Produce Wholesale Co.

BARRETT & LESH , INC. 823 Hospital in Buffalo , New York, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards , and all supervisors 3 as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election 4 omitted from publication.] 3 The record indicates that Jackson , who has the title of executive housekeeper, is in charge of all the Employer ' s maintenance personnel at the Hospital . The record further indicates that these employees are under the immediate supervision of Night Supervisor Davis and Day Supervisors Creasey and White. The parties stipulated that Davis, Creasey, and white assign and direct employees in a manner requiring the exercise of independent judgment and also that they have authority to adjust grievances and effectively to recom- mend wage increases . We find that Jackson , Davis, Creasey, and white are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and, accordingly, we exclude them from the unit. 4 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 3 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed. Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236. Barrett & Lesh, Inc., d/b/a Produce Wholesale Co. and Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 959, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Independent. Case 19-CA- 3295. November 8, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On July 22, 1966, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam- iner'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 Jenkins and Zagoria]. 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 the entire record in this case, 161 NLRB No. 79. 824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.' [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] i In the Appendix to the Trial Examiner's Decision, at the end of the second indented paragraph change the period to a comma and add the following: "except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Re- porting and Disclosure Act of 1959." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, hereinafter the Act, was heard in Anchorage, Alaska, before Trial Examiner William E. Spencer, on May 11, 1966, pursuant to due notice. The complaint, issued February 28, 1966, pursuant to a charge filed on January 10, 1966, by the Union herein, alleged, and Respondent in its duly filed answer and amended answer denied, that Respondent discharged and thereafter refused to reinstate three named employees because of their union and concerted activities, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Upon the entire record in the case, my observation of the witnesses, and consid- eration of the brief filed with me by the Respondent, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, Barrett & Lesh, Inc., d/b/a Produce Wholesale Co., is an Alaska corporation with offices and warehouse facilities located at Anchorage, Alaska, where it is engaged in the sale of groceries and produce at wholesale. During 1965, in the course and conduct of its business operations, it purchased groceries and produce of a value in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to it directly from sources outside the State of Alaska. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 959, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, the Union herein, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The discharges Beginning about Christmas, 1965, and continuing through January 5, 1966, group discussions concerning their dissatisfaction with wages and working condi- tions, in which all but one of the Respondent's male warehouse employees partici- pated,' occurred in Respondent's plant, and culminated on the evening of January 5, when, by prearrangement, four of five employees who had engaged in these discussions met with the Union's local organizer, Robert Erickson, and signed union cards. The five employees participating in the group discussions were: Dennis Maurer, Leonard Thistle, James Dennis Goodwin, Charles Harlan, and James Porter. All of these, except Harlan, attended the meeting with Erickson on the evening of January 5. A female employee in the warehouse, Genevieve Moore, was aware of the discussions, knew that the participants were considering union affiliation, but, according to her, was told that she would not be eligible for membership in the Union. She testified that she replied that she would not care to join the Union because she was satisfied with the money she was making. On the morning of January 6, Respondent's plant manager, Nathan J. Oakes, discharged, in succession, Harlan, Goodwin, and Thistle. He also approached ' The nonparticipant was one Ted Tellso, who had been in Respondent's employ less than a month. BARRETT & LESH, INC. 825 Maurer and questioned him concerning dissatisfaction among the warehouse employees, and told Porter that if he was not satisfied with existing wages and working conditions he could join the other dischargees . Porter remained on the job. He did not question the relatively new employee, Tellso, about dissatisfaction among the employees because, as he testified, "He [Tellso] was never in the crowd that gathered around the bench. He went about his job." According to Oakes, he had observed the group discussions occurring in the plant during working hours, production had fallen off because of this congregating around the workbenches, his superior, Hearning, had directed his attention to the matter and had told him that if there was not enough work to keep the employees busy he should let them go. It was because of this observed group activity, according to Oakes, that he engaged in the various interrogations referred to above. He denied all knowledge of union activity among the employees prior to his interview with the Union's organizer, Erickson, subsequent to the discharges. With respect to Harlan's discharge, Oakes testified more specifically that Harlan was "the biggest agitator [he] ever had in that warehouse." As an example of Harlan's "agitating", he testified that Harlan would tell Goodwin, "Come on you nigger, go out there and go to work, you are making less money than I am," [Goodwin was not a Negro], and that it "was quite regular in the warehouse for him to do" this sort of thing. On the morning of the discharge, according to Oakes, he heard Harlan, when asked by a fellow employee to help load a truck, retort in a loud and boisterous voice, "F-k you, do it yourself." According to Oakes, it was because of the use of this "foul" language that he decided to discharge Harlan . I accept as fact that Harlan used the term ascribed to him and that he used it in a loud and boisterous voice.2 Harlan testified concerning his discharge: He [Oakes] pulled me over in the corner and told me he didn't like the way the warehouse had been running and he would have to let me go. I asked him why and he said there was a lot of complaining about pay and overtime and just everything, the way the warehouse had been run, and I told him, I asked why didn't he check with Leonard, who was supposed to be our leader, and he said if he didn't like it he was through, too, letting me go, that is, and I mentioned to him that he couldn't let us go because we were up at the union hall the night before. Harlan admitted that his use of foul language may have been mentioned by Oakes at the time of his discharge. Goodwin, who had been hired in November 1965, testified that he observed Oakes talking to "Chuck" Harlan, and that Oakes then called him over and said, "I just fired Chuck and I just got all this news today that there has been a lot of griping around the warehouse, nobody seems to be happy with anything, the wages, and I am firing you, too." Goodwin explained the basis for his dissatisfaction, and then asked Oakes if he could keep his job, to which Oakes replied, "No, go out and look for work the same as Chuck Harlan." Oakes testified concerning the Goodwin discharge, that after discharging Harlan, he asked Goodwin if he was satisfied and Goodwin "told me he wasn't, and that he didn't like to be called a nigger unloading his trucks and everything, and I told Dennis, well, if he wasn't satisfied he could go right along with Chuck." Oakes testified that following his discharge of Harlan and Goodwin: "I went up to Jim [Porter] and I asked Jim if he was satisfied with his job and if he wasn't satisfied with his job that he could leave right along with Dennis and Chuck." As previously noted, Porter, who did not testify, remained on the job. Harlan testified that Porter, when asked by Oakes whether he was satisfied with his job, replied, "I am satisfied and I am doing my best," and that he, Harlan , "mentioned" to Oakes that Porter "was new here and didn't have nothing to do with it." Respondent's defense of the Thistle discharge was more detailed and elaborate than in the case of the others and consisted principally of numerous alleged errors in the discharge of his duties made by Thistle throughout the some 7 years of his employment with the Respondent. While the Respondent does not contend that Thistle was a supervisor, Oakes apparently relied on him to transmit orders to the warehouse employees and held him to a higher degree of accountability 2 There was testimony to the effect that Oakes himself used the same or similar lan- guage but this proves little if anything. We not infrequently condemn in others that which we would condone in ourselves and, besides , it was Oakes who did the firing. 826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD than he did the other employees . Thistle described his duties as driving trucks, putting up orders, and "just general leadman." It was in his capacity of one charged with the duty of filling orders , that numerous errors were attributed to him. Respondent produced documents substantiating Oakes' testimony of errors made in filling orders received at the warehouse during the months of November and December 1965, and there is no reason to doubt that errors were made. It was not established to my satisfaction , however, that Thistle was solely responsible for all of these errors , or that Oakes would have held him solely responsible. Certain errors had been called to Thistle's attention and we must assume that on occasion he was at fault , but hardly to the extent of four to five mistakes daily, as testified to by Oakes . When questioned why an employee who was this inefficient was kept in Respondent's employ continuously for some 7 years, Oakes testified that it was because he was the son -in-law of one of Respondent's coowners . It later developed that this coowner had been dead for some 3 years at the time of Thistle's discharge ; though, according to Oakes, there remained a family bond which worked to Thistle 's advantage in holding his job. Thistle 's own credible testimony on the circumstances attending his discharge places Oakes' action with respect to him in a somewhat different perspective. According to Thistle's credited testimony , he had two different conversations with Oakes during the morning of his discharge . The first occurred following a conversation Oakes had had with Maurer , to be referred to hereinafter. Oakes asked Thistle "what was going on in the warehouse and why Denis Maurer was mad and what was the general upset in the warehouse." He specifically inquired about Harlan. Thistle told Oakes that Harlan was a "loudmouth" and "all he [Oakes] had to do was talk to him and tell him ... just to keep his mouth shut." Oakes replied that he was going to fire Harlan, to which Thistle responded that Harlan "was a good worker and all that ," and all that Oakes would have to do "would be to talk to him." Oakes reiterated that he was going to fire Harlan, and, on leaving Thistle, he did. Later, after Oakes had discharged Harlan and Goodwin, Oakes again approached Thistle. Thistle testified that this then occurred: He just asked me if I was dissatisfied , to tell him, and I could quit or so on, and then he started yelling at me , if I like my job, if I liked the way the place was run and if I liked my wages, which I said no, I didn't like my wages, and he said, well, you go with them [Harlan and Goodwin]. The three dischargees then left the plant. On the following day Thistle returned to the plant, uncertain apparently as to the definiteness of his firing , and Oakes told him unequivocally that he was fired. Thistle asked for a 2 weeks ' notice followed by a layoff, but this was refused. Thistle admitted that on this occasion Oakes referred to his errors in filling orders as the cause of his discharge. On the afternoon of the day they were discharged , the three discharged employees saw Erickson, the Union's organizer, and reported on their discharges . Erickson went to the Respondent's plant, saw Oakes , protested his action in discharging the three employees, said he believed the discharge action was based on their union activities . Oakes replied that it was not but was for "general inefficiency." In Erick- son's presence, Oakes called Oakes' superior, Hearning , told him that a representa- tive of the Union was there, and Erickson then talked to Hearning but without achieving any change in the status of the discharged employees . According to Erickson, Oakes, in introducing him to Hearning on the phone , said "Mr. Erickson from the Teamsters, evidently he is down here because of the meeting last night." Oakes denied that he made any reference to a union meeting and testified that at that time he did not know there had been a union meeting . Hearning was not called to testify in corroboration of Oakes. B. Concluding findings As Oakes testified, for the week or two preceding the discharges he had observed employees gathered around the workbenches , talking. His testimony is to the effect that these discussions occurred during working hours and resulted in a loss of pro- duction. Admittedly, however, during the some 2 weeks these discussions had been in progress, he did not directly intervene and took no measures to stop them other than to complain to Leadman Thistle. According to Respondent 's witness, Gene- vieve Moore, an employee in the warehouse, it was customary for employees to BARRETT & LESH, INC. 827 engage in conversation when working alongside each other, and while she was familiar with the group or concerted character of the discussions in question, neither her testimony nor that of any other witness corroborates Oakes' assertion that the congregating of the some five employees around the workbenches occurred during working hours or in such manner as to disrupt or impede production. That Oakes was aware of the existence of group activity in the warehouse preceding and at the time of the discharges is without question. There is no direct evidence establishing that Oakes, prior to the morning of Janu- ary 6, had knowledge that certain of the warehouse employees had attended a meeting with the Union's organizer. On the other hand it is a little difficult to understand his sudden intense interest and activity on the morning of January 6, unless he had heard something which aroused and stimulated his suspicions that an organizational movement was afoot. His flat and positive denial of all knowledge of union activities prior to his encounter with Organizer Erickson on the afternoon of January 6, and denial of knowledge of a union meeting attended by his employ- ees even at that time, is so completely discredited by the combined testimony of several other witnesses, that we might infer what is most reasonable and logical to explain his actions on the morning of January 6, that even before he approached Maurer, the first employee he interrogated on that date, he had gotten wind that something was afoot a little more serious and threatening than an informal congregating of the several employees around the workbenches. Be that as it may, in his conversation with Maurer-which he denied in its entirety but which I find occurred-he was apprised of the fact that some of his employees-Maurer denied to Oakes that he was among them- had met with a union organizer on the previous evening. Oakes asked Maurer to disclose the names of employees attend- ing the meeting, but Maurer refused or disclaimed knowledge. We may reasonably conclude at this point that Oakes, though now informed that the group activity he had observed had resulted in an organizational movement, still did not know the identity of those who had met with a union organizer. He would, however, logically and reasonably assume that they were among those he had observed engaging in group discussions. The next direct mention of union activity came when Oakes fired Harlan where- upon Harlan informed him that his discharge action would be invalid because the employees had met "up in the union" hall the previous evening. While Harlan was of course badly mistaken if he thought he got immunity to discharge for cause by union affiliation, this was the second time-also denied by Oakes-that Oakes was made aware of the union meeting. Further, Respondent's own witness and one obviously disposed to favor the Respondent in her testimony, Genevieve Moore, testified that when she asked Oakes at the end of the workday why the "boys" had left the plant, he made mention of the fact that they "had been to the union." Finally there is Erickson's testimony-this, too, denied by Oakes-that Oakes introduced him on the phone to Oakes' superior, as being present "because of the meeting last night," whereas Erickson had made no mention of a union meeting. There are times when one man's testimony is more convincing than that of a dozen testifying to the contrary, but I am afraid this is not one of those occasions. Maurer, Harlan, Erickson, and Respondent's own witness, Moore, all testified convincingly on the point in question, and Hearning was not called to corroborate Oakes. Respondent's able attorney, in his brief, raised the question whether Oakes' conversation with Maurer did not occur after rather than before Oakes discharged any of the three employees. To agree would be to discredit Oakes who denied that the conversation with Maurer occurred, but aside from that Maurer was quite positive that his conversation with Oakes occurred about 9:30 in the morning, whereas the discharges took place later, and Maurer was indirectly corroborated by Thistle whose first conversation with Oakes on the morning of January 6, in which Oakes referred to his interview with Maurer, occurred before the discharges had been made. In view of all this, I have no doubt and find that Oakes, before he had discharged any of the three employees, was made aware that certain of the employees had met with a union organizer. It follows that any expression of dissatisfaction by any of the employees he had previously observed engaging in group discussions, he would reasonably equate with union affiliation, with the possible exception of Maurer who had denied attending the union meeting and knowledge of those who did. Porter expressed himself as being satisfied with 828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD his job and was not discharged. Harlan, Thistle, and Goodwin expressed dis- satisfaction in certain areas of their employment, and were discharged. Tellso, who had not engaged in the group discussions, was not questioned. It is needless to dwell on reasons put forward by Oakes in explanation of the discharges since I am not convinced that any of these reasons constituted decisive factors in causing the discharges. Even in the case of Thistle, an employee of some 7 years, conceding that he had made some or most of the errors attributed to him, he had never been warned of discharge or penalized in any way and the reasons put forward by Oakes for the immunity to discharge enjoyed by him over the years, collapsed on cross-examination when it was disclosed that his erstwhile father-in-law, a part owner in the business and an alleged source of his immunity, had been deceased some 3 years. Oakes was unable to offer a cogent explanation why the restraints on his discharge which, according to him, had existed so long, suddenly collapsed at this particular time. Harlan (along with advant-garde literati) apparently made free use of a four- letter word signifying sexual intercourse, publicly as well as privately, and com- pounded the offense by a loud and boisterous delivery, and while the employment of such language is doubtlessly considered crude and revolting by most warehouse employees of whatever sex, the fact of the matter is that his conversation with Oakes at the time of his discharge centered on his freely expressed dissatisfaction with wages and working conditions. The Goodwin discharge, a little more naked in its motivation than the other two, occurred-according to Oakes-when Good- win complained that he resented being called a "nigger" by Harlan. It seems not very plausible that Oakes would discharge Harlan for his abusive language, and straightway discharge Goodwin because he complained that he was a recipient of Harlan's abuse. Apparently somewhat at a loss to afford a plausible explanation for the Goodwin discharge, Oakes testified, "I was going to straighten the ware- house up. I was going to get rid of this ganging up around the workbench and all the talk, because the work isn't getting done." Such an admission, considered in the entire context of the case, would go far toward establishing that, regardless of Oakes' knowledge or lack of knowledge of union activities, the discharges were predicated upon the concerted activities of the employees in their endeavor to bring about higher wages and better working conditions. As indicated above, however, I am convinced that Oakes, prior to the discharges, had been informed that there had been a meeting of employees with the Union, and that it was this knowledge that precipitated the discharges. Accord- ingly, I find that the Respondent discharged its employees, Thistle, Harlan, and Goodwin, because of their concerted and union activities, thereby discouraging mem- bership in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent 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 obstruct- ing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent discharged its employees because of their -union and concerted activities, I shall recommend that the Respondent offer Leonard Thistle, Dennis Goodwin, and Charles Harlan immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, employ- ees hired subsequent to their respective discharges, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered because of the discrimination against them, by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that which they normally would have been paid in Respondent's employ from the date of the discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less their net earnings, if any, during said period. Loss of pay under the backpay order recommended above shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and shall include the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Respondent's violations are of such character and scope that a broad cease-and-desist order is required. BARRETT & LESH, INC. 829' Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and a business affecting 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 discharging its employees Leonard Thistle, Dennis Goodwin, and Charles Harlan because of their union and concerted activities, thereby discouraging mem- bership in a 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. Because of the aforesaid discharges, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, it is hereby recommended that Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating against any of its employees 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 right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join, or assist the Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Leonard Thistle, Dennis Goodwin, and Charles Harlan immediate and full reinstatement to their former or equivalent positions and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agent, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (c) Notify Leonard Thistle, Dennis Goodwin, and Charles Harlan if presently serving in the Armed Forces. of the United States of their rights of reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Services. (d) Post at its plant in Anchorage, Alaska, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 3In the event that this Recommended Order is 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." 830 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith .4 4 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 the 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 policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Brotherhood of Team- sters Local 959, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, or any other labor organization, by discharging any of our employees because of their concerted or union activities or in any other manner discriminate in regard to their 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, join, or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain col- lectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement to Leonard Thistle, Dennis Goodwin, and Charles Harlan and will make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered because of the discrimination against them. WE WILL notify the above-named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. All of our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condi- tion of employment, against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any labor organization. BARRETT & LESH, INC., D/B/A PRODUCE WHOLESALE CO., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone 583- 4583. Louisiana Garment Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 15-CA-2711. November 8, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On August 2, 1966, Trial Examiner John M. Dyer issued his Deci- sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and rec- 161 NLRB No. 78.