Builders Supply Co. of Houston

BUILDERS SUPPLY CO. OF HOUSTON 163 Builders Supply Co. of Houston and General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers , Local Union No. 968, Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Harold L. Anglin, an In- dividual. Cases 23-CA-2401, 23-CA-2439, 23-CA-2462, and 23-CA-2462-2 November 9, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA On July 13, 1967, Trial Examiner Harold X. Summers issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent has 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. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in the other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. 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 these cases to a three- member panel. 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 the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION HAROLD X. SUMMERS, Trial Examiner: This matter was heard on the consolidated complaint' of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board), alleging that Builders Supply Co. of Houston (Respondent), had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Respondent's answer to the complaint admitted some of its allegations, denied others, disclaimed knowledge as to still others, and defended affirmatively; in effect, it denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me at Houston, Texas, on 5 days between November 14, 1966, and January 17, 1967, inclusive. At the hearing, the complaint was amended in certain aspects and an answer to the amendments was duly filed. All parties were af- forded full opportunity to call and examine and to cross- examine witnesses, to argue orally, and thereafter to sub- mit briefs. Upon the entire record2 in the case, including my evaluation of the reliability of witnesses based upon the evidence and my observation of their demeanor, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. COMMERCE Respondent, at all times material, has been a Texas corporation engaged in the business of the handling, manufacture, and sale, typically to those engaged in con- struction work, of "ready-mix" concrete and related building products. Its principal office is located at 3707 Chimney Rock, Houston, Texas, and it maintains plants there, on McKee Street, also in Houston, and at La Porte, Texas. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the instant complaint, in the course and conduct of its business operations, Respondent received materials and products from points outside the State of Texas valued at in excess of $50,000 and sold and distributed products the gross value of which exceeded $500,000. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE UNIONS 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 or- ders that Respondent, Builders Supply Co. of Houston, Houston, Texas, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges un- fair labor practices not specifically found in the Trial Examiner's Decision. General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 968, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein Local 968), one of the charging parties, and Independent Concrete Workers' Union (the Independent), an organization which figured in the testimony, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. I The complaint was issued on September 28, 1966 The charge initiat- ing the proceeding was filed on May 28, 1966 ' On February 9, 1967, 1 issued an order to show cause why the trans- cript of hearing should not be corrected in specified respects No good cause to the contrary having been shown, the corrections indicated in the order to show cause (which is received in evidence as Trial Examiner's Exhibit 1) are hereby ordered made 168 NLRB No. 29 336-845 0 - 70 - 12 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background, Setting, and General Chronology of Events In 1954 or 1955, the Independent was certified by the Board as bargaining agent for Respondent's nonsuper- visory production and maintenance employees, including truckdrivers, working at or out of its three plants. The most recent collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and the Independent covering the working conditions of these employees was effective, by its terms, from July 25, 1963, to July 20, 1966. During the first half of 1966,3 Local 968 conducted an organizing campaign among Respondent's employees represented by the Independent, culminating, on April 22, in the filing of a presentation petition.' The Inde- pendent intervened in the proceeding. On May 16, all parties met at the Regional Office of the Board at Houston, and a stipulation for a consent election among the involved employees was executed. As the election, held on June 17, 108 votes were cast, a majority of which (between 5 and 7 more than those cast for the Independ- ent) were for Local 968. Thereafter, objections having been filed, all parties agreed that the election of June 17 should be set aside.5 Meanwhile, on May 23, Harold Anglin, one of the al- leged discriminatees herein, was discharged. And, sub- sequent to the election - the date is in dispute - the em- ployment of Robert Hayes, the other alleged dis- criminatee, was terminated. B. Independent Interference, Restraint, and Coercion - Other Indicia of Respondent's Attitude Toward Unions 1. sin the early part of February, Julian Gilbreth, Respondent's general superintendent, approached Inde- pendent President Roy Carrico at the latter's workplace and asked if he were aware of the signing of "Teamster" authorization cards by employees. Carrico said he was not. Gilbreth then said that he would appreciate Carrico's "finding out" and, if he discovered anything, "letting me know." (His explanation, given at the instant hearing: so that he would know what Respondent's future "require- ments" would be and with whom it would have to deal, he believed that he ought to have the information in question .) Carrico did not subsequently report to Gil- breth on the matter. 2. Approximately 2 weeks later, in the course of a con- versation, Respondent's President Roy P. Drennan, in Gilbreth's presence, told Carrico a story7 which Carrico took to mean - with reasonable justification, I find - that a too vigorous discharge of his responsibilities as Inde- pendent president might be regarded as an interference with the operation of Respondent's business which could lead to discharge. There was no mention of Local 968. 3. During the morning of May 16, the parties to the earlier noted representation case met at the Regional Of- fice of the Board. The hearing then scheduled to be held was canceled upon execution of an agreement for an elec- tion. Since officials of the Independent from all three plants were present, it was agreed between them and Respondent's officials that they would get together that afternoon to discuss the coming election; and a meeting was held after lunch at the offices of Respondent's coun- sel Carlton Wilde. Present were Wilde and Drennan for Respondent, and Carrico, Clyde Smith, and Roy Glass, respectively president, vice president, and secretary- treasurer of the Independent. Carrico raised the question of what benefits the Independent might be able to offer the employees in the event of an election victory. Wilde pointed to the impropriety of discussing such a subject in the face of the election, and the conversation turned to other directions. Respondent offered to render assistance to the Independent in connection with the election cam- paign; specifically, ways and means through which Drennan might be effective were explored, and the possi- bility of his making pro-Independent speeches was broached. The Independent representatives welcomed any assistance Respondent might render S 4. On or about June 10-a week before the election was scheduled to be held -Drennan telephoned Carrico. (Drennan was officed at Chimney Rock, Carrico was working at the McKee Street plant.) He asked Carrico's opinion about the coming election. Told that it would be "real close," Drennan asked Carrico if he was waging an active campaign for Independent votes. Carrico said that he was not planning to influence his fellow employees one way or the other. Drennan's stated reaction: he was going ,to try to influence the vote of anyone he could-he had al- ready given a preelection speech at the Chimney Rock plant and he intended to do the same at the other two plants. 5. As a matter of fact, Drennan did speak at all three plants during the preelection period. (Although his re- marks were pro-Independent, there is no allegation or evidence that they constituted other than an expression of views, arguments, or opinion, free of threats of reprisal or force and of promise of benefit.) It is conceded, and I find, that, throughout the relevant period herein, Respond- ent favored the Independent over Local 968; to this end, on many occasions, one or another of its representatives had conversations with Independent President Carrico and, on other occasions, publicly campaigned for the In- dependent and against Local 968 among Respondent's employees.9 3 All dates hereinafter mentioned fall within 1966 unless indicated otherwise " Case 23-RC-2703 There are indications in this record that, a year earlier, Local 968 had made an organizing attempt among these em- ployees, but apparently nothing came of it 5 Since then , the holding of a new election has been directed by the Board , but no date had been set for the election as of the time this hearing was being held 6 To avoid repetition , this and the next several paragraphs will be num- bered Subsequent references to them will take the form of the word "Item" followed by the number(s) of the paragraph(s) being referred to 7 A number of years back (the story ran), a company official informed an employee who continually put forth suggestions for the improvement of the business that the employee's ideas were good ones but that the offi- cial wanted to run the business himself, whereupon he discharged the em- ployee 8 I find that Drennan did not, at this meeting, ask Carrico which em- ployees were instrumental in getting Local 968 cards signed This is con- trary to the testimony of General Counsel's witnesses Carrico and Glass, but I believe they were confusing the incident with another earlier described herein In my findings, I have basically credited the testimony of Respondent's witness Wilde , which , in my opinion, most accords with the plausible 9 On this record, the testimony of Assistant Superintendent Rufus Jones to the effect that , prior to the election, Respondent took no position on the union question, that it did not encourage its employees to vote against Local 968, and that he was unaware that any of Respondent's representatives took a position on the matter, taxes my credulity BUILDERS SUPPLY CO. OF HOUSTON 6. On or about June 14, Drennan, via Respondent's radio communication system, requested Carrico to telephone him. Carrico did so. Saying that he needed the information for work scheduling purposes, Drennan asked who would be representing the two unions in the election 3 days hence. Carrico said he did not know who Local 968's "observers" would be but-at Drennan's specific request-he said he would try to find out. As for his own (Independent) observers, Carrico named, for the three plants, himself, Vice President Smith, and Chimney Rock Plant Steward Robert Hayes. Upon receiving this information, Drennan said that Carrico "had a good one" in Smith, but, "This Robert Hayes-he's a good Teamster. I guess you know he gave the Teamsters a bar- becue the other night. I guess there 's no use telling you -you were probably there." Carrico said he had not attended. Then Drennan asked, "How about using John- ny Bula at Chimney Rock?" a suggestion to which Car- rico acceded. Upon subsequent consideration, Carrico decided to use another Independent official instead of Bula; he conveyed this information to Drennan, who said, "Okay." 7. During the 2 or 3 days preceding the election, Mal- colm (Mac) Warman, a truck foreman for Respondent at the McKee Street plant,10 separately spoke to each of the McKee Street employees who would be eligible to vote in the election. In general, he solicited votes for the Inde- pendent and against Local 968. Testimony was in- troduced at this hearing with respect to some of these conversations, on the basis of which I am able to make a number of specific findings. Warman told one employee that he (Warman) "needed the Teamsters worse than he needed a snake" -that between a snake and a Teamster he'd "choose the snake first." He asked another em- ployee what he "thought of the election"; informed by the employee that he was "where the money is," Warman said, "So you're a Teamster, eh?" and walked off. In a conversation with another employee, Warman asked how the employees felt about Local 968 coming in,tt and he commented, "You know the Teamsters give a lot of promises and that's all you get!" And in still another con- versation , repeating the comment about false promises, he added that Local 968 would not do anything for the employees and were not equipped to cope with the problems of the ready-mix cement industry. The General Counsel takes the position that (independ- ent of implications which might be read into the alleged discriminatory discharges - treated infra) representatives of Respondent engaged in certain acts constituting inter- ference with, and restraint and coercion of, its employees in the exercise of their self-organizational rights and that these acts, plus others which themselves might not add up to interference , restraint, or coercion, constitute "background" material which helps to clarify the meaning of Respondent's course of conduct throughout the period in question. The complaint, as amended , alleged that Respondent's interference with, and restraint and coercion of, em- ° I find him to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. " The employee' s answer . he didn't yet know how he was going to vote. 12 Respondent , in its brief, correctly states that interrogation is not coercive per se. But Gilbreth's asking Carrico the identity of Local 968 supporters would have the natural effect of inhibiting Carrico - and any- one else who heard of the incident - in implementing any inclinations he might have to switch his allegiance. (As a matter of fact , the evidence in 165 ployees' self-organizational rights, consisted of the fol- lowing: (a) On or about February 1, Respondent's General Superintendent Gilbreth interrogated employees con- cerning their union activities. (b) On or about April 1, Respondent's President Drennan threatened employees with discharge if they joined or supported the Local 968. (c) On or about May 16 , Drennan interrogated em- ployees concerning their union activities. (d) On or about June 1, Gilbreth threatened em- ployees with discharge if they joined and supported Local 968. (e) Between June 1 and 3, Drennan solicited em- ployees to support and vote for the Independent. (1) On or about June 14, Drennan objected to the In- dependent's selection of one of its observers because of his activities on behalf of Local 968. (g) On or about June 15, Respondent 's Foreman War- man interrogated employees concerning their activities on behalf of Local 968. I have attempted to match the allegation with the facts found to determine whether they are supported by the testimony adduced. Without further ado, I find that allegations (a),12 (f), and (g) are fully supported by the evidence. See supra, items 1, 6, and 7, respectively. Within the context of this case , I shall recommend dismissal of allegation (b). In the first place , the allegation is couched in terms of threats against employees if they joined or supported Local 968, whereas the proof-item 2- supports a finding of a threat for activity on behalf of the Independent. This is contrary to the thrust of the General Counsel's case ; perhaps it constituted a violation of the Act but, in the absence of explication by the General Counsel, I cannot say beyond peradventure that the point was fully litigated. Allegation (c) is not supported - indeed, it is negated - by my findings enumerated at item 3. And no testimony whatsoever was introduced in support of allegation (d). While I have found that allegation (e) is factually cor- rect- see items 3, 4, and 5 - I perceive in this no unlawful interference, restraint, or coercion. Insofar as this record reveals, Drennan's electioneering conduct lay within per- missible bounds. 13 C. The Termination of Harold Anglin Harold Anglin was hired by Respondent as a truckdriver in early August 1965. The General Counsel contends that his discharge, on May 24, 1966, was the result of his activities on behalf of Local 968; Respond- ent, on the other hand, avers that Anglin was discharged because of a number of incidents of irresponsible driving, culminating, on May 23, in an accident for which he was responsible. this matter reveals that at least two persons with leanings toward Local 968 - Robert Hayes and Emmit West - were officers of the Independent.) 13 General Counsel quotes from Hopcon, Inc., 161 NLRB 31, to the ef- fect that an employer's lack of neutrality violates the Act. The quotations ignore the contextual circumstances , and I reject this per se approach. The lack of neutrality must be accompanied by coercion, expressed or im- phed,in order to be held violative. 166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As earlier indicated, Local 968 conducted an organiz- ing campaign among Respondent's employees early in 1966. Along with his fellow employee and close friend, Robert Hayes-of whom, more infra-Anglin, on May 13, signed a card authorizing Local 968 to represent him for collective-bargaining purposes. At the same time he accepted blank authorization cards for use by other em- ployees. That night, he procured employees' signatures on three cards; in addition, that day and the next, he and Hayes together procured three more signed cards. The morning of May 23, Anglin's truck developed a defect. Respondent's own mechanics unable to make the repair, Anglin was instructed to take the truck to a truck repair shop. At approximately 10:45 a.m., he pulled out of the Chimney Rock yard onto Chimney Rock Road. As he turned to the right from the plant exit, the left corner of his front bumper came into contact with the right rear fender of a passenger automobile proceeding in the direction into which Hayes' truck was turning. The damage to the passenger automobile amounted to $55.03. Considerable testimony bearing on the extent of Anglin's responsibility for this accident was introduced at this hearing. On the credited testimony, I find that, as he approached the plant exit, Anglin was moving at an un- duly excessive speed within the plant property; that, although he "down-shifted" and slowed, he did not come to a full stop at the street line; that he failed to see the on- coming car in time to avoid the accident, either because his view was obstructed by the side mirror or because he did not look but, at any rate, because of his failure to take reasonable precautions; and that, in short, the responsi- bility for the accident lay with Anglin and with Anglin alone. In effect, he conceded this at the scene of the ac- cident, as a result of which concession Rufus Jones, Respondent's assistant general superintendent, told the owner of the car then and there that Respondent would pay for any damage. Following the accident, Anglin proceeded to take his truck to the repair shop and, that evening, he returned it to the plant. Next morning, Anglin reported for work as usual. At or about 8:25 a.m., Jones approached him and, handing him a paycheck, said that Respondent was letting him go. Asked why, Jones referred to the accident of the day be- fore and to another incident several days earlier - discussed below. Without comment, Anglin took the check, procured his personal belongings from his truck, and left. Later that day, Jones prepared a "warning ticket": WARNING NOTICE No. 97 Truck Number 214 Driver Harold Anglin Date 52366 Time a.m. Location Chimney Rock Plant p.m. Road Conditions Good Weather Clear Comments Anglin was fired 5.24-66 9 a.m. - because he did not stop for traffic on Chimney Rock when leaving plant. He ran into a T -Bird Auto. Had been warned about reckless driving on Friday 52066 in plant. BUILDERS SUPPLY CO. of Houston by s / Rufus Jones s/ Robert Hayes Driver's Signature In Anglin's absence, he gave a copy of the notice to Robert Hayes, who was job steward for the Independent, saying that he had prepared it "for record purposes." As indicated, Hayes placed his signature on the original. That night - the 24th - Hayes showed the ticket to Anglin. Anglin's immediate reaction was to file with Hayes a written grievance over his discharge. In sub- stance, he objected to being discharged because of the ac- cident at the plant exit whereas other of Respondent's dnvers who had been involved in accidents had not been discharged." Shortly thereafter, Hayes turned the grievance over to Roy Carrico, president of the Independent,15 and, on June 1, a "grievance meeting" was held at the office of Carlton Wilde, counsel for Respondent.16 Present at the meeting for Respondent were Wilde, Roy Drennan, president, Julian Gilbreth, general superin- tendent, Rufus Jones, his assistant, and (as a witness) Leslie McGuire, a dispatcher; for the grievant Anglin, Roy Carrico and Roy Glass, respectively president and secretary-treasurer of the Independent, Robert Hayes, Anglin's job steward, and Anglin himself. It was stated at this meeting that Respondent had discharged Anglin not only for the accident of May 23 but also for his reckless driving within the Chimney Rock yard on May 20 and for his part in a "burnout" incident" reported to Respondent a few days prior to May 23. With respect to the May 23 accident, McGuire related that he had witnessed Anglin approaching the exit at too high a speed, a statement unchallenged by Anglin. Although Hayes made an at- tempt to defend Anglin's part in the accident by noting that there was no stop sign at the plant exit - in reaction to which argument Gilbreth said, "Well, Hayes, if you don't like it, we don't need you out there either" - the bur- den of the Independent representatives' defense was that, responsible or not, Anglin should not have been discharged without having been given a warning ticket; in view of Anglin's past driving record and of the minor na- ture of the activating accident, they urged that he be given a "second chance." 14 He expressed a willingness to sustain a 2-day layoff "just as the other dnvers have got " 15 According to Carrico, Hayes told him that Respondent would not ac- cept the grievance directly from him (Hayes ). But Hayes' own testimony on Respondent's alleged refusal to accept the grievance is ambiguous, and I shall make no finding thnt there was such a refusal Within 48 hours after Carrico mailed the grievance to Respondent, a date for a meeting was agreed upon 11 In the past, all grievance meetings had been held on company premises, but, upon the filing of Local 968's representation petition, the head of Respondent's parent company directed that Wilde personally con- duct all grievance meetings until the representation matter was resolved The first meeting under this instruction was held on May 23, this, on June 1, was the second 11 In truckers' terminology, a burnout occurs when a truck cuts closely in front of a vehicle traveling in the same direction BUILDERS SUPPLY CO. OF HOUSTON 167 The meeting ended with the grievance unremedied. Representatives of Respondent refused to reconsider their action.'8 I have alluded to prior incidents which-Respondent claims - contributed to Anglin's discharge. On the basis of credited testimony, I make the following findings with respect to the incidents: (1) Early on May 20, Assistant General Superintendent Jones received a complaint from a Robert Titus that one of Respondent's trucks had cut him off that morning ; that, based on the license number given, Jones believed Anglin to be the offending driver; that the incident was first mentioned to Anglin at the grievance meeting of June 1;19 and that Anglin there neither admitted nor denied responsibility- he was aware of no such incident.20 (2) During the late afternoon of May 20, Anglin engaged in a bit of "hot-rodding." He drove his truck toward the rear of the Chimney- Rock premises , for the purpose of washing it out. The ground was wet, either because of water from the washout pits or because of the weather. He was-I find-traveling "too fast for the existing conditions."21 As he bounced across the railroad spur which traverses the yard toward its rear, he cut his front wheels hard to the right and applied the brakes. The result-the intended result, in my opinion-was that the truck slid around, with a minimum of effort, to a point and in a position for backing into the washout pit.22 His action was immediately reported to General Superintendent Gilbreth, who, within a few minutes, reprimanded Anglin for mistreating expensive equipment. I have found that there was a factual basis for the reason assigned by Respondent for Anglin's discharge. The General Counsel's case, in part, depends on the plausibility, or lack of plausibility, of Respondent's reac- tion to this set of facts. I have carefully considered the evidence as to Respond- ent's response to accidents involving its truckdrivers during the years 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966, evidence covering the circumstances of 47 accidents.23 On what I have heard, I find and conclude that either no disciplinary action or disciplinary action short of discharge was taken in at least 22 cases in which the drivers were at least as much at fault as Anglin was in his accident.24 To say the least, this casts doubt on the genuineness of the asserted basis for Anglin's discharge.25 (Nor is the validity of the assigned reason for discharge bolstered by Anglin's past record. There is no suggestion that he was responsible for any drivving incident prior to May 20. On that day, he was reported for having cut in front of an automobile, an occurrence about which he dis- claimr knowledge; Respondent's reaction to such an oc- currence can be found in the attached Appendix A - see incidents involving drivers Richard Adams and Bill Frady, reported on March 11, 1963, and May 5, 1965, respectively. As for his in-yard hotrodding on May 20, other of Respondent's drivers engaged in the practice, ac- cording to fair implications in the testimony of Respon- dent's foreman, Berger. "Those drivers" he continued, "have got it made there, as far as I am concerned. They have to do something pretty drastic to get fired.") But this is not dispositive of the matter. For Respond- ent disclaims any knowledge of union activity on the part of Anglin. Anglin's activities, vis-a-vis Local 968, consisted of his signing an authorization card on May 13 and, thereafter, of his solicitation of the signatures of six fellow em- ployees, all away from company premises. For the ensu- ing 10 days of his employment, the evidence is, and I find, that Anglin exercised an abundance of caution with respect to his feelings about a change of bargaining representatives. For example, he kept it from the Inde- pendent's president.26 There is no probative evidence that his proclivities, let alone his activities, were brought to management's attenticn. (I reject the General Counsel's conjectural contention that, because members of management were in a position to overhear certain of their employees' conversations, they must have been aware of the leanings of those who favored representation by Local 968. Although it is true that the "intercom" system at Chimney Rock was so con- structed that those at the dispatcher's office (two super- visors and two dispatchers) could, at will, pick up voices emanating from the truckdrivers' waiting room or from the pump at which they fueled their trucks, I perceive here no probative evidence that they made any such ef- fort except in the course of normal business operations. For one thing, the dispatcher's office was a busy place, its intercom system or its two-way radio system constantly in use for business purposes. For another, I find that the employees in general , and the pro-Local 968 employees in particular, aware of the possibility of being overheard, did not, within earshot of the microphones, say that which they did not want to be overheard. In fact, there are indi- cations here that they would, on occasion, turn up a radio to mask conversations.) In sum , however implausible the asserted reason for Anglin's discharge, 1 am not convinced, from a preponde- 'k Anglin, and Anglin alone, testified that company representatives, noting the pendency of the unfair labor practice charge which is one of the bases of the instant proceeding, suggested that the matter might be more susceptible to arbitration if the charge was dropped Although there was no contradiction , I do not accept the interpretation implicit in General Counsel's introduction of the testimony , I believe that Anglin (mis)un- derstood that this was Respondent 's position whereas its true position (as put forward at this hearing ) was that it was unwilling to arbitrate the matter unless it could be assured that the award would carry weight with the Board 14 In this respect, I credit Anglin rather than Jones For one thing, I note that the postdischarge warning ticket, which I have earlier quoted, makes no mention of the incident Also, Jones' credibility is subject to some question , see fn 9 20 At the June I meeting , this aroused a bit of byplay Attorney Wilde expressed the opinion that anyone who was a truckdnver would know if he had "burned out" anyone Carrico downgraded the opinion , noting that Wilde was a lawyer, not a truckdriver, at the same time, however, he deplored his own inadequacies in arguing with a trained lawyer On his own testimony , 5 miles per hour was too fast 22 To the extent that the several versions of the incident are contradic- tory, I have credited Clyde Berger, Respondent's shop superintendent, who struck me as being a believable witness 21 These accidents were culled by the charging party from among a total of perhaps 200 which occurred during the period Considering the circum- stances of the selection , I here find, with respect to those accidents about which no testimony was introduced at this hearing , that in none of them was Respondent's driver at fault 24 See attached Appendix A In arriving at my findings as to degree of "fault" I have taken into consideration the fact that it is more difficult to avoid accidents at construction sites than on public streets and highways 25 1 reject Jones' equivocal testimony that Respondent was told by an insurance company to let Anglin go Aside from the equivocality , I think it patent that , if this were true, it would have been brought out at the time of the discharge or, at least , at the grievance meeting ofJune 1 26 At an Independent meeting , held on July II - after his discharge - he did speak openly on the subject 168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rance of the evidence, that it was related to any union or concerted activities. D. The Termination of Robert Hayes Robert Hayes was hired by Respondent in January 1964. For the next year and a half he worked as a truckdriver at and out of the Chimney Rock plant. And, during the last two-thirds of this period, he was the shop steward for the Independent at the Chimney Rock plant. June 17, 1966, marked two events in Hayes' working career. He voted in the union representation election; and this was the last day he worked for Respondent. In the course of the day, Hayes told Rufus Jones, Respondent's assistant general superintendent, that, because of personal business, he needed the next day and perhaps Monday off. Jones said that this was all right. On Sunday, the 19th, he fell ill. On Monday (after leav- ing word of his indisposition at Respondent's dispatcher's office), he visited a doctor. Told that he would need hospitalization for diagnosis, he conveyed this fact to Respondent. He told the person who answered the telephone - he thought it was Jones - that the tests would consume at least 2 or 3 days, and he was told to "keep in touch." Hayes entered the hospital on Wednesday, the 21st, the first day a bed was available, and he immediately re- ported this fact to Jones. He said that X-rays would be taken next morning, and Jones told to "keep in touch." Next morning X-ray pictures were taken but not im- mediately read; once again , Hayes reported to Jones and Jones told him to keep Respondent informed. On Mon- day, the 27th, Hayes was told that his basic problem was related to his gall bladder, a condition which required im- mediate treatment; Hayes notified Jones and Jones again told Hayes to maintain communication. Hayes was in the hospital until July 5. Almost every other day during his stay there, he called in to Respond- ent, speaking either to Jones or to a dispatcher. In one of the conversations with Jones, he was told that, when he was ready to return to work, a release from his doctor and an examination by a company doctor would be required. Upon his discharge from the hospital, Hayes was not immediately discharged as able to work. He reported this fact by telephone to Jones, in the course of which conver- sation he was informed that, because of a 'pending strike'27 half the trucks of Respondent were idle. Hayes was still under doctor's orders not to return to work when, on July 11, he attended a meeting of the In- dependent, at which the possibility of maintaining the In- dependent despite the election results was debated. The meeting was marked by a "hot" argument between Hayes and another employee, in the course of which Hayes made it quite clear that he favored dissolution of the Inde- pendent and representation of Respondent's employees by Local 968. On July 15, Hayes' doctor, in writing, gave Hayes per- mission to return to his job as of Monday, the 18th. Early Monday morning, Hayes called Jones, told him of his release, and said he was ready to return. Jones said he had nothing for Hayes "right then," and Hayes said he would call again on Wednesday, the 20th. On Wednesday, in response to Hayes' specific query as to his status, Jones said that Hayes had been "replaced." (From their preoccupation with the subject, it is clear that the parties here regard the exact date of Hayes' ter- mination as a critical issue. The General Counsel con- tends that it took place on July 20, Respondent that it took place on June 30. In support of its position, Respond- ent offered the testimony of Assistant Superintendent Jones to the effect that during a telephone conversation between him and Hayes on June 30, he specifically told Hayes that his employment was terminated. Hayes testified that this did not occur and that, in fact, he first learned that he was no longer an employee in the July 20th conversation - supra - in which he was told he had been replaced. My relevant findings are recited above. In effect, I have credited Hayes. Aside from my evaluation of the relative credibility of the two, Jones' version lacks plausibility. The reason he assigned for terminating Hayes' employment was that Hayes failed or refused to bring in "papers showing why he had been in the hospital [and] releases from his doctor"; yet, he was still in the hospital under a doctor's care on the date Jones designates as the date of his termination for this reason! To the extent that it may have relevance, I find that Hayes' employment was terminated on July 18 (not 20), the day he was told that there was no work for him "right then. "211) On Thursday, July 21, Hayes again called Jones to ask about his exact status.29 When he was again told that he had been replaced, he added about vacation pay due him. He was told that he could come in for it the next morning, and he did pick up a vacation check (dated July 20). At this time, he spoke to Jones; he asked about the possibili- ty of Respondent's letting some of the new men go and re- calling him because he needed the work. Jones said that, in view of the slackness of work, this could not be done. Hayes signified acceptance of the situation, saying that he liked to work for Respondent and had always respected Jones, to which Jones replied that he too liked Hayes - "You've always been a good driver for me." This was Hayes' last prehearing contact with Respondent. The General Counsel contends that Hayes was discharged because he joined or assisted Local 968 or because he engaged in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Respondent contends, in effect, that it became necessary to replace Hayes during his absence, that no work was available when he expressed a desire to return, and that, finally, he failed and refused to comply with Respondent's policy on the return of an employee after extended illness - the presentation of discharge papers from his physician and undergoing a physical fitness ex- amination by a company doctor. The reasons assigned by Respondent for Hayes' discharge do not stand up under close examination. Take the last one first. Hayes had been told, during his hospital stay, that when he was ready to return to work a release from his doctor and an examination by a company doctor would be required. There is no testimony, or as- sertion, that he demurred. I find that he understood and 21 A citywide strike sponsored by the Teamsters' International, launched on July 5, had an increasing effect on construction jobs served by Respondent In less than a week, it had cut Respondent's business volume by 50 percent 28 1 note, but in this respect do not rely on, the facts that, in its unfair labor practice charge (23-CA-2439) filed on July 11, Local 968 did not mention Hayes' termination and that it was first included in the charge (23-CA-2462) filed on August 3 'y The inquiry followed an informal visit by Hayes to the Regional Of- fice of the Board BUILDERS SUPPLY CO. OF HOUSTON 169 was ready to comply with these requirements at the ap- propriate time and that Jones understood this fact. On July 15, he requested and was given written permission by his doctor to return to work on the 18th On the 18th, he informed Jones that he had the release and was ready to return. He evinced no unwillingness to undergo an ex- amination by Respondent's medical representative, and Jones made no suggestion that he have one. On the con- trary, Jones said no work was available "right then," clearly implying that going through other return-to-work steps would be a futile gesture "right then." At no time, I find, did Hayes fail or refuse to comply with company policy in order to be reinstated. Contrary to Respondent's position, I find that work was available for Hayes on and after July 18. Having hired a new driver on July 12, Respondent hired at least three more during the month - one on the 18th, one on the 26th, and one on the 28th. Moreover, the loss of produc- tion attributable to the citywide strike ended when that strike ended, at the end of July. Respondent asserts that, well before July 18- indeed, by June 30- Hayes had been replaced. But the testimony in support of this assertion is to the effect that a driver had been recalled early from his vacation. Clearly, this is not the type of a "replacement" which reasonably war- rants a permanent termination of employment. Finally, Respondent has not suggested that absence due to illness is considered cause for discharge; nor does it impugn Hayes' work record. 30 I can only conclude, on the above facts, that Respondent's assigned reasons lack plauribility. With respect to the General Counsel's injection into the case of union or concerted activities by Hayes, Respondent denies that it was aware of any such activi- ties. I have noted that, during the relevant period herein, Hayes was a shop steward for the Independent at the Chimney Rock plant. Notwithstanding this, he signed a card authorizing Local 968 to represent him for collective-bargaining purposes. On May 13, at the request of three of his fellow employees, he and his close friend, Harold Anglin - discussed supra - signed cards and took a number of blank ones for solicitation among the other employees. That night, he and Anglin procured the signatures of two employees on authorization cards, and the next day still another. I have noted that all such activity took place away from Respondent's premises. Despite his having signed a Local 968 card, I find that, for at least several weeks thereafter, Hayes was not completely "sold" on the advantages of being represented by an affiliate of the Teamsters International. 31 But, I find, his interest gradually grew. (Perhaps, ironically, Gil- breth's rebuke for his too active pressing of Anglin's grievance, administered on June 1- supra - contributed.) At any rate, on or about June 3, he attended a dinner meeting at a local cafe sponsored by Local 968 in an ef- fort to discover the benefits and the costs of representa- tion by Local 968. In a further effort to discover more - he had heard "some good things" and "some bad things" about the Teamsters - he scheduled a dinner party to be held at his home on June 11; and, during the preceding 2 or 3 days, he issued invitations to those of Respondent's employees with whom he had contact, ap- proximately 20 in number. The party, held as scheduled, was attended by 14 employees, most of them truckdrivers, and a Local 968 representative who had been invited; presumably, the union representative of- fered arguments designed to persuade those present of the benefits of representation by Local 968. Whether or not, by this time, Hayes had become a strong proponent of representation by Local 968 is an open question. He testified, without contradiction, that he publicly and strongly took this position at the Chimney Rock plant.32 But it is clear, and I find, that - other than voicing general dissatisfaction with working conditions - he did not publicize his stand to the president of the (In- dependent) union of which he was a steward; also (I have found), his position, such as it was, was not conveyed to Respondent via the plant's public address system, as claimed by the General Counsel. But (I find), whatever its source of information, Respondent believed that Hayes was active on behalf of Local 968. 1 have already recited details of a conversa- tion between Respondent President Drennan and Inde- pendent President Carrico on or about June 14: Told by Carrico that Hayes was scheduled to be one of the Inde- pendent's observers at the upcoming election, Drennan-after characterizing one of the others named as "a good one" - said, "This Robert Hayes - he's a good Teamster. I guess you know he gave the Teamsters a bar- becue the other night .. " and he suggested using another person in his place. I cannot accept Respondent's denial of awareness of Hayes' Local 968 interests and ac- tivities. In sum, on what I consider to be a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, taking into consideration the Respondent's hostility toward Local 968 as heretofore found, its supposed awareness of Hayes' interest in and activities on behalf of Local 968, and the implausibility of its reasons assigned for his termination, I find and con- clude that Respondent discharged Hayes in order to discourage interest in and activities on behalf of (and hence membership in) Local 968, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Upon the foregoing factual findings and conclusions, I come to the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 968 is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of em- ployment by discharging Robert Hayes on or about July 18, 1966 , and by failing and refusing to reinstate him thereafter, thereby discouraging membership in Local 968, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair 3° In the assistant general superintendent 's words, Hayes was a good worker His adding the qualifying words "when he was [at work]" loses significance in view of the fact that Hayes' only period of absence of which this record takes note is the period of absence just preceding the discharge which is the subject of the instant case 31 Thus, I reject any implications which might be read into Hayes' testimony that, during this early period, he vigorously "talked up" among his fellow employees representation by General Drivers On his own testimony , I find that his attitude was marked by dissatisfaction with his working conditions and a vague feeling that the employees were not well served by the Independent, but that his desire for representation by Local 968 was not fully crystallized 32 Indeed, he testified that this was his position from the time he signed the authorization card. However , on the basis of other of his testimony, I have already found otherwise 170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By the foregoing conduct , by interrogating em- ployees about their or other employees' union member- ship, activities , or desires , and by interfering with the selection of union observers at a Board-conducted representation election, Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) thereof. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 6. Except for the foregoing , Respondent has com- mitted no unfair labor practices under the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be or- dered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Robert Hayes, I shall recommend appropriate action. I shall recommend that Respondent offer him full and immediate reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered by him because of the discrimination by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would have earned from the date of his discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period. Backpay shrill be computed on a quarterly basis with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum , in the manner heretofore established by the Board. As the unfair labor practices committed by Respondent are of a character striking at the roots of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, I shall also recommend that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER Builders Supply Co. of Houston , of Houston , Texas, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cense and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in any labor organiza- tion by discriminating in regard to hire, tenure, or other conditions of employment. (b) Interrogating employees about their or other em- ployees' union membership, activities, or desires, and in- terfering with the selection of union observers at a representation -election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. (c) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar- gaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Robert Hayes reinstatement to his former position even though this may necessitate displacement of a present incumbent (or, if his former position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position), without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the section above entitled "The Remedy." (c) Notify him if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstate- ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Ser- vice Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) 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 the terms of this Recommended Order. (e) Post at its places of business at Houston, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."33 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed by an authorized 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. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in wasting, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.34 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not heretofore remedied in this Recommended Order. " 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 " s^ In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " BUILDERS SUPPLY CO. OF HOUSTON 171 APPENDIX A DETAILS AS TO SELECTED ACCIDENTS INVOLVING RESPONDENT'S DRIVERS Accident Report dated January 18, 1963:' On Gulf Freeway where, because of construction work, two lanes became one, driver Jerry Cornelius "rear- ended" car stopped by traffic. According to testimony of Assistant General Superintendent Jones at this hearing, "Cornelius tried to avoid ac- cident." No disciplinary action. Report, January 28, 1963: John Renfro, at a con- struction site, was maneuvering to get into unloading position. Directed to move forward, he did so, climb- ing up slippery incline. Overshooting mark, his front bumper damaged side of parked car, causing $89 damage. Jones' testimony: "Not altogether Renfro's fault. No disciplinary action other than discussion." Report, March 11, 1963: Truck driven by Richard Adams was stopped at intersection. "Rolled back and damaged car behind. In accident report, Jones concluded Adams was at fault. At hearing, Jones noted that he had "doubt" because Adams was "not sure" that he had rolled back. No disciplinary action. Report, August 28, 1963: Driver Ralph Simmons was maneuvering on parking lot of construction site. Clipped rear of parked car, breaking its taillight. No disciplinary action. Report, February 22, 1964: Backing to unload, driver John Pittman struck parked auto, breaking its taillight. Accident reported by Respondent's foreman at site as "our fault." Jones, at hearing: We did not figure that Pittman was at fault; he "could have had time off' but was not discharged. Report, February 27, 1964: On construction site, while being directed into unloading position, driver Herman Sims was backing up, and the corner of his bumper caused $115 damage to a standing car. Respondent's accident report shows Sims "at fault." No disciplinary action. Report, March 4, 1964: Automobile passed driver DeWitt Hite, pulled in front of him, stopped, and started to back into a parking space. Hite struck it from rear. Respondent's accident report calls this "chargable" accident. Jones' testimony at hearing: We didn't feel this was Hite's fault. No disciplinary action. Report, March 4, 1964: Driver Carl C. Tyler rear- ended stopped automobile; accident marked "chargable" to Tyler. Jones' testimony at hearing: "From our investigation, we were not justified in discharging Tyler.... The car cut in sharply and his truck was heavily loaded." Tyler "may have had time off" but was not discharged. Report, March 16, 1964: Driver R. T. Chance emerged from a side road which dead-ended at a highway. As he turned onto the highway the corner of his truck struck the rear fender and gasoline tank of an automobile going the same way, the damage amounting to $150. Jones testified at hearing that the side road was dusty and that visibility was ob- structed, and that there was no stop sign . No discipli- nary action.2 Report, April 27, 1964: Driver Gene Hughes was on construction site ready to unload; flipped off fold over chute which struck a man walking behind truck. Respondent's accident report noted "negligence by both men." No disciplinary action. Report, August 15, 1964: Driver Jimmy Thomas, blocking driveway of construction job, let truck roll back. Backed into standing car, causing $50 damage. At hearing, Jones testified, "Thomas could not see the other car." No disciplinary action. Report, September 8, 1964: In rain , on slick road, driver Marvin Dunn was following two cars. They stopped at intersection. Dunn attempted to stop, skidded, and struck the two cars. Jones' testimony at hearing: "Dunn tried his best to avoid accident; we didn't think this totally his fault." No disciplinary ac- tion. Report, September 8, 1964: Respondent's truck, driven by Tommy Moore, was stopped at traffic light behind a car. Light changed. Since car did not start, Moore decided to go around it. He backed up-into car behind him. Respondent's accident report: "Moore to blame." Jones' testimony at hearing: "Not totally Moore's fault. Car had pulled up behind and he couldn't see it." No disciplinary action. Report, -May -5, -1965: Woman reported-to Re- spondent that one of their trucks had rolled back on her car, causing $100 damage. Respondent, through Jones, was satisfied from description that truck had been driven by Bill Frady, although Frady knew nothing about the accident. Jones testified at hearing that, while he was satisfied that Frady's truck was the one reported, he could not say that the truck caused any damage since Frady disclaimed knowledge. "It wasn't his fault." No disciplinary ac- tion. Report, October 20, 1965: Chute fell off truck of driver John Buehler; was run over by oncoming car, causing damage amounting to $150. At hearing, Jones testified that, although fastening chute is the responsibility of the driver, the latch of this truck was weak and the chute could easily loosen . No discipli- nary action. Report, October 20, 1965: Driver Jimmy Thomas (see accident report dated August 15, 1964) had pulled into loading position, where earth was wet, slick, and muddy. In changing position , struck pick- up truck which had pulled up since he last moved. Damage, $50. No disciplinary action. Report, December 29, 1965: Driver Henry Thorn rear-ended car which had started through a traffic light, then stopped. According to Jones, at hearing, Thorn's truck was loaded and he could not stop; "Probably had a few days off." Report, August 25, 1966: Driver Benny McDade rear-ended a car which had started across an inter- section and then stopped. Jones, at hearing: "I con- cluded McDade was negligent, and he had some time off." In discussion with insurance company, Re- spondent was asked to keep McDade on until case ' Date of Accident Report, as used in this exhibit, usually follows ac- cident by day or two ' Note similarity to Anglin's accident. 172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD settled. (Seven weeks later, after being responsible for another accident, McDade was warned, given a 3-day layoff and, finally, discharged.) Report, August 31, 1966: Concrete was being poured in a parking area. Driver Jesse Van Meter, maneuvering to unload, pulled up too far and rear- ended a parked car. At hearing Jones testified that he did not think Van Meter was "totally" negligent. No disciplinary action. Report, September 2, 1966: Driver Oris Guidrey was proceeding on a wet, slippery street. He tried to stop to avoid hitting traffic stopped in front of him; he skidded, striking a car going in the opposite direction, with a resultant $350 damage. Jones, at hearing, testified that Guidrey was "not careless under the conditions and did a wonderful job of stopping .... He was not totally negligent." No disciplinary action. Report, October 24, 1966: Driver Amos Mc- Donald was following two pick-up trucks. They stopped; he hit both trucks, causing damage in ex- cess of $400 to one of them. There was a "warning and discussion." (Insurance company asked Re- spondent not to discharge McDonald.) Report, December 21, 1966: Driver Samuel Speaks rear-ended automobile which suddenly stopped at stop sign. ($50 damage.) Other driver in- terceded for Speaks, saying that he himself had stopped suddenly, doubted that Speaks was negligent. At hearing, Jones testified that Speaks was traveling more than 20 miles per hour and had not called in from the scene of the accident, contrary to company rules. No disciplinary action taken. APPENDIX B 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 ask employees about their or other employees' membership in or activities for General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 968, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, or any other union; and WE WILL NOT interfere in the selection of union observers in an election conducted by the Labor Board. WE WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to organize; to form, join, or assist a labor organization; to bargain collectively through a bar- gaining agent chosen by themselves; to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any such activities. WE WILL offer Robert Hayes his former or sub- stantially equivalent job (without prejudice to seniority or other employment rights and privileges), and WE WILL pay him for any loss suffered because of our discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become or remain mem- bers of any labor organization. BUILDERS SUPPLY CO. OF HOUSTON (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) Note: We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application 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, 6617 Federal Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002, Telephone 228-0611.