Wayside Furniture Co., Inc.

758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Wayside Furniture Company, Incorporated and Local 279, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 38-CA-214 July 3, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BEFORE CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On January 19, 1967, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his Decision in the above entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner, as herein modified.2 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Wayside Furniture Company,, Incorporated, Clinton, Illinois, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order. ' The Trial Examiner inadvertently concluded that it was Respondent's contention that family members of Respondent's president were properly included in the unit Respondent deemed appropriate. His conclusion, however, as to the appropriate unit is in nowise affected and is herein af- firmed The Trial Examiner failed to make findings with respect to two al- leged violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The complaint alleged that Respondent, through Martin Lewis, its president, interrogated and threatened one of its employees. Inasmuch as the General Counsel and the Charging Party have not filed exceptions with respect to this omission and such a finding would alter the remedy in this case, we do not find this to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of thhe Act. We do note, however, that the record evidence with respect to this allegation does provide further evidence of Respondent Employer's bad faith and thus further supports the finding of a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. The complaint further alleges that Respondent, by its supervisor and agent, Bill Dawson, threatened and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The record does not support this allegation and, accordingly, it is dismissed 2 In defense to the 8(a)(3) allegation, Respondent contended that an ac- countant's report reflecting a loss in the carpetlaying department induced it to discharge employees Brennan, Eubank, and Rainbolt The Trial Ex- aminer found this defense to be without merit, inasmuch as the accoun- tant's report was not delivered to the Respondent until after the discharges. In so doing the Trial Examiner apparently overlooked Pres- ident Lewis' testimony that he saw the accountant's reports at the ac- countant's office prior to the discharge of the employees However, even though we accept Lewis' testimony in this respect last noted, we are nevertheless satisfied that a fair preponderance of the credible evidence supports the Trial Examiner's ultimate finding that employees Brennan, Eubank, and Rainbolt were discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act We find the following facts, as found by the Trial Examiner, particularly persuasive (I) Several days before the discharges, President Lewis stated to Eubank and several other of its em- ployees that if the Union came in Respondent might have to contract some work out. (2) On the day of the discharge President Lewis told the discharged employees- "Well, I told you before that if the Union was com- ing in, I was going to have to farm some of my work out I guess this is what we will have to do." (3) The employees were discharged precipitately on the same day Respondent received notice of the Union's petition TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HORACE A. RUCKEL, Trial Examiner: This case comes before the Trial Examiner upon an unfair labor practice complaint issued on July 29, 1966, by the General Coun- sel for the National Labor Relations Board, acting through its Regional Director for Region 38 (Peoria, Il- linois), against Wayside Furniture Company, Incor- porated, herein called Respondent. The complaint is based upon a charge filed on June 8, 1966, by Local 279, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union. The complaint alleges in substance that Respondent (1) threatened employees with changes in working conditions and to contract out work if the Union came in, (2) on or about June 3, 1966, discharged or laid off David Brennan, Elwin Eubank, and Thomas Rainbolt because of their union activities, and (3) at all times since about May 20, 1966, has failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Union as the bargaining representative of its employees in an appropriate unit. These activities are said to constitute unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, and fol- lowing), herein called the Act. Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on September 6 and 7, at Clinton, Illinois, in which the parties par- ticipated. At its conclusion, the parties waived oral argu- ment. They subsequently filed timely briefs. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my obser- vation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is an Illinois corporation having its prin- cipal office and place of business in Clinton, Illinois, where it is engaged as a retail store in the sale and dis- tribution of furniture, carpeting, and related products. During the year prior to the issuance of the complaint 166 N LRB No. 77 WAYSIDE FURNITURE CO., INC. Respondent sold and distributed products , the gross value of which exceeded $500,000. During the same period, it received goods valued in excess of $50,000 transported to its place of business in commerce directly from States other than the State of Illinois. The complaint alleges and Respondent's answer admits that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 279, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America is a labor organization admitting employees of Respondent to membership. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Discharges; Other Interference, Restraint, and Coercion 1. Background The Union's organizational activities began the latter part of January 1966, when Elwin Eubank, a truckdriver helper, and another employee met at the home of Guy Clapper, the Union's president. Both employees signed union authorization cards on this occasion , as thereafter did other employees. On May 20 and 23, as is hereinafter more fully related representatives of the Union called on Martin Lewis , Respondent's president, and asked him to recognize the Union as the bargaining representative of the employees in the backroom of the store where Brennan, Eubank, and Rainbolt worked under the super- vision of Bill Dawson. A few days later the Union filed a petition for an election. Respondent received formal notice of this from the Regional Director on June 3. 2. The discharge of Brennan, Eubank, and Rainbolt At the end of the day on which Respondent received notice that the Union had filed a petition for an election, Eubank along with David Brennan, a carpetlayer, and Thomas Rainbolt, a truckdriver helper, all of whom were employed in the backroom of the store, found checks for sick pay and vacation pay in their pay envelopes and went to Lewis in a group and asked him if this meant they were terminated. Lewis said that it did, and the three em- ployees left. The following testimony of Brennan as to this conversation is substantially the same as that of Eubank:' ... we asked him how come. He said , "Well, I told you before that if the Union was coming in, I was going to have to farm some of my work out." He said "I guess this is what we will have to do." And I asked him how come we wasn't notified in advance. He said "I just found out myself this morning." President Lewis did not deny the substance of the statements attributed to him by Brennan and Eubank on this occasion, and I find that he made them. The previous warning to which Lewis referred took place a few days before, shortly after the Union's ' The testimony of Rainbolt , called as a witness by Respondent, was less circumstantial but it in noway contradicted Brennan 759 representatives called on Lewis, and was testified to by Eubank. According to Eubank, Lewis on this occasion told a group of three or more employees that if the Union came in Respondent might have to contract some work out. Lewis admitted while testifying the substance of Eu- bank's account which I find to be in accord with the facts. Dawson, whose supervisory status is in dispute , called by Respondent as a witness , testified credibly that he is in charge of the "entire backroom" of Respondent's store, where furniture is touched up, merchandise prepared for delivery on trucks, and carpet cut. Nine em- ployees work in the backroom. Dawson directs this work as well as that of bringing merchandise purchased by Respondent from the warehouse to the store , and loading and unloading. According to his own testimony , he has on occasion effectively recommended pay raises for in- dividual employees . The three discharged employees worked in the backroom under Dawson's supervision. There is no other supervisor on the floor other than Lewis himself. I find Dawson to be a supervisor within the meaning ofthe Act. At Dawson's home, an hour or so after Lewis ter- minated Brennan, Eubank, and Rainbolt, Dawson told Gary Brennan , brother of David Brennan, according to the former's testimony, that there had been "trouble" at the store that evening during which his brother had been discharged . When Gary Brennan asked the reason, Dawson replied, "I guess it was because of the Union." Dawson further said that he "hated to see'' Brennan go because he was a good worker. Dawson, called as a witness by Respondent, said on direct examination that he "could have " said that the three men were let go because of the Union , but that he could not remember. I credit the account of Brennan, un- contradicted by Dawson, and find that Dawson made the statement attributed to him. Respondent's Defense to the Discharges ; Conclusions Respondent's defense to the discharge of these three employees, which also served as an explanation of Lewis' threat to contract out the laying of carpet , is that it was necessary to save money in the laying of carpet, which, according to Lewis, had been increasing over a period of about a year until it came to exceed the "break-even point" of $1.25 an hour. About March 1966, Lewis hired an accountant, whose name Lewis could not recall when he testified, to submit to him profit-and-loss statements. When the first of such statements, covering the months of April and May, was delivered to him, he decided to discharge Brennan, Eubank, and Rainbolt. His testimony on the point was as follows on direct examination: Q. (By Mr. Yocum) Did you come to any deci- sion about your carpet cost at this time? A. Just as I saw the April report come in, well, I made the decision pretty quickly then. TRIAL EXAMINER: When was this deci- sion? - You made a decision when you got the April report. THE WITNESS : I made the decision, yes. TRIAL EXAMINER: What was the decision? THE WITNESS : The decision I made was to cut ex- penses. 2 The carpet was laid by the three discharged employees and others, who delivered the carpet by truck. 760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TRIAL EXAMINER: Well, that is no new decision, is it? THE WITNESS: When I saw the big loss of the month- TRIAL EXAMINER: Well, what did you do specifi- cally? THE WITNESS: This is when I decided to get rid of the three men. On cross-examination, however, it appeared that the auditor's reports for both April and May were not delivered to the witness until after the discharge of the three employees on June 3: Q. When were they delivered to you? A. They were delivered about the 7th or 8th of June. Obviously, no decision to discharge Brennan, Eubank, and Rainbolt, based on the auditor's report, was, or could have been, made on June 3. What in fact was received on June 3 was the Regional Director's notice that the Union had filed its petition for an election. It was this, I find, that Lewis had "just found out" that morning, and which determined him to discharge the three employees. There is, in fact, no evidence that Respondent had ever contemplated the discharge of any employee as a means of reducing the cost of laying carpet.3 The only means ever mentioned was the contracting out of carpetlaying, and this remained only a threat as to what Respondent might do if the Union came in. By Lewis' own testimony, no work had been contracted out by the time of the hear- ing. I view the defense to the discharge of Brennan, Eu- bank, and Rainbolt that it was because of the loss of money in laying carpet as only an afterthought. I find that its real purpose was to undermine the Union, in con- travention of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.4 B. The Refusal to Bargain 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges and the General Counsel urges that all truckdrivers, truckdriver helpers, warehousemen, furniture touchup men, carpetlayers, and carpetlayer hel- pers, but excluding all other employees, professional em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. Respondent contends that an appropriate unit is a storewide unit of all Respondent's employees, includ- ing particularly the salesmen and office clericals, as well as President Lewis' wife, two other members of the Lewis family who worked in the office, the credit manager, and Dawson; in short everyone but President Lewis himself. There is no history of collective bargain- ing. Respondent's nonsupervisory employees on May 20, 1966, were 22 in number. Of these, three were members of the Lewis family (other than Martin Lewis), four were other office clericals, one was a cleaning woman, five I Lewis' testimony was not that the carpet department was operating at a loss, but only that the cost per yard in laying carpet for customers was not economical because it exceeded $1.25 an hour, the "break-even" point ' Ratnbolt was reemployed by Respondent about the middle of August. Later, Respondent offered to reinstate Eubank, but Eubank refused the offer. were salesmen, and nine were nonselling employees who worked in Respondent's backroom as truckdrivers, truckdriver helpers, carpetlayers, carpetlayer helpers, and furniture touchup men.'Within this group there were no hard and fast dividing lines as to their work. Brennan was a carpetlayer as well as truckdriver helper, and Eu- bank and Rainbolt were both truckdrivers and truckdriver helpers. The principal division here is between the five salesmen who worked on the selling floor and the nine nonselling employees in the backroom. The salesmen are paid on a commission basis; the nonselling employees are paid an hourly rate. The salesmen wear ordinary business clothing; the nonselling employees wear uniforms bearing the company name. The salesmen meet the public; the employees in the backroom do not.5 The record does not reveal any transfers between selling and nonselling jobs, or any interchange of employees. The salesmen work en- tirely in the salesroom in the front of the store. The em- ployees in the backroom go back and forth to the two warehouses which Respondent rents in other parts of town, picking up and delivering merchandise, loading and unloading. On occasions when they carry furniture from the backroom to the sales floor, or from the sales floor to the backroom for delivery, they may be assisted by a salesman. Jargon, who touches up furniture, does so on the sales floor as well as in the backroom. Most of his time he spends in the backroom loading and unloading and preparing furniture for delivery. The backroom em- ployees help with the annual inventory. Such supervision as there is of the salesmen is exer- cised directly by President Lewis. As has been found, the backroom employees are immediately supervised by Dawson. Respondent, in its brief, cites Bullock's Incorporated, d/bla I. Magnin & Company, a Division of Bullock's Inc.,6 and May Department Stores Company, Kaufmann Division,7 where the Board held a storewide unit "basi- cally appropriate," or the "optimum unit," in retail establishments. It has also held that the single com- prehensive unit is not the only appropriate unit. Hence, in Allied Stores of New York, Inc., d/bla Stern's, Paramus,8 in finding appropriate separate units of selling and non- selling employees, it said: The Employer's argument, that no distinctions exist between the selling and nonselling forces, minimizes the significance of the Employer's main venture - to sell - and the salespeople whose ability to sell plays a large part in the success of its business. Certainly the obvious job qualifications to the com- petent salesperson -pleasing personality, poise, self- confidence, ease in dealing with strangers, imagina- tion, ability to speak well, and to persuade-are not demanded of nonselling personnel. The latter's work is largely manual in bringing merchandise in and out of the store, does not involve meeting the public, knowing desirable features and construction of merchandise, and showing initiative in marketing a product. Failure to appreciate the difference between They meet customers only when they are dispatched to private homes or business places to lay carpet 6 119 NLRB 642, 643. 7 97 NLRB 1007, 1008 6 150 N LRB 799, 804 WAYSIDE FURNITURE CO., INC. 761 a salesperson's job and that of other store employees is to disregard the obvious. I find that the inclusion of neither the salesmen, the of- fice clericals, nor the other office employees would be ap- propriate, and that the unit as set forth in the complaint, with the addition of the cleaning woman, 10 employees in all, is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Union's majority in the appropriate unit There were submitted in evidence union authorization cards signed by 7 of the 10 employees in the above-found appropriate unit prior to May 20, 1966. No contention is made as to the validity of their execution. 3. The refusal to bargain As has been found, on May 20 Edward Pavlat, or- gantizer for the Teamsters' Joint Council 5 of Illinois, together with Charles Austin, secretary-treasurer of the Union, called on Lewis at the store, and after identifying themselves told Lewis that they had signed authorization cards designating the Union from a majority of the em- ployees in the backroom, and asked him to recognize the Union as their bargaining representative. Upon his claim- ing unfamiliarity with the proper procedure under the cir- cumstances, the Union's representatives suggested that the authorization cards be checked by a neutral person. When Lewis hesitated it was suggested that he might like time to consult an attorney, and the meeting broke up with a promise by the union representatives to call Lewis the following Monday, May 23. At that time, according to Austin's testimony, he telephoned Lewis and asked him if he had an opportunity to consult an attorney and Lewis said he had not. Austin then repeated his request for recognition of the Union, to which Lewis replied that he felt he should have a meeting with the employees to find out their attitude and asked what Respondent might expect in the way of a contract, to which Austin replied that the Union's standard form of contract would be the basis of negotiations. The conversation ended by Lewis, according to Austin, saying that he would not recognize the Union at that time. Lewis testified that although Austin telephoned him on this occasion he could not remember anything that was said by either himself or Austin, not even whether anything was said about the Union. I find this incredible and that, in fact, Lewis made statements attributed to him by Austin, including the statement that Respondent would not recognize the Union. It is to be noted that neither in the meetings on May 20, between Lewis, Pavlat, and Austin, nor in the telephone conversation on May 23, between Lewis and Austin, did Lewis express any doubt that the Union had signed up a majority of Respondent's employees. Respondent's refusal on May 20 and 23 to recognize the Union was followed by the filing of the Union's peti- tion and service of notice of that fact on Respondent on June 3, and by Respondent's discharge of Brennan, Eu- bank, and Rainbolt later that day. I am convinced that Respondent's whole course of conduct, first in refusing to recognize the Union, and then in discharging Brennan, Eubank, and Rainbolt, together with threats to contract out work and lay off employees if the Union came in, was motivated solely by its determination not to bargain with the Union. In so refusing Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activites of Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations, 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 bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of the Act, I shall recommend below that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged David Brennan, Elwin Eubank, and Thomas Rainbolt, and that it subsequently made valid offers of reinstatement to Elwin Eubank and Thomas Rainbolt, I shall recommend that it offer David Brennan immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent employment, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make whole David Brennan, Elwin Eubank, and Thomas Rainbolt for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respond- ent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstate- ment, less his net earnings during said period. Such backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294, and with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum as prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Discrimination against employees for seeking to bar- gain collectively and a refusal to bargain with the majority representative of its employees go to the very heart of the Act and demonstrate such an opposition to its policies that it is reasonable to assume that the employer, under similar circumstances in the future, will interfere with its employees statutory rights. Accordingly, I shall include in my Recommended Order a provision directing Respondent not to interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in any manner in the exercise of their statutory rights. Because it is clear that Respondent's conduct was motivated by opposition to all union activity among its employees and to the principle of collective bargaining generally, my Recommended Order will prohibit dis- crimination because of or interference with the exercise by the employees of their statutory rights on behalf of the Union or any other labor organization. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Wayside Furniture Company, Incorporated, is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. By discharging employees David Brennan, Elwin Eubank, and Thomas Rainbolt in order to destroy the Union's majority and to avoid the Company's statutory duty to bargain collectively with the majority representa- tive of its employees, Respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. Since May 20, 1966, the Union has been and now is the statutory bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the following appropriate unit for collective bargaining: all truckdrivers, truckdriver helpers, warehousemen, furniture touchup men, cleaning woman, carpetlayers, and carpetlayer helpers, excluding all other employees, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined by the Act. 5. By refusing on May 20 and 23, 1966, when requested, to recognize the Union as the representative of Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit and to bargain with it, Respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. By threatening to contract out work and to lay off or discharge employees if the Union came in, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The unfair labor practices set forth above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondent, Wayside Furniture Company, Incorporated, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in the Union or any other labor organization, by discharging or otherwise dis- criminating against employees because they or some of them engage in union activity and/or seek to bargain col- lectively. (b) Refusing to bargain, on request, with the Union as the statutory bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit for collective bargaining: all truckdrivers, truckdriver helpers, warehousemen, fur- niture touchup men, cleaning woman, carpetlayers, car- petlayer helpers, excluding all other employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined by the Act. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activity for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any such activity. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Offer David Brennan immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make David Brennan, Elwin Eubank, and Thomas Rainbolt whole for any losses they may have suf- fered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Bargain collectively, on request, with the Union as the bargaining representative of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree- ment. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under this Recommended Order. (d) Post in its plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 38, after being signed by Respondent's representative, shall, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 38, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.10 N In 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 Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words " a Decision and Order." 11 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 Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em- ployees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 279, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, or any other labor organization, by discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees in re- gard 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 union, 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 mu- tual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WAYSIDE FURNITURE CO., INC. 763 WE WILL offer David Brennan immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges , and make him and Elwin Eubank and Thomas Rainbolt whole for any losses they may have suffered as a result of their discharge. WE WILL bargain collectively , on request, with Local 279, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, as the exclusive representative of employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other terms and conditions of employment and, if an un- derstanding is reached, we will embody such un- derstanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is: All truckdrivers, truckdriver helpers, warehousemen, furniture touchup men, cleaning woman, carpetlayers and carpetlayer helpers, excluding all other employees, professional em- ployees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization, except to the extent that such a right may be affected by an agree- ment in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. WAYSIDE FURNITURE COR- PORATION (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) NOTE: We will notify any of the above-named em- ployees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon ap- plication in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and 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 provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 4th Floor Citizens Building, 225 Main Street, Peoria, Illinois 61602, Telephone 673-9061, Extension 287.