Joe's Auto Parks, Car Wash & Service Stations

1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD L & R Auto Parks, Inc. d/b/a Joe's Auto Parks, Car Wash & Service Stations and Miscellaneous Ware- housemen, Drivers & Helpers Local 986, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America L. & R. Auto Parks, Inc. and Miscellaneous Ware- housemen, Drivers & Helpers Local 986, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Cases 21-CA-10098 and 21-RC-12167 August 28, 1972 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On March 23, 1972, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings,' findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that Respondent, L & R Auto Parks, Inc., d/b/a Joe's Auto Parks, Car Wash & Service Stations, Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted on June 24, 1971, in Case 21-RC-12167, be, and it hereby is, set aside and that Case 21-RC-12167 be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for Region 21 for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time as he deems that circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] 1 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner It is the Board's established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect t6 credibility unless the clear prepon- derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C.A 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARTIN S. BENNETT, Trial Examiner: This matter was heard at Los Angeles, California, on December 14 and 15, 1971. The complaint, issued August 20, thereafter amend- ed, and based upon charges filed June 22, June 28, and August 6, 1971, by Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers & Helpers, Local 986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, herein the Union, alleges that Respondent, L & R Auto Parks, Inc. d/b/a Joe's Auto Parks, Car Wash & Service Stations, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. By order dated August 25, 1971, the Regional Director for Region 21 ordered consolidated with the foregoing case a hearing on objections to an election conducted in Case 21-RC-12167. That representation matter arises as follows. Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Censent Election entered into between the Charging Party and Respondent on May 18, an election was held on June 24, 1971, among the approximately 55 eligible voters in an ostensibly appropriate bargaining unit. Of these eligibles, 34 cast votes against the Union, 10 voted in its behalf, and 4 ballots were challenged. Objections were filed by the Union which in essence attacked the same conduct challenged in the instant unfair labor practice complaint. Briefs have been submitted by the parties. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. L & R Auto Parks, Inc. d/b/a Joe's Auto Parks, Car Wash & Service Stations, a California corporation main- taining its principal office in Los Angeles, California, is engaged in the operation of parking lots, service stations, and a car wash facility in the Los Angeles area. It annually enjoys revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchases and receives materials valued in excess of $10,000 which are shipped to it directly from points outside the State of California or directly to firms located within that State which in turn ship said materials directly to Respondent. I find that the operations of Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers & Helpers Local 986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 198 NLRB No. 154 JOE'S AUTO PARKS 1093 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES asked if he belonged to the Union. Respondent attacks A. Introduction and the Issues The Union commenced an organizational campaign among the employees of Respondent's various Los Angeles facilities in April of 1971, this leading to the election it lost on June 24, 1971. Attacked herein by the General Counsel are the discharge of Ricardo Cabrera' on or about June 21, 1971, various allegations of interrogation, promises of benefits, threats of loss of benefits, and the creating of the impression of engaging in the surveillance of union activities. The managerial staff of Respondent includes President Arthur Lumer, Vice President Harry Lumer, Vice Presi- dent Jack Lumer, secretary of the corporation Gabriel Rubin, and Supervisor Al Lumerman, the latter a nephew of the Lumers. Thus this is in essence a family business. The record amply discloses, and I find, that all five are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of Respondent. Initially, it is in order to point out that the respective versions of the case are diametrically opposed. On Respondent's thesis, the various members of the family were indifferent to or unaware of the activities directed by the Union towards its employees, depicting a scene of innocence. For example, Al Lumerman testified that he spoke about the Union to almost every employee, but that in each and every case, the employee introduced the topic; this I find incredible and do not accept. On the General Counsel's premise, the conduct went beyond this portray- al; I agree. It may be also noted that there are numerous minor conflicts, favorable or unfavorable to both sides, which are not treated herein as they would unduly lengthen this decision and do not affect the conclusions arrived at. B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion Around April 15, 1971, Cabrera and several other parking lot attendants decided that they would attempt to organize Respondent. Cabrera, whose discharge is treated below, contacted Union Organizer Rudy Heredia that night and the two met the following morning. Cabrera signed an authorization card and was given five or six cards for signature; he returned the signed cards at lunch that day. Later that month, the Union picketed three of Respondent's parking lots. On May 18, the parties agreed to and set an election for June 24. According to Benjamin Alvarez, an attendant at one of the lots, on or about May 17, Supervisor Al Lumerman asked whether he had signed a union card or had attended a meeting; Alvarez denied doing so. Lumerman then stated that Respondent had treated the men well, that it gave workers who committed errors another chance and that if the Union came in, Respondent would "throw out whoever made the slightest error." Thereafter, on two or three subsequent occasions, Lumerman came to the lot and Alvarez as a disgruntled witness due to his discharge in June and Lumerman completely denied ever discussing the Union with Alvarez despite his daily visits to the lot. As noted, he gave some highly improbable testimony as to his conversations with employees and I credit Alvarez herein. On Friday, June 18, the Union held a dinner meeting at a restaurant. Parking lot attendant Jose Morales, who then worked for another employer weekends as a guard, attended and wore his guard's uniform. On June 21, Lumerman came to Morales' lot and asked how the dinner had fared; Morales pleaded ignorance. Lumerman replied that he knew Morales had attended, that he knew where he parked his car, described the location, and declared that he had worn his uniform. He added that he knew the meeting would not be successful because he had a man planted "back there." I do not credit Lumerman's testimony that he learned of the meeting on June 22 or 23 from another named employee who did not testify herein? Morales further testified that Jack Lumer queried him early in June about the Union. Lumer then told him, inter aha, that if the Union won the election, Respondent would split up, with Al Lumerman taking so many lots and Jack Lumer taking the others; Lumer generally denied this. In view of some very untenable testimony given by him, as well as by Harry Lumer concerning the discharge of Cabrera, I do not credit his denial. In addition, Jack Lumer referred herein to Morales as a trustworthy employee and not a liar. Again, on June 18, Jack Lumer asked Morales if he was for or against the Union and added that he had to have an answer by Monday, June 21. He again stated that Respondent would split up the lots in the event of a union victory.3 Harry Lumer was Cabrera's supervisor. Beginning late in April, according to Cabrera, and continuing through the union campaign, he regularly told Cabrera that he would work only 40 hours a week under the Union; Cabrera was then averaging 50 to 55 hours a week. And, on June 18, he told Cabrera that all those who wanted the Union should leave Respondent because if the Union won, the Company would be divided as Respondent was too small to have a Union and everyone would lose his job. Also participating in this conduct was Secretary Gabriel Rubin. He appeared at the lot on or about May 24 and told Cabrera, according to the latter, that any S.O.B. who wanted the Union would be fired; Rubin's denial is not credited herein. I find that by interrogating employees concerning their union activities, threatening employees with economic reprisals because of same, and creating the impression of surveillance of a union meeting, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. See e.g., American National Stores, 195 NLRB No. 3. It follows that the election in Case 21-RC-12167 is to be set aside. Dal-Tex Optical Co., Inc., 137 NLRB 1782, 1786. I Also named in the transcript as Cabrerra to Morales, and I base no adverse finding thereon Jack Lumer also made a 2 After the June 24 election, Lumerman asked Morales if he had signed a similar remark and this is viewed similarly letter and given it to the Union; Morales had in fact signed a paper at the 3 This last statement is not explained further. As I view it, and I so find, June 18 meeting Here, I credit Lumerman's testimony that he asked this it raises the spectre of the loss of employment question after receipt of a charge in the unfair labor practice case referring 1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. The Discharge of Ricardo Cabrera As found, Cabrera and several other parking lot attendants agreed, on or about April 15, to attempt to organize Respondent's installations. Cabrera contacted and met with organizer Heredia at Cabrera's lot the following morning. The latter gave Cabrera a number of union cards and Cabrera returned them signed, including his own, that same day. Later that month, the Union picketed three of the lots and the parties ultimately agreed, in May, upon an election on June 24. The General Counsel contends that the discharge of Cabrera on Monday, June 21, was discnminatonly motivated. Cabrera was not a novice, having entered the employ of Respondent in May 1968. Respondent contends, and this is treated below, that he had been laid off or discharged a number of times; but, in each instance, he was promptly rehired after a short period of no longer than several days. His last prior layoff was for two days late in March or early in April allegedly because of two customer complaints. On Friday, June 18, Cabrera picked up his paycheck from Jack Lumer at approximately 6 p.m., after turning in his daily receipts to Harry Lumer. Neither man said anything to Cabrera about his termination. Cabrera attended the union dinner meeting that evening which has been discussed above. He reported for work at 6:45 a.m. on Monday, June 21, and discovered that he had been replaced by another attendant. According to Respondent, the replacement was contacted Friday evening. For reasons set forth below, I find that Respondent made the decision to discharge Cabrera and get a replacement after the union meeting. Cabrera went across the street where Harry Lumer was stationed and asked why he had been discharged. Accord- ing to Cabrera, Lumer replied that he no longer worked for Respondent, rhetorically asked how Cabrera had enjoyed the June 18 dinner, declared that this was the reason he was no longer employed there, and added that two tickets were missing from his daily report on the previous Friday. Dissatisfied with this, Cabrera went to see Jack Lumer, asked for a reason, and the latter similarly told him that Cabrera knew the reason, that he had gone to the dinner and that two tickets were missing. At this point, it is in order to explain that the latter reference is, in essence, a reference to a "hot car." In the industry, this means that an employee has not issued a ticket for a parked car and has pocketed the parking fee, despite the regular inspection of the lots by management to detect this practice. This technique is facilitated by the fact that business concerns arrange to park a block of cars on a monthly fee basis. Such cars normally carry decals, although not in every case, identifying the employer, in this case, a Peck construction company. There is evidence from Respondent that Cabrera claimed on June 18 that several cars, not ticketed by him and not carrying decals, were Peck cars. The record amply demonstrates that a "hot car" is a common problem in the business. Respondent indeed contends that Cabrera was dis- 4 Respondent adduced evidence from the night man at Cabrera's lot, Pablo Cadazos, as to unsuccessful attempts by Cabrera and Union Organizer Heredia to get him to testify herein concerning "hot cars" on June 18 Cadazos ' English was poor and he referred to his unwillingness to charged for having a number of "hot cars" on the lot that day and presented evidence that it discovered three cars and two cycles which fell into this category, this leading to its decision to discharge him. Thus, on Friday evening, it obtained a replacement for him. For a number of reasons, set forth below, not necessarily in order of significance, I do not credit Respondent's testimony and credit Cabrera's version of the statements made to him on June 21 as to the reasons for his discharge which perforce, on a preponder- ance of the evidence, substantiates the General Counsel's position.4 (1) Initially, Cabrera had been an employee for over three years. According to Harry Lumer, he had been discharged four or five times and had been an unsatisfacto- ry employee on "many, many occasions." These discharges resulted from "hot cars," an overcharge, and surliness to customers; there is also evidence that he inflicted $230 worth of damage to a parked car. His reinstatements were generally attributed to the intercession of his wife. This, it may be noted, was denied by Mrs. Cabrera, a most impressive witness whom I credit. Stated directly, if what Respondent attributed to Cabrera was true, it would be almost a miracle for any lot operated by him not to have been bankrupted. A sagacious employer does not tolerate a thief and a menace for 3 years and Respondent's executives indeed conveyed an impres- sion of sagacity. (2) Highlighting the former view is the fact, as President Arthur Lumer testified, that Respondent has a high turnover of personnel which runs as high as 10 to 20 percent a month. This is obviously an industry which lacks ideal working conditions and the conclusion is warranted that this employer overlooks irregularities. (3) Thus, as Rubin testified, it is normal procedure for an attendant to steal some money daily because good attendants are hard to find. He stated that, "If they do not become too greedy, we let it pass." Rubin initially testified that the taking of the fees of two cars may or may not reflect a greedy attendant, depending upon whether this is done daily. He also testified that an attendant would be terminated because of five or six "hot cars" a day and also that he, Rubin, would complain if there were two or three daily. In sum, I find that this is a basic aspect of the business, at least in the lots of Respondent, which is tolerated by Respondent until the small transgressor becomes a larger one in Respondent's eyes. (4) The last of Cabrera's previous discharges took place early in April; according to Rubin, this resulted from the loss of customers. Cabrera was reinstated several days later after Jack Lumer asked Rubin to give him another chance. Jack Lumer claimed herein that this resulted from a plea from Cabrera's wife for reconsideration, this denied by Mrs. Cabrera whose testimony has been previously credited. Rubin testified that this termination was not made permanent because of the absence of a replacement for Cabrera. But there is testimony from Jack Lumer that Respondent always has a long file of available replace- "fie " A fair reading of his testimony is that he was most reluctant to get involved, that he would not lie, and that he wished to do "no favor for no side " JOE'S AUTO PARKS ments and, indeed, utilized this file on June 18, the date of Respondent's last and final decision to terminate him, and there is no claim that there was a sudden inflow of applicants. The inference is therefore warranted, in view of the large turnover Respondent consistently suffered, that it had a roster of potential replacements in April. (5) Rubin presented other highly questionable testimony. He testified, contrary to his prior testimony concerning the toleration of occasional "hot cars," that Cabrera was short on his receipts every day between April 1 and 15, as well as from May 15 to June 15; on the last date, Rubin left on his vacation. Yet he departed and did not recommend that Cabrera be discharged, this but three days before Respon- dent's other executives decided to discharge him, although Rubin did not consider him a good attendant. In this respect, it is to be noted that Respondent's records reflect no significant change in receipts in this lot after Cabrera's replacement took over. Although Rubin claimed that it takes time to refurbish the patterns of a lot, it ostensibly does not take time to reflect an improvement in a "hot car" situation. (6) The testimony of Harry Lumer does not withstand close scrutiny. He initially denied any awareness of the union meeting on June 18 or that he had mentioned it to Cabrera. But his cross-examination discloses the following. He successively testified that "I never knew anything about a dinner"; that he learned of it about a week later; that "I never knew anything about a dinner"; that "I never found out anything about it"; and that "I think Jack [Lumer] is the one mentioned it. As a matter of fact, Jack Lumer did mention it to me." It is readily apparent that he strove mightily to avoid disclosing any knowledge of this meeting. (7) A consideration of the alleged conduct by Respon- dent's executives on June 18 serves only to confirm the porosity of its position. Stated simply, there was a helter- skelter series of communications among Harry Lumer, Jack Lumer, and Al Lumerman which would take considerable space to fully set forth and evaluate, but it may best be likened to a baseball play from Tinker to Evers to Chance. Cabrera and Harry Lumer agree that the latter visited Cabrera's lot on the morning of June 18. As found, this was the occasion when Lumer uttered the threat found above to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. According to Lumer, he suspected the presence of "hot cars," checked the lot again that afternoon, contacted Jack Lumer, and advised the latter of the presence of "hot cars". Al Lumerman, having previously worked at this lot, it was decided that he would check the lot that afternoon. There is some razzle-dazzle as to precisely who sent Al Lumer- man to check the lot, but he did so and advised Harry Lumer that there were indeed "hot cars" on the lot. The affidavit of Harry Lumer is significant herein. He deposed that he contacted Jack Lumer after being advised by Al Lumerman as to his findings and told him that Cabrera "was running a crooked lot and we should let him go. Jack agreed with me and I told him Cabrera would come to see him later that day to pick up his paycheck. Jack should fire him." This puts into perspective the res gestae of Cabrera's discharge. It is undisputed that at the end of the day, after 1095 all this colloquy, Cabrera turned his daily report to Harry Lumer. According to the latter, Cabrera referred to reimbursing Respondent for "hot cars" but Harry Lumer ignored this and told Cabrera to proceed to another installation and receive his check from Jack Lumer. The story now becomes stranger. Cabrera proceeded to the other lot, got into line, received his check from Jack Lumer and was told nothing. Jack Lumer originally testified that there were about 40 employees in line and that Cabrera picked up his check and "ran away." In his affidavit, Jack Lumer merely said that there were 15 in line and that Cabrera left before he could say anything. This I do not credit. Bearing in mind the testimony of Jack Lumer that the replacement had been contacted earlier that day at 4 p.m., it defies credence that neither executive saw fit to discharge Cabrera pursuant to a previously arrived at decision. It would be the simplest of matters to ask the man, apparently the only man to be discharged that day, to stand aside momentarily and then converse with him. I therefore conclude that Respondent did not decide to discharge Cabrera on the afternoon of June 18, that on a preponderance of the evidence its decision followed the union meeting that night, and that the decision to terminate Cabrera, with 3 years' tenure and the key union organizer, stemmed from his attendance at the meeting of which Respondent was aware. I also deem it significant that, on Respondent's version, prior disciplinary action for 3 years had entailed only a short layoff, this consistent with Rubin's testimony that competent attendants were scarce. I find, in view of all the foregoing considerations, and upon the entire record in the case, that Respondent discharged Cabrera on June 21, 1971, because of his union activities, thereby engaging in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(3) and, derivatively, Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. L & R Auto Parks, Inc. d/b/a Joe's Auto Parks, Car Wash & Service Stations is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers & Helpers Local 986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging Ricardo Cabrera for engaging in union activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 4. By the foregoing, and by interrogating employees concerning their union activities, threatening employees with economic reprisals because of same, and creating the impression of surveillance of union activities, 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. 1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in 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. It has been found that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Ricardo Cabrera. I shall, therefore, recommend that Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former job, or if this job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. See The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico Branch, 65 NLRB 827. I shall further recommend that Respondent make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of his discharge, by payment of a sum of money equal to that he normally would have earned from said date to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less net earnings during such period, with backpay and interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDERS Respondent, L & R Auto Parks, Inc. d/b/a Joe's Auto Parks, Car Wash & Service Stations, Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in, or activity in behalf of Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers & Helpers Local 986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition thereof. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union activities, threatening employees with economic reprisals because of same, and creating the impression of surveil- lance of union activities, or in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, except to the extent such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Ricardo Cabrera immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former job, or if this job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner provided above in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and make available to the National Labor Relations Board and its agents, upon request, for examina- tion and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at all its facilities in Los Angeles, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21 shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period of 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 insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21 in writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.? It is further recommended that the objections to the election conducted on June 24, 1971, in Case 21-RC-12167, be sustained, that the election be set aside, and that a new election be conducted. S In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order , and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 8 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a judgement of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." r In the event this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify the Regional Director for Region 21 in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL offer Ricardo Cabrera immediate and full reinstatement to his former job, or, if this job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privi- leges, and we will make him whole for any loss of wages suffered as a result of our discrimination against him. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activity in behalf of, Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers & Helpers Local 986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging employees, or by discrimi- nating in any manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition thereof. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union activities, threaten employees with economic reprisals, create the impression of surveillance of union activities, or in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran- JOE'S AUTO PARKS 1097 teed under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization, except to the extent such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849 South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014, Telephone 213-688-5329. L & R AUTO PARKS, INC. (Employer) D/B/A JOE'S AUTO PARKS, CAR WASH & SERVICE STATIONS Dated By (Representative) (Title)