Local 212, Teamsters

LOCAL 212, TEAMSTERS 519 Local Union No. 212, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America (Ind.) and Stuart Wilson, Inc. Case 7-CB-2536 November 28, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER On June 19, 1972, Administrative Law Judge' Herzel H. E. Flame issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge 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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Local Union No. 212, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Ind.), its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. I The title of "Thal Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law Judge" effective August 19, 1972 TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION HERZEL H. E. PLAINE, Trial Examiner: The Respondent (Union), representing the employee salesmen of the Charging Party (Employer), an automobile sales dealer, called a strike of the salesmen in November 1971, when collective bargaining failed to produce an agreement. The complaint charged the Union with violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) for having used violence or threats of violence against nonstriking employees and customers of the Employer in attempting to compel the nonstriking employees to cease work and Join the strike, and for having caused the Employer to terminate the employment of nonstriking employees by threatening the Employer that physical harm would befall them if they continued to be employed during the strike.' The complaint was issued April 21, 1972 (reissuing an earlier complaint of Mailch_ 24), on a charge by the Employer filed January 10, 1972. The Union's answer I In pertinent parts, Sec 8(b) provides It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents- (1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [which includes the rights of employees to engage, or refrain from engaging, in union activities] (2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against denied any wrongdoing; but at trial, held in Detroit, Michigan, on May 4, 1972, the Union withdrew part of its answer and admitted the violence and threats of violence against the nonstriking employees and customers (enumer- ated in par. 13 of the complaint, comprising essentially the whole of the 8(b)(1)(A) violations charged). Trial was held on the balance of the complaint (essentially par 14, composing the 8(b)(2) violation charged), concerning the cessation or layoff in employment of the nonstriking employees attributed to the alleged coercing of the Employer by the Union. Briefs have been filed by General Counsel and the Union. Upon the entire record of the case, including my observation of the witnesses and consideration of the beefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The Respondent (Union) is, as the parties agree, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Since May 17, 1971, by virtue of Board certification, the Union has been the collective-bargaining representative of the unit of employees comprising all new- and used-car salesmen and truck salesmen of the Employer at its place of business in Dearborn, Michigan, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Charging Party (Employer) is a Michigan corpora- tion that operates an automobile dealership for the retail sale and service of new and used automobiles and trucks, at two places of business in Dearborn, Michigan. In calendar 1971, a representative period, the Employer had gross revenue in excess of $500,000 from its sales, and received at its Dearborn places of business goods valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside Michigan. The Employer is engaged, as the parties agree, in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. If. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The 8(b)(1)(A) Violations The bargaining session between representatives of the Employer and the Union on November 11, 1971, was held at the Employer's offices above its showroom at the main place of business in Dearborn. The session ended in an impasse in the negotiations about 1 p.m. Shortly thereafter Carl Van Zant, president of the Union (Local 212 Teamsters), called the salesmen out on strike. A picket line formed almost immediately around various entrances and driveways of Respondent's premises, with a concentration in the main driveway near the showroom. According to the Employer's president, John Blackwell, an employee in violation of subsection (a)(3) In pertinent part, subsection 8(a)(3) provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer (3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization 200 NLRB No. 83 520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD there were between 40 and 50 pickets, of whom only 8 or 9 were employees of the Employer. Three salesmen refused to Join the strikers and remained at their jobs on the premises. They were James F. O'Brien, Sr., and James O'Brien, Jr., father and son, both new-car salesmen, and Fred E. Yager, a used-car salesman. From their testimony, they were not members of the Union, did not want to become members or engage in the strike and picketing, and desired to continue working. They so told Union President Van Zant It was admitted by the Union that President Van Zant threatened the two O'Briens and Yager with physical harm if they did not cease work and leave the Employer's premises According to their testimony, Van Zant ap- proached each of them individually as the strike began, and directed each to leave or get hurt if he didn't. Salesman Nozieka, who joined the picket line in the afternoon of November 11, testified that Van Zant told him in the presence of other pickets that he, Van Zant, had given the O'Briens and Yager 5 minutes to get off the premises otherwise they would have their heads bashed in. (The events directly related to the further employment of employees O'Brien Senior, O'Brien Junior, and Yager, and the violations of law affecting their employment are discussed under heading B, below.) The strike and picketing which began on November 11, 1971, continued into 1972. The Union admitted that on November 15, 1971, and again in the first week of December 1971, its agent Hart and pickets, respectively, engaged in physical assaults on motor vehicles crossing the picket line and threatened employees with physical harm, in order to compel employees not to cross the line and cease working for the Employer The Union admitted that in December 1971, by and through its pickets, it placed nails in the driveway of the Employer's parking lot and informed the employees it had done so The Union admitted that on two occasions in December 1971, through its agents Spencer and Hart, respectively, ingress of employees of the Employer was blocked and impeded in order to compel the employees not to cross the picket line. The Union admitted that in January 1972, through strikers and pickets, it informed relatives of nonstriking employees that the employees would suffer physical harm in the event they continued to work for the Employer and did not join the strike and picketing of the Union Additionally, Ralph Yager, brother of employee Fred Yager, testified that striking salesmen Small and Stiles made the threat to him that his brother Fred would be hurt if Ralph did not get Fred out of Employer's premises. The Union admitted that on January 3, 1972, its President Van Zant and other pickets, in view of employees, physically assaulted customers of the Employ- er, as they attempted to cross the picket line, in order to compel employees to cease crossing the picket line. The foregoing admitted and proven actions on the part of the Union constituted violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.2 B. The Violations of Section 8(b)(2) The Union Coercion of the Employer As indicated above under heading A, at the inception of the strike on November 11, 1971, Union President Van Zant ordered nonstriking employees O'Bnen Senior, O'Brien Junior, and Fred Yager to leave the premises or suffer physical hurt. When they refused, Van Zant made it plain, as all three testified, that one way or another they wouldn't be allowed to work. Employer's general manager, James Blackwell, confirmed hearing Van Zant tell this to O'Brien Senior. Van Zant also told O'Brien Senior and Yager that he was going to talk to Employer's president, John Blackwell, about getting them out, and he promptly proceeded to talk with Blackwell. In O'Brien Junior's case, Van Zant had already had a talk with Blackwell; and Van Zant told O'Brien Junior that he had pointed out to Blackwell the danger of O'Bnen's position in staying on and that Blackwell would be talking to O'Brien about it. Employer President Blackwell testified that, shortly after the strike began, Union President Van Zant came into the building and told him, "the O' Briens had better get out of there before they got hurt." Blackwell made no reply, he said, but later observed O'Brien Senior outside the building, walking from the used-car lot, and being shouted at by pickets. Blackwell went out and brought O'Brien Senior into the building. Pickets, most of whom were not his employees, massed outside the showroom, said Black- well, banged on the windows, and shouted "scab," as the O'Briens, father and son, or a customer came into the showroom area. Employee O'Brien Junior reported to President John Blackwell, Van Zant's conversation and directions that he (Junior) get out or risk injury if he didn't comply. He asked Blackwell what he should do. President Blackwell advised both O'Briens that it would be best for them to leave and go home, but to keep in touch. They complied and went home. Blackwell testified that he sent them home because he felt they were in danger. President Blackwell walked out to the used-car office and found employee Fred Yager, who appeared, said Blackwell, to be shaken. Yager reported Van Zant's threat that he (Yager) leave or get hurt, his refusal, and Van Zant's added threat that he was going to see Blackwell about getting him off the premises. Blackwell told employee Yager, it looked violent, he didn't want Yager to get hurt, and it would be best for him to leave and call in the following day. As in the case of the O'Bnens, Blackwell sent Yager home because of the danger in his staying. From the several conversations among the four men, it was apparent to the three employees that Union President Van Zant had convinced Employer President Blackwell that there would be violence if the three employees did not leave. Employee Yager testified that he called in practically every working day after November 11 (until early January), asking if it were safe to come in, and was advised against it. He also learned it was not safe from a firsthand 2 See also fn 5. infra LOCAL 212, TEAMSTERS 521 experience a few days after November 11, when he came to the dealership to pick up some personal belongings. Three pickets stopped him, and allowed him to go in only upon his assurance that he had not come to work but to get his personal things. The Employer called employee Yager back to work January 4, 1972, telling him that the situation was improved enough for him to come back. The pickets were now down to a few, and Yager reported to work without being stopped and resumed selling, although on two occasions thereafter pickets made threatening gestures at him. He was the only rank-and-file salesman back on the job in early January, said Yager, and he joined the supervisory employees, who had covered sales from the start of the strike, in selling cars. Employee O'Brien Senior said he telephoned the Em- ployer on the night of November 11 and was advised it was not safe to come back. Thereafter, he regarded it as pointless to keep calling, since he knew the union people were picketing and wouldn't let him work, he testified. The Employer called him back to work January 4, 1972, and he reported in and worked a few hours. However, the pickets called him scab and accused him of hurting them, and he finally told General Manager James Blackwell that he could not stand the harassment and left. He ultimately took work elsewhere Employee O'Brien Junior stayed in touch with the Employer, but was discouraged by the management people from coming in, he testified. He also learned firsthand that it was not safe for him to come in. In early December, he came to the dealership to pick up a corrected check and found Union Agent Spencer blocking the driveway. He backed away, and later arranged for the office to deliver the corrected item to him He, too, was called to come back to work January 4, 1972. Sales Manager Mitchell told him he could come back under police protection, but O'Brien replied he could not work under these conditions because he had a wife and two children, and he declined to return to thejob The Union's Defense The Union offered no contradictory testimony. It makes the following two arguments. 1. First, says the Union, the complaint (par. 14) alleges that the Union caused the Employer to "terminate" the employment of the three nonstriking employees. Actually, they were not terminated in the sense of discharge or total separation from the payroll. Indeed, says the Union (and the evidence so demonstrated), they were kept on the payroll, and received the base or guaranteed monthly minimum pay, though not the commissions and bonuses that are realized from selling cars. They also received the benefit of having existing health and life insurance carried for them, and had the use of their demonstrators, for which they paid as when they worked. They were paid by the Employer for staying home, says the Union, and in fact were not damaged at all because there was no showing of what they would have earned in commissions or bonuses. Nor could the General Counsel have shown sales perform- ance justifying commissions or bonuses , says the Union, since sales were down because of the strike. 2. Second, says the Union, there was no showing that the three nonstriking employees were sent home because of a request by the Union, or by reason of any pressure by the Union on the Employer to discriminate against them. Conclusions 1. As to the first defense , that there was no termination of employment and no damage to the three nonstriking employees, the Union properly concedes that the com- plaint is not regarded as a common law pleading , and that the Act does not require a showing of discharge or complete separation from employment to establish dis- crimination under Sections 8(b)(2) or 8(a)(3). "Terminate" in the labor lexicon is not a term with a fixed meaning. Depending on the user and the circumstances its connota- tion may be temporary or permanent, voluntary or involuntary , partial or whole, or several combinations of these. In any event , even if termination were to be regarded as having the ultimate connotation of discharge by the Employer, the greater includes the lesser , and proof of a discriminatory layoff with partial pay, as here, is within the allegation of a discriminatory termination , N.L.R B. v. Kiekhaefer Corp., 292 F.2d 130, 134-135 (C.A. 7, 1961). The total evidence makes plain that President John Blackwell sent the three nonstriking salesmen home, in a temporary layoff status, because of the threats to their safety made directly to him by the Union's president, threats that had the appearance of reality from the conduct of the unruly mob that surrounded the showroom. Moreover, Blackwell kept the three salesmen home and away from the dealership in the 7 or 8 weeks following the layoff, because the initial threat of violence became actual violence, and the danger to the laid off employees in that period was clear and present.3 The Union misreads the evidence in contending there was no damage to the laid off employees. President John Blackwell was very clear that he sent them home because of the danger to them, and consequently prevented them from selling cars. General Manager James Blackwell was equally clear that the base salary (employee O'Brien Junior said it was $800 per month) was not adequate compensa- tion for the salesmen, it was only a minimum , and that the salesmen needed the commissions and bonuses from car sales to make an adequate wage. Employee O'Brien Senior testified that the base salary was considerably less than he normally earned. The matter of backpay is usually the subject of a supplemental proceeding, if an unfair labor practice is found to have been the cause of deprivation of the employee's opportunity to earn his pay. Hence General Counsel was not under any burden to prove the claimed dollar loss in this proceeding It was enough that he provided evidence of the discriminatory deprivation of the opportunity to continue on the job, and some evidence of the nature of the loss to the employees. ' The Union's reference to testimony that Blackwell did not "prevent" them from returning was in the context of making clear that he did not "terminate" or totally separate them from the opportunity to return when the danger was past 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Moreover it comes with poor grace from the Union to contend that since sales were down, because of the strike, the laid off salesmen lost nothing. The contention conveniently overlooks the fact that the Union's picket line violence and rowdyism aimed at employees and customers of the Employer-the admitted 8(b)(1)(A) misconduct throughout the period of the layoff, set out under heading A above-undoubtedly contributed greatly to a drop in sales, certainly more than would have been the effect if the strike and picketing had been peaceful and orderly. The Union is not entitled to claim any benefit or credit from its wrongdoing. 2. Regarding the Union's contention that there was absent any request by it to the Employer, or pressure from it upon the Employer, to send the nonstriking employees home, the evidence was unmistakeable of a demand by the Union's president that the Employer get the nonstrikers out of the showroom and off the premises or the Union would use force on them. And that force was already literally beating on the showroom windows. I find it difficult to imagine any greater form of pressure or clearer demand by the Union upon the Employer to do the Union's bidding.4 The Union violated Section 8(b)(2) of the Act by causing the Employer to lay off James O'Brien Sr., James O'Brien Jr., and Fred Yager, nonstriking employees who were not members of the Union, because they refused to cease work and join with the Union in its strike and picketing of the Employer, and by causing the Employer thereby to discriminate against the three employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.5 Compare, General Truckdrivers Local 5 v N L.R.B., 389 F.2d 757 (C.A. 5, 1968), finding 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) violations where the employer "assigned" the employee to his home for 4 months under union threats of a strike and of physical violence to bar the employee from his employment. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I By engaging, during a strike against the Employer, in acts of violence, threats of violence, and other destructive acts on the picket line, including assaults on customers and vehicles, in order to compel employees not to cross the picket line and cease working for the Employer, the Union has committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 2 By causing the Employer to send home and lay off employees who were not members of the Union and who refused to join in the strike and picketing, the Union caused the Employer to discriminate against these employ- ees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act. By this conduct the Union also restrained the employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights and committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 3. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY It will be recommended that the Union: (1) Cease and desist from its unfair practices; (2) make employees O'Brien Senior, O'Brien Junior, and Yager whole for the loss of pay suffered by reason of their layoffs, N.L.R B. v. Hod Carriers Union Local 300, 392 F.2d 581, 582 (C.A. 9, 1968), backpay equivalent to be computed on a quarterly basis as set forth in F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), approved in N.L R.B. v. Seven Up Bottling Co, 344 U.S. 344 (1953), with interest at 6 percent per annum as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), approved in Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. N.L R B, 331 F.2d 720 (C.A. 6, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 888; and (3) post the notices provided for herein. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, there is hereby issued the following recommended:6 ORDER The Union, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Compelling or attempting to compel nonstriking employees of the Employer to cease work for the Employer, or to join in the Union's strike and picketing, or to refrain from crossing the picket line, specifically by (1) ordering or directing nonstriking employees to cease work; (2) threatening nonstriking employees with physical harm, or assaulting them; (3) assaulting vehicles that cross the picket line; (4) placing nails in entranceways, driveways, or parking lots of the Employer; (5) blocking or impeding ingress and egress into and out of the Employer's places of business; (6) coercing or attempting to coerce relatives of nonstrik- ing employees into persuading the employees to cease work, by threat of physical harm to the nonstriking employees; (7) assaulting customers of the Employer who attempt to cross the picket line. (b) Causing or attempting to cause the Employer, by request or by threat of physical harm to nonstriking employees or other coercion, to lay off, discharge, or otherwise discriminate in regard to hire or tenure or any term or condition of employment of the nonstriking employees, because they refuse or fail to cease work for the Employer, or to join in the Union's strike and picketing, or to refrain from crossing the picket line. 4 The case cited by the Union, Northwestern Montana District Council Carpenters Union, 126 NLRB 889, 897-898 (1960), sheds no different light for it holds that "An express demand or request is not essential to a violation of Sec 8 (b)(2) of the Act (citation omitted) It suffices if any pressure or inducement is used by the union to influence the employer" 5 The Union's conduct was also a restraint upon the three employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them under Sec 7 of the Act, in violation of Sec 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act 6 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, recommendations, and 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 LOCAL 212, TEAMSTERS 523 (c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ- ees in the exercise of rights protected by the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Make employees James F. O'Brien Sr., James O'Brien Jr., and Fred E. Yager whole, in the manner set forth in the section of the decision entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of earnings incurred by each as a result of their layoffs that commenced November 11, 1971. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to ascertain the backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post in conspicuous places in the Union's business offices and meeting halls, including places where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A," addressed to members of the Union.7 Immediately upon receipt of copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 7 (Detroit, Michigan), the Union shall cause the copies to be signed by one of its authorized representatives and posted, the posted copies to be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Cause copies of the notice marked "Appendix B," addressed to employees of the Employer, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director of Region 7 (Detroit, Michigan), to be signed by one of its authorized represent- atives, immediately upon receipt, and returned forthwith to the Regional Director for delivery by him to the Employer for posting and maintenance in the Employer's places of business in manner similar to that provided in paragraph (c) above.8 (e) Notify the Regional Director of Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Union has taken to comply herewith .9 7 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 8 See In 7, supra 9 In the event that the recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director of Region 7 , in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Union has taken to comply herewith " picketing of Stuart Wilson, or to refrain from crossing the picket line; specifically, WE WILL NOT order or direct nonstriking employees to cease work, WE WILL NOT threaten nonstriking employees with physical harm, or assault them; WE WILL NOT assault vehicles that cross the picket line; WE WILL NOT place nails in entranceways, drive- ways, or parking lots of Stuart Wilson; WE WILL NOT block or impede ingress and egress into and out of Stuart Wilson's places of business; WE WILL NOT coerce or attempt to coerce relatives of nonstriking employees into persuading the employees to cease work, by threat of physical harm to the nonstriking employees; WE WILL NOT assault customers of Stuart Wilson who attempt to cross the picket line. WE WILL NOT cause Stuart Wilson, by request or by threat of physical harm to nonstriking employees or other coercion, to lay off, discharge, or otherwise discriminate in the conditions or tenure of employment of nonstriking employees, because they refuse or fail to cease work for Stuart Wilson, or to join in the Union's strike and picketing, or to refrain from crossing the picket line. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Because the National Labor Relations Board found that we unlawfully caused the layoff by Stuart Wilson of employees James F. O'Brien, Sr., James O'Brien, Jr., and Fred E. Yager, commencing on November 11, 1971, WE WILL give each of the three employees the equivalent of backpay, with interest, for his loss of earnings in the period of layoff. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found , after a trial, that we violated the National Labor Relations Act: WE WILL NOT compel or attempt to compel nonstrik- ing employees of Stuart Wilson, Inc. (Stuart Wilson) to cease work, or to join in the Union's strike and Dated By LOCAL UNION No. 212, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, (IND.) (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Tele- phone 313-226-3200. 524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX B NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government Of Stuart Wilson, Inc. The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a trial, that we violated the National Labor Relations Act: WE WILL NOT compel or attempt to compel nonstrik- ing employees of Stuart Wilson, Inc. (Stuart Wilson) to cease work, or to join in the Union's strike and picketing of Stuart Wilson, or to refrain from crossing the picket line; specifically, WE WILL NOT order or direct nonstriking employees to cease work; WE WILL NOT threaten nonstriking employees with physical harm, or assault them, WE WILL NOT assault vehicles that cross the picket line; WE WILL NOT place nails in entrance ways, drive- ways, or parking lots of Stuart Wilson; WE WILL NOT block or impede ingress and egress into and out of Stuart Wilson's places of business; WE WILL NOT coerce or attempt to coerce relatives of nonstriking employees into persuading the employees to cease work, by threat of physical harm to the nonstriking employees; WE WILL NOT assault customers of Stuart Wilson who attempt to cross the picket line. WE WILL NOT cause Stuart Wilson, by request or by threat of physical harm to nonstriking employees or other coercion, to lay off, discharge, or otherwise discriminate in the conditions or tenure of employment of nonstriking employees, because they refuse or fail to cease work for Stuart Wilson, or tojoin in the Union's strike and picketing, or to refrain from crossing the picket line. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Because the National Labor Relations Board found that we unlawfully caused the layoff by Stuart Wilson of employees James F. O'Brien, Sr., James O'Brien, Jr, and Fred E. Yager, commencing on November 11, 1971, WE WILL give each of the three employees the equivalent of backpay, with interest, for his loss of earnings in the period of layoff. Dated By LOCAL UNION No. 212, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA (IND.) (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Tele- phone 313-226-3200.