Modern Chevrolet Co.

MODERN CHEVROLET CO. M. G. Inman, Sr. and M. G. Inman, Jr., Partners, d/b/a Modern Chevrolet Company and International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, District 31, AFL-CIO Modern Chevrolet Company and District 31, Inter- national Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 23-CA-2593 and 23-RC-2892 February 14, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On October 3, 1967, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding, finding that the Respond- ents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that those allegations be dismissed. In addition, the Trial Examiner recom- mended that the election held on February 22, 1967, be set aside, and that the petition in Case 23-RC-2892 be dismissed. Thereafter, the Re- spondents and the General Counsel each filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and briefs in support thereof. 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 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.' 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 the Respondents, M. G. Inman, Sr. and M. G. Inman, Jr., partners, d/b/a Modern Chevrolet The telephone number of Region 23, which appears at the bottom of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, is amended to read: 228-0611, Extension 4721 809 Company, Orange, Texas, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for cer- tification in Case 23-RC-2892 be, and it hereby is, dismissed, and that all proceedings held thereunder be, and they hereby are, vacated. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE A. DOWNING, Trial Examiner: These con- solidated proceedings were heard at Orange, Texas, on June 5 and 6, 1967, pursuant to due notice. The amended complaint in Case 23-CA-2593 which was issued on May 18, 1967, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, on charges and amended charges dated January 19 and 20, February 21, March 9, 15, and 22, and April 28, 1967, alleged that Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act in specified respects as more fully set forth in section II, A, infra. Consolidated therewith for hearing and decision were certain objec- tions to conduct affecting the results of the election in Case 23-RC-2892, the evidence on which the Regional Director found to be directly related to the evidence bear- ing on the unfair labor practices charges. Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser- vation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS; THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED I conclude and find on facts alleged in the complaint and admitted by answer that Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act' and that the Charging Party is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction and Issues; the Representation Proceeding The organizational activities, which began on January 12, 1967,2 originated as a result of the rejection of an earlier request for Saturdays off made by a committee on behalf of employees of all the automobile dealers in Orange. On January 12 John F. Foster, a business representative of the Union, was called into a meeting of all employees at Roy's Trim Shop for advice and assistance. Foster informed the employees that he saw no alternative but for them to give the Union an authoriza- tion to represent them in approaching the dealers for Saturday off "and some other little incidentials." White authorization cards were passed out and signed by a 1 Respondents operate a Chevrolet dealership in Orange, Texas, engag- ing in the retail selling and servicing of automobiles They purchase and receive annually directly from extrastate points goods valued in excess of $50,000 and their annual retail sales exceed $500,000 2 All events herein occurred in 1967 unless otherwise stated 169 NLRB No. 117 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD number of Respondents' employees (among others) and thereafter additional signatures were obtained from time to time on the same type of card as well as on a yellow one. Both cards, though phrased somewhat differently, authorized IAM in simple language to represent the signatories in negotiating agreements with the employer in matters of collective bargaining; i.e., wages, hours, and working conditions. A number of Respondents' em- ployees signed both types of cards under different dates. On January 25, the Union filed a representation peti- tion in Case 23-RC-2892 specifying a unit of all of Respondents' service department employees, with the usual exclusions, and on the same date the Regional Director by letter notified Respondents of the filing. On January 27 Foster wrote Respondents claiming majority representation and making a formal request to bargain. Pursuant to a stipulation for a consent election approved on February 9, an election was held on February 22 with the result hinging on certain challenged ballots. On February 28 the Union also filed objections to conduct allegedly affecting the result of the election, and on April 28 the Regional Director issued his report on the chal- lenged ballots and on the objections. In brief the Regional Director sustained certain challenges, overruled others, and found that in four other cases the challenges would rest on the outcome of the Union's charges filed in the complaint case which the Regional Director concluded had merit and on which he forthwith issued a complaint. On May 15 the Board approved the Regional Director's report, including his recommendation that if the counting of certain ballots did not resolve the election issue the Regional Director should consolidate the hear- ing on the remaining objections with the hearing in the complaint case. After the issuance of the amended com- plaint on May 18 the Regional Director ordered that con- solidation on May 19. The issues herein involve complaint allegations, denied by answer, that Respondents engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and coercion (e.g., interrogation, promises of benefits, and threats of reprisals); that it dis- criminatorily discharged Henry Collins on January 14, John Ashby on February 16, and Jerry Myers, Gregory Dawson, Jr., Nancy Toups, and Roger W. Bryan on February 17; and that it refused to bargain with the Union on and after January 27. A subsidiary issue con- cerns Ashby's status as an alleged supervisor. Aside from the discharges of Ashby, Bryan, Dawson, and Myers the objections to the election included the cir- culation by Respondents among the employees of a defaced facsimile of the Board's official ballot. The Union also contended at the hearing that any conduct found herein to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) or (3) after the fil- ing of the petition should be considered as interference with the election. We consider preliminarily the issue as to Ashby's status. B. The Alleged Supervisory Status of John G. Ashby On January 3 Respondents made effective a major change in the organizational setup of its service depart- ment. Prior to that date, James Horton was service manager and beneath him were Billy Jacobs, parts manager, and Robert Horton, shop foreman over the mechanics , the latter position being supervisory at the time. In late 1966, Respondents found it necessary to replace James Horton as service manager because of ill- ness and decided further to replace Robert Horton as shop foreman because the latter had not worked out satisfactorily in that position. Both Hortons were moved down to their former jobs as mechanics and Billy Jacobs was made service manager over both parts and shop. Ashby, who had been in charge of new-car warranty and service (frequently called APA work in the record) was made shop foreman in place of Robert Horton though the evidence is in conflict as to whether he exercised super- visory powers as the latter had done. Ashby testified that Jacobs never told him that he had the same authority as Robert Horton but told him instead that if "anything major" came up, it would be up to Jacobs to take care of it. Ashby testified that he spent ap- proximately three-fourths of his time processing paper- work (APA's) in connection with new-car warranties and that he also performed repair order or service writeup work. Though the repair orders, when written up, were distributed by Ashby, the distribution was a routine one, e.g., tuneup work was assigned to the tuneup man, trans- mission work to the transmission man, etc. Jacobs admitted that Ashby never hired or fired anyone and made no recommendations for hiring and firing. He admitted further that he himself transferred Gregory Dawson from the main shop to Chevy Town without discussing the matter with Ashby. A final commentary on Ashby's lack of authority over the shop was Jacobs' dis- avowal of the purchase of a $10 part which Ashby made in Jacobs' absence and Jacobs' statement to Ashby that he had no authority to make such a purchase without Jacobs' permission. Of significance also was the fact that Ashby's "promotion" to shop foreman brought with it, not an increase, but a slight decrease in his salary ($1.67 a week) and the further fact that the average earnings of a line mechanic were some $10 a week more than Ash- by's salary. Inman , Junior, testified that Ashby was made shop foreman more or less on a trial basis and that though Ashby had "all of the responsibilities of the shop foreman," restrictions were put on his authority after the union activity began, in that he directed Jacobs to inform Ashby not to hire or fire anyone without first discussing the matter with them. By brief, Respondents rest their claim of supervisory status largely on the point that Ashby's job title was shop foreman and that he succeeded Robert Horton, admit- tedly a supervisor, as shop foreman. The job title, of course, does not resolve the question, for what is deter- minative is whether Ashby assumed with the job the same supervisory authority which Horton had. I conclude and find on a preponderance of the evidence that he did not. Ashby was put on the job on a trial basis, he never hired or fired anyone, never made a recommen- dation, never disciplined anyone, and had no authority to grant time off. The major part of his time was spent on doing paperwork which entailed no supervision and the remainder was spent in writing up service orders and in routinely distributing them to the mechanics. Jacobs reserved to himself authority to pass on all major matters and ultimately made an issue out of a trivial purchase which Horton made without his permission. I therefore conclude and find that Ashby neither had nor exercised any of the facets of supervisory authority as specified in Section 2(11) and that to the extent that he exercised any authority, as in the distribution of repair or- ders to the mechanics, it was purely on a routine basis. MODERN CHEVROLET CO. C. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion The bulk of the 8(a)(1) conduct herein was attributed to Service Manager Billy Jacobs, with other single incidents being charged to C. G. Shawd, who was Respondents' labor relations consultant after February 15, and to Pat Collier, manager of the Chevy Town location. We begin with Jacobs' conduct. Gregory Dawson testified that some time before he signed a union card on January 27, Jacobs talked with him about the Union, asking what he thought about it, whether he had talked to any of the union men, and whether any of them had tried to get him to sign a card. Jacobs also asked whether Dawson was going to sign a card and when Dawson replied he did not know, Jacobs stated it would not do Dawson any good to sign and that it would be better if he did not do so because Jacobs would give him a raise. Dawson later signed a card because he did not get the raise. Jacobs made' no denial of that conversation though he answered negatively a blanket question whether he at any time interrogated employees about their feelings or sym- pathies toward the Union and answered similar a blanket question whether he ever threatened employees with the loss of company benefits. Earnest Allemand testified that between January 11 and 27 Jacobs discussed the Union with him in the presence of C. V. Brookins and that Jacobs said, among other things, that about the only thing the Union could do would be to put a Negro in the stall next to him. Jacobs admitted the conversation, and though denying that he made the statement in the exact terms of Allemand's phrasing, admitted that he told Allemand that if the shop went Union and if a Negro were put in there, there would be nothing the Company could do about it. Calvin Foster testified that while having coffee with Jacobs at a nearby cafe in January, Jacobs stated in the presence of Pop Seruntine and Harold Yates that, "Oh, while it's fresh on my mind ... if the Union comes in. . . I guess you will know that you will lose ... your hospitalization, uniforms, and paid vacations. You would lose your benefits ... from the company." Foster testified further that a week or two later Jacobs asked what he thought about the Union. Jacobs did not specifically deny the latter conversation though he made a general denial of interrogations. He ad- mitted discussing company benefits on one occasion at the cafe with Yates and Charles Ebarb, and though he could not recall that either Foster or Seruntine was present, he conceded that Foster "could have come in." Jacobs testified the discussion concerned what might take place if the Union were voted in and that he volunteered the information that it was possible the company benefits could be changed, such as insurance and uniforms or va- cations. Roger Bryan, who was hired on January 25, testified that when Jacobs was interviewing him for employment, Jacobs asked if he were for the Union. Bryan replied that he did not know what kind of union Jacobs was talking about and Jacobs explained that the Union was trying to get into the dealerships and that, if Bryan were to join it, he would have to take tests to be a journeyman and that Jacobs did not think Bryan was experienced enough to make a journeyman. Jacobs also asked whether Bryan had ever joined a union before and Bryan answered that he had belonged to one a long time ago. Thereupon Jacobs stated that he would hire Bryan on a week-to- 811 week basis. Jacobs admitted that he discussed the Union with Bryan but testified that Bryan brought up the matter of the Union and volunteered that he wanted to do whatever the Company wanted him to do. Jacobs explained that it was not a matter of what the Company wanted Bryan to do and that it would not attempt to tell him what to do if an election were ever called. Jacobs was also a participant in the incident which in- volved Shawd, though he did not testify concerning it. William T. Barnes testified that some 10 days prior to the election Jacobs called him out to test drive a car and in- troduced him to Shawd, who also went along. Following the test they went to a cafe for coffee where Shawd in- formed Barnes that he was there on Inman's behalf about the Union and asked what the employees at the shop thought about it. Barnes at first demurred that he did not know whether he should talk about the Union because it might cost him his job. Shawd assured him that if he would say nothing about their conversation, they (Shawd and Jacobs) would not say anything either. Barnes then stated that for himself he thought the Union was alright and asked what Shawd thought of it. Shawd replied he did not believe that a small dealership could operate under union conditions. Shawd admitted the ride and the conversation, ad- mitted he was not along for testing the car, and testified he wanted to explain to Barnes the Company's views on the union question and win his support because he had learned from the Company that Barnes was a person who would be a good leader and who might influence other people. Shawd denied that he interrogated Barnes about his personal feelings concerning the Union but testified he asked Barnes primarily what it was that the men ex- pected or hoped to get by having a union. Gregory Dawson, who was discharged on February 17, testified that on the morning of that day while riding with Pat Collier from the main location to Chevy Town, he and Collier began talking about the Union. Though Collier stated that he thought the Union was okay, he did not want it because if it were to get in the Company would lay him off and close Chevy Town down. Collier con- tinued that if Dawson did not join the Union he would have the Company build a shelter under which Dawson could work on the cars out of the sun and rain. Dawson agreed that if he were to get a raise and if a place were built in which he could work, he would not sign for the Union. Collier denied that he threatened Dawson with closing down Chevy Town in the event the Union were voted in and in fact denied that he talked with Dawson about the Union at all. In fact, Collier at first denied riding with Dawson in an automobile except on the occasion when he first took Dawson out to Chevy Town, but on cross-ex- amination he admitted he had gone with Dawson on several occasions to move cars back and forth. Collier also admitted that he made statements at the Chevy Town location about having a canopy in the back where the cars could be polished and cleaned, out of the weather. Concluding Findings As is seen from the foregoing summary, four witnesses attributed to Jacobs interrogations concerning their union sentiments, promises of benefits if they would refrain from signing a union card, and threats of the loss of 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD benefits or of other reprisals if the Union should come in. Jacobs was also present when Shawd interrogated another witness concerning union sentiments among the shop employees. Jacobs, though making a general denial of interroga- tions and threats, admitted that he discussed the Union with'the employees but sought to phrase his own state- ments in terms which would minimize their coercive aspects. He did not, however, deny Dawson's testimony concerning the promise of a raise. In view of the cumula- tive weight of the opposing testimony and the substantial confirmation furnished by Jacobs himself, I credit the testimony of Dawson, Allemand, Foster, and Bryan and I find that Jacobs made the statements which they testified to. As for the Barnes-Shawd testimony there was no con- flict on the point that Shawd's interrogation concerned the union sentiments among the shop employees. It is im- material that Shawd did not seek directly to have Barnes disclose his own personal feelings. The issue between Collier and Dawson is to be viewed against the background furnished by the conduct of Jacobs and Shawd. Jacobs had previously interrogated Dawson concerning his intention of signing a union card and had promised him a raise. Under Dawson's testimony Collier followed through with a further promise to build a shelter in which Dawson could work out of the weather and with a warning that the Union's advent would lead the Company to close Chevy Town. Further- more, Collier's testimony was contradictory on the matter of automobile rides with Dawson and he also ad- mitted that he made statements at Chevy Town concern- ing the building of a canopy under which Dawson's job could be performed. I therefore credit Dawson's testimony. ][ therefore conclude and find that by interrogating em- ployees concerning the union sentiments of themselves and of fellow employees and concerning their intentions of signing union cards,3 by threatening employees with the loss of benefits, with closing its place of business, and with other reprisals if the Union should come in, and by promising an employee a pay raise and improved working conditions for the purpose of discouraging his support of the Union. Respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. D. Discrimination 1. The discharge of Henry B. Collins Henry B. Collins was hired primarily as a porter and his principal duties were washing and cleaning cars. Col- lins attended the meeting at Roy's Trim Shop on the evening of January 12 (see section A, supra), signed a union card, and on the next morning so informed a fellow employee, Pop Seruntine, who then and later made cer- tain antiunion statements. It is unnecessary to go into details concerning Collins' discharge early on Saturday morning (January 14) because the General Counsel was unable to trace Serun- 3 The interrogations occurred in a setting with the other conduct of threats and promises of benefits which plainly created a coercive at- mosphere. Cf. International Ladies Garment Workers' Union, 142 NLRB 82, 114-115 tine's knowledge to Respondents or responsibility for his statements. Furthermore Inman, Junior, testified that the first information he received about any union activity was a telephone call from Business Representative Foster on Saturday afternoon stating that Foster understood that Inman had fired "one of his boys" and putting Inman on notice that he would get in trouble if he fired any more of them. Though the General Counsel points to certain suspicious circumstances surrounding the discharge and the causes assigned to support it, suspicion is an in- adequate basis for finding discriminatory motivation where, as here, the General Counsel's case is so fatally lacking in the essential factor of knowledge of union ac- tivities. 2. The discharge of Nancy Toups Nancy Toups was one of five employees who were discharged on February 16 and 17 and whose cases, the General Counsel contends, must be considered together because they followed "a common pattern." I shall con- sider Toups discharge separately, however, because the evidence does not support the General Counsel's conten- tion in her case. Thus Toups was an office clerical employee who served as title clerk and who wrote Inman's personal let- ters. She was not within the bargaining unit as were Ash- by, Myers, Dawson, and Bryan; she did not attend union meetings as they did; and she did not sign a union card or wear a union button as they did. Indeed, Toups par- ticipated in no union activities as such though she did en- gage in early January in discussions of the Union with fel- low employees who expressed interest in it as a means of getting Saturdays off, a desire which Toups shared and which she discussed with her supervisor, Office Manager Norman Whitaker. Furthermore, there was little or nothing in Toups' testimony which will support a finding that she was dis- criminatorily discharged and she fully confirmed the causes which Respondents assigned. Thus she admitted that Whitaker had threatened her "a few times" with discharge because she "goofed off" quite a lot and because she "played around" in the office with Joe Dean and Jerry Myers. Whitaker informed Toups that she was discharged because of her office manners and the way she answered the telephone and that the order to discharge her came from Inman. Sometime later Toups asked Inman why she was discharged and he assigned the same reasons which Whitaker had given. Whitaker did not testify, but Inman testified that he and Whitaker discussed their mutual complaints about Toups, which included her "goofing off' and not answering the telephone properly, as well as making errors in her clerical work. Inman denied that her union activity was the reason for her discharge and testified he had no idea she was connected with the Union in any way.4 On this record I conclude and find that the General Counsel failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Toups was discharged because of her union membership or activities. 4 The Union called Toups to the union hall after her discharge and filed a charge in her behalf which she later attempted unsuccessfully to have dropped MODERN CHEVROLET CO. 3. The discharges of John G. Ashby, Gregory Dawson, Jr., Jerry Myers, and Roger W. Bryan Ashby was discharged on February 16 and Dawson, Myers, and Bryan on February 17. All of them signed union authorization cards, attended several union meetings, and wore union buttons on the job for some time prior to their discharges. a. John G. Ashby On February 15 Ashby and Service Manager Jacobs were involved in three separate incidents. In the first one Jacobs criticized Ashby for being away from his desk and asked why he was not doing anything. Ashby explained that he had gone up front to pick up some papers and while there had answered a telephone call from a customer. Ashby testified that Jacobs had never talked to him in such a manner before. The second one concerned a complaint to Jacobs from a customer's wife that a repair bill was too high. Ashby had previously reduced the bill some $10 after discussing it with the mechanic and so informed Jacobs. Despite that, a disagreement arose between them, and Jacobs, who thought the bill was still too high, made a further reduction of some $6 or $7. Finally during Jacobs' absence from the office Ashby signed an order for a $10 part which was badly needed in the shop. Jacobs brought the bill back to Ashby and inquired who bought the part and Ashby stated that he had done so. Jacobs stated that no one could buy anything for the shop at any time except through Jacobs. Ashby explained that Jacobs was not present, that as shop foreman he thought it was one of his duties, and that if Jacobs was afraid to own up to the bill, Ashby would in- form Inman that he himself had bought it. The part was later put into use. Ashby testified that at the end of the next workday Jacobs approached and stated he would like to remain Ashby's friend but was going to have to let him go because he could not get along with anyone. Ashby com- mented that he believed Jacobs was referring to himself, because Jacobs had "tried to put [him] down the day be- fore." Jacobs replied that "[Y]ou just don't go into the boss and tell him that you are going to leave or give him 2 weeks' notice that you are going to leave." Jacobs made no denial of Ashby's testimony concern- ing the discharge interview and testified that he discharged Ashby after discussing with Inman a com- plaint which Ashby made to the latter of a shortage in his paycheck. Inman testified in turn that Ashby's complaint resulted from a changeover made to comply with the Wage and Hour Law, which ,became effective around February I and which resulted in a small reduction in Ashby's paycheck. Ashby pursued the matter with Inman in a belligerent mood despite Inman's explanations and finally stated that' if he did not get more money and if Inman did not get the matter straightened out he was going to quit. Inman, promised that when Jacobs got back to the office he would talk with Jacobs and would let Ashby know their decision. Ashby's testimony was in substantial accord, Inman testified further that he and Jacobs talked about the matter that night and decided to let Ashby quit the next morning. However when Ashby came in the next morning he asked for leave to go to Detroit because of the illness of his father and was gone for about a week. 813 Although Ashby was on the job another week before his discharge, Inman said nothing to Ashby concerning his quitting, and Ashby's pay was in fact straightened out. b. Gregory Dawson, Jr. Dawson was hired in November or December 1966, as a porter at the main shop but was later transferred to Chevy Town where his job was washing and cleaning cars under the supervision of Pat Collier. Dawson's con- versations with Jacobs and Collier concerning the Union are summarized in section C, supra, the latter occurring on the morning of the discharge. Dawson testified that he washed some six cars that morning and that Collier complimented him on his work and also suggested that because it was getting warm, Dawson should go up to the office, clean up, and rest for a while. When lunchtime came Dawson first fixed a flat tire on his own car and went on to lunch. Upon returning he resumed his job of washing a car and while he was so engaged Collier came up and told Dawson he had been noticing Dawson all morning, that Dawson had been "fumbling around" with his car all day and had not done "a dam[n] thing," Collier handed Dawson his check and told him to get off the lot and not to be caught down at the main shop either. Dawson admitted that he got no permission to change his tire but testified that he was allowed an hour for dinner, that the tire changing took about 20 minutes and his lunchtime only another 15 or 20 minutes. Collier made no denial of Dawson's testimony con- cerning the work which Dawson did on the morning of the discharge. He testified that Jacobs transferred Dawson to him on a trial basis to see whether Dawson would work out under close supervision and that he worked Dawson for a week. For the first 2 or 3 days Col- lier was well pleased with Dawson's work but from then on Dawson got worse and worse. Among other things Dawson began to work on his own car during worktime and Collier warned him not to do so. Thereafter he caught Dawson working on his car again and warned him a second time. On the Friday of the discharge he found Dawson working on his car again, so he went to the main location and told Inman he did not want Dawson any more and that he had come to get Dawson's pay. Inman agreed that Collier should let Dawson go. Inman's testimony was to similar effect. c. Jerry W. Myers Myers was hired by Jacobs in late December as a parts man. Myers was without prior experience in that job and testified that Jacobs informed him he was being hired on a 2-month trial basis, that he was to give a week's notice if he decided to quit, and that Jacobs would give him a 2- week notice if Jacobs decided to terminate him. Prior to January 28 Myers and Joe Dean worked in the parts de- partment, but Jacobs then brought in Mike Toliver, who had prior experience as a parts man. Myers denied that Jacobs ever criticized him about his work but admitted that Jacobs sometimes spoke to him about being behind on it. Myers admitted further that after Toliver came in Jacobs spoke to him about reducing the hours of work and also spoke of reducing the work force. Myers at first stated he would give notice and quit but on reconsidering stated he would keep on working. 814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Jacobs discharged Myers during the workday on February 17, calling him from his work while he was waiting on a customer. Myers testified that Jacobs re- minded him of their agreement when Myers was hired, stated that he was not satisfied with Myers' work because he was not efficient enough and was not learning the job. Jacobs paid him in full and gave him a week's advance pay. Myers referred to other employees who had been fired that day and asked whether the union activity had anything to do with the firing, but Jacobs denied that it had. Jacobs' testimony was in substantial accord with Myers' insofar as the hiring and firing interviews were concerned, but he testified that he criticized Myers on a number of occasions concerning his neglect of his job, his wasting of time, and his failure to turn out work which Jacobs assigned to him. Because Myers was an inex- perienced parts man, Jacobs began to look for one with more experience and, finding Toliver, brought him in as leadman on January 28. Inman testified in turn to complaints both from customers and from mechanics about the service given them by Myers and about his "goofing off' on the job. Inman discussed the complaints with Jacobs and in- structed Jacobs to straighten Myers out. Toliver and Nancy Toups also testified concerning Myers' conduct and concerning complaints about his work and Toliver testified to hearing Jacobs warn Myers about the need for getting out work. d. Roger W. Bryan Roger Bryan was hired by Jacobs as a paint-and-body man on January 25 under the circumstances recited in section C, supra. A week before his discharge on Febru- ary 17, Bryan complained directly to Inman because of a shortage in his paycheck and because he was not being paid for writing estimates. The next day Jacobs called Bryan into the paintroom and asked why he had gone to Inman. Jacobs also reminded Bryan that he had been hired on a week-to-week basis and stated that Bryan's work was not satisfactory and that he was going to give Bryan one more week to improve his work. Jacobs referred both to the fact that Bryan was not putting out enough work and that his painting was not good enough. Around quitting time on Friday, February 17, Jacobs called Bryan in and' stated that he was letting Bryan go because his work was not good enough and he was not putting out enough work. Jacobs also referred to the hard feelings between them and reminded Bryan again of the agreement that he had been employed on a week-by-week basis. Bryan testified that his earnings in the final week of his employment amounted to $161, the largest amount he had earned while working for Respondents. Jacobs testified to complaints from a customer con- cerning Bryan's failure to complete a paint job on time and to rejection by another customer of a job which Bryan had done. In both cases Jacob had to call on another body man to complete the job. Jacobs testified he did not consider Bryan to be a qualified or capable paint- and-body man and that some of his jobs had to be done over after his discharge. Bryan admitted that a customer complained about one of his jobs and admitted further that he did not always complete his jobs within the promised time. Inman testified that he discussed with Jacobs the matter of employing Bryan and directed Jacobs to hire Bryan on a temporary basis "so we don't have any problem with this union stuff of getting rid of him if he is not a body man." Inman testified further that Jacobs in- formed him later he was not convinced that Bryan was capable and therefore put him only on small jobs. Follow- ing Bryan's complaint to him about the pay shortage, Inman talked again with Jacobs, who commented again on Bryan's lack of ability. Inman directed Jacobs to give Bryan another week within which to prove himself. Dur- ing that week Bryan's deficiencies continued and Inman directed Jacobs to discharge Bryan. In addition to the testimony which related directly to the individual dischargees, Respondents also offered further testimony by Inman in explanation both of the timing and of the number of the discharges. Thus Inman testified that after he got Foster's call on January 14 warning him against firing other employees, he was ad- vised by the attorney who represented all of the Orange dealers that he should not fire anyone while the union ac- tivity was going on because of the danger of unfair labor practice charges. Though as time went on Inman felt that other employees should be discharged, he tolerated them because of the pending organizational activities. After retaining Shawd, however, and being informed that he could be subjected to charges after the election as well as before, he decided to make the discharges at once because, "They were causing us trouble and weren't doing their jobs right." Inman admitted that there had been no occasion when he had terminated five employees in 2 days but explained that he had not previously been confronted with a situa- tion where there occurred at one time a reorganization of the service department, organizational attempts by a union, and the need to conform Respondents' operations to the Wage and Hour Law. Inman testified further that it was around late January that employee derelictions became most noticeable but acknowledged that the time coincided with receipt of the representation petition and of the Union's request for recognition. Inman also pointed out that he had retained other employees (Robert Horton and Barnes) who were "real strong" for the Union because they were doing their jobs satisfactorily. Concluding Findings Pertinent, of course, to the issue of discriminatory motivation are the findings of Respondents' prior unfair labor practices as made in section C, supra, particularly on the conduct of Jacobs and Collier. The interrogations which they engaged in and their promises and threats were plainly reflective of Respondents' union animus and, when coupled with the timing, circumstances, and number of the discharges, served to establish a prima facie case for the General Counsel that all four of the discharges were discriminatorily motivated. Turning to the question whether Respondents' evidence was sufficient to overcome that prima facie showing, I find that despite the General Counsel's claim that all four cases followed a common pattern, analysis of the entire evidence showed that Respondents were suc- cessful in establishing their defense in two cases -Myers and Bryan -but not in two others-Ashby and Dawson. Though my conclusions require that the discharges be separately considered, the following facts are of general application. The actual reorganization of the service department was concluded by the first of January and Respondents' MODERN CHEVROLET CO. alleged dissatisfaction with the performance of the em- ployees was of no acute concern until after the Union de- manded recognition. Also of common application were the precipitate nature of the discharges and their un- precedented number. Turning specifically to Ashby and Dawson, there were further obvious deficiencies in Respondents' defense. In Ashby's case, Respondents' brief is based almost completely upon a summary of Ashby's testimony, aside from contending that Ashby was a supervisor, the argu- ment proceeds as follows: John Ashby had several arguments with Billy Jacobs a short time before his dismissal and the cul- mination came when he went in to Major Inman and gave him two weeks' notice. The company was ac- tually going to let him go before the two weeks were up, but he had to make a trip to Detroit for some family illness; therefore, he was not discharged until his two weeks' notice had transpired. The time of his discharge in relation to the others was merely coin- cidence. That statement is factually incorrect in a number of particulars. First, the record showed that the arguments between Jacobs and Ashby did not occur until the day be- fore the discharge or some 2 weeks after the alleged notice to quit. In the second place, Ashby's contemplated quitting was contin ent on a conference between Inman and Jacobs, after which Inman was to let Ashby know whether his pay was to be adjusted, or whether Inman would accept the, notice to quit. Though Inman talked with Jacobs as agreed, he said nothing further to Ashby, whose pay was in fact straightened out in his subsequent paychecks. Further- more, in discharging Ashby, Jacobs did not rest his action on Ashby's alleged notice to quit but on his alleged ina- bility to get along with others. Since the record is wholly silent on what that claim related to it may be assumed (as Ashby charged) that Jacobs was referring to the three in- cidents in which he himself was involved with Ashby the day before and which constituted obvious attempts by Jacobs to invoke trivial matters as ostensible basis for a discharge for "cause." Thus not, only was there inconsistency between the ground assigned by Jacobs and that on which, Respond- ents presently rest their defenses but both grounds were baseless in fact. I therefore find, as previously stated, that Respondents' evidence was insufficient to overcome the General Counsel's prima facie case, and that Ashby was discharged because of his union membership and activi- ties. In Dawson's case there is to be noted not only the events on the day of the discharge but Jacobs' prior inter- rogation and promise of a raise. Collier added a further promise on the morning of the discharge and also a warn- ing that Chevy Town would be closed down. Further- more, Collier made no denial of Dawson's testimony con- cerning the work which Dawson did that morning nor that he praised Dawson for the job he was doing. Against that background Collier precipitately discharged Dawson on the ground that he had done no work at all and had ignored a prior warning about working on his car during worktime. The latter claim was also baseless under 5 Inman's reference to the pending union activities in directing Jacobs to hire Bryan on a temporary basis was reflective of concern about com- pliance with the legal advice he was currently receiving. It cannot be con- 815 Dawson's undenied testimony that he changed his tire on his dinner time. Thus in whatever light Respondents may have ap- praised Dawson's prior job performance, it was plain that the events on the day of the discharge refuted the grounds which Jacobs assigned and on which he procured from Inman authorization for Dawson's discharge. I conclude and find therefore that Respondents' evidence did not overcome the preponderant weight of the General Coun- sel's case that Dawson's discharge was discriminatorily motivated. In contrast to Ashby and Dawson, Respondents' evidence was sufficient to overcome the General Coun- sel's prima facie case as it concerned Myers and Bryan, both of whom were hired on a trial basis. Myers' inex- perience not only led to the hiring of Toliver but also resulted in the need either to reduce the workforce or the hours worked in the parts department. Myers was the log- ical choice under Respondents' evidence, which fully established a continuing record of poor performance and of Jacobs' complaints. In Bryan's case Respondents' evidence established that Bryan's work was unsatisfactory during the short period of his employment on a week-to-week basis and that Bryan did not improve after he was given a final week's notice within which to prove himself. Aside from that the evidence indicated that Jacobs resented the fact of Bryan's complaint to Inman and that resultant "hard feelings" also played some part in Jacobs' decision to let Bryan go. In any event I conclude and find that the General Counsel did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the discharge was motivated by Bryan's union activities.5 E. Objections to the Election The only objection to the election, which is not em- braced within the foregoing evidence of unfair labor prac- tice, related to the circulation of a defaced facsimile of the Board's official ballot. It is undisputed that on February 21, Jacobs circulated among the employees at Inman's direction a sample of the Board's official ballot on which Inman had placed an X in the "NO" box. Jacobs was in- structed not to try to influence the employees one way or another and there is no evidence that he did so. Robert Horton testified that prior to that time someone had marked an X in the "YES" box of the ballot which was posted on the bulletin board but that Inman shortly replaced it with a new one. For reasons which are stated in Allied Electric Products, Inc., 109 NLRB 1270, I conclude and find that Respondents' conduct tended to interfere with a free choice in the election, and was improper. F. The Refusal to Bargain 1. The appropriate unit; the Union 's majority The complaint alleged and Respondents stipulated at the hearing that the unit as described in Conclusion of Law 3, infra, is an appropriate one. strued as anticipatory of a discharge later to be made in the event Bryan personally should join the union activities 816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The parties also stipulated to a list of some 24 em- ployees as being properly within that unit as of January 27, with the General Counsel contending and Respond- ents denying that Collins and Ashby were also to be in- cluded. I have found that Collins was not an employee after January 14 (section D, (1) supra) but Ashby, not being a supervisor, is to be counted (section B, supra). I therefore find that there were 25 employees within the unit on January 27. The General Counsel offered authorization cards signed by some 22 employees on or before January 27, 18 of whom (including Ashby) were within the appropriate unit. During the hearing, Respondents checked the signa- tures on the cards against their employment records and thereafter announced they did not question the authen- ticity of the signatures. Respondents sought, however, to contest the validity of four of the authorizations by calling C. V. Brookins, William H. Jordan, Ferdinand Duos, and Charles L. Ebarb, but their testimony wholly failed to raise any sub- stantial question. They all signed voluntarily cards which in simple and unambiguous language authorized the Union to represent them in matters of collective bargain- ing. Their claim was that they understood or were in- formed that the representation was to enable them to get Saturdays off, which was, of course, the goal at the time of the initial meeting with Foster on January 12. See sec- tion A, supra. That purpose was plainly consistent with the purposes stated in the authorizations, which specifi- cally included hours and working conditions. Further- more even were the four cards eliminated, there remained a total of 14 out of 25, or a clear majority in the unit. I therefore conclude and find that on and after January 27, the Union represented a majority of the employees in the unit. 2. The request and the refusal to bargain On January 28, Respondents received Foster's letter dated January 27, in which Foster claimed majority representation, offered to submit proof, if there were good-faith doubt, to an impartial third party, and requested Respondents to recognize and to bargain with it. Respondents did not answer that request, and it de- fends that failure on two bases. The first was that Inman had already received the representation petition and had agreed to the election, and the second was that Respond- ents had a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status. The first point requires only brief consideration. To begin with Respondents did not sign the Stipulation for Consent Election until February 8. Furthermore, it is established law that a union's filing of a representation petition does not of itself suspend an employer's bargain- ing duty unless there is other evidence of a good-faith doubt. Irving Air Chute Company, Inc., 149 NLRB 627, 628, Dixie Highway Express, Inc., 153 NLRB 1224, 1241-42, and cases there cited. On the issue of good-faith doubt, Respondents rely upon the testimony of three witnesses concerning their at- tempts prior to January 27, to retract the authorizations which they had signed. William H. Jordan first spoke to Jacobs about his desire to get his card back and was directed to Inman. Ferdinand Duos went with Jordan to see Inman , who informed them he did not know what to do but who directed them to a lawyer in Orange. The lawyer in turn prepared a letter to Foster which they signed and in which they stated they did not wish to have anything to do with the Union and wanted their cards back. Charles L. Ebarb testified that after talking with Jordan he, too, added an authorization requesting return of his own card but that he did not talk either with Inman or Jacobs about it. None of the cards were returned. Even considered along, it is difficult to see how that testimony will support a good-faith doubt of majority. Foster's letter, received after Jordan and Duos conferred with Inman, claimed a majority as of January 27, and of- fered to prove it before a third party. Not only did Respondents fail to make known their alleged doubt but they ignored completely Foster's request and his offer to prove the majority. If Respondents had chosen to accept Foster's offer they would readily have ascertained that the Union had a clear majority even if all questioned cards were eliminated. Aside from that however, the evidence showed, as found in preceding sections of this Decision, that Re- spondents engaged in a series of unfair labor practices which began before receipt of the Union's request and which continued up to the time of the election, including the discriminatory discharge of two union supporters. Such a course of unlawful conduct was directly at odds with Respondents' present representations of good-faith doubt. Though an employer may in good faith insist upon a Board election as proof of the Union's majority, it un- lawfully refuses to bargain if its insistence on an election is motivated not by a bona fide doubt of the Union's majority but rather by a rejection of the collective-bar- gaining principle or by a desire to gain time within which to undermine the union and to avoid its statutory bargain- ing obligation. Joy Silk Mills, Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, 1264-65, enfd. 185 F.2d 732, 741-742 (C.A.D.C.); Overnite Transportation Company, 129 NLRB 1026, 1033-34, enfd. 308 F.2d 279, 283 (C.A. 4). Here though consenting to the election, Respondent utilized the time to dissipate the Union's majority status, and by its con- tinuing unlawful conduct made the holding of an impartial election impossible.6 I therefore conclude and find on the entire evidence that by refusing to bargain on and after January 28, 1967, Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 2. By discharging John G. Ashby and Gregory Dawson, Jr., because of their union membership and ac- tivities, Respondents engaged in discrimination to discourage membership in the Union, thereby engaging 6 Here as in Irving Air Chute Company, Inc, supra, the Union filed meritorious objections alleging that Respondents engaged in conduct requiring that the election be set aside. MODERN CHEVROLET CO. in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 3. All service department employees employed by Respondents at their Orange, Texas, places of business, but excluding office clerical employees, managerial em- ployees , salesmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. At all times since January 27, 1967, the Union has been and now is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in the above- described unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. 5. By refusing on and after January 28, 1967, to bar- gain with the Union, Respondents engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7. By engaging in unfair labor practices as found in sections II, C and D, supra, and by circulating among the employees a defaced facsimile of the Board's official bal- lot, Respondents engaged in conduct which improperly affected the results of the election. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents engaged in certain un- fair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action as specified below which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. For reasons which are stated in Consolidated Industries Inc., 108 NLRB 60, 61, and cases there cited, I shall recommend a broad cease- and-desist order. Although I have found the Union's objections to the election were meritorious and that the election should be set aside, I have also found that the Union had a majority in the appropriate unit on the date of its request to bargain and that Respondents' actions before and after that request were designed to undermine and destroy that majority and exhibited a complete rejection of the collec- tive-bargaining principle. I therefore find it necessary in order adequately to remedy the unfair labor practices herein found and to effectuate the policies of the Act to order Respondents to bargain, upon request, with the Union. Webb Tractor and Equipment Company, 167 NLRB 383, and cases there cited at fn. 8. 1 shall recom- mend further that the petition in Case 23-RC-2892 be dismissed and that all proceedings held in connection therewith be vacated. 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 issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER M. G. Inman, Sr. and M. G. Inman, Jr., partners, d/b/a Modern Chevrolet Company, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union sentiments or those of fellow employees or concerning their intentions of signing union cards. 817 (b) Threatening employees with the loss of benefits, with closing its places of business , or with other reprisals if the Union should come in. (c) Promising employees pay raises , improved work- ing conditions , or other benefits to discourage their sup- port of the Union. (d) Discouraging membership in International As- sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 31, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by discharging employees or in any other manner dis- criminating against them in regard to hire or tenure of em- ployment or any term or condition of employment. (e) Refusing to bargain, upon request, with said Union as the exclusive representative to their employees in the appropriate unit herein found with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 31, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent per- mitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Offer to John G. Ashby and Gregory Dawson, Jr., immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub- stantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his earnings during said period (Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440), said backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum . Isis Plumbing & Heat- ing Co., 138 NLRB 716. (b) Notify the said John G. Ashby and Gregory Dawson, Jr., if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (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 the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Bargain, upon request, with International Associa- tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 31, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of their em- ployees in the appropriate unit herein found with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em- ployment. (e) Post in their offices, shops, and other places of business at Orange , Texas, copies of the attached notice 818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD marked "Appendix."7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed by Respondents' representative, shall be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith.8 I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the petition in Case 23-RC-2892 be dismissed and that all proceedings held in connection therewith be vacated. 7 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 " 8 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 Respondents have 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: After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and or- dered us to post this notice to assure you that: WE WILL NOT question you coercively concerning your union sentiments or those of your fellow em- ployees or about your intentions of signing union cards. WE WILL NOT threaten that you will lose your ex- isting benefits, with closing any of our places of busi- ness, or with reprisals of any other kind if the Union should come in. WE WILL NOT promise you pay raises, improved working conditions , or benefits of any other kind to discourage you in your support of the Union. WE WILL NOT discharge you or treat you dif- ferently in any way because you join or favor Inter- national Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers , District 31, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with said Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers as the exclusive representative of our em- ployees in the appropriate unit noted below. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights to organize yourselves , to form, join, or help unions, to bargain as a group through a representative you choose, to act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refuse to do any or all of those things except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. Since the Board has found that we discharged John G. Ashby and Gregory Dawson, Jr., because of their union membership and activities and thereby vio- lated the law, WE WILL offer them full reinstatement to their former positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and WE WILL make each of them whole for any losses in earnings which they incurred as a result of our discrimination against them, including interest at 6 percent. WE WILL bargain upon request with International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 31 , AFL-CIO, as your exclusive represen- tative in the appropriate unit noted below with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and condi- tions of employment. The appropriate unit is: All service department employees employed by us at our Orange , Texas, places of business, but excluding office clerical employees , managerial employees , salesmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. You and all our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization except to the extent provided in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. Dated By M. G. INMAN, SR. AND M. G. INMAN, JR., PARTNERS, D/B/A MODERN CHEVROLET COMPANY (Employer) (Representative) (Title) Note: We will notify the above-named employees to be offered reinstatement, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train- ing 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 228-4721.