Ballard Motors, Inc.

300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ballard Motors, Inc. and International Association of Machinists District Lodge 94 and its Affiliated Local Lodge 2327, AFL-CIO. Case 2l-CA-8397 October 23, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND ZAGORIA On June 5, 1969 Trial Examiner Irving Rogosin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and orders that the Respondent, Ballard Motors, Inc., Anaheim, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. The Respondent excepts to some of the Trial Examiner's credibility resolutions It is the Board 's established policy, however , not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Drv Wall Products , inc. 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) DECISION OF TRIAL EXAMINER STATEMENT OF THE CASE IRVING ROGOSIN, Trial Examiner The complaint, issued February 24, 1969, alleges that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, by (1) discharging Paul Baron, on about November 15, 1968, and thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate him because he had engaged in union or protected concerted activities, and (2) through various supervisors, interrogating employees concerning their union and concerted activities during October 1968, and on or about November 13, 1968.' Respondent's answer admits the procedural and jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, but denies generally the remaining allegations, including those charging the commission of unfair labor practices Hearing was held on April 1, 2, and 3, 1969, at Los Angeles, California, before the duly designated Trial Examiner All parties were represented by counsel or union representatives, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence relevant and material to the issues, to argue orally, and to file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law At the close of the General Counsel's case, Respondent moved to strike certain testimony, and to dismiss the complaint for failure of proof. The motions were denied and were not subsequently renewed. The parties declined to argue orally, but reserved the right to file briefs Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and Respondent on May 8, 1969. Upon the entire record in the case, his resolution of issues of credibility based upon the appearance and demeanor of the witnesses, and the briefs, which have been carefully considered, the Trial Examiner makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The complaint alleges, Respondent's answer admits, and it is hereby found, that Ballard Motors, Inc , Respondent herein, is a corporation engaged in the retail sale of automobiles, parts, and service in Anaheim, California During the calendar year 1968, in the conduct of its business, Respondent sold commodities valued in excess of $500,000, and purchased and received commodities valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside the State of California It is, therefore, found that Respondent is now, and, at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and the Board's jurisdictional standards II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Association of Machinists District Lodge 94 and its affiliated Local Lodge 2327, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union or the Charging Party, are, and at all times material herein have been, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act The original charge was filed and served on January 16, 1969 The name of Respondent has been corrected by substituting the abbreviation "inc " for the word "Incorporated" to conform to the corporate title Designations are as follows The General Counsel, unless otherwise stated, his representatives at the hearing, Respondent, the Company or the Employer, Ballard Motors, Inc. the Union or the Charging Party, International Association of Machinists District Lodge 94 and its affiliated Local Lodge 2327, AFL-CIO, the Board, the National Labor Relations Board, the Act, the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat 136, 73 Stat 519, 29 U S C Sec 151, et seq Unless otherwise stated, all events occurred in 1968 179 NLRB No. 48 BALLARD MOTORS, INC. 301 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Introduction Since October 1952, Respondent has operated an automobile agency for the sale of new and used Volkswagen, and, to a lesser extent, Porsche, automobiles, at its showroom, used car lot, and service department, located at 1325 North Lemon Street, Anaheim, California During the period with which we are concerned, its managerial hierarchy consisted of Thomas B Ballard, president; Bernard W. Jordan, executive vice president and general manager, responsible for general management and policy; Vernon Cannon, assistant general manager in charge of operations, including sales, service, parts, body shop and office, and James W Panos, general sales manager Assistant General Manager Cannon was responsible for the active management of the business Ballard devotes only 1 or 2 days a week to the agency, the remainder of the time to other business interests. According to him, he has not attended a sales meeting at the agency since 1967, when he was present at only one or two meetings Vice President Jordan testified that he devotes no more than 25 percent of his time to the business of the Company, the remainder of his time to other business interests, apparently in association with Ballard. Beginning in about March 1968, the Union launched an organizational campaign among salesmen employed by automobile dealers in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, and Ventura counties Organizational meetings were held in March and May 1968, at the Carpenters Hall in Anaheim. Some 200 to 300 salesmen, among them Paul Baron, whose case is involved in this proceeding, employed by various automobile agencies in those areas, attended the meetings. Proposed contract terms, providing improved working conditions, a pension plan, Sunday closing, and other matters of common concern were explored at these meetings, and salesmen were solicited to join the Union. President Ballard himself, while maintaining a generally aloof attitude about the day-to-day operations of the agency, nevertheless, acknowledged that he was aware of the 1968 organizational drive, and of the Sunday closing issue in Southern California, Arizona, and Nevada 2 Like other management officials, Ballard, however, firmly denied knowledge of union activities at Respondent's automobile agency at any time until the filing of the charge in this proceeding. B Discrimination in Regard to Hire and Tenure of Employment, Interference, Restraint, and Coercion Paul Baron was hired by Respondent as a new- and used-car salesmen on January 5, 1964, and continued in Respondent's employ until November 15, 1968, when his employment was terminated, under circumstances later detailed He attended both the March and May union meetings, and finally joined the Union in August In May, Assistant General Manager Cannon learned through a newspaper advertisement of the union meeting of automobile salesmen in Southern California and Orange County scheduled that month 'Ballard also testified that he had been aware of earlier efforts to organize the automobile salesmen in the Los Angeles and Orange County areas as far back as 1950 , as well as in 1961-62, while he was operating an Oldsmobile agency in Hollywood Baron testified that at a company sales meeting in August, Ballard announced that he intended to be in the forefront of the industry in closing on Sundays, that no outside help was needed, and that thereafter Respondent's agency would be closed on Sundays. Ballard denied that he was present at any such sales meeting as Baron described, and further denied making the remarks attributed to him. The record establishes, however, that at a meeting of Volkswagen dealers held on July 3, at the Saddleback Inn, Santa Ana, California, at which J H. McCord, a Volkswagen factory representative, presided, and which Jordan attended, the subject of Sunday closing was discussed and the consensus was that if all other dealers agreed, Respondent would join in Sunday closing Thereafter, at sales meetings held between July 8 and 10, Jordan announced the decision which had been reached regarding Sunday closing On about July 14, the decision of automobile dealers in Los Angeles and Orange counties to observe Sunday closing was announced through advertisements in the Los Angeles Times and the Santa Ana Register. It is, therefore, evident that, although Baron was mistaken as to who made the announcement, such announcement was, in fact, made by Jordan, in July rather than in August, as Baron had thought, and that this was the occasion to which he referred. Jordan testified that he believed that Baron was present at one of the sales meetings at which the announcement was made. It is further found, contrary to Jordan's denials, that he actually made the remark that the Sunday closing had been accomplished without outside help, an obvious reference to the Union, which Baron had mistakenly attributed to Ballard. The subject of Sunday closing had been discussed at union meetings as one of the proposed demands, and had been debated at the dealers meeting at Santa Ana, on July 3. It is, therefore, plausible to believe that Jordan made the remarks concerning which Baron testified. The fact that some dealers had voluntarily started closing on Sundays, without waiting for all the dealers in Los Angeles and Orange Counties to do so, does not require a different conclusion. It is unnecessary to decide whether, in yielding to the demand for Sunday closing, Respondent and other dealers were seeking to circumvent the Union by impressing salesmen with the belief that they could achieve their goals without the intervention of a union. While such an inference may be warranted, the episode is significant in establishing that Respondent knew or concluded that the organizational activity would involve its employees It is unnecessary, however, to rely upon this factor alone, for a finding of knowledge by Respondent of union activity at its establishment. It is undisputed that, late in August or early in September, Edward A Kerze, Respondent's new-car sales manager at the time, was interrogated by management officials regarding his union affiliation and that of other salesmen. The meeting, held in the president's office, was attended by Ballard, Vice President Jordan, and Assistant General Manager Cannon ' Jordan wondered aloud why anybody working for Respondent would be interested in gommg a union. Kerze suggested that the salesmen might not always be working 'Kerze was hired initially, on June 24, 1964, as a new- and used-car salesman He continued in that job until July 1, 1968, when he was promoted to the position of sales manager, which he held until October 1968, when his employment was terminated Kerze's termination was not explained, though he was admittedly offered an opportunity to remain on as a salesman He agreed to consider the offer but later declined it 302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for Respondent but might later go to work for a "domestic" car dealer. Cannon asked Kerze whether he was a union member. Kerze acknowledged that he had been a member but said that he had resigned because he considered union membership "incompatible" with his position as salesmanager.° Either Cannon or Ballard then asked Kerze whether he knew if any of the other salesmen were union members, and how many of the men belonged Kerze was then aware that Baron, as well as other salesmen were union members, but replied that he was not in a position to say and if they were interested in finding out, he would have the salesmen paged over the intercom system so they could be questioned individually Ballard told him that that would not be necessary Kerze conceded, in his testimony, that he was not asked to divulge the names of union salesmen, that he was not asked about, and did not reveal Baron's union membership, and that he did not "betray the trust" of the union salesmen. Respondent contends that, since Kerze did not disclose the identity of the union salesmen, the incident affords no basis for a finding of knowledge of union activity. The interrogation itself indicates that Respondent knew or suspected that its employees were engaging in union activity even though it may not have known the identity of the union adherents 5 On Wednesday afternoon, about 3 o'clock, Baron testified, Assistant General Manager Cannon summoned him to his office When Baron arrived, Cannon began by mentioning that Baron had been with the agency a long time, and that he was the oldest employee from the standpoint of tenure Cannon then remarked that it appeared that someone in the organization was employed by the Union, and that management had suspected Bob Wallace, but since he had been terminated, they decided that he could not have been the one involved. They then surmised that it was Kerze, but he, too, had been terminated, so that eliminated him as a suspect Their suspicion then settled on Ted Faris, but he was no longer with the agency. All three had, according to Respondent, been supervisors 6 Cannon told Baron that that left him and Peringer' as suspects Cannon then asked Baron directly if he was employed by the Union Baron denied it Cannon observed that that left only Peringer, and asked Baron if it was Peringer who was employed by the Union Baron told Cannon that he would have to ask Peringer Cannon remarked that Baron had been a good and loyal employee, and that he hoped he would be with the agency a long time Cannon categorically denied that he had any such conversation with Baron on November 13, or, for that matter, at any other time after noon that day, testifying that he and Vice President Jordan drove to lunch in Cannon's car and then went shopping in preparation for a trip to Vancouver, British Columbia, on which Cannon was leaving with President Ballard next morning 8 Later, that afternoon, Cannon testified, he dropped Jordan off at the automobile agency, but did not go in himself, continuing on to do another errand in connection with his 'Kerze testified that he had joined the Union in June 1968 'The General Counsel concedes that since Kerze was a supervisor at the time of the interrogation , no finding of 8(a)(1) conduct may be based thereon Furthermore there was no showing that the other salesmen learned of this instance of interrogation The incident is relied on as evidence of Respondent 's opposition to the organizational activities of its employees and knowledge of union activity at its establishment 'This, of course, would have no bearing on whether Respondent suspected them of being in the employ of the Union 'Spelled Parringer in the record trip Jordan, too, testified that Cannon dropped him off at the agency at 3 30 or 4:00 that afternoon, and that Cannon did not go into the agency Jordan remained in his office until 6 30 that evening Because of the location of his office, Jordan could not have seen the showroom or Cannon's office, but he testified that Cannon did not return that afternoon Sales manager Panos also testified that Cannon was not at the agency after noon, November 13, and that Cannon could not have returned without his having seen him because, apart from the fact that his office afforded him a view of the showroom, he spent only 50 percent of his time in his office, the remainder of his time moving about the various departments, so that he would have seen Cannon if he had returned As to the termination of Wallace and Kerze, Cannon testified that he had nothing to do with it, and that he had had no knowledge or suspicion of Wallace's alleged union affiliation As to Kerze, Cannon did testify that, although he had relayed Ballard's decision to Kerze, and notified him that he was "being relieved" as salesmanager, he had asked Kerze to stay on as a salesman, that Kerze had said that he would let him know, and that he finally notified him that he was not interested It is conceivable, as the General Counsel suggests, that, contrary to the testimony of Respondent's witnesses, Cannon could have returned to his office to complete some unfinished work in anticipation of his trip next day This, however, is based on sheer conjecture and is, of course, insufficient to overcome the uncontradicted and mutually corroborative testimony of Respondent's witnesses, especially in the light of the circumstantial evidence regarding the dates of Cannon's absence from the city in connection with his trip with Ballard. Moreover, it seems unlikely, that Cannon would have chosen the afternoon on which he was occupied with chores in connection with his trip next day as the occasion for interrogating Baron about union activity at the agency. The likelihood that the alleged conversation between Cannon and Baron could not have taken place on November 13, does not, however, dispose of the matter, unless, as Respondent maintains, the episode is "just a figment of Baron's imagination" or, more bluntly stated, a complete fabrication. Baron's account of this meeting was straightforward and convincing, and the details of his alleged conversation with Cannon appear too factual to have been contrived. Moreover, Kerze's uncontradicted and credited testimony regarding similar interrogation by Respondent's top hierarchy in the president's private office, in August or September and his subsequent termination, to which Cannon is said to have alluded in the conversation, lends credence to Baron's testimony regarding the encounter. There was no showing or reason to believe that management's attitude in regard to organizational activity at the agency had undergone a change in the interim Furthermore, it is significant, as will later appear, that on November II or 12, when Sales Manager Panos told Cannon that he intended to terminate Baron and Peringer on November 15, Cannon expressed surprise that Panos was releasing Baron, their oldest salesman. The reasons Panos gave Cannon for his decision are of no consequence at the moment The fact that Cannon was admittedly 'According to Ballard, he left from Los Angeles with his son, Thomas, Jr , a friend of his son 's, and Cannon , at 8 30 a m , November 14, and Cannon did not return to Los Angeles until 7 a m , November 18, as shown by entries in a diary kept by Ballard as well as by vouchers for airline tickets and hotel accomodations BALLARD MOTORS, INC. aware that Baron was being discharged on November 15, lends further credence to Baron's testimony as to his interrogation by Cannon in an effort to discover the identity of the union activists before Baron left Respondent's employ.' Although Baron may have been mistaken as to the exact date this discussion occurred, it is evident that such a discussion took place sometime between November 11 and November 13, and it is so found It is, therefore, found that Cannon did, in fact, have such a conversation with Baron on an afternoon between November 11 and 13, 1968, and that he made the statements attributed to him by Baron By Cannon's interrogation of Baron, on or about said dates, regarding his union activities and those of other employees, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Baron worked until 9 p.m on November 13. That night, accompanied by Czerny Peringer, Jim Grobe, and John White, he attended a union meeting at the Embassy Auditorium, in Los Angeles. The meeting had been publicized by a flyer which had been distributed through the mail Some 600 or 700 salesmen attended the meeting. Baron and Peringer participated in the discussion Baron addressed the assembly over a microphone, and proposed the election of officers. He was informed that it would be necessary to appoint a nominating committee, and that election of officers could not be held until the next meeting During the next 2 days, November 14 and 15, various salesmen spoke to Baron on the showroom floor about the union meeting, and commended him for his part in the meeting According to Baron, this was discussed freely and openly at the agency, and at one time or another all the salesmen spoke to him about it Some of these comments were made not more than 10 feet from Sales Manager Panos' office. Peringer had a conversation with Baron on the subject on the showroom floor near the sales desk. Grobe also discussed the matter with Baron on the showroom floor While some of these discussions were taking place, Baron testified, Sales Manager Panos and Vice President Cannon were in their offices near the showroom floor It is evident that Baron was mistaken as regards Cannon since he was out of the city on his trip to Canada on the days in question Panos, however, occupied Cannon's office part of the time Cannon was away, and this may have led Baron to believe that Cannon was actually in his office during those days 10 Other discussions took place, according to Baron, at the coffee machine near Cannon's office, in the used-car lot, and at the lunch wagon (presumably a catering truck) Baron testified that the door to Cannon's office was generally open. Because of the peculiar acoustics in the showroom, Baron testified, conversations could be heard in Cannon's 'The fact that, as Baron testified , Cannon told him that he had been a loyal employee, and that Cannon hoped he would be with the Company a long time, may be regarded as an attempt to allay Baron 's possible apprehensions about revealing the information Cannon was seeking to elicit "Respondent employed between four and six new-car salesmen , on split shifts at the time, 8 a m to 2 p m, and 2 to 9 p m, weekdays, (8 a m to 6 p m , Saturdays ) The automobile showroom occupies an area 35' x 27', with floor space for the display of four to six Volkswagen automobiles There are two "closing" offices, shared by all the salesmen, located on the showroom floor 15 to 20 feet from the sales manager's office Directly behind his office is Cannon's office, which is reached from the showroom floor through a short hall 303 office from 50 percent of the showroom floor. In fact, in an actual experiment conducted before the advent of the Union, by two salesmen who engaged in a normal conversation on the showroom floor, while Baron was in Cannon's office 25 feet away, Baron was able to hear the conversation On the other hand, Sales Manager Panos, who spent about half his time in his office, testified that the door to his office was sometimes closed, depending on what he was doing at the time, that he was on the telephone part of the time, and that music piped into the showroom, was so loud at times that he was obliged to instruct the telephone operator to lower the volume Panos denied that he overheard any conversation among the salesmen regarding the union meeting on either November 14 or 15, the days on which the discussions were alleged to have taken place Cannon testified that it would be impossible to hear normal conversation from the sales floor in his office unless the persons were no more than 2 feet away from his office with the door open. Like Panos, he testified that the piped music or paging over the public address system would render it impossible to hear ordinary conversation on the sales floor, and that, in any event, it would be impossible to hear conversation from the sales floor in his or the sales manager's office unless the persons were shouting It would likewise have been impossible, according to Cannon, to overhear conversations at the coffee or coke machine outside his office even with the door open Probably the most reliable and objective evidence on this score was provided by former Sales Manager Kerze Kerze had occupied the office which Panos used when he became sales manager According to Kerze, it was unlikely that normal conversation on the sales floor, at the sales desk or the Coke machine could be overheard from the sales manager's office, unless the occupant of that office made a determined effort to listen. As to Cannon's office, however, because of an "acoustical goof," about which he had heard prior to becoming manager, Kerze testified that conversation in "whispers" at the front desk on the sales floor could be heard in Cannon's office, if the door were open and the person in that office were listening, but not otherwise It thus appears from Kerze's testimony that, although it would have been possible to overhear conversation from the sales floor in Cannon's office, it is highly improbable that such conversation could be heard in the sales manager's office Although the evidence discloses that Panos used Cannon's office in his absence part of the time, the evidence is too inconclusive to establish that Panos overheard any discussions between Baron and other salesmen regarding the union meeting and Baron's participation in that meeting. Even if Panos observed various salesmen talking to Baron on the two days in question, it cannot be assumed that he knew or suspected that they were discussing union matters This, however, does not preclude a finding that Panos, or other responsible management officials, may have been aware of or suspected its employees of engaging in union activity or of Baron's participation therein, an issue which is later resolved. On the evening of November 15,11 Panos summoned Baron to Cannon's office, and suggested that Baron take a vacation. Baron replied that he had already taken a "Baron placed the time as sometime between 5 and 8 30 p m , Panos, as about 8 45 p m The exact time is immaterial 304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD week's vacation in September 12 Panos then told Baron that his sales had been low Baron said that he failed to understand this because his sales had been on a par with those of other salesmen Thereupon, according to Baron, Panos said he had received orders "from the back room" to terminate him Asked whom he meant, Panos mentioned Cannon and Jordan Panos told Baron that the next day, Saturday, November 16, would be his last day. Baron decided under the circumstances to terminate his employment at the end of his shift that night, Friday In Panos' version, in which Baron was admittedly terminated in Cannon's office, Panos told Baron that due to the shortage of new cars, which had already begun, it had become necessary to reduce the sales force of new car salesmen by two men, and that Baron had been selected as one of the two, even though he was one of the older salesmen Panos testified that he told Baron that the shortage of new cars could not last indefinitely, and expressed the hope that when the supply of cars increased Baron would consider returning Baron asked Panos whether Cannon was responsible for his dismissal, and Panos denied it When Baron asked Panos who the other salesman was who was being released, and ventured a guess that it was Peringer, Panos acknowledged that it was " According to Panos, Baron did not ask him why he had been selected for termination. Baron, however, told Panos that he would not return because he felt there was more to his layoff than met the eye. Panos asked Baron to reconsider, but he refused. Baron testified that he did not recall that Panos expressed the hope that he would return when the supply of new cars increased, or that he himself indicated that he would not return under any circumstances In view of the ultimate findings, it is found that Panos did not tell Baron that he hoped he would return to the agency when more new cars became available, and that Baron did not say that he would not return under any circumstances Baron has not since been recalled to work The first new-car salesman hired since Baron's discharge on November 15, was employed January 16, 1969 Respondent's Contentions Respondent contends that (1) there is no direct evidence that it had any knowledge or suspicion of Baron's union activity, or circumstantial evidence from which such an inference may be drawn, (2) there is no evidence of union animus, and (3) Baron was terminated for valid, nondiscriminatory reasons 11 Respondent, like other Volkswagen dealers in southern California, receives its Volkswagen automobiles from Volkswagen Pacific, Inc , the West Coast distributor.' ' "Baron had taken a week 's vacation in September 1968, which resulted in a loss of 6 working days that month "Peringer was terminated next day, November 16 "Contrary to Respondent's contention that Baron was laid off, the evidence establishes that he was actually terminated , though for the purpose of this case it is immaterial whether he was laid off or terminated Baron was not recalled when an opening for a new-car salesman arose, though Respondent claims , inferentially , that it did not recall him because he indicated that he would not accept reemployment "This distributor serves dealers in the I l southern counties of California, the State of Arizona, Clark County, Nevada, and the State of Hawaii Volkswagen of America, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, is the importer, and while the distributor places its order for production through the importer, the distributor receives shipment direct from the manufacturer's plants in Germany at the Los Angeles harbor, with the exception of automobiles destined for Hawaii, which are shipped directly from Germany On October 15, Roger Frank, the distributor's assistant general manager, called at Respondent's dealership, and notified Sales Manager Panos that due to a threatened longshore strike on the East Coast, shipments of Volkswagens would be diverted to New York and Gulf coast ports, in order to stockpile as many cars as possible before the strike Frank told Panos that this would result in a very serious shortage of new cars, that he wanted to alert him as early as possible, and recommended that management "take a good look at the entire operation " Soon afterward, a meeting was held in President Ballard's office attended by Frank, Ballard, Jordan, Cannon and Panos. Frank reviewed the situation regarding the impending shortage of cars, repeating what he had told Panos, and advised that the Company examine its entire situation, especially in connection with its used cars, because the Company would be engaged primarily in the used car business for the next few months Asked on cross-examination if he specifically told the company officials that there would be a shortage or only the prospect of one, Frank testified, "A possibility, in the event that the December 20 date (apparently the last day of the Taft-Hartley injunction) led to a strike on the East and Gulf Coast ports It was more in the form of, not a warning per se, but a possibility." Within the next day or two, Ballard telephoned Joel McCord, general manager for the distributor, and received confirmation of Frank's report. About October 31, Respondent received a circular letter, over Sales Manager McCord's signature, which had been sent to all Southern California Volkswagen dealers, notifying them of the prospect of a shortage of new cars. The letter reiterated what Frank and McCord had told management, pointing out that "all dealers are well ahead of their annual 1968 calendar year allocations," that the distributor hoped to obtain and allocate enough cars in November and December, "so that all dealers can write black figures," and expressed the expectation that the shortage of cars would be made up in January or February 1969. Upon receipt of the letter from the distributor, Ballard summoned Panos, Jordan and Cannon to a meeting in his office Ballard suggested that, in view of the impending shortage of new cars, a reduction in the sales force would be necessary so that the top salesmen could earn a living 16 According to Panos, Ballard advised him to take a long look at the situation and decide how many salesmen he would need to handle the reduced volume of cars Panos testified that at this meeting the decision was made to terminate two new-car salesmen and one used-car salesman Ballard, however, testified that there was no discussion regarding any specific action to be taken by Panos, and that the matter was placed in Panos' hands Panos, who had authority to hire and fire employees in his department, decided next day to terminate one used-car and two new-car salesmen, and selected Baron and Peringer. According to Panos, he made the decision himself, without any suggestion or recommendation from management, and did not inform his superiors of his decision in advance With regard to the used-car salesman, Panos did discuss this with Pritchard, the used-car sales manager, and decided to discharge Worthington when he returned to work because of his unexcused absences According to Panos, he had been evaluating the relative qualifications of the salesmen for several weeks before "New- and used-car salesmen worked on straight commission based on the sales of cars, accessories , and insurance BALLARD MOTORS, INC. November I On November 1, he terminated Worthington's employment He did not terminate Baron's employment, however, until 2 weeks later because, he testified, he was "hoping for a miracle" in the way of additional new cars, which would obviate the need to reduce the new-car sales force It is significant that at no time after Respondent learned of the anticipated shortage of cars did it notify its salesmen of that contingency or of the possibility that this would require reduction in sales force In contrast to Panos' testimony, Cannon testified that a day to two after the October 31 meeting in Ballard's office, Panos told him in his, Cannon's office, that unless they received an adequate supply of new cars, he would let two men go on November 15 Furthermore, contrary to Patios' testimony, Cannon testified that Panos told him on November 11 or 12, 1968, that he intended to terminate Baron and Peringer on November 15." Cannon admittedly expressed surprise that Panos had selected Baron as one of the two new-car salesmen to be terminated, in view of his long service with Respondent, and asked Panos why he had decided on Baron. Panos replied, according to Cannon, that as far as Panos was concerned, Baron was not a "producer," that he "hid back in the weeds when there was anything to be done," and that he was uncooperative Cannon later added that Panos had told him that during his tenure, Baron's sales of new cars and accessories had fallen off Evidence adduced by Respondent established that in November 1968, Respondent received one shipment, on November 19, of 18 new cars, and a total of 18 cars, 9 each on December 17 and 18, as compared with 126 cars for the month of October, and 90 for the month before that.' 9 It thus appears that Respondent's apprehensions concerning the possible shortage of new cars, based on the information from its distributor, actually materialized. It is evident, however, that the distributor's qualified assurance that full-scale shipments would be resumed by January or February were equally well-founded Whether, in light of the distributor's projection as to the availability of new cars by the first of the year, it was actually necessary for Respondent to terminate two new-car salesmen, is not our province to decide Respondent was entitled, in the exercise of its business judgment, to decide that in view of the uncertainty as to the availability of cars, it was more feasible for it to dismiss two new car salesmen so that the earnings of the remaining salesmen would not be drastically reduced The issue, as has repeatedly been stated, is not whether an employer is justified in terminating an employee for valid business or economic reasons, but whether in reaching its decision, the employer was, in fact, motivated by those reasons or by reasons proscribed by the Act, that it to say, by the union activities of his employees and his opposition to their self-organizational rights In probing the subjective motive of an employer, particularly where he denies knowledge of union activities and union animus, it is necessary to examine all the circumstantial as well as the direct evidence Baron was the oldest employee in length of service, having been hired on January 5, 1964, nearly 5 years "It will be recalled that this was a day or two before November 13, the day on which Baron had the conversation with Cannon, which the latter denied "For the month of January 1969, when normal deliveries were resumed, Respondent received 135 cars between January 2 and 31, 1969 305 before his discharge The next senior employee was Peringer, who incidentally was discharged the day after Baron . At least until August 1968, Baron's sales record had never been criticized Like other new car salesmen he worked strictly on commissions, and was paid twice monthly On July 3, he received a check for $270, as a prize in the June sales contest in which he sold 27 cars, representing a bonus of $10 per car, above his regular commissions. On September 4, he received an additional check for $220, consisting of a $10 bonus for the sale of 22 cars in the August sales contest. On the same date, he received a $100 gift certificate, and a check for $65 as a prize in the August sales contest toward the purchase of a coat In June, he also received as a prize the use of Ballard's 85-foot yacht for a Sunday outing to Catalina 19 According to Baron's uncontradicted testimony, he was the only salesman who received a gift certificate or the use of Ballard's yacht in the June contest, although one or two other salesmen may have sold 20 or 21 vehicles that month In addition, Baron was a candidate for membership in the Volkswagen Sales Guild, an association of Volkswagen salesmen, which entitles the member to special business cards imprinted with the emblem of that organization, and a plaque for his desk, as well as a dinner tendered in his honor. To qualify for membership in this organization, salesmen are required to earn 500 points by selling 15 new or used cars per month for a year As of September 1968, 2 months before his discharge, Baron had earned 408 points, above average, according to him. Baron testified, without contradiction, that based on a report from the Guild, which he examined with Cannon, he was the only salesman from the Company whose name appeared on that list. During his tenure at the Company, he was nominated salesman of the year, representing the Company The nomination is based on sales, appearance and background of the salesman. He was interviewed over the telephone by a Volkswagen factory representative, who questioned him about his background, and learned of his nomination from the Company's then sales manager. After attending meetings of the Union in March and May, Baron joined the Union the following August He attended the union meeting on the night of November 13, at the Embassy Auditorium, in Los Angeles Admittedly, he did not tell any of Respondent' s managerial officials or supervisors that he was a member of the Union or that he had attended any union meetings Respondent categorically denies any knowledge of union activity, or of Baron's participation therein, at any time prior to the filing of the unfair labor practice charge in this proceeding It is true, as Respondent correctly points out, that knowledge of union activity is an essential element of the General Counsel's case, and that the burden of proving this, as well as other essential elements of his case, rests upon him. However, as Respondent also correctly observes, knowledge may be established by circumstantial, as well as by direct evidence, if there is substantial evidence warranting an inference of knowledge. There is direct evidence of company knowledge of union "According to Baron's uncontradicted testimony, under company policy, salesmen who sold 20 vehicles in a month , received for each car, a $10 bonus in addition to his regular commissions, those selling 23 vehicles, received a $100 gift certificate, and a salesman who sold 25 vehicles received the use of Ballard's yacht for a Sunday outing for himself and his guests 306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD activity at its establishment in the interrogation of Kerze in August or September. While the evidence of similar interrogation of Baron, on or about November 13, is highly controverted, the finding that it actually occurred furnishes further support of knowledge of union activity and, at least, the suspicion that Baron was involved. But even without relying on the interrogation of Baron, the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to justify an inference of knowledge of union activity and Baron's involvement therein While Respondent denies any knowledge of the union meeting on the night of November 13, it seems improbable, in view of the small size of Respondent's facility, the small complement of its sales force, the publicity given to the meeting, the wide dissemination of the union flyer announcing the meeting, which was attended by some 600 or 700 automobile salesmen from Southern California and Orange County, including employees of Respondent, that Respondent could have been oblivious to the union activities of its salesmen. The fact that the mailings of the notice of the union meeting were made to salesmen's homes, does not necessarily preclude a finding that Respondent learned of the meeting The circumstances surrounding Baron's discharge, moreover, two days after this meeting, themselves lend further support to the inference that Respondent was aware of the union activity at its establishment and Baron's role therein For all but the last three months of his nearly five years of employment, he had been a satisfactory salesman. Such criticism as he may have received was minor and insignificant .21) Indeed, Panos himself admitted that if it were not for the shortage of new cars, Baron's problems would have presented no obstacle to his continued employment. In fact, Panos testified that when he terminated Baron, he expressed the hope that he would return when the new car shortage was over. Respondent's position, therefore, rests upon its claim that because of the impending shortage of new cars, it was obliged to reduce its sales force by two men, and that it selected Baron and Peringer because they had the poorest record of sales for the 90-day period between August and October. While Respondent's records establish that Baron's sales were the second lowest, and Peringer's, the lowest of all the salesmen for the period in question, no explanation was offered as to why this 3-month period was selected as the criterion for determining sales performance. Considering that Baron had been employed nearly 5 years at that time, (and Peringer, somewhat more than 2 years, both longer than any of the other salesmen who were retained), the selection of the 3-month period appears "Among Panos' general complaints about Baron during the 3 months he was sales manager, he mentioned that Baron shirked his duties in checking in new cars delivered to the agency , failed to keep his demonstrator automobile clean, failed to tidy up the office (which he shared with other salesmen), during the first week after!Panos was appointed sales manager, became involved in disputes with other salesmen as to who was "up", that is, which of them had the next turn with a customer , and took his lunch period at 11 30 or 12 noon , returning at I or 1 30 in the afternoon, in time to "take off" at the end of his shift Since ;P anos conceded that these complaints did not play a significant part in his decision to terminate Baron, it is unnecessary to consider whether these complaints were justified Baron denied or satisfactorily explained these complaints and former Sales Manager Kerze, Panos' predecessor , testified that Baron did not shirk his duties, that he had had no occasion to reprimand Baron, and that he regarded him a good salesman unreasonable, if not arbitrary. As Kerze, who had 15 years' experience as an automobile salesman prior to becoming sales manager, testified, "Everybody is entitled to have a bad month or two I have had it, and I guess all the rest of the salesmen in the business have had it. But I am taking a period, a consistent period over a number of years. I don't think [Baron] could have stayed at Ballard Motors working with the other salesmen if he hadn't come up to perform with the others "21 Moreover, even on the basis of Respondent's records of sales and commissions paid, Baron's showing was not as dismal as Respondent would have us believe. A summary of comparative records of sales for the period August to November 15, the date of Baron's discharge, reveals the following Date Hired Name Sub ,Nov. Aug Sept Oct. Total 1-14 Total 1/ 4/64 Paul Baron 22 11 16 49 4 53 2/19/68 Jim Grobe 20 12 17 49 8 57 8/30/68 Bill Coffey - 22 27 49 9 58 8/ 1/68 John White 9 16 14 39 !8 57 8/11/68 Hal Messinger 10 ll 17 38 8 46 9/27/ 66 Czerny Perin a II 13 14 38 10 22 An analysis of these figures demonstrates that, as of October 31, 1968, Baron was tied at first place with two other salesmen, and far ahead of the three other salesmen, without taking into account, (as Panos admittedly failed to do), Baron's 1-week vacation in September, and as of November 15, Baron's total sales for the period, with only 4 cars sold between November 1 and 15, still ahead of two salesmen, and in third place of all the salesmen, without taking into account Baron's 3-day absence on account of illness in November (which, once, again, Panos failed to take into consideration). " While conceding that a good automobile salesman may "go sour," Kerze testified that during his tenure as sales manager (between July and sometime in October, 1968) Baron did not "go sour " "For the month of July, 1968, the corresponding figures were Baron 10 Grobe 15 Coffey - White 9 (1/2 month) Messinger 10(1/2 month) Peringer 10 By basing the average sales of salesmen employed less than the 4-1/2 month period (July to November 15) on their period of employment, Respondent arrived at a distorted average, showing Baron 's average sales as the second lowest among all salesmen Thus Name Length of em to ment Total Cars Average as o ov bol(I Baron 4-1 /2 months 63 14 Grobe 4-1/2 months 72 16 Coffey 2-1/2 months 58 23 White 3-1/2 months 57 16 Messinger 3 months 46 15 Peringer 4-1/2 months 58 13 BALLARD MOTORS , INC. 307 Using another yardstick to measure Baron's sales performance, his gross commissions from January 1, 1968, to October 31, 1968, show his average monthly earnings at $1,229 56, which, when compared with monthly earnings of all salesmen for the year 1967, would rank Baron as second highest in earnings for that year Comparable records of earnings of all salesmen for the 10 1/2 months of 1968 were not made available. When there is considered, in addition to the foregoing, the uncontroverted evidence regarding the special prizes in the sales contests during June and August 1968, and his achievement toward membership in the Volkswagen Sales Guild, his nomination as salesman of the year, described earlier, it becomes evident that Respondent deliberately utilized the relatively short period of time prior to the discharge to place Baron in an unfavorable light so as to justify his dismissal The fact that this period coincided with Panos' employment as sales manager does not explain why he, or Respondent's management officials, did not take into consideration Baron's sales performance over the entire period of his employment It will be recalled that when Panos, according to Cannon's own testimony, told Cannon on November 11 or 12, that he intended to discharge Baron (and Peringer), Cannon expressed surprise that Panos had selected Baron as one of the two new-car salesmen to be released, in view of Baron's long service with the Company, and asked Panos the reason for his decision His reply, that Baron was not a "producer," obviously based on his sales record over the past 90 days, without regard to his previous performance, has already been considered and found wanting Panos' added reason, that Baron shirked his responsibilities and was lacking in cooperation was not, as has already been shown, a substantial factor in Panos' decision to terminate Baron Turning to the question of knowledge of union activity and Baron's involvement therein at the time of his discharge, while there is no direct evidence that Respondent was aware of Baron's involvement in any union activity, it is well-settled that knowledge or suspicion of union activity may reasonably be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the discharge.2J Such an inference is warranted from Respondent's admitted knowledge of the widespread organizational activity among automobile dealers throughout Southern California and Orange County, at least as early as May, 1968, when Assistant General Manager Cannon saw the newspaper advertisement announcing the union meeting; the undisputed evidence regarding the interrogation of former Sales Manager Kerze, late in August or early in September, Cannon's interrogation of Baron on or about November 13; the timing of his discharge 2 days after the union mass meeting on November 13; the pretextuous nature of his discharge, the relatively small size of Respondent's facility; the proximity of the sales or closing offices, and those of the sales manager and assistant general manager, to the showroom floor where the salesmen spent most of their working time; the small number of salesmen, no more than 6, working split shifts, so that there were no more than 3 salesmen on any shift; and the totality of these factors 21 Whether or not Respondent assumed Baron to be the principal protagonist in the union activity, or whether he actually played a prominent role in the organizational campaign, is immaterial in the circumstances of this case. In view of the small complement of salesmen, the discharge of one salesman (actually, two here, although Peringer's discharge has not been alleged to. have been discriminatory), was sufficient to serve Respondent's purpose of discouraging the remaining salesmen from union affiliation, by "making an example" of Baron, who, Respondent decided, was most vulnerable to discharge because of his allegedly unsatisfactory sales record during the arbitrarily selected period 25 By the same token, the fact that other union members were still employed at the time of the hearing, or that Respondent offered to retain Kerze as a salesman after terminating him as salesmanger, does not establish the absence of discriminatory motive 26 As to Respondent's contention that the record discloses no evidence of union animus, it is sufficient that the evidence adequately establishes opposition to the self-organizational rights of its employees It is, therefore, found, on the basis of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, and upon the resolution of the issues of credibility, that Respondent was aware of, or suspected the union activity of its salesmen, on and before November 15, 1968, and that it knew of or suspected Baron's membership in the Union, and discriminatorily discharged him on November 15, 1968, to discourage membership of its salesmen in said Union. It is further found that, by Cannon's interrogation of Baron, on or about November 13, 1968, as to whether he, or any other salesmen, was employed by the Union, Respondent interfered with, restrained, or coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent, described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free now of commerce V. THE REMEDY It has been found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act It will, therefore, be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from such "See, e g , N L R B v Lawson Printers , Inc. 408 F 2d 1004 (C A 6) ""Notwithstanding a lack of direct evidence as to Respondent's knowledge , such knowledge may be deduced - since secrecy with respect to serious matters of general concern within a small facility (consisting of one manager, two mechanics, and one tire service man ), cannot realistically be maintained - particularly when statements and conduct constituting statutorily protected activity have taken place within that small facility " (cases cited) 172 NLRB No 69, Trial Examiner' s Decision, adopted, without comment on this point , by the Board See also The Circle K Corporation , 173 NLRB No 107 "N L R B v Link-Belt Co. 311 U S 584, 602, N L R B v National Garment Co , 166 F 2d 233, 238 (C A 8), cert denied 334 U S 845, Montgomery Ward & Co, v NLRB . 107 F 2d 555, 559 (C A 7), F W Woolworth Co v NLRB . 101 F 2d 658, 661-662 (C A 2), Shedd-Brown Mfg Co. 102 NLRB 742 (suppl' d 103 NLRB 905, enfd 213 F 2d 163, 174 (C A 7), Broward Marine, Inc, 112 NLRB 1443, fn I ""An employer's failure to discharge all the union adherents does not necessarily indicate an absence of discriminatory intent as to whose he did discharge " WC Nabors Company. 89 NLRB 538, enfd 196 F 2d 272 (C A 5), Duro Test Corporation , 81 NLRB 976, Stewart Warner Corporation , 55 NLRB 593 It is not necessary nor is it ordinarily feasible to terminate every union member or adherent in order to discourage union membership 308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unfair labor practices, and take such affirmative action as may be required to effectuate the policies of the Act It has been found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Paul Baron, on November 15, 1968, and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate him to his former position It will, therefore, be recommended that Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by him as a result of the discrimination against him, from the date of the discrimination to the date of offer of reinstatement Loss of pay shall be computed as prescribed in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and interest on such backpay shall be computed at 6 percent per annum, in accordance with Isis Heating & Plumbing Co. 138 NLRB 716 Respondent shall make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records necessary to facilitate the determination of backpay due Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I Ballard Motors, Inc , Respondent herein, is, and at all times material herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and the jurisdictional standards of the Board 2 International Association of Machinists District Lodge 94 and its affiliated Local Lodge 2327, AFL-CIO, are, and at all times material herein have been, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 By discharging Paul Baron , on November 15, 1968, and thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate him because of his membership in the Union, Respondent has discriminatorily discharged said employee to discourage membership in a labor organization, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 4 By interrogating Paul Baron, on or about November 13, 1968, as to whether he or other salesmen were employed by the Union, thereby interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing finding of facts, conclusions of law , and upon the entire record, it is hereby recommended that Respondent , Ballard Motors , Inc, of Anaheim, California, its officers , agents, successors, and assigns, shall. 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discouraging membership in International Association of Machinists District Lodge 94 and its affiliated Local Lodge 2327, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization , by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms and conditions of employment of its employees because of their union affiliation or activities (b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union affiliation or activities, and (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join or assist International Association of Machinists District Lodge 94 and its affiliated Local Lodge 2327, AFL-CIO, 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, or to refrain from any or all such activities 2 Take the following affirmative action, which, it is found, will effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer Paul Baron immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings which he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in "The Remedy " (b) Notify Paul Baron if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze and compute the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended order (d) Post at its place of business in Anaheim, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "27 Copies of this notice, on forms to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order, what steps have been taken to comply therewith 28 "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 " "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read " Notify the Regional Director for Region 21 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith APPENDIX 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 BALLARD MOTORS, INC. 309 WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Association of Machinists District Lodge 94 and its affiliated Local Lodge 2327, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms and conditions of employment of our employees because of their union affiliation or activity, except as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees concerning their union affiliation or activity WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act WE WILL offer Paul Baron immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named labor organization or any other labor organization BALLARD MOTORS, INC (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) Note We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 556-0335