Eugene Luhr and Co.

EUGENE LUHR AND CO. 769 Eugene Luhr and Co. and Michael C. Thompson, Thomas L. Knight, Travis R. Riley Eugene Luhr Inc., and Co. and Luhr Brothers, Inc. and Edwin G. Lee. Cases 14-CA-5549-4, 14-CA-5549-6, 14-CA-5549-7, and 14-CA-5549-5 subsequent unfair labor practice charges filed with the Regional Director were thereafter dismissed The Regional Director's decision not to issue a complaint as to these two employees is a matter for his own discretion The fact that he determined not to issue such a complaint is not a conclusive resolution that their layoff was economically justified , at least for purposes of this proceeding. and the bare fact of dismissal of these charges is irrelevant to our decision as to whether Respondents ' layoff of the four employees involved herein was in violation of Section $ (a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act January 8, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On August 21, 1970, Trial Examiner Bernard J. Seff issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. 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, the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 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 Recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that Respondents Eugene Luhr and Co. and Luhr Brothers, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, their officers. agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommend- ed Order, as modified herein. 1. In paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, delete the word "discharge" and substitute therefor the word "layoff." 2. In footnote 3 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for "10" days. i In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondents' layoff of the four individuals named herein was based on a discriminatory motive, we are mindful of the fact, as pointed out in Respondents' brief, that two other employees in the regular yard crew were also laid off and that their TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BERNARD J . SEFF, Trial Examiner: The above cases were consolidated for trial. Each of the original charges in Case 14-CA-5549--4, 5, 6, and 7 were filed by Thompson, Lee, Knight, and Riley, respectively, on April 22, 1970. The amended charge in Case 14-CA-5549-5 was filed by Edwin 0. Lee on May 17, 1970. The consolidated complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and further that by laying off employees Thompson, Knight, Riley, and Lee on April 1, 1970, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The cases were heard in St. Louis, Missouri, on June 22 and 23, 1970. Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and Respondent and they have been duly considered. Upon the entire record of the case, including my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Eugene Luhr and Co. and Luhr Brothers, Inc., are, and have been at all times material herein, each corporations duly organized under and existing by virtue of laws of the State of Illinois. Eugene Luhr and Co. and Luhr Brothers, Inc., are, and at all times material herein have been affiliated businesses with common ownership, directors, and officers, and constitute a single integrated enterprise. Their offices formulate and administer a common labor policy for the aforenamed corporations. At all times material herein Eugene Luhr and Co. and Luhr Brothers, Inc., have maintained their principal offices and places of business in Columbia, Illinois. Eugene Luhr and Co. is engaged in the business of construction contractor. Luhr Brothers, Inc., is engaged in the business of leasing boats, mostly to Eugene Luhr and Co., to be used for construction purposes. Eugene Luhr and Co. and Luhr Brothers, Inc., will hereinafter sometimes jointly be called Respondent. During the fiscal year ending April 30, 1970, which period is representative of its operations during all times material herein, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its integrated business operations, performs services valued in excess of $50,000 of which services valued in excess of $50,000 were performed in, and for various enterprises located in, States other than the State of Illinois. The complaint alleges, the answer admits and I find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 187 NLRB No. 110 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 11. THE UNION The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background In June 1966 the Respondent acquired the vessel Sheryl Vic Beth. The Sheryl is the Respondent's largest vessel and it is used for long tow trips because distances of over 50 miles are the only ones for which the Sheryl is economical. Respondent also operates other vessels used for the work of switching boats and for the construction of dikes. During the spring of each year that the Respondent has owned the Sheryl in the months approximately of February, March, April, May, June, and July the Sheryl has been tied up at the Respondent's dock in Columbia, Illinois, and has not been used for towing. Similarly, this year, on February 18, 1970, the Sheryl was again tied up at the Respondent's Columbia, Illinois, dock to begin its slack season and was stationed there when the following events took place. B. Incidents Related by William Grantham The Respondent's marine superintendent, Cletus Whal- en, on or about March 15, 1970, came aboard the Sheryl and spoke to pilot William Grantham in the pilothouse. Grantham related that Whalen said he received a letter from the National Labor Relations Board indicating that the men had joined or signed cards to have an election for the Marine Officers Association (hereinafter known as the Teamsters) as their representative. Whalen asked Grant- ham if he knew anything about this. Grantham said he did not. Whalen stated that he did not know who these men were, that it might take a month, 2 months, or even 3 months, but that he, Whalen, would find out and that they would not be working for the Respondent any longer. During the same conversation Whalen urged Grantham to join Local 520 of the Operating Engineers. The next night Whalen telephoned Grantham at home and told him that arrangements had been made for Grantham to get a card in Local 520. Whalen told Grantham to come in the next morning, bring his checkbook, and prepare to join Local 520. Whalen also told Grantham to come by his office and Mr. Luhr would take care of the expenses. Grantham decided instead to join Teamsters Local 54 and on the next day Grantham signed a card for the Marine Officers Association, affiliated with the Teamsters. On or about March 19, 1970, Cletus Whalen and Respondent's president, Alois Luhr, came on board the Sheryl and first spoke to Grantham privately in the pilothouse. Whalen asked if Grantham had obtained the Local 520 membership card and Grantham replied that he had not. Luhr accused Grantham of lying. Luhr allegedly said well, you have been in this Teamsters thing from the start, you have been lying. Luhr then replied, according to Grantham's testimony, "I'll sell the company before I go along, or sell the boat, before I will go along with any Teamsters thing." This conversation then ended when Luhr stated, "I know I can't fire the crew on this boat or the men that are in this, I know I can't fire you, but, I do think I can lay you off and probably will." Luhr and Whalen left Grantham and went down to the galley of the Sheryl followed by Grantham. In the galley were pilot Truman Baker, Travis Riley, and Tom Knight. Whalen asked pilot Baker what he thought of the Teamsters thing and Baker replied that he thought it was fine. Whalen asked deckhand Travis Riley, "I understand youjoined the Teamsters Union," to which Riley replied "Yes, sir, that's right" When Whalen asked deckhand Thomas Knight if Knight belonged to the Teamsters, Knight answered that he didn't belong to anything. President Alois Luhr spoke to the crew as follows: This is a free country, you people can do anything you want, but we simply cannot operate under a MOA contract. I'd have to sell the boat if we were under a contract like that. If you people aren't satisfied why are you working here? Why don't you get a job with Local 54. I'm paying you people good money. James Deevers, a deckhand, said he was approached by Superintendent Whalen while he was working on the St. Louis waterfront near Arsenal Street, sometime in March 1970. Whalen told Deevers that he had received a letter from Local 54 of the Teamsters indicating that 30 percent of the people had signed up for representation with Local 54 at which point Whalen asked Deevers if Deevers knew anything about this. Deevers replied that he did not. And Whalen then stated he was going to find out who had signed up. Whalen stated that it might take a month or 2 or maybe 3 but that the ones that signed would not be working for the Company anymore. Whalen asked Deevers if Deevers knew anybody that had signed up with the Union and Deevers said he did not. On of about March 25 Luhr approached deckhand Thomas Knight while he was cooking on the Sheryl and in the presence of his father, pilot Roy Knight, said that he, Luhr, would lay everybody off 6 months out of the year if employees joined the Teamsters. Respondent testified that ever since the Company owned the Sheryl it was not operated approximately for January, February, March, April, May, and June. During this period in each of the years 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969 the deckhands and pilots were kept on the Company's payroll and other work was found for them to do while the Sheryl was in the dock section. For the most part the deckhands performed maintenance work such as painting and attaching new steel sidings where steel had been bent and other similar tasks. The pilots stayed on board and arranged their time in such a manner so that there was a pilot on board day and night. Luhr has national contracts covering all work on navigable waters of the Mississippi with Laborers Local 663 for the deckhands and with International Union of Operating Engineers for the pilots. On April 1 Whalen laid off all the employees on the Sheryl and told them that this was being done because of lack of work and lack of funds. Cletus Whalen has been employed by the Company for 21 years. He was asked if he had threatened anyone with EUGENE LUHR AND CO. 771 loss of job or layoff because of membership in the Teamsters union. Whalen said, "No, sir." Luhr was asked a question as to how it was that the Sheryl was tied up February 18, 1970, but no layoff took place until April 1, 1970. His answer was that at the time we were anticipating some more work and we thought this work would go out early but it did not materialize. Luhr replied to a question as to whether he told Thomas Knight or Larry Knight that he was going to lay off everyone for 6 months if a Teamsters agreement was signed as follows: I said it was a possibility if they operated on the Sheryl and could not operate any other boat, because the Sheryl basically operates six months a year, depending on the workload. In answer to a further question did Luhr ever tell anyone that he was going to sell the Sheryl or the Company if the Teamsters contract was signed, he answered: I didn't say anthing about selling the company. I said if we were forced to stay in business on the river, we would probably have to sell the boat due to the jurisdictional problem. As can be seen above, Luhr's answer admitted he had said he would be forced to sell the boat because if he was forced to stay in business on the river a contract with the Teamsters would create jurisdictional problems he could not handle. Pilot Grantham testified that Whalen said after having inquired of Grantham who the members of the Teamsters union were, ". . . he didn't know who they were, it may take a month or so but he'd find and that they would not be working there any longer." Along the same line Luhr testified, "Before I'll go along with the Teamster thing I'll sell out, you hear me and hear me good, I'll sell the company or I'll sell the boat before I go along with any Teamster thing." Grantham also testified that Luhr continued with his statement, "I know I can't fire the crew on this boat or the men that are in this, I know I can't fire you, but, I do think I can lay you off and probably will." Grantham went on and said that Luhr in the course of his comments to the men said: "He started explaining that the Teamsters thing wouldn't work, that everytime they tried to get in a dike there'd be a strike." Luhr then continued, "If you guys weren't satisfied, why don't you go the Teamsters, go to work there instead of trying to force this thing on me, or just quit." As can be seen above from the testimony given by Grantham, who spoke in a direct calm manner and whose demeanor created a favorable impression, Luhr and Whalen were both angry that the men had decided to get the Teamsters union to represent them. In the course of Whalen's testimony he did not controvert the statement that he didn't know who the men were who joined the Union but when he found out they would not be working there any longer. Whalen did deny in general terms that he threatened to layoff the men because of Teamster membership. It is clear that, viewing the testimony of the General Counsel as it came in through the lips of the men who had been employed on the Sheryl, Luhr was hostile to those people who said they had joined the Teamsters union. Respondent in its brief states there is no direct evidence that the layoff was motivated by any union animus or was to combat union activity. This statement is clearly controverted by the testimony offered by the General Counsel's witnesses who repeated the exact threats that had been made to them. Neither Whalen nor Luhr denied that they had interrogated the employees in order to find out who had joined the Teamsters. Therefore this testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses stands on the record as admitted. Luhr's testimony was couched in language which admitted that he had told the men he would have to sell the Sheryl if he had to operate it under a Teamster contract. Luhr did not deny that he had questioned Riley and Thomas Knight to find out if they had joined the Teamsters. Luhr also did not deny that he had told deckhand Thomas Knight that he would lay everybody off 6 months out of the year if they joined the Teamsters. Deckhand James Deevers testified that Whalen told him he had received a letter from Teamsters Local 54 claiming to represent 30 percent of the men. Whalen asked Deevers if he knew anything about it. Deevers said he did not know anything about it. Whalen then said he was going to find out who had signed up. He went on to say: It might take a month or 2, maybe 3 but the ones that signed they wouldn't be working for the company anymore. Employee Travis Riley, while listening with a group of the employees in the galley, testified that Luhr said: This is a free country, you people can do anything you want, but we simply cannot operate under a MOA contract. I'd have to sell the boat if we were under a contract like that. If you people aren't satisfied why are you working here? Why don't you get you a job with Local 54? Thomas Knight, who was present in the galley when Luhr spoke to the men, gave testimony that Luhr said: "He would lay off everybody 6 months out of the year if we joined the Teamsters." Roy Knight was in the galley when Luhr spoke to the men. Knight testified that Luhr asked: If we had thought anymore about these cards we had signed, if the boys had and I said no I hadn't heard them say anything and he just told me it was going to cause him problems due to the operating engineers. He said we'd be laid off six months a year if we had a MOA contract, we couldn't run the other boats or anything like that. Employee Lee was told by Whalen that while he was due for a vacation no more vacations could be taken because there was too much work to be done. When they were laid off the men were told by Whalen that the layoff was due to lack of work and funds. It is significant to point out that on April 14, 1970, Respondent hired a new employee, Ronald Undemstock, to work as a welder. Note also that two employees testified there was plenty of work to be done on the day the men were to be laid off. Travis Riley said he was working in the Employer's Columbia, Illinois, yard at the time of the layoff. He was working on the side of a barge putting rails and winches in it. Riley testified that at the time of the 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD layoff there remained at least 2 months' work to be done on the barge. Thompson was working on the same barge. He was cutting out and replacing compartments with new steel. Thompson said that at the time of the layoff one beam had been installed and there were about five additional beams which had to be installed. Edwin Lee testified that at the time of the layoff there were still mats to be built and painting to be done on the Sheryl. It is to be noted that a new employee, Ronald Undemstock, was hired on April 14 to work on part of the very same barge known as barge L-337. Further that another new employee, Roy Schneider, was also hired on May 25 to work part of his time on the repair of barge L-337. Note this new employee was hired before any of the Charging Parties were recalled. From all of the above the conclusion is inescapable that the men who were laid off on April 1, 1970, ostensibly because there was no work, were, in fact, laid off for a reason other than lack of work. Both Whalen and Luhr had threatened to lay off any employees who had joined the Teamsters. It seems clear that the reason given for the layoff was a pretext. The real reason was because they had joined the Teamsters and Luhr had said that he could not work men on his ships if the Teamsters got in. Concluding Findings and Analysis It is not disputed that Luhr said he would have to sell the Sheryl if the Teamsters came in. The record also shows that all four of the Charging Parties in the instant matter were recalled to work between May 25 and 29. Luhr testified that they were laid off because there was no work for the Sheryl to do. If this was the fact then it becomes impossible to understand why the men were recalled at the time they were called back. This is so because Luhr himself testified that the first contract which his Company was able to successfully bid on was awarded to his Company on June 11. I directed a question to Mr. Luhr in order to ascertain the Company's past practice with respect to employment on the Sheryl. Luhr was asked if the men working on the Sheryl were kept on the payroll 12 months a year, while the Sheryl was idle for about 4 months, and was this done so that when work came in it would not be necessary for Respondent to scare up a crew-he would have experienced men available who were trained in the operation of the boat. In other words were the men being paid for the purpose of maintaining the nucleus of a working force that he would otherwise have to freshly recruit and train. In answer to this question Luhr said that was correct. It should be pointed out that nowhere in the record is it stated by company representatives that in the 4 years preceding 1970 employees were laid off when the Sheryl was not busy for periods of approximately 3 to 4 or 5 months. Suddenly, upon the advent of the Teamsters union, the Company reversed a practice which it had engaged in without interruption for approximately 4 years. Even with respect to what Luhr said to the men, particularly Thomas Knight or Larry Knight, when the General Counsel elicited testimony that Luhr said that he was going to lay off everyone for 6 months if the Teamsters agreement was signed, Mr. Luhr's answer is interesting and it is quoted below: I said it was a possibility if they operated on the Sheryl and could not operate any other boat, because the Sheryl basically operates six months a year, depending on the workload. When Luhr was further asked if he ever told anybody that he was going to sell the Sheryl Vic or the Company if the Teamsters contract was signed, he answered as follows - I didn't say anything about selling the company. I said if we were forced to stay in business on the river, we would probably have to sell the boat due to the jurisdictional problem. Here, again, I find that the testimony of what the employees said they were told is sufficiently like what Luhr and Whalen told them to support a finding affirming what the General Counsel's witnesses testified to. Analytically speaking, the record presents a fairly typical case of unfair labor practices. Whalen queried some of the men to find out if they were members of the Teamsters or if they knew who the members were. This question was then followed by a statement that Whalen would find out who the men were and when he did they would no longer be working for the Company. Luhr spoke to the men in the galley and said that if the Teamsters came in that the employees would be laid off for 6 months. The record shows that Superintendent Whalen queried Travis Riley, Thomas Knight, and James Deevers in an effort to find out if they had joined the Teamsters union. This pattern of interrogation of employees and threats made against them constitutes unlawful interference, restraint, and coercion and by so doing the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. When the threats were followed by the layoff of the Charging Parties the picture was complete. By so doing Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Luhr himself stated the reason of the prospective layoffs when he was speaking to the men as being due to his fear of jurisdictional labor problems that would result if he was compelled to sign a labor contract with the Teamsters. This explanation bears no resemblance to the explanation given by Whalen who said that the reason of the layoffs was due to lack of work and funds. There are no serious problems concerning the credibility of the General Counsel's witnesses because their recollec- tion of the statements made by both Luhr and Whalen bore a striking resemblance to the statements made by the Respondent's supervisors. In the context of the events as they transpired it is clear and I find that the Company engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) which was independent of the layoffs which I find were violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. EUGENE LUHR AND CO. 773 V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action in design to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent unlawfully laid off Michael C. Thompson, Thomas L. Knight, Travis R. Riley, and Edwin G. Lee, I shall recommend that Respondent offer to make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by payment to them of a sum of money equivalent to that which they normally would have earned in Respondent's employ. Said sums shall be calculated in the manner established by the Board in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In view of the fact that all four of the Charging Parties were recalled to work and did return there is no requirement that they be offered their Jobs back. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent laid off Michael C. Thompson, Thomas L Knight, Travis R. Riley, and Edwin G. Lee because they engaged in Union or concerted activities and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 4. By threatening employees with a 6-month layoff, by interrogating employees with respect to their union activities, and by threatening to sell the boat they worked on in the event the employees chose the Union as their collective-bargaining agent, Respondent independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to make whole Michael C. Thompson, Thomas L. Knight, Travis R. Riley, and Edwin G. Lee for any loss of pay they suffered by reason of their unlawful discharge in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) 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. (c) Post at its yard and on the boat Sheryl Vic Beth copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith .3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 2 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " J In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " RECOMMENDED ORDER' Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this case, I shall recommend that Respondent, Eugene Luhr and Co. and Luhr Brothers, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Local 54 of Marine Officers Association (Teamsters), or any other labor organization, by laying off any employees or by discrimi- nating in any manner with respect to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union activities, threatening them with layoff in the event they engage in union activities, or threatening to sell the boat the Sheryl Vic Beth in the event the employees choose the Teamsters as their collective-bargaining agent or in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which all sides had a chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice. The Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization, to form, join, or help unions, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, to refrain from any and all of these things. WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees with respect to these rights. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees coercively with 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD regard to their union activities, nor threaten them with loss of their jobs if the Union gets in if they engage in union activity, nor will we threaten to sell the boat on which they are employed. WE WILL refrain from discouraging membership in the Marine Officers Association, Local 54, Teamsters union, or any other labor organization, by laying off any employees or by discriminating in any other manner with respect to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL make whole Michael C. Thompson, Thomas L. Knight, Travis R. Riley, and Edwin G. Lee for any pay they lost as a result of our discrimination against them. Dated By EUGENE LUHR AND CO. AND LUHR BROTHERS, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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 materials. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 1040 Boatmen's Bank Building, 314 North Broadway, St. Louis, Missouri 63102, Telephone 314-622-4167.