February 1965, at $1.35 an hour, below the Respond- ent's starting rate, and had made slow progress, so Lee had not yet raised him to the $1.50 starting rate. Sills, who had started with the Respondent on May 1, 1965, was still at the $1.50 starting rate. Morris told Freed that, "before the picketing had even begun," Lee had put in for a 15-cent raise for him and that the matter was on Sammis' desk at the time. Freed returned to work at once at the $1.50 rate. Morris' and Sills' accounts, with respect to their bargaining and the time of it differ According to Morris, Sills was with Freed at 2 p.m. on Saturday, May 29, when he spoke to them about pay. According to Sills, employees Willey and Freed came to his house on Sunday, May 30, and asked him to come to the station and talk to Morris about returning to work. Whichever day it was, Sills went to speak with Morris. He testified that Morris had asked him what he wanted in the way of an increase, that he had said he wanted $2.00 an hour, that Morris had said that that was out of the question ". . . how about a nickle raise?" that he had replied, no, that he would like to have a little more, and that Morris had said, "How about a dime? That's the best I can do." Sills agreed. Morris' testimony was merely that he (Morris) had always favored paying a "graveyard" man 10 cents more an hour. Sills accepted the offer of a 10-cent wage increase and returned to work. Although Freed received his raise upon his return to work, Sills' raise was deferred by Respondent for 2 weeks after Sills returned to work "because it might be interpreted as an inducement to return to work." If Lee had actually recommended a raise for Freed as Morris testified, before Freed had abandoned the strike, the written recommendation might have established its date, but here again it was not produced. Lee testified that he had made such recommendation 2 months earlier but that it had not been acted upon. Freed, on the other hand, testified that, about a week before the strike, he had asked Lee about a raise and that Lee had said he would have to do some talking to get it, but that Freed would have it for the next pay period. Lee testified that, although he had recommended a raise for Freed, he never told Freed of this. If Lee was telling the truth, I would infer that the Respondent had frowned upon Lee's recommenda- tion, because more that 2 months had passed thereafter before it acted to give Freed a raise, and this was upon his abandonment of the strike. If Freed was telling the truth, the raise was requested for him after the question of recognition of the Union was before the Respondent, but the raise was not granted until Freed had aban- doned the strike.10 In either event, the raise given to Freed upon his abandoning the strike would appear to have been offered as an inducement to abandon the strike and the Union. Whether Sills' conversation with Morris occurred on May 29 or 30, Sills' testimony, which I credit, makes it fairly obvious that, despite the postpone- ment of Sills' pay increase for one pay period," his increase, likewise, was given as an inducement to -Sills to abandon the strike and the Union. "Morris' testimony that he had told Freed that Lee had put in a recommendation for a raise for Freed "before the picketing had even begun" rather than "before the Union organized the station" tends to corroborate Freed's testimony of the time when Lee told him of the recommended raise. 11 The record of Morris' recommendation for a raise for Sills was dated June 29, 1965, but he received the increase for the full period ending June 30. WICKLAND OIL COMPANY 479 d. Termination of the , strike and refusal to reinstate Thompson . and Street About May 30 or 31, 1965, when Thompson'(Linebarger) and Street came on for picketing in the afternoon and discovered that only Black and Fraser were picketing, they decided that too few of them were left and they went home. Later, on May 31, both spoke with Weingartner at the Union's office. Weingart- ner asked them if they wanted to return to work. They told him they did. He said he would speak to the manager the next day about it. On June 1, Weingartner went to station 21 and spoke with Morris. Weingartner told Morris that the strike was over and that the Union wanted to see Thompson and Street put back to work. Morris said he had hired new people to take their place and asked what he was going to do with them.12 Weingartner told Morris to fire them and put back the people that had had the job before. Morris said that he could not do that. On June 7, 1965, the Union's attorney wrote to Lopez (the then last known attorney for the Respondent) stating that the Union had ceased picketing, that it took the position that it had been engaged in an unfair labor practice strike, and that Dalene Thompson and Donald Street thereby were making an unconditional offer to return to work. Neither Street nor Thompson was thereafter offered reemployment although Respondent added several new employees early in June and another one late in June.13 It is apparent that the Respondent had not hired a full complement of employees when it refused to reinstate Street and Thompson. B. The refusal to bargain 1. The appropriate unit The Respondent did not say anything about the appropriateness of the unit claimed by the Union at the conference of May 24 nor subsequently until it was raised in this case. I do not attribute the Respondent's dispute of the unit com- position, by itself, as evidence of bad faith. It might have done the same thing earlier had Lopez filed an RM petition for the Respondent. But Respondent's failure to mention the unit at the conference of May 24 or in the letter Lopez wrote to the Union on May 25, 1965, suggests that Respondent saw nothing inherently inappropriate in a single station unit. Later, when the Union claimed a right to recognition at two of the King Dollar Stations operated by Sure Save Stations, Inc., Respondent's representatives took the position that the appropriate unit should include the four stations operated by that corporation to the exclusion of those operated by Freeway. Yet, in the instant case, Respondent contends that the only appropriate unit would embrace employees of the stations of both Free- way and Sure Save Stations, Inc. The foregoing merely tends to establish that even the Respondent has, from time to time, recognized the fact that more than one unit might be appropriate. Respondent's evidence in support of its contention that employees of all eight stations of the two operating corporations should constitute the appropriate unit tends to establish the following: 1. The managers of all King Dollar stations are under the supervision of Wick- land, as general manager. There is a single promotion display manager for all. The general manager (Wickland) determines, with a single purchasing and distri- bution supervisor in the employ of Wickland Oil Company, the prices at which merchandise is to be sold at the eight stations. Wickland Oil places the orders for, and pays for, gasoline, oil, and all merchandise to be sold at the station stores. The delivery of gasoline and oil to the several stations is made by Wickland Oil tank trucks. The merchandise is usually distributed to the several stores from a central warehouse by Wickland Oil van trucks. Wickland Oil takes charge of all advertising for the various station stores. The managers may make suggestions on new products, services, promotions, advertising, procedure, or-policy that will increase -the profit potential of his operation. Wickland Oil handles the maintenance 12 Don Arndt was hired on about May' 27, 1965. Ruth Tremper was hired on May 31, 1965. ' The record is not clear as to hiring dates, but it was stipulated that three new em- ployees-Leo Brewer, Sandra Booth, and Travis Gallegos-worked during the 2-week pay period ending June 15, 1965 . Another new employee, Ron Lane, appeared for the first time on the payroll for the period ending June 30. 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for all stations, determines policies 'and practices regarding labor and credit, pre- pares paychecks from information furnished by station managers, and provides bookkeeping, accounting, and . credit services for all. The operating budget is determined by , the general manager, Wickland, who also determines shift flours. All stations are connected by radio-telephone with 'the -Wickland Oil headquarters in Orland, California. 2. Managers of "individual stations and store's' follow a common operations manual.14- They can hire employees at rates within the basic scale approved by the general manager. Before an employee is hired he makes out an, application form which goes to Wickland Oil, who takes care of bonding the applicant. The man- ager is not obliged to accept an employee sent, to him by Respondent's head- quarters. He can recommend wage increases; he can assign employees-to different shifts, and to work at the station or in the store, as the need arises; and- he can summarily discharge employees' for specific 'types of causes. ,'In other `cases, he would, consult with the operations manager. Sometimes the operations manager attempts to save an employee from discharge which may stem from a personality problem by having the employee move to another station. - - 3. The manager banks his receipts in an interbranch account and the credit goes to a bank in Chico to the credit of Respondent. Withdrawals'are made from this account only for Freeway's payroll or for' payment to Wickland Oil for products and services. I infer that these withdrawals are charged against a budget for each station for the purpose of determining the profit each station makes. The manager is responsible for the profitable operation of his station, and, if he does well, he participates in a bonus and profit-sharing plan. The operations manager visits each station manager about once a week. 4. In an attempt to prove that there are frequent transfers and interchanges of employees from station to station, Respondent introduced in evidence a list of names of station personnel who had worked at more than one station in a 2-year period. This evidence is inconclusive. The circumstances of the change of employ- ment of the named personnel to different stations was not shown in most instances. Some were apparently cases of promotion or of transfers of managers. Some were employees who had quit and were later rehired at a different station. Furthermore, there is no way of determining how many of the employees on the list were changed from one station to another at their own request. It is in evidence that sometimes employees have been transferred when they have had personality clashes with managers. There is no showing that transfers are made with any degree of frequency because of the exigencies of the business. I notice also that a large number of the transfers shown on the list were made between stations in the same city rather than transfers from one city to another. 5. There is a uniform vacation policy, and all employees are covered by an insurance policy paid for by Wickland Oil. The General Counsel, in support of his contention that a single station-store unit is appropriate, relies on Sav-On Drugs, Inc., 138 NLRB 1032. In that case, the Board, considered five criteria in its determination that a separate store in a chain can constitute an appropriate unit: , 1. Geographicl separation. As previously stated, Respondent Freeway operates combination station-stores under 'the trade name of King Dollar in Redding, Red Bluff, and Chico, California. Only in Chico does it operate more than one. There are two in that city. The other four King Dollar stations, one-in Redding, one in Red Bluff, one in Orland, and one in Paradise, California, are' operated by Sure Save Stations, Inc., which was not made a party to these proceedings. Although Respondent alleges that all eight King Dollar stations constitute the only appro- priate unit, it did not move to join that corporation as an interested party, and the latter might well object to an order combining, its stations with those of another corporation in a bargaining unit without being formally notified in advance and joined as a party. However, even if the nonjoinder would present no problem, I see no satisfactory reason for saying, that the stations of Sure Save must be included in any unit determined to be appropriate. Only in Redding and Red Bluff do sta- tions of the two corporations coexist. No close relationship between-the stations of each in Redding and Red Bluff is shown, so the mere physical' duplication of 14 The manual states : "The company has a long-range policy on bonuses and profit shar- ing and expects each manager to accept the duties and responsibilities of station manage- ment as if he were in business for himself, since he has a stake in the efficiency and prof- itable operation of his store and station." WICKLAND OIL COMPANY 481 stations there is not an element deserving special weight. The Redding station of Freeway and that of Sure Save are more than a mile apart. Station 21, the Redding station of Freeway here involved, is 32 miles from Red Bluff, about 70 miles from Orland, where Respondent's main office, is located, 74 miles from Chico where the other Freeway stations are located. Such distance is as much or more than existed between individual stores in other cases where the Board found a unit of one store of a chain to be appropriate.15 2. Bargaining history. There is no bargaining history at any of the King Dollar stations and no labor organization is presently seeking a larger than one station unit.16 -3. Local autonomy. It appears, that, although some centralized control is main- tained at Orland over the several stations and stores, there also exists a sub- stantial degree of autonomy in the day-to-day operations of each station, as pre- viously shown. Although Respondent has some uniformity as to starting wages, I deduce that there is no automatic increase on a progression based on length of service. Each manager has authority to determine when to recommend an employee for an increase, supposedly on merit, but since a manager receives a bonus meas- ured by profit, he could well be disposed to give as few increases as possible. 4. Community of interest. As previously found, employees of one station have little contact with employees of other stations. The nearest thing to such contact apparently occurs when, after a merchandising contest, several attendants of the losing station take over operation of the winning station for a short time while employees of the latter are receiving their bonus dinner. Evidence of transfer of employees between stations fails to show that Respondent transfers employees at will to accommodate business needs, even though some employees have, for some- times unrevealed reasons, worked at different periods of time at other stations. On all the evidence, I find no such community of interest exists between employees at different stations to make a single station inappropriate. While the circum- stances are such that a unit of four or even eight stations might not be inappro- priate I find that a unit of a single station is appropriate in view of evidence here- tofore outlined.17 2. The Union's majority In the appropriate unit, the Union had authorization cards signed by all employees on May 4, 1965. The Respondent contends that two of these cards were procured by misrepresentation by Fraser that the signer would get $2.375 an hour if he signed the card. It is not logical that Fraser would attempt to speak authoratatively about a specific wage. Furthermore, neither Sills nor Willey, the two involved, appeared to me to be gullible enough to take any such representa- tion as a fact. They did not sign at once upon such representation, if made, and Fraser was not present when they signed. Willey in a later portion of his testi- mony, disclosed the inaccuracy of the misrepresentation claim by indicating that what Fraser had said was that eventually they would get that rate. I find that their cards should be counted. In any event, even if the cards of Sills and Willey were excluded, that would not alter the fact that the Union represented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit on May 10 and 14, 1965, when the Union made its request to Lee for recognition, and it still had a majority on May 15, 1965, when Weingartner telephoned Sammis and requested recognition. I find that at all times material hereto the Union represented an uncoerced majority of the employees at station 21. 3. The request and refusal to bargain Respondent's answer denied the allegation of the request to bargain contained in the complaint, but Respondent's brief makes no reference to the request to bar- 15Merner Lumber and Hardware Company, 145 NLRB 1024, enfd. 345 F 2d 770 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 382 U.S 942; Frisch's Big Boy Ill-Mar, Inc., 147 NLRB 551; J. W. Mays, Inc., 147 NLRB 968; Primrose Supermarket of Salem, Inc, 148 NLRB 610, enfd. 353 F 2d 675 (C.A. 1), cert. denied 382 U.S 830. '('For this reason, the case at hand differs from those cited by Respondent in its brief in support of a company-wide unit : Meijer Supermarkets, Inc, 142 NLRB 513; Mary Carter Paint Co., 148 NLRB 46. 17 McCoy Co., 151 NLRB 383 ; Sun Drug Co., Inc, 147 NLRB 669, enfd. 359 F 2d 408 (C.A. 3) ; Duluth Avionics, 156 NLRB 1319; John C. Stalfort & Sons, Inc., 156 NLRB 847; L. D. Caulk Company, 158 NLRB 423. 264-188-67-vol. 161-32 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gain or to its sufficiency. I find that the Union's letter dated May 5, 1965, and delivered to Manager Lee on May 10, 1965, with a claim of majority represen- tation was an unequivocal request to bargain in an appropriate unit.18 In the absence of proof of unfair labor practices, the Respondent's rejection of proof of the Union's majority by card check by an impartial person on May 24 and 25, 1965, and its expressed desire on May 25 for a Board-conducted election might not have sufficed to constitute a refusal in bad faith to recognize the Union.19 However, here, both before and after the May 24 meeting, the Respondent under- took to wean the employees from the Union by offers, promises, or assurances of wage raises. The timing of these promises, after the employees had authorized the Union to represent them, especially those to Street and Freed, for whom Lee had earlier rejected requests for wage increases, taken in conjunction with Lee's other expressions of concern over the union organization, make it reasonably deducible that the wage increases were offered by Respondent to induce a change in the employees' desire for union representation before the holding of an election. A further example of undermining the Union is evidenced by Respondent's bar- gaining individually wi'h Sills and Freed about their wages, whereby Respondent succeeded in causing them to abandon the strike. Even though Sills and Freed initiated the conversation with Morris about returning to work, it is obvious that they were interested in returning to work only if they were assured of a wage increase. Morris not only assured them of an increase but bargained individually with Sills to the exclusion of his designated collective- bargaining representative, the Union. By inducing Sills and Freed by assurances of wage increases to aban- don the strike, the Respondent succeeded in breaking the strike. Such promises of wage increases to the exclusion of the designated bargaining representative con- stitutes interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.20 Considering the Respondent's refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union in the light of such conduct, I find that Respondent's insistence upon an election was not prompted by a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority, and as pointed out before, Respondent's contest of the unit appears to have been an afterthought. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act21 Considering also Lee's unbe- lievable testimony that he failed to notify his superiors of the Union's request for recognition and other evidence tending to prove an effort to avoid a reply to the Union, I believe that Respondent's refusal to bargain might well be dated from May 10, 1965, although it was not expressed in words until May 25, 1965. C. Discrimination The Union's strike publicity established the fact that at least one of the reasons for the strike at station 21 was the Respondent's refusal to recognize the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees there. Since I have found that the Respondent committed an unfair labor practice in refusing to recognize the Union, and that this was a cause of the strike, I find that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike and that Street and Thompson had a right, at the end of the strike, upon making an unconditional request for reinstatement, to reinstatement whether or not they had been replaced during the strike. However, even if the strike were found to be exclusively an economic strike, I should not agree with the Respondent's contention that Street and Thompson had been replaced before they made application for reinstatement. True, two employees had been hired during the strike, but nothing marks those employees as specifically filling the jobs of Street and Thompson-jobs that were not unique-any more than it marks the new employees as filling the jobs of Fraser and Black, who had been earlier terminated and who had not, apparently, yet been replaced. The very fact that four additional employees were hired for station 21 during the month of June 1965, after a refusal to reinstate Street and Thompson, belies any claim that Street 18 Superior Rambler, 150 NLRB 1264; James Thompson & Co., Inc., 100 NLRB 456, 462; The Cuffman Lumber Company, Inc , 82 NLRB 296 19 John P. Serpa, Inc., 155 NLRB 99; Strydel Incorporated, 156 NLRB 1185; Aaron Brothers Company of California, 158 NLRB 1077 20 Stark Ceramics, Inc., 155 NLRB 1258; Lincoln Bearing Company, 155 NLRB 1141; Russell-Newman Mfg. Co., Inc, 153 NLRB 1312 21 Merrill Engineering Laboratories , 158 NLRB 1113 • Lake Butler Apparel Company, 158 NLRB 863, and cases there cited, llidioesie,a llanufactniing Company, Inc, 158 NLRB 1698. WICKLAND OIL COMPANY 483 and Thompson were already replaced. At least three of those new employees hired in June were hired shortly enough after the refusal to reinstate 'Street and Thomp- son to warrant an inference that the Respondent actually needed employees when Street and Thompson were being denied employment.22 Although Respondent apparently takes the position that the unconditional applica- tion for reinstatement was defective because Street and Thompson did not make personal application, I find that the Union was -their authorized representative and that the Union made unconditional application for their reinstdtement, both by verbal demand made to Manager Morris and by written letter sent to Respondent's last legal representative, and that a personal application was unnecessary.23 I conclude and find that, by refusing to reinstate Street and Thompson, the Respondent discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment in vio- lation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By questioning employees about their union activities and by offering them wage increases at a time when Respondent was under obligation to bargain with the Union, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employ- ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating in respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Dalene Thompson (Linebarger) and Don Street, the Respondent has discouraged member- ship in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 5. All employees at Respondent's Highway 44 station and store (station 21) in Redding, California, excluding guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act. 6. On May 4, 1965, and at all times material thereafter, the Union has repre- sented a majority of the employees in the unit described in paragraph 5 above, and by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act has been the exclusive representative of all said employees for the purposes of collective bargaining since that date. 7. Although on May 10, 1965, and continuing thereafter, the Union has requested the Respondent to bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, the Respondent at all times since May 10, 1965, has refused and continues to refuse to recognize the Union or to bargain with it as the representative of all the employees in the unit hereinabove described, thereby violating Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 8. 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 I recommend an order that Respondents Wickland Oil Company and Freeway Oil Company d/b/a King Dollar, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1 Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees with respect to their union activities and from offer- ing employees wage increases or other benefits as inducement to forgo union mem- bership or activity. (b) Discouraging union membership in Retail Clerks Union, Local 1364, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating against any of its employees in regard to hire, tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment except as author- ized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (c) Refusing to bargain collectively with Retail Clerks Union, Local 1364, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees at Respondent's Highway 44 station and store (station 21) in Red- ding, California, excluding guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 22 See Marydale Products Company, Inc., 133 NLRB 1232. 21 N.L.R.B. V. I. Posner, Inc., 304 F.2d 773 (C.A. 2) ; Mooney Aircraft, Inc., 132 NLRB 1194; Elmira Machine & Specialty Works, Inc., 148 NLRB 1695. 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Retail Clerks Union, Local 1364, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other 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 rights 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 I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Don Street and Dalene Thompson immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and make them whole for any loss they may have suffered as the result of discrimination by paying them an amount equal to that which they would have earned in Respondent's employ between June 1, 1965, and the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less the net earnings of each during said period, the backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the same manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and said amount to accumulate interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as pre- scribed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. (b) Notify each of the above-named employees if presently serving in the Aimed Forces of the United States of America of his right to full reinstatement upon appli- cation in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) 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 or useful to an analysis of the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Upon request, bargain collectively with Retail Clerks Union, Local 1364, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, for the unit herein found appro- priate, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (e) Post at its station and store on Highway 44 at Hilltop Road (station 21) in Redding, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 24 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, after having been duly signed by Respondent's representative shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respondent for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employ- ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that such copies of the notice are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith 25 21 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." =In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX A 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 policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Retail Clerks Union, Local 1364, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO or in any other labor organi- HESMER FOODS, INC. 485 zation, by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of any of our employees or in regard to any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employ- ees in the exercise of their right to self -organization, to join or assist said Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activ- ities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement made in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL offer to Don Street and Dalene Thompson (Linebarger) imme- diate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and WE WILL make them whole for any loss they may have suffered as the result of the dis- crimination against them. WE WILL bargain upon request with Retail Clerks Union, Local 1364, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, and if an understanding is reached WE WILL embody such understanding in a signed agreement. WICKLAND OIL CO. & FREEWAY OIL CO., D/B/A KING DOLLAR, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees , or either of them , if pres- ently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of America of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training Service Act, 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro- visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 13050 Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco , California 94102, telephone 556-3197. Hesmer Foods, Inc. and Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 25-CA-2354. October 26, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On May 6, 1966, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. 161 NLRB No. 45.