Monahon Ford Corp. of Flushing

204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Monahan Ford Corporation of Flushing and Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri- ca. Cases 29-CA-1054, 29-CA-1115 October 18, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On July 10, 1968, Trial Examiner Robert Cohn issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions 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 the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Exam- mer, with the following additions. The Trial Examiner found that the allegations of the complaint charging harassment and deprivation of the five discriminatees were substantiated by the evidence, and that these actions forced the five card signers (Indich, McCarthy, Karsh, Walker, and Gia- copelli) to leave Respondent's employ on various dates near the end Of June. In so finding, he relied on all of the evidence of harassment tactics as outlined in the testimony of the discriminatees, and in the remarks made to employees during the course of their employment and at the time of their terminations. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the record as a whole shows a pattern of behavior on the part of Respondent which led to the constructive discharges of the five employees. However, we find that the record reveals further evidence substantiating the circumstances upon which he relied. With regard to McCarthy, the Trial Examiner found that he was threatened on June 19 that he would never sell another car at Monahan Ford, and that he "would never work at another Ford dealer in the country" for failure to submit a letter of resignation when requested to do so. The uncontradicted testi- mony of McCarthy further shows that, because the 173 NLRB No. 37 situation at Monhahan Ford became increasingly worse, he accepted a job offer from a Ford dealer in Chicago and left the employ of Respondent. Two days later, Respondent's used car manager Console called McCarthy and asked if' he was giving up. McCarthy replied that he was quitting and would not be back. Karsh testified that near the end of June it became so hard to work at Monahan Ford that he quit. When he told Pederson, Respondent's general manager, that he was quitting, Pederson asked if he would stay and said, "Now that I have the union beat, you are welcome to stay." Pederson also told him to keep the keys to the demonstrator for a few days and think it over. Karsh refused this offer. Monahan called him a few days later and asked Karsh to come back because everyone had left and he needed a good salesman. Karsh testified that he did not go back because "after the way I was treated, I didn't think I could work for him anymore." Walker also left the employ of Respondent around June 23 due to the treatment given him by Re- spondent's supervisor Pederson. The testimony of Karsh, Monahan, and Walker point out the fact that Monahan had made it clear that he wanted Walker to stay, regardless of the outcome of the union cam- paign. However, the actions taken by Respondent's supervisors to harass the salesmen and discourage unionization did force Walker to find other employ- ment; and, when he did quit, Console did remark about how the employees had been warned that they would be beaten (as shown in the Trial Examiner's Decision). Indich testified that he left the employ of Monahan Ford around June 22 or 23 because of "the constant badgering and being insulted and called names" by Respondent's supervisors. Another of the five salesmen who had joined the union, Giacopelli, stated that he knew that a couple of the fellows had left Respondent's employ, and Console told him, "It looks like you lost the battle." (as detailed in the Trial Examiner's Decision). Console then asked if he was going to quit also, to which Giacopelli replied, "Yes, I won't work here anymore under these conditions." We find that the foregoing evidence concerning the incidents of the terminations, coupled with the evidence of harassment relied on by the Trial Exam- iner, can lead only to the conclusion that the five discriminatees were constructively discharged in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 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 - MONAHAN FORD CORP. orders that Respondent, Monahan Ford Corporation of Flushing, Flushing, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 205 II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein called the Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT COHN, Trial Examiner: This proceeding, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act), was held on April 22 and 23, 1968, in Brooklyn, New York, pursuant to due notice The issues litigated were whether Monahan Ford Corporation of Flushing (herein the Respondent or Company) violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act by engaging in various acts and conduct more fully detailed herein.' Upon the entire record in the case, including my observa- tion of the demeanor of the witnesses, and upon careful consideration of the arguments made and the briefs submitted by counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent, I make the following- FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Respondent is a New York corporation maintaining its principal office and place of business in the Borough of Queens, city and State of New York, where it is engaged in the selling and distribution, at retail, of new and used automobiles, and in performing related services During the past year, which period is representative of its annual operations generally, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its operations, derived gross revenues therefrom in excess of $500,000. During the same period, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, caused to be delivered and transported to its place of business, automobiles and other goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were transported and delivered to its place of business in interstate commerce directly from States of the United States other than the State of New York. Based upon the foregoing facts, which are undenied by the Respondent, I find that Respondent is and has been at all times material an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. A. Statement of the Issues 1. Whether, on June 1, 1967,2 when the Union made its demand upon the Respondent for recognition and bargaining, it represented a majority of the Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit, 2. Whether the Respondent's refusal, on and after June 1, to accord recognition to the Union was prompted by a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status, 3 Whether, on and after June 1, Respondent's agents and supervisors engaged in conduct which interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act, and 4. Whether the quitting of five of Respondent's employees near the end of June constituted constructive discharges of such employees. B. The Union's Organizational Campaign and Request for Recognition During the evening of May 31, at a tavern in Flushing, New York, there was a meeting of five of the Respondent's salesmen with Union Representative Leonard Shifnn. At that time, the latter collected signed authorization cards from each of the five indicating their desire to have the Union represent them for purposes of collective bargaining.3 The following day, June 1, at approximately 8.45 a in., Union Representative Shifrin arrived at the premises of the Respondent and engaged in a conversation with John Pedersen, Respondent's general manager. Shifrln asked the latter if he remembered him, to which Pedersen replied, "Unfortunately, I do."4 Shifrin then advised that he had signed up a majority of his (Pedersen's) people, and desired recognition and bargaining. In rather unkind language, Pedersen invited Shifnn out of his office and a heated exchange followed. Shtfrin advised that the Union intended to file a petition for an election with the Labor Board and threatened a picket line if he "heard that he [Pedersen] was harassing the people." After Pedersen again ordered Shifnn out of the showroom, the latter left.5 Shifrin returned to his office, and at 11 45 a.m. that day, dispatched a telegram to the Respondent over the signature of John T. Burke, president of the Union, which stated as follows: This is to advise you that we represent the majority of your automobile salesmen employees and request an I The charge in Case 29-CA-1054 was filed July 18, 1967, the complaint in that case issued September 29, 1967. The charge in Case 29-CA-1115 was filed September 29, 1967, and was amended on October 6, 1967. On October 30, 1967, the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for Region 29, ordered the cases consolidated and issued a consolidated amended complaint and notice of hearing The Respondent filed answers to the complaints on or about October It, 1967 , and November 8, 1967. 2 All dates hereinafter refer to the calendar year 1967 unless otherwise indicated. 3The five employees involved were Karsh, Indich, Walker, McCarthy, and Giacopelh. 4 This was an apparent reference to an organizational campaign carried on by the Union at Respondent 's business several years previously , of which more anon. 5 The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testimony of Shifrin which is, in essence , not denied by Pedersen . The latter testified that Shifnn appeared in the showroom needing a shave, and that he invited him to leave noting that he looked "like a bum or he is a bum." 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD early appointment for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. There is no evidence that the Company responded to the telegram or otherwise communicated with the Union re- specting the request for recognition and bargaining.6 C Alleged Interference, Restraint, and Coercion 1. Statements of company supervisors During the afternoon of Thursday, June 1, John Monahan, president of the Company , called a meeting of salesmen, of which there were eight' Also present were General Manager Pedersen and Used Car Manager Console , admitted supervisors of the Company . At the meeting , which was held in Pedersen's office, Monahan inquired as to who had signed cards with the Union, and the five signers raised their hands Monahan advised that the employees had their rights to join or not join the Union, but that he had been through an organizational campaign 3 years before , and pointed out that the employees who were working for the Company at that time were no longer working . He offered to give the names and addresses of these former employees and suggested that the present employees "check with these guys and find out what happened to them."8 Monahan related that there were ways that the resolution of the union question could be delayed for a considerable amount of time and that nothing would be accomplished by the employees turning to the Union. He pointed out that on the previous occasion -on the day of the vote-Shifrin had walked out and left the men before the count, and that even if through some manner the Union was able to get in, he had no intention of signing a contract with the Union , indeed, he stated that he would rather close his doors before he would sign such a contract.9 Following Monahan's statements , Pedersen addressed the group to the effect generally that if any damage resulted to the Company's property or theft thereof in connection with the union campaign , he would have no hesitancy in having the employees arrested-pointing out that he had friends on the police force . He closed his remarks by stating that if there was anyone who had signed a card and now felt differently about it, he could come forward and that there would be no "hard feelings" about it.' ° Although Monahan testified that his admitted reference to the previous union campaign in his speech to the employees on June 1 was "not said in the manner of a threat," an objective analysis of the statements can lead only to that conclusion. Thus, we have the president of the corporation, after inter- rogating employees concerning their union activities , relating the story of how the Union was defeated in a previous instance, and how the same tactics could be applied on this occasion, thereby pointing out in stark relief the futility of the employees' exercising their Section 7 rights. Such statements emanating from the Respondent's top officer in the sanctum of the general manager's office, at a meeting called for the specific purpose of discussing unionization of the employees, could reasonably have only the effect of discouraging and intimidating them from continuing to exercise such rights, thereby constituting interference, restraint, and coercion with- in the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) based upon Monahan's admitted testimony.' 1 Other aspects of the meeting, based upon credited testi- mony of the employees, constitute additional violations of that section. Thus, the interrogation by Monahan as to who signed cards, without any assurances against retaliation, in the context of a threat never to sign a contract with a union or to close the doors before he would sign such a contract, constitutes additional restraint and coercion within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(1).i 2 I so find. In addition to the general sales meeting, Monahan and Pedersen spoke individually with some of the employees concerning union representation during this period, i e , the several days immediately following the Union's request for recognition. Thus, Walker testified that on the day following the "steak and beans dinner" (hereinafter more fully discussed, which occurred on Friday evening, June 2), Monahan called him into his office and stated that he understood Walker had signed a union card and felt very strongly about the Union. Upon Walker's answering in the affirmative, Monahan stated that he would not try to talk Walker out of it, but that he wanted Walker to know that regardless of how the matter turned out he wanted Walker to continue working with the Company. Continuing, Monahan stated, "I cannot promise you anything, as you know, . . it is against the law.... But if this thing is straightened out, one way or another, I might have been a little too stingy with my money, you can come talk to me, maybe we can work out a salary, vacation." Clearly this thinly veiled promise constitutes interference and restraint within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act I so find.13 McCarthy testified that the following Monday (June 5), he was called into Pedersen's office, with Monahan present. He was interrogated by them as to whether he had signed a union card. When he answered in the affirmative, they expressed disbelief, indicating that they thought he was a good enough salesman to become management material , and need not be dependent upon the Union to make a living. This interroga- tion, in the sanctum of the general manager's office, in the context of the prior threats, and without any assurance against 6 The Union subsequently filed a petition for an election, which resulted in a decision and direction of election by the Regional Director dated July 13, 1967. However the election was never held, being presumably blocked by the charges filed herein. The petition was eventually withdrawn on January 24. 1968 (see Case 29 -RC-762). 7 In addition to the five salesmen who signed cards, named hereinabove , there were Kenndy, Sinisgelli , and Copperman. 8 The foregoing findings are based upon Monahan's testimony as corroborated in essential respects by some of the employees including McCarthy , Karsh , and Walker. 9 The foregoing findings are based upon the mutually corroborative testimony of McCarthy, Karsh, and Walker, which is credited . In fact, Monahan did not specifically deny the matter attributed to him except that , pursuant to a leading question, he denied threatening the employees with a loss of jobs or a loss of sales should they join the Union. 10 The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testimony of Karsh and Walker, Pedersen was not interrogated concerning this particular meeting. 11 Cf Boume v. N.L.R.B, 332 F 2d 47 (C.A. 2). 12 Ibid. 13 The foregoing finding is based upon the credited testimony of Walker, Monahan was not interrogated concerning this conversation. MONAHAN FORD CORP. 207 recrimination, constitutes an additional violation of Section 8(a)(1) ' Karsh testified that, during the evening of the day of the general sales meeting, he was called into Monahan's office where both Monahan and Pedersen were present They asked him why he joined the Union since it would get him in a lot of trouble. They told him that the Union was a "bunch of parasites" who wanted his money and asked him if he had paid his $25 initiation fee. When he answered that he had, Monahan said that it is usually waived. Monahan also advised that Karsh would never sell another car as long as he worked there and that he would never make more than $50 a week. At the end of the conversation, however, Monahan apparently mellowed somewhat and told Karsh that although he (Monahan) could not promise anything "because it is against the law, .. if and when this thing gets settled, [Karsh could] get a salary and paid vacation and pay for our hospitalization."' 5 The contents of this Interview clearly constitute coercive interrogation, threats, and promises violative of Section 8(a)(1) I so find.' 6 2 The part-time employees The complaint alleges that, on or about June 1, the Respondent hired part-time salesmen in order to undermine the Union and destroy its majority status.' 7 The record reflects that five such part-time employees commenced em- ployment for the Respondent at some point in time near the end of May or first part of June. Their names were Quinn, Mason, Dunayer, Campo, and Kelly. Critical to the issues in this case is exactly when they started working for the Respondent and the purpose for which they were hired The Respondent contends that they were employed because it was unable to secure full-time salesmen, which it needed, and that it was under a directive from the Ford Motor Company to expand its sales force Therefore, argues the Respondent, although it was generally against company policy, it employed the "part-timers" as a last resort The full-time salesmen consistently testified that the part- timers did not commence working at the Respondent until at least the evening of June 1. Thus, Walker testified that during that evening he first noticed three of these men (Kelly, Mason, and Dunayer) in conversation with Pedersen on the showroom floor, that neither of them actually sold cars on the floor that night, but Used Car Manager Console did add their names to the "up sheet."' 8 Walker queried Console as to who they were, and the latter replied that they were new salesmen who would be commencing work that evening or the next evening on the floor. Walker then inquired of General Manager Pedersen why the new salesmen were there and Pedersen replied that this was just the beginning-that "if necessary [he would] put 35 men on the floor." Continuing his inquiry, Walker asked why the Company was hiring new salesmen, to which Pedersen replied that it was not unusual, that " we did it the last time we beat you . . we will do it this time " McCarthy testified that the first time he noticed the part-timers was Friday evening, June 2, when he saw three of them (he did not know their names) in Pedersen's office. He also saw them that evening at the "steak and beans dinner" held at the restaurant across the street from the Company.' 9 The three part-timers were at the dinner but were apparently not introduced to the remainder of the group since McCarthy testified that he assumed they were friends of Console because "they seemed very friendly to him " According to McCarthy, the three part-timers first appeared on the sales floor the following Saturday morning and brought the sales force to 11 instead of 8. Both Karsh and Indich testified that they first noticed the part-timers during the evening of Friday, June 2, the latter stating that the names of the part-timers were placed on the "up sheet" for the first time that night. However, Karsh testified that they (the part-timers) did not actually commence "taking ups" until the following day. The Respondent's evidence reflects that it had been attempting to employ automobile salesmen since at least April, having advertised to that effect in the New York Times 20 However, such advertisement sought men who were interested in selling as a career and did not mention part-time salesmen. Indeed, as previously noted, it was theretofore Respondent's policy not to hire part-time salesmen, both Monahan and Pedersen testifying that it was done on this occasion because of the lack of success in being able to secure full-time salesmen.21 Pedersen testified that, as a result of this determination to employ part-time salesmen, he commenced interviewing pro- spective applicants during the latter part of April and the first part of May, and that although he was "reluctant to use part-time men but having no alternative, [he] put them to work in the early part of May." (Emphasis added.) However, 14 The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testimony of McCarthy, neither Monahan nor Pedersen being interrogated concerning this conversation 15 At that time , the employees paid for their own hospitalization. 16 The foregoing findings are based upon the testimony of Karsh, again, neither Monahan nor Pedersen was interrogated concerning the interview. Indreh testified that after the dinner hour on June 1, he and Sinisgelli were called into a customer 's booth by Monahan in the presence of Pedersen . In this interview , Monahan interrogated them concerning signing union cards, advised them of the previous campaign in which the Union was defeated , acknowledged that he was not allowed to make promises or threats and did not at the time, but requested consideration "when it boiled down to a final vote." Although, as in the instances set forth above, neither Pedersen nor Monahan was interrogated concerning this particular interview , neither was Sinisgelli . Under these circumstances , and since any finding thereon would not expand the nature or scope of my recommended order, I make no finding or conclusion respecting this conversation. 17 As previously noted , the employee complement of Respondent's full-time salesmen was eight as of that date , of which five had signed union authorization cards 18 The "up sheet" consists of a list of salesmen and is issued daily The name at the top of the list first greets a customer as the latter comes into the showroom . After that, the next on the list moves into the "up position ," and so on in rotation . Only salesmen listed on the up sheet are allowed to approach customers on the floor of the showroom. 19 The "steak and beans dinner " was a sales promotion scheme of Respondent instituted in May. The regular salesmen were divided into two teams of four each , and the team that sold the most cars ate steak while the other team had beans for dinner. 20 See Respondent 's Exhibits I(a) and I(b) 21 Monahan testified that prior to May 1967 the only man he could recall who worked for the Company on a part -time basis was Mason The latter had formerly worked for the Company as a regular salesman until August 1966, when he left to return to his old trade as a tool-and-die maker However , from that time until he returned to work for the Company during the latter part of May or first part of June 1967, he utilized telephone and office space at Monahan on a part-time basis (usually on Wednesday and Friday nights ) in an attempt to sell a few automobiles . During that period he worked no set number of hours or days, and did not appear on the "up sheet " There is no evidence that he appeared on the Company 's regular employee payroll during the period from August 1966 until he was "reemployed " near the end of May or the first part of June 1967, and I would therefore find that he was not a regular part-time employee during this period. 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD none of the part-time salesmen testified that they actually commenced working in the early part of May, nor do company records so reflect. Thus, Quinn testified that he began working for Monahan during "either the latter part of May or the beginning of June," and that it was after a "party" had been given for the other men because he recalled the other men telling him about the party.22 Quinn testified that he first spoke to Pedersen 2 or 3 weeks earlier but he had received no firm commitment from the Company at that time Dunayer had formerly been a full-time salesman for the Company but was terminated sometime in 1966. He was reemployed, according to his testimony, in "either May or June. I think it was-I don't remember exactly." Dunayer asserted that he was friendly with Console, the Respondent's used car manager, having been in the same army reserve unit, and that they had met for lunch from time to time. He related that Console called him one evening and stated that there was a problem at the Company, i.e., that the salesmen had been abusing the customers and that "they [the Company] needed a little help." Console asked if Dunayer was available for work, and the latter proceeded to the Company's premises and spoke to Pedersen the same evening. Pedersen mentioned that a few salesmen were trying to get the Union in and were not "really working," but were "fooling around" and abusing the cus- tomers. Although Pedersen sought the assistance of Dunayer and offered him a part-time position, i.e., that he could work "part-time at [his] convenience," he also told Dunayer that there "could be picketing and you would have to cross the picket line ... [and] there could be threats." Nevertheless, Dunayer accepted part-time employment and worked for the Company for 6 weeks. As previously set forth, when James Mason23 was employ- ed as a regular part-timer by the Company, it was "around the end of May, the beginning of June." This is as definite as Mason's testimony came respecting the exact day he com- menced "taking ups." On that occasion, he had a conversation with Console in which the latter told him that the men were trying to join the Union and, as a result, they were "snore or less neglecting their job ... abusing customers and stuff like that." Console asked Mason if he "would take ups ... in other words, go on officially as a part-timer," and Mason agreed. Jack Campo, another part-timer, testified that he was employed by Console, who was a personal friend of Campo, 22 This was apparently a reference to the "steak and beans" dinner that the Company had given during the evening of Friday, June 2 23 The real name of this person is Salvator Martorana, but he assumed the alias of Mason "to make it easy for the public " He will be so referred to in this Decision. 24 This was clearly a reference to the "steak and beans dinner," heremabove referred to, and places the date of Campo's conversation with Console as the evening of Friday , June 2. 25 The foregoing findings are based upon the preheating affidavit of Campo which was incorporated in the record herein as Campo's testimony , through stipulation of the parties. 26 Memorial Day in 1967 fell on Tuesday , May 30. 27 As previously noted, Console was not called as a witness although no reason was offered for failure to do so. This failure warrants the inference that , if he were called , his testimony would not be favorable to the Respondent. See, United Mineral & Chemical Corporation, 155 NLRB 1890 , 1892 at footnote 4, see also Automotive Textile Products Co Inc. , 171 NLRB No . 157, section III, paragraph 5, of the Trial Examiner 's Decision. 28 Respondent, in its brief (page 2 ), relied heavily upon a finding of the Regional Director in the representation case (29-RC-762, Re- spondent 's Exhibit 4) as follows "In the last three days of May 1967, that "one Friday in May or June of 1967, Console called me at my regular full-time job and told me that Monahan was thinking of increasing its sales force." Campo went to the showroom of the Company the same night he received the telephone call and attended the dinner which Monahan ran in celebration of a contest between the automobile salesmen.24 Campo further testified that he believed he was the only new employee that started that night-that Dunayer had started to work at Monahan before that and Quinn started a day or two afterwards Campo continued to work for Monahan 5 nights per week plus all day Saturday, until he quit in September 25 Charles T. Kelly testified that he had worked for the Company on a regular basis from 1962 to 1964, and was rehired at the beginning of May 1967, that he heard that the Company was looking for salesmen, so he went over one afternoon and talked to Pedersen about a job, that Pedersen agreed to hire him in the early part of May and that he actually started work before Memorial Day,26 that at the time he commenced working there he is "sure" that Dunayer was working there and he "believe[d]" that Mason was working However, as previously noted, Dunayer testified that at his employment interview with Pedersen the latter advised that the Union was trying to get in, and Pedersen admittedly had no knowledge of any union activity until his conversation with Shlfnn on the morning of June 1. Similarly, with respect to Mason, it is to be recalled that he testified that in his original employment interview with Console, the latter advised that the men were trying to join the Union. Although Console did not testify, it may be reasonably assumed that his testimony in this respect would be similar to that of Pedersen.27 These facts, taken with all the other testimony in the record which consistently showed that the part-time employees did not commence working until after the Union's request for recognition, lead me inescapably to the conclusion, and I find, that the part-time employees were not committed to employ- ment by the Respondent until after the Union's request for recognition on the morning of June 1 2 8 While there is no doubt that the evidence reflects that the Company was seeking to add at least two salesmen to its employee complement prior to its knowledge of union activity among the salesmen, substantial evidence shows that no firm commitment was made to employ part-time salesmen, and no part-time salesmen actually commenced work, until subsequent the Employer hired 5 part -time employees, who commenced work in the period between May 29 and June 1, 1967 ." Although the whole record in the representation case was not made a part of the record in the instant proceeding , and therefore is not before me, the foregoing finding is apparently based upon the testimony of Respondent's then office manager , Pizzola, who did testify in the representation case as well as in the instant case , and some of his testimony in the former was incorporated in the latter. Thus he testified that for the week ending June 1, 13 employees appeared on the payroll of the Company, but he was unable to state with accuracy what date they actually commenced work. Based on W-4 forms which the employees themselves filled out subsequent to their employment , Pizzola made notations on the payroll records as to when they were hired, and some of the notations indicated May 29 and May 31 (the W-4 forms themselves were not introduced into the record, the Company contending that it was unable to locate them), however, since the forms were completed by the employees themselves and they later testified to circumstances respecting their date of employment subsequent to the dates noted by Pizzola on the payroll records, as hereinabove described, I ascribe very little probative value to such notations, and prefer to rely on the oral testimony of the witnesses respecting the circumstances in which they undertook employment with the Company. MONAHAN FORD CORP 209 to the Union's request for recognition In the light of all the testimony in the record as a whole, including particularly the Respondent's antiunion animus and its agents' revelation to the employees that such a tactic was used to defeat the Union in a pnor campaign, plus their statements to the part-time employees themselves upon their being inter- viewed for employment, I find, in agreement with the contentions of the General Counsel, that the employment of the part-time employees, in the circumstances revealed in the instant record, was in order to undermine the Union and to destroy its majority status among the salesmen.29 3. Other allegations of interference, restraint, and coercion The complaint alleges that from June 1 to June 28 the Respondent reduced the earnings of its employees by dis- approving sales they had arranged with potential customers, and by assigning said employees to more arduous and less agreeable job tasks because they had joined and assisted the Union. The evidence disclosed that the "arduous and less agreeable job tasks" consisted of requiring the regular salesmen to make a large number of daily telephone calls from a telephone list, to address and mail 50 postal cards a day to potential customers, to regularly go out and place "Would you take it" cards on automobiles parked in parking lots,30 by depraving the salesmen of his free demonstrator car altogether or by substituting a " junker"3 i for a late model car which the salesman normally had as a demonstrator; and by rigidly enforcing a rule requiring the salesman who was at the head of the "up sheet" to remain rigidly in a small square on the sales floor Without detailing individual testimony, it may be stated that the full-time salesmen consistently related that prior to the Union's request for recognition, the working rules and conditions at Respondent's facility were relatively lax. That is to say, the salesmen normally used telephone calls to follow up prospective sales but rarely used the telephone list to call prospective customers "cold" except dunng periods of the year when the sales are slow.32 Similarly, with respect to the postal cards and "Would you take its," such sales promotion devices were used from time to time, but the rule was never as strictly and rigidly enforced pnor to June 1 as it was afterwards 33 The evidence is similarly consistent with respect to the requirement that following June 1, the salesman in the "up position" was required to maintain himself rigidly in a foot-square box (marked by terra cotta tile) on the showroom floor whereas previously he was able to move around the showroom and talk to other salesmen dunng the absence of the customers. Also, the testimony reflects that those salesmen who had late model demonstration cars were asked to turn their cars in (assertedly to be sold to customers) and were either not replaced at all, or ")unkers" were substituted. Pedersen testified that, dunng the course of a year, the average salesman would change his demonstration car at least three or four times While there is a possible coincidence that a substantial number of such cars would be called in within a period of a couple weeks,34 the record evidence is sufficiently substantial, in my judgment, to sustain the General Counsel's contention on this issue. Accordingly, I find that the Respond- ent, subsequent to June 1, stepped up the enforcement of its work rules and practices as aforementioned for the purpose of harassing the full-time salesmen and in retaliation for their union membership and activities.35 Similarly, I find substantial evidence to support the contention of the General Counsel that subsequent to the Union's request for recognition Pedersen disapproved several "deals" proposed by the full-time salesmen respecting sales of automobiles to prospective customers, which would probably have been approved under previous standards Thus Walker testified that on the afternoon of June 1, immediately following the Shifrin-Pedersen incident above described, the latter came to Walker with a folder regarding the sale of a Thunderbird automobile which Walker had made with a customer named Fleis several days previously, in which there was a profit involved of some $450 to $500. The deal involved a car which had to be ordered because Fleis did not like the color of the car the Company had in stock Pedersen directed Walker to call Fleis and tell him to take the car in stock or to forget about the deal. Walker reminded Pedersen that Monahan had been involved with him (Walker) in the transaction and both of them had tried to sell Fleis the car in stock, and he refused it. He asked Pedersen if it were possible to locate 29 1 have also considered significant to this issue the fact that the part-time employees worked for Respondent for only a short period, Kelly being the only one still working for the Company at the time of the hearing As far as the record shows , none of them were replaced. 30 This is a sales promotion device for the purpose of interesting a potential customer in a new car It states on its face , "Would you take IX number of dollars] for this car in trade on any car in our stock"" and lists the various models of cars in the Respondent 's inventory. The card has imprinted the name of the Respondent , its address, and telephone number and at the bottom is a blank in which the salesman may insert his name (see General Counsel's Exhibit 4). 31 A junker is, as the name implies, an older, less prestigious used car which normally sells for $25 or $50 32 Karsh testified that from the end of March until the middle of August is normally a busy season of the year This testimony was not refuted by the Respondent except that Monahan testified that during May and June 1967 there was a shortage of cars because the Ford Motor Company closed down their plant early that year in order to change over to 1968 models 33 Pedersen 's denial in this respect is not credited . Respondent, in its brief, points to Respondent 's Exhibit 3 which is an order for 25,000 imprinted postal cards , such order being dated April 7, 1967, long before the union campaign began However , I do not understand that the General Counsel denies that the sending of postal cards to prospective customers is a reasonable business practice or that Re- spondent 's salesmen utilized such a practice in the past . The point is that the practice was not strictly enforced prior to June 1, and afterwards it was, the reasonable inference being, when considered in the context of Respondent 's other antiunion acts and conduct , that it was an arduous task enforced as a retaliatory measure for the employees ' union activities 34 Indich did not have a demonstrator , but rather borrowed other salesmen's cars However , after May 31, he was advised that he was not allowed to borrow their cars anymore. 35 See, e g., West Side Plymouth , Inc., 170 NLRB No 98 The Respondent argues that since "all employees , union as well as nonunion, were required to perform the same duties," no violation may be found. This argument is similar to that which runs that an employer must discriminate against all union members before a finding may be made that he discriminated against one. This argument has been heretofore advanced and rejected Nachman Corporation v. N L R .B., 337 F 2d 421 (C.A. 7), and cases cited . Moreover , the evidence shows that the rules were not enforced as rigidly against the part-time employees. 210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD another car through the area locator, which is a common practice. Pedersen advised that he had already called the locator and that there was no car of this description available, and that Fleis would either take the one they had in stock or there would be no deal Whereupon, Walker did as directed, and Fleis came to the agency the next day and secured his deposit money 36 Walker testified that as a result of this transaction he lost $40 a week in salary and a commission of roughly $100.37 Employee Jack Indich testified that following the union demand for recognition, he presented to Pedersen what he (Indich) considered a "pretty good deal" on a trade for a new 1967 Mustang. Pedersen refused to accept the deal unless Indich secured a couple hundred dollars more from the customer. The customer refused to pay the extra money After Indich left the Respondent's agency and went to work for another Ford agency, the same customer called him at the new agency and Indich sold the customer the same car at the identical figure which he tried to sell it to him at the Respondent's In addition to the foregoing, employee McCarthy testified that following the Union's request for recognition deals which were formerly approved were no longer being accepted; that the minimum deal went up from $100 to $150, and that on some occasions the latter figure was turned down. Giacopelli testified that Pedersen attempted to turn down his deals, but "then they gave it to me because I argued the point."3 8 In defense, Pedersen, pointing out that he himself is paid a percentage of profit, considered it ridiculous that he would "throw away [his] own income " In addition to this con- tention, I have considered that there may be factors other than simply the amount of monetary profit which are involved in making a judgment as to whether to accept a deal. Under all the circumstances, and in view of the Respondent's strong antiunion animus and specific threats to employees to limit their income because of their union adherence, I believe it to be a reasonable inference that Pedersen was prepared to forego a small profit in order to further harass and coerce the employees in retaliation for the latter's union activities. Accordingly, as previously noted, I find and conclude that the stricter standards imposed for accepting deals was but another tactic utilized by Respondent to interfere with, restrain, and coerce the employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. D. The Alleged 8(a)(3) Violations The complaint alleges that the harassments and depriva- tions, above described, forced the five cards signers (Indich, McCarthy, Karsh, Walker, and Giacopelli) to leave Respond- ent's employ on various dates near the end of June. The evidence submitted by the five generally supports this allega- tion Thus, McCarthy testified that on June 19 he was called 36 According to Walker's testimony, Fleis immediately went to a competitive dealership and bought the identical car, the salesman having located such car in another dealership , so that the car was available. 37 The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testimony of Walker. Pedersen testified that he did not recall the deal , which I believe is unlikely . Fleis was not called as a witness. 38 Giacopelli conceded that Pedersen approved a deal on June 3 involving a profit of $139. into Pedersen's office (Pedersen and Monahan being present) and interrogated as to how he then stood with reference to the Union When McCarthy remained silent, Pedersen said, "Of course, you realize that you are never going to sell another car at Monahan Ford." Pedersen then offered to exchange a letter of recommendation (which McCarthy could write for himself) for a letter of resignation from McCarthy. He threatened that, in the absence of such a letter from McCarthy, the Respond- ent, upon an inquiry from a future employer, certainly could not "give [McCarthy] a good recommendation at all " McCarthy was g.ven a few hours to think over the matter and discuss it with his wife About 5 p m. the same day (June 19), Pedersen called him back into his office and asked if he had reached a decision When McCarthy advised that he had decided to "stick it out," Pedersen became upset and threatened that he (McCarthy) "would never work at another Ford dealer in the country," and took away the latter's demonstrator, a 1968 Mustang.39 Some of the other statements made by Respondent' s agents during the exit interviews are revealing as to Respondent's motivation Thus Karsh testified that in speaking to Pedersen, the latter said, "Now that I have the union beat, you are welcome to stay." Walker testified that he gave the keys to his demonstrator to Console who smiled and stated, "... we told you we would beat you." Giacopelli testified that Console told him, "It looks like you lost the battle."40 The Respondent argues that the five quit of their own volition as a consequence of resentment caused by Respond- ent's hiring of the part- time salesmen . That may have been a factor in their decision, but it is clearly no defense since, as I have found hereinabove, the hiring of the part- time salesmen was simply one of the tactics utilized by Respondent to thwart the union activities of the employees and to undermine their majority status Accordingly, I find and conclude that, by engaging in the harassing tactics above described, the Respond- ent sought to make the working conditions of the regular, full-time salesmen intolerable and to force them to leave its employment The motivating purpose of Respondent was therefore, at least m part, the discouragement of union membership and activities, and the terminations of employ- ment constituted constructive discharges in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act a i E. The 8(a)(5) Allegation 1 have heretofore found that by May 31, five of the full-time automobile salemen of Respondent had designated and selected the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, that during the morning of June 1, the Union requested recognition and bargaining in a unit of automobile salesmen, and on the same date the Respondent 39 The foregoing findings are based on the credited testimony of McCarthy, as corroborated , in part, by Walker, who overheard part of the conversation at the instance of McCarthy. Neither Monahan nor Pedersen was interrogated concerning this interview. 40 The foregoing findings are based upon the credited testimony of the employees involved As above noted , Console did not testify and Pedersen was not interrogated as to the exit interview with Karsh. 41 See N.L R.B. v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn Div., 339 F.2d 203 (C.A. 6, 1964 ), and cases cited therein. MONAHAN FORD CORP. failed and refused to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the said unit 42 I have also heretofore found that at the time of the Union's request for recognition, the employee complement of the Respondent in the aforesaid unit was eight, accordingly, at the time of the request the Union clearly represented a majority (five) of the employees in the unit The question remains whether or not the Respondent's failure and refusal to bargain at that time constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. The legal principles respecting this issue were succinctly stated by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in N.L R B. v. Philamon Laboratories, Inc, 298 F.2d 176, 179, as follows The act imposes a duty to bargain in good faith upon request whenever a labor organization has been designated by a majority of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. The employer must recognize and bargain with such an organization whether or not it has been certified by the Labor Board. United Mine Workers of America v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co, 351 U.S. 62 ..(1956), N.L.R.B. v Sunrise Lumber & Trim Corp, 241 F 2d 620 (2 Cir., 1957), cert. denied 355 U.S. 818 . J1957). To be sure, an employer laboring under a good faith doubt as to a union's majority status need not extend recognition Nevertheless, in the absence of such a doubt, the employer has no vested right to an election. N L R B. v Trlmfit of California, 211 F 2d 206 (9 Cir , 1954) In N.L R B v Elliott-Williams Co., Inc, 345 F 2d 460 (C A. 7), the court stated The duty to bargain is not dependent on a Board election and certification. An employer may refuse an unequivocal demand for recognition and bargaining only on the basis of a good faith doubt of the genuineness of the union's claims, and the union does not withdraw or waive its demand by seeking an election when the employer makes it clear that it will not recognize the union. [Cases cited.] Where as in this case, the union had proof of its majority status readily available and respondent chose not to learn the facts, it "took the chance of what they might be." [Cases cited.] Applying the foregoing principles to the facts in the case at bar, it is clear that a violation has been established Thus, the Respondent's agents chose to ignore and reject the Union's claim of majority status and request for recognition and bargaining. No questions concerning majority status were raised and no doubt of such status, oral or written, good-faith or otherwise, was asserted 43 In short, Respondent "chose not to learn the facts, [and] `took the chance of what they might be.' " As I have previously found, the facts sustained the Union's claim. But the Respondent did not sit idly by and await the Union's next move. Rather, the Company's president and general manager immediately embarked upon a campaign to disabuse the employees of the advantages of union organiza- tion. Such campaign took the form of threats, promises of 42 The complaint alleges, the answer does not deny, and I find that the following constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act All full-time and regular part -time automobile salesmen employed by Respondent at its Flushing , New York, location, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees , professional employees, 211 benefits, harassing and intimidatory tactics, and the hiring of new employees, all of which was designed to dissipate and undermine the employees' adherence to the Union. Clearly, then, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the Re- spondent declined to recognize and bargain with the Union not because of any good-faith doubt of the Union's majority, but in order to dissipate that majority. I therefore find that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively in good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its interstate operations described in section 1, 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Having found that the Respondent unlawfully refused to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of the majority of its employees in an appro- priate unit, I shall recommend that the Respondent, upon request, accord such recognition to and bargain collectively with the Union, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. It having been found that the Respondent constructively discharged its employees Jack Indich, Gerald James McCarthy, Leonard A Karsh, John J. Walker, and Frank Giacopelli on or about the dates set forth by their names in the complaint, it will be recommended that Respondent offer such employees 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 reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination to the date of the offer of reinstatement in a manner consistent with Board policies as set forth in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest on backpay shall be computed in a manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716. As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent were of a character which go to the very heart of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights of the employees guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following guards, and all supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act.... 43 Contrary to Respondent 's contentions in its brief, the Union was not under a duty affirmatively to demonstrate its majority status in the absence of any challenge thereto made by Respondent 1N.L.R B. v. Trimfit of California, Inc., 211 F.2d 206, 210 (C.A. 9)]. 212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (d) Imposing stricter or more arduous working conditions upon its employees because of their selection of the Union as their bargaining representative. (e) Hiring additional employees for the purpose of under- mining the Union or otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. (f) Failing or refusing to bargain collectively with the above-named Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the unit herein found appropriate. (g) Discouraging membership in the above-named Union, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discrimina- torily discharging, or in any other manner discriminating against, any employee in regard to his hire, tenure, or condition of employment (h) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2 Take the following affirmative action found necessary and designed to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the aforesaid unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such under- standing into a signed contract. (b) Offer to Jack Indich, Gerald James McCarthy, Leonard A. Karsh, John J. Walker, and Frank Giacopelli immediate, full, and unconditional reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other 'rights, privileges, or working conditions, and make each whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered, in the manner set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Remedy." (c) Notify the employees named in subparagraph (b) above 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 (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to author- ized agents of the National Labor Relations Board, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant or necessary in computing the amount of backpay due, and effectuation of provision for reemployment, as herein provided. 1 Monahan Ford Corporation of Flushing, the Respondent herein, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employ- ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found hereinabove, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of the named discnminatees, to discourage membership in a labor organization, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. All full-time and regular part-time automobile salesmen employed by the Respondent at its Flushing, New York, location, excluding all other employees, office clerical em- ployees, professional employees, 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. 6. At all times since May 31, the Union has been the duly designated collective-bargaining representative of the em- ployees in the aforesaid unit, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 7. By failing and refusing, on June 1, and at all times thereafter, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that the National Labor Relations Board order that the Re- spondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Coercively interrogating any of its employees regarding their activities on behalf of Local 868, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. (b) Threatening its employees with loss of jobs, wages, blacklisting in the industry, or other reprisals if the employees select union representation. (c) Promising its employees benefits and improvements in their working conditions and terms of employment to induce them to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union. MONAHAN FORD CORP. (e) Post at the Company's place of business in Flushing, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap- pendix."44 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29 of the Board, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Company, shall be posted by the Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other matenal. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 5 44 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 Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 45 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." APPEN DI X NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner 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 employees that' WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activities on behalf of Local 868, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, by discharging any of our employees or in any other manner discriminating against our employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment, because of their union membership or activities. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees regarding their union sympathies in order to discourage our employees from joining, remaining members of, or assisting Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge, loss of wages, blacklisting in the industry, or other reprisals if they select union representation. WE WILL NOT promise our employees benefits and improvements in their working conditions to induce them to refrain from becoming or remaining members of a union WE WILL NOT impose stricter or more arduous working conditions upon our employees because of their selection of the Union to represent them. WE WILL NOT hire additional employees for the pur- pose of undermining the Union or otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights 213 WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or remain members of or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as author- ized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. WE WILL offer Jack Indich, Gerald James McCarthy, Leonard A. Karsh, John J. Walker, and Frank Giacopelli full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. WE WILL notify the above-named persons 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. WE WILL, on request, recognize and bargain with Local 868, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our employees in the following appropriate unit: All full-time and regular part-time automobile salesmen employed by Monahan Ford Corporation of Flushing at its Flushing, New York, location, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, professional em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. MONAHAN FORD CORPORATION OF FLUSHING (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) 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 matenal. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate direct- ly with the Board's Regional Office, 4th Floor, 16 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Telephone 596-3535.