Public Pontiac, Inc.

118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Public Pontiac, Inc. and I. J. Wilson , an Individual. Case 13-CA-8151 October 8, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA practices, I heard this case at Chicago, Illinois, on March 6, 1968 The only substantive allegation of the complaint was that the respondent had discharged 1. J Wilson, one of its employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) or (3) of the Act. Subsequent to the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel and for the respondent filed briefs with the Trial Examiner. Upon the record so made, and in view of my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I hereby make the following findings of fact- On June 11, 1968, Trial Examiner William Seagle issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed excep- tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Exam- iner ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM SEAGLE, Trial Examiner Upon a charge filed on December 4, 1967; a complaint issued on January 12, 1968 by the Regional Director of Region 13, and the answer of the respondent denying the commission of any unfair labor I These terms are defined in Article II, Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the agreement Section I provides "The term 'utility employees' shall apply to employees who wax, shine, buff, or otherwise polish vehicles or who spray , or otherwise apply undercoating to vehicles , occasionally drive vehicles for purpose of receipt on delivery , assist toward building maintenance or perform other semiskilled tasks necessary to the Dealer's operation ." Section 2 provides "The term 'washers ' shall apply to employees who wash or otherwise clean vehicles." Section 3 provides "The term, 'garage attendants ' shall apply to employees who do clean-up work, to night men , to vehicle movers within or upon the I THE RESPONDENT The respondent, Public Pontiac, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Public Pontiac), is an Illinois corporation, which, at all material times, has maintained its principal office and place of business at 3150 West Ogden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, where it has been engaged in the sale and servicing of new and used automobiles. Duruig the past calendar year, the respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, sold and distributed automobiles, the gross value of which exceeded $500,000. During the same period of time, the respondent received automobiles valued in excess of $100,000, and these auto- mobiles were transported to its place of business in interstate commerce directly from places outside the State of Illinois. The respondent admits that all material times it has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and I so find II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Excavating, Grading, Asphalt, Private Scavengers and Auto- mobile Salesroom Garage Attendants Local Union No 731, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (hereinafter referred to as Local 731), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act The respondent has at present a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 731, covering its utility employees, washers, garage attendants and parts department employees 1 The term of this agreement is from July 1, 1967, to June 30, 1969 III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE A. The Discharge of Wilson I J. Wilson, the charging party in the present case, the legality of whose discharge is in issue, was employed as one of about 12 garage attendants or porters, whose duties included getting new cars ready for delivery by washing them, putting on their hub caps and antennae, and removing the plastic coverings from their upholstery Dealer's premises , and to others who may be assigned to miscellaneous work of an unskilled nature " Article II , Section 8 of the agreement further provides "Any person who performs work described in the above classifications fifty percent (50%) or more of his working time shall be eligible for membership in the Union " Under Article III of the agreement , wages in these classifications for the year commencing July 1, 1967, were fixed as follows $2. 52 an hour for utility employees, $2 42 an hour for washers , and $2 .32 an hour for garage attendants, and a 10-cent-an-hour raise on July 1, 1968, was also provided However, Public Pontiac did not actually employ any "washers." 173 NLRB No. 24 PUBLIC PONTIAC 119 Wilson had been employed by Public Pontiac in December 1965, and he was classified as a garage attendant, being paid at the rate of $2 32 an hour. He worked under the general supervision of Stanley Unhock, the service manager, but he washed and prepared new cars for delivery when directed to do so by Arthur Markman, the new car sales manager. New cars were stored in two warehouses in the vicinity of Public Pontiac, and when Markman was ready to deliver a particular car, he would hand a slip indicating its stock number and color to one of the porters When Wilson first started to work for Public Pontiac-he worked on the late shift from noon to 9 p.m.-Markman thought that the firm had found what he described as "a diamond in the rough." But after several months Markman found that he had to be on Wilson's back all the time to get something done. "He was looking," testified Markman, "for ways to not have to do things as opposed to getting them done when you asked him to do it " Markman related one incident in particular to illustrate the trouble that he had with Wilson. Markman asked Wilson to polish a car but Wilson objected. "You can't polish the car The car has to be buffed out " Markman insisted that the car be polished but Wilson refused to do so, and Markman had to call the general manager to get Wilson to follow his instructions It turned out that polishing was all that the car required Markman also complained about Wilson a number of times to Unhock, the service manager, and Newell, the fleet manager also complained to Unhock that Wilson was not getting his cars ready for delivery when he gave them to him. About a month and a half before his discharge, which would be about the middle of October 1967, Wilson was transferred by Unhock to the early morning shift, which began early in the morning (probably at 9 a.m.) and ran to 6 p.m. Wilson did not accept the transfer, however, with good grace He wanted to know why he was being transferred, although it made no difference to him whether he worked on the early morning shift or the late shift As Wilson testified: Q. Did you want to stay on at night? A Well, it didn't make me no difference, but I just didn't understand why that was being did Wilson testified also that when he asked Unhock why he was being transferred the latter shouted at him. Along about this same time Wilson filed a complaint with the Fair Employment Practices Commission that the porters were not being paid in accordance with the requirements of the contract between Public Pontiac and Local 731. It was Wilson's contention that the porters should be paid $2.52 an hour because they were in fact washing and polishing cars. When Maurice Kay, who is one of the owners of Public Pontiac, and also the secretary -treasurer of the corporation, received the complaint from the FEPC, he called Wilson into his office to discuss it. Waldorf, the president of the corporation, was also present at this interview, which, Wilson testified, occurred on October 16 Kay told Wilson that the porters were being paid in accordance with contract require- ments and that they would get a 10-cent-an-hour raise on July 1, 1968, as provided in the contract, but that if he had any complaint, he was free to take it up with the union. Wilson objected to the further discussion of his complaint because two of the porters were off that day. Kay then contacted Kent Guido, the union's representative, to inform him of the complaint, and the latter came out to Public Pontiac to talk to Wilson, who again refused to do so unless the other porters were present. About a week later, a meeting was held to discuss the complaint at which there were present not only Wilson, two of the porters, and Guido but also Unhock and Lester Barnett, one of the managers of Public Pontiac Guido took the position in discussing the complaint that the porters could not be paid as washers or polishers because they did not perform such work during at least 50 percent of their time, and the porters, except Wilson, agreed with Guido. When Wilson persisted in maintaining that the porters did do washing and polishing more than 50 percent of their time, Guido told him that he could take the complaint up with the National Labor Relations Board Under date of November 21, 1967, Wilson filed a charge with the Regional Office of the Board in Chicago, alleging that Local 731 had refused to process his grievance protesting inadequate pay 2 At about 10 a in., on November 30, 1967, the day of Wilson's discharge, he was engaged in wiping down some new cars in the new car department of Public Pontiac When Wilson saw Unhock, he complained to the latter that he had only been paid for working 34'% hours during the previous week, which would be the week ending November 24, although he had worked 36 hours that week Unhock told Wilson to pull his timecard, so that they could find out how many hours he had worked Wilson then decided to make a telephone call to the National Labor Relations Board but, while he was doing so, Markman approached him and gave him a slip to pick up a car from one of the Public Pontiac warehouses Since Wilson was attempting to get through to the Board, he asked Willie Lacey, one of the other porters to pick up the car wanted by Markman, the car being, apparently, a black and yellow Pontiac, and Lacey agreed to do so. While Wilson was still waiting to complete his telephone call, Markman came up behind him with the customer who had purchased the car, which Wilson had been sent to pick up, and, according to Wilson, Markman shouted across to him in a loud tone of voice, "I want that car done"; thereupon he turned around and said to Markman with a soft voice, "Mr. Markman, you doesn't have to holler at me. All you have to do so ask me what to do, and I do it" but Markman shouted again in a loud voice, "I want that car did", during this interchange, there were present, in addition to Markman and the customer, James Henry, who is one of the Public Pontiac's service writers Markman, Unhock and Henry gave an altogether different version of this incident. Markman was, of course, involved in it, and Henry witnessed it but Unhock merely testified to what Markman had told him about it immediately after its occur- rence According to Markman, he gave Wilson the slip to pick up the car between 9 30 and 10 a.m., after about 10 minutes had elapsed he saw Wilson in the garage and was very much surprised to see him, since he knew that it should have taken Wilson 20 minutes to go for the car and return, he asked Wilson whether he had brought the car back already and Wilson explained that he had sent Lacey for it; he reproved Wilson for sending Lacey to get the car but told him to get to work on the car as soon as it came in; 10 minutes later he found the car at the head of the car wash rack but Wilson was at the other end of the building, still trying to make his telephone call; he waited until Wilson got off the telephone, and then told the latter that he must have the car for which 2 The charge was docketed as Case 13 -CB-2335. 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD people were waiting, as he walked away some 30 or 40 feet, Wilson shouted across to him "If you paid me what you are supposed to be paying me, you wouldn't have to tell me all these things twice"; when Wilson made this remark there were present a mechanic and a woman customer, who was waiting for her car to be serviced, but the people for whom the new car was intended whom he identified as a husband and wife whose names he did not know, were waiting in the showroom; he then went to Unhock and told the latter what Wilson had said, and commented to him that it was impossible to work with Wilson. The testimony of Unhock concerning what Markman told him about Wilson's conduct is in close agreement with Markman's Unhock testified that Markman reported to him about Wilson between 10-30 and 11 30 am., and that after about 15 minutes he called Wilson who was getting ready to wash the car and discharged him for his insubordination toward Markman, after Wilson had admitted that he had made the remark attributed to him by Markman Henry, the service writer, corroborated the testimony of Markman concerning the incident Henry's version of Wilson's insubordinate remark was: "If you pay me enough money, so I can get the job done," and he fixed the time of the conversation between Markman and Wilson as between 9.30 and 10 a.m , and the place as the service area of the new car department where a woman customer was waiting for service. Wilson gave quite a different account than Unhock concern- ing the reason for his discharge by the latter. According to' Wilson, after he had been summoned to Unhock's office, the latter closed the door, pulled his timecard out of his pocket and banged it down on the desk, asking what was wrong with his timecard. The rest of the interview is best given in Wilson's own words- I said, "Well, Stan," I say, "I am short So he commences to bang it down on the desk with a shouting voice saying, "You are not short." I said, "Well, Stan," I say, "I am short " He say, "I said the timecard doesn't lie You are not short Now, here is your timecard, and get out of here." I said, "Well, Stan," I say, "I am short." He just kept banging on the desk, with a shouting voice, saying that I am not short, "here is your timecard. Get out of here. You no longer work for Public Pontiac " So at this time I says to him, I said, "Well, Stan, I say, "I haven't did nothing " I said, "But now, if you dust got to have a fit, you have to So he replied, "Yes, I will." [emphasis supplied ] According to Wilson's further testimony he then went back to the garage and started working on the car he was getting ready when Unhock came downstairs3 and told him, "I said leave that car alone You no longer work for Public Pontiac", he kept working on the car, notwithstanding the fact that Unhock had fired him, and had repeated what he had said about not working on the car; a few minutes later Unhock, who had left, came back with Mitchell Rosenberg, the brother-in-law of Waldorf, and the general manager of Public Pontiac, who also told him that he was no longer working for Public Pontiac; he then asked Rosenberg to give him a letter stating why he was no longer working for Public Pontiac, Rosenberg agreed to give him such a letter but the letter merely read as follows 3 Unhock's office was upstairs. November 30, 1967 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to inform you that I. J Wilson has been dis- charged as of 11.30 a m on Nov 30, 1967 Public Pontiac, Inc. Stanley Unhock Service Manager After his discharge, Wilson called the union, and Kent Guido came to Public Pontiac for a meeting, which took place on December 1 in Barnett's office, and at which Wilson and Unhock were also present. According to Wilson, when he complained at the meeting that Unhock had fired him for no reason at all, the latter shouted "I doesn't have to give you no reason", Guido then interposed, and told Unhock, "that's wrong, you have to give a man a reason," whereupon Unhock stated that Markman had told him that Wilson had insulted a customer, and that this was the reason for his discharge; he insisted, however, that he had been discharged because he had complained about the shortage in his paycheck, then Guido asked him to step out of the room, and when he returned Guido told him that Pubhc Pontiac would not take him back, being "hardheaded and stubborn"; and when Guido asked him what he was going to do, he replied, "I am going to fight it." Unhock testified, however, that he had explained at the meeting that the reason for Wilson's discharge had been insubordination, and that he had told Guido exactly what had taken place, and Guido agreed that there had been just cause for the discharge. After both counsel for the General Counsel and for the respondent had rested their cases, the former called as a rebuttal witness one Alphonso Cook, who testified that he was the customer who had purchased the black and yellow Pontiac on the day of Wilson's discharge and proceeded to attempt to corroborate the latter's testimony that he merely protested against being hollered at. According to Cook, who worked at night at a place called Automatic Delivery, he arrived at Public Pontiac at 8 or 8 30 a m. in order to trade his 1967 Catalina Pontiac for a 1968 Pontiac, he was in such a state of sleeplessness that if he had not stayed on his feet and kept moving he would have fallen asleep, Markman waited on him, and he expressed an interest in a Grand Prix model but Markman convinced him, apparently, that this model would be too expensive for him, and, after haggling for about half an hour, he settled on a 1968 Bonneville model; Markman then gave Wilson a slip for the car but Wilson asked an "older gentleman to pick up the car"; after about 10 or 15 minutes the car pulled in through the service door but it was put at the end of a line of cars, and, after waiting about 10 minutes he reminded Markman that he was waiting for his car, and since he worked at night, he would like to get home and get some sleep; so Markman hollered across to Wilson to get the car cleaned up but Wilson was on the telephone, and Markman hollered at Wilson again to get the car ready, whereupon the latter said to Markman, "you don't have to holler at me If you want me to do something, you just ask me and I will do it"; Wilson then got into the car, backed it out of the service door, and came `round the garage and pulled the car up to the wash rack; as Wilson was getting out of the car, he shook Wilson's PUBLIC PONTIAC hands, and remarked to the latter, "you work for these people and they drive you", while all this was happening he did not see anyone else, whether a customer or Henry; after this he did not see Wilson again. As the evidence had shown that there were two compressors in the service area of Public Pontiac, and that these made considerable noise, so that it was necessary to talk somewhat loudly to be heard, this factor was explored during Cook's cross-examination, as follows: Q. Was there a lot of noise at the time (during the interchange between Markman and Wilson)9 A. During what time? Q. During this mcident9 A No, not at that time. No. Q. Between Markman and Wilson-during the conversa- tion between Markman and Wilson? A What you mean When they was shouting [emphasis supplied] ? Q. Was there any noise, machinery or anything like that? A Well, you could hear what each other was saying. I didn't hear no machines running, no. I know I didn't hear none. They could have been but I-you, they ain't cross my mind that I hear them You know what I mean, if somebody speak, why I was standing right next to him. If some machine was running I don't know nothing about it B Concluding Findings Counsel for the General Counsel correctly submits that the crucial issue in this case is whether Wilson, when asked by Markman to wash a customer's car on November 30, merely protested against being shouted at, or demanded that he be paid what he was entitled to before he would comply with Markman's order. If the respondent's witnesses are to be believed, Wilson was not only insubordinate but impudently so. But this is not the conclusion of counsel for the General Counsel who, for some strange reason, argues that "this might possibly be held to be insulting to the customer who was waiting for the car and a possible justification for discharge." How Wilson's conduct could be deemed insulting to the customer is difficult for me to understand, annoying, it might be but insulting, it could hardly be. The only reason that this peculiar semantic argument is made by counsel for the General Counsel would seem to be that he wishes to denounce as "preposterous" the "belated" contention of the respondent that Wilson was discharged for insulting a customer when "the very customer who (sic) Wilson is alleged to have insulted and whose car Wilson is alleged to have refused to take care of, actually shook Wilson's hand and congratulated him on his behavior in the face of Markman's shouting." The argument of counsel for the General Counsel that Wilson was discharged for insulting a customer is based on Wilson's testimony that this was the false reason finally given to him by Unhock in the meeting of December 1 that was held to discuss his discharge. But this is wholly inconsistent with the testimony of Unhock, and it is difficult to believe that he would have given a reason that made so little sense, semanti- cally or otherwise, for it could not possibly have been the real reason. 121 Counsel for the General Counsel stakes his whole case on the allegedly corroborative evidence of Alphonso Cook. But the first difficulty with this approach is that there is evidence, offered also to corroborate Markman, namely, the evidence of Henry offered by the respondent. Counsel for the General Counsel, speaking of Cook, argues. "He is the one witness in the case who has no possible motive for not telling the truth. Cook has no connection with Wilson." Henry is, to be sure, an employee of the respondent and Cook does not appear to have any discoverable or demonstrable connection with Wilson. But Cook, like Wilson, is a Negro, and conceivably, Cook's motive could be found in the sentiment of racial solidarity. On the other hand, Henry is not necessarily discredited because he, too, is a Negro, and an employee of the respondent. I am rendered suspicious of Cook, moreover, by the very circum- stance on which counsel for the General Counsel places so much reliance, namely, the alleged fact that Cook shook Wilson by the hand, and congratulated him on his behavior, for this conduct of Cook, if it actually occurred, reveals a spirit of active partisanship rather than disinterestedness. There is, however, an even more cogent reason for distrusting the evidence of Cook Serious doubts are raised by his physical condition on the morning that he bought his new Pontiac. It is apparent from his own testimony that he was then in such a state of weariness that he could hardly keep his eyes open, and that he could stay awake only as long as he kept moving. This state must have imparied his powers of observation and recollection. In addition, there are serious discrepancies between Cook's testimony and the testimony not only of the respondent's witnesses but also of Wilson. In his own testimony, Wilson never mentioned driving the car around to the wash rack, as Cook did, and since Wilson had induced Lacey to go for the car, which was immediately needed, it is reasonable to suppose that Lacey would have driven it to the wash rack as he came in with it Wilson also did not mention in his testimony that Cook shook him by the hand, either before or after the car had been driven to the wash rack. Among the serious discrepancies are also the sequence of the events and the circumstances of the sale of the automobile involved. According to Cook, he arrived at Public Pontiac before 8 a in , and he bought the new car after about one-half hour of bargaining. He also manifested a desire to have the car immediately, and it should not have taken more than 20 minutes to bring the car over from the warehouse. Yet Wilson was not discharged until 11.30 a.m. The confusion mounts as one considers the conflicts in the evidence relating to such questions as who sold what car to Cook and who was present when Wilson was ordered to get and prepare the car for the customer. The testimony of Markman is that it was not he who sold the car which he was attempting to get Wilson to prepare, and that the purchasers of this car were a husband and wife who were waiting for it in the salesroom. According to Markman also, there was present, during his acrimonious verbal exchanges with Wilson, Henry, a mechanic and a woman customer who was waiting for her car to be serviced. All this is hardly reconcilable with the testimony of Cook that it was Markman who sold him his 1968 Bonneville and that during the latter's exchange with Wilson, he did not see any other customer or Henry, although Cook did not deny that Henry could have been present. Although the testimony of Wilson and Cook is in agreement, seemingly, as to the colors of the car that Cook purchased that morning, their descriptions do not 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD seem to be in total agreement.4 It is quite possible that in such a large agency as Public Pontiac two cars were sold that morning Another possibility is that if Cook was actually the customer who purchased the car which Wilson was ordered to wash that morning he may have been present the first time but not the second time that Markman ordered Wilson to do so This, in effect, is really Cook's testimony. Markman testified, on the other hand, that Wilson's impudent remark was made the second time that he spoke to him, and after the car was at the wash rack If this was so, Cook was testifying with respect to Wilson's first rejoinder to Markman. This would not rule out Wilson's impudence when Markman spoke to him the second time when Cook, admittedly, was no longer present In his attack on the credit of the respondent's witnesses, counsel for the General Counsel berates them for attempting deliberately to conceal the identity of the purchaser of the car which Wilson was to have serviced, although counsel never himself revealed how he managed to foil this nefarious plot. It is clear, however, from the testimony of Markman that no Board investigator ever asked any representative of the respondent for the name and address of the purchaser of the car which Wilson was to have serviced The failure to volunteer this information can hardly be equated to deliberate conceal- ment. In any event, assuming that Cook was the customer, it is apparent that his testimony has elements that damage rather than help the General Counsel 's case Apart from the fact that Cook's testimony does not really corroborate Wilson's, whose testimony is different from the former's in several vital respects, there is at least one important respect in which it corroborates Markman's testimony. The clear implication of Cook's testimony is that Wilson in talking back to Markman was also shouting rather than speaking with "a soft voice." I find on the basis of my observation of Wilson, and on the basis of his record as revealed, for the most part by his own testimony at the hearing, that when Markman asked him to wash the car he spoke to the latter neither with a soft voice nor with soft words. Wilson's own testimony shows him to be a cantankerous individual who was quite capable of the impudence and insubordination with which he is charged He manifested his cantankerousness early in his employment when he had insisted on buffing a car when he had been ordered to polish it, and by raising a fuss over his transfer from one shift to another, although the transfer made no difference to him The record does not show affirmatively whether he was right in his interpretation of the contract provisions relating to pay but neither does it show that the respondent was wrong.5 The record does show, however, that Wilson was wrong in complaining on the day of his discharge that he had not been paid for hours that he had worked the previous week. Indeed, his cantankerousness was manifested to the greatest degree on the very day of his discharge He seemed to be behaving as if he could do as he pleased. He was making telephone calls to the Regional Office of the Board not only during his working time but also at a time when he knew that his services were urgently required, and, although his laches should have put him in a defensive posture, he chose to talk back to his superior Even if he talked back with a soft voice he was guilty of a piece of effrontery under these circumstances, which included neglect of his work, and disobedience to orders. Even more significantly he manifested his impudence during his interview with Unhock in the course of which he had remarked to the latter in insisting on the shortage in his pay that Unhock could have a fit if he had to Finally, Wilson displayed his cantankerousness in the very moment of his discharge. Sacked by Unhock, he went right on working, and Unhock had to summon the general manager to make the discharge stick I must conclude, therefore, that Wilson was discharged because of his insubordination and impudence on the day of his discharge rather than because of any concerted activity in which he may previously have been engaged. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Public Pontiac, Inc , is an employer engaged in com- merce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Excavating, Grading, Asphalt, Private Scavengers and Automobile Salesroom Garage Attendants Local Union No. 731, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Team- sters, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 By discharging I. J. Wilson on November 30, 1967, the respondent did not discriminate with respect to his hire or tenure of employment, and did not, therefore, commit any unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER In view of my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I recommend that an order be entered dismissing the complaint. 4 Wilson testified that the car was "a yellow '68 black vinyl top car, " 5 Counsel for the respondent asks that official notice be taken of the while Cook testified that the color of the car which he purchased was dismissal of Wilson's charge against the union but the file is not available "black and yellow." in Washington, D C