C & 0 Motors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 4, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 1160 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C & 0 Motors, Inc. and Basil E . Sanson and Jimmy L. Puckett. Cases 9-CA-6993-1 and 9-CA-6993-2 June 4, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On February 9, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Alba B. Martin issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached 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. FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION C & 0 Motors, Inc., Respondent herein, is a West Virgin- ia corporation engaged in the retail sale of automobiles at St. Albans, West Virginia. Its plant at St. Albans is some- times referred to herein as the shop. Respondent is a Chev- rolet and Oldsmobile dealer. During the 12 months prior to the issuance of the complaint, a representative period, Re- spondent had a direct inflow of goods and products valued in excess of $50,000, which it purchased and caused to be shipped in interstate commerce to its location in West Vir- ginia directly from points outside of West Virginia. During the same period Respondent had a gross volume of business in excess of $500,000. Respondent admitted and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce as defined in Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find that at all times material herein, Local Lodge 598, Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is and has been a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, C & 0 Motors, Inc., St. Al- bans, West Virginia, its officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ALBA B. MARTIN. Administrative Law Judge: This conso- lidated proceeding was tried at Charleston, West Virginia, on September 26, 1972 , upon charges filed by Basil Sanson (April 25, 1972) and Jimmy L. Puckett (May 22, 1972) and complaints issued June 19 and 29, 1972. The issues litigated were whether Respondent , through its sole owner and presi- dent, James Love, violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act l by threats, interrogations, and requesting surveillance, and whether Respondent violated Section 8(aX3) and ( 1) when it discharged Jimmy L. Puckett on April 17, 1972, and Basis Sanson on April 18, 1972. At the conclusion of the hearing the General Counsel and Respondent made short oral sum- mations. Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the brief filed by the General Counsel, I make the following: 1 "The Act" refers to the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U S C. Sec. 151, et seq. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Importantly involved in this proceeding is Respondent's effort to forestall the self-organization of its employees dur- ing the period that the employees of a nearby automobile agency were being organized. During the first week of April 1972, one of Respondent's parts men, Basil Sanson, told his superior, Parts Manager Virgil Edwards, that a union repre- sentative was coming in to talk to the mechanics at Harvey Shreve Ford, a Ford dealer also located in St. Albans. Sanson 's information came from his brother, who worked at Harvey Shreve's. Early in April Jimmy L. Puckett also talked with his brother-in-law about a union representative coming in to talk to the Shreve employees. B. Union Activity at Respondent and Respondent's Efforts To Stop It After they learned about the organizational activity at Shreve's, Sanson and Puckett told employees at Respondent about it, and this led to discussions among Respondent's employees. One witness, Howard Goff, credibly testified that "one instance that there were a group of us guys back there in the shop discussing the Union but that's when we had heard that Harvey Shreve's, you know the guys were going to attempt to go union and all of us, you know, on our lunch hour, were talking about it." Without contradiction Goff also testified that for a period of 2 or 3 weeks there was discussion among Respondent's employees about the possi- bility of having a union at C & 0 Motors. At lunch with "most of the mechanics" including Jesse White and "some of the parts men" including Chester Chapman, Sanson told 203 NLRB No. 184 C & 0 MOTORS, INC. them, according to Sanson's undenied and credited testimo- ny, that a union representative was coming in to talk to the employees at Shreve's; that Sanson thought a union would be of more benefit to the mechanics than to the parts men; that a union would be a very good thing and was needed by the mechanics; that with a union they would get better vacation pay, uniforms, and hospitalization. On cross-ex- amination by Respondent, Sanson credibly testified that "the men also thought that it was a very good idea." One day at noontime Jimmy L. Puckett, a mechanic, volunteered to go to the Union and pick up some cards, and the men. including Chapman and White, expressing approval, he did so. He brought the cards to Respondent's garage and gave them to Jesse White, another mechanic, who had indicated to Puckett that he wanted the Union. Puckett got the cards from the "machinists union in South Charleston," which, upon all the evidence I find to be the Union. Without con- tradiction Jesse White credibly testified that "everybody in the shop was talking about the Union." Nevertheless White did not distribute the cards. Instead he took them home and they were thrown away. White admitted telling Puckett that they all "might get fired [over] the Union." According to credited and undenied testimony, during the week prior to the discharges President Love went from man to man in the shop and interrogated them concerning what they knew about the Union at Harvey Shreve Ford. Love did not confine his remarks to Shreve's. He told How- ard Goff, an attendant at Respondent's used car lot, that "there'd been quite a bit of talk that he had heard, under- cover . . . about C & 0 Motors going union. . . . He said that if the Union got in and things didn't work out that he could pay his bills and more or less stay home. But what about the rest of us, we can't afford to do it if they just close up the doors." Elaborating later in his testimony, Goff quot- ed Love as saying: [He] had heard talk that the Union may come down to C & 0 Motors and I told him I hadn't heard anything about it. . . . He said that before it had been tried as a union in a shop, it didn't work out. And if we got a union, and didn't work out they'd close the door up, he could afford to pay his bills, we can't we have to have a place to work. . . . He said if anything happened and that things would go bad, within 90 days if we had found anything out that it wasn't going to work out within 90 days of that time he could pay his bills and that would be it and that leads up to we'd be out of a job. . . . He asked me if I would mind keeping my ears open and let him know if anything happened. . . While he was interrogating the employees during the week before the discharges, Love told Puckett, according to the latter's undenied and credited testimony, that "there was about four or five guys going to come in and tell him what to do with his business. . . . He said he'd worked 10 or 12 hours a day all his life for what he had." Puckett replied that he also had worked 10 or 12 hours a day. Upon the above testimony and the entire record I hold that Love's interrogations about union activity at Shreve's and his conversations with his employees concerning the Union were designed to draw out of the employees informa- tion about union activity at C & 0 Motors, and that under all the circumstances these interrogations reasonably tend- 1161 ed to interfere with , restrain , and coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Re- spondent thereby violating Section 8(a)(1). President Love's threats to close his doors and put the employees out of jobs amounted , in the context of the conversation and under all the circumstances including his other conversations with employees that week about the Union, to threats of reprisals because of the employees ' actual or suspected union activi- ties , Respondent thereby further violating Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. Love's asking Goff to keep his ears open and let him know if anything happened amounted , in the context of the conversation in which it occurred , to a request that Goff engage in surveillance of the employees' union activi- ties and report what he learned concerning them to Love, Respondent thereby further violating Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. C. The Discharges The two contested discharges occurred on successive days a few days after President Love's unlawful interroga- tions, threats, and request for surveillance found above. The entire record showed, and I find, that the decision to dis- charge both of them was made by Love. On Monday and Tuesday after the above violations the previous week, the discharges took place; the discharge of Puckett on Monday, April 17, and of Sanson on Tuesday, April 18. The timing of these discharges, together and almost immediately after, the Section 8(a)(1) violations, is strong evidence that the discharges, as well as the other violations, were made to forestall and defeat any self-organizational activities by the employees at Respondent's place of business. Puckett and Sanson were admittedly valued employees. Puckett was Respondent's most experienced automobile mechanic and the other mechanics went to him for assis- tance and guidance. As a relatively young parts man (he is 23 years old) Sanson was complimented by his supervisor, Parts Manager Edwards, who had hired him, who told him that he "had progressed in the parts business quicker than anyone he had ever known and he thought I had experience comparable to someone with 10 years in it." Respondent's asserted reasons for the discharges related to incidents which had occurred prior to the employees' organizational activities, and they appeared to be pretextual reasons for, rather than the real reasons for, the discharges. There can be no doubt on this record that Respondent knew of Sanson's and Puckett's expression of prounion sen- timents among the employees. It was a small garage consist- ing of about seven or eight mechanics, three washboys, and four or five parts men. President Love admitted to Goff that he had heard, undercover, about C & 0 Motors going union. Employee Chapman admitted reporting to President Love after he had seen a bottle of whiskey in Puckett's toolbox; under which circumstances it is realistic to believe that Chapman also reported to Love what he knew about Puckett's and Sanson's union sentiments and activities. Em- ployee Jesse White admitted that sometime later, after he had talked to a Board agent, "Two guys . . . kept calling me 2Cf Wiese Plow Welding Co, Inc, 123 NLRB 616, 618. 1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ... and I'd tell [Love] when they'd call, everything." As his entire testimony showed that White was frightened over the union activity and was afraid of being discharged over it, it is reasonable to infer, as I do, that President Love got out of White that Sanson and Puckett were the ones who were talking up the Union. Of note in this connection is that White told Love that Puckett had a bottle in his toolbox. Upon all the facts in this paragraph, and upon the entire record considered as a whole, I hold that knowledge of Sanson's and Puckett's union sympathy and activity should be imputed to Respondent. 1. The discharge of Basil Sanson Sanson was allegedly discharged because his actions had allegedly cost Respondent a valued customer, Francis Cramer, who had done business with Respondent for some years and who had bought the two cars he then owned from Respondent. However the proof was that Respondent's ac- tions, rather than Sanson's, cost Respondent Cramer's con- tinued favor. By his demeanor and his testimony Cramer impressed me as an honest, articulate, neutral, informed, and very credible witness, whose testimony should be relied upon fully. Cramer credibly testified that on Tuesday, March 28, 1972, he took his 1971 Oldsmobile in to Respondent's service department to find out what caused the noise underneath it. He left it for the day. During the day someone from Respondent phoned him and told him the problem was in the rear velocity joint (universal joint) on the drive shaft and that he would have to have a new drive shaft, which would cost $113. The voice asked if Cramer wanted him to order a new drive shaft and Cramer replied in the affirmative. That afternoon about 4:15 when he came to pick up the car he discussed the matter with a mechanic who confirmed that the cost would be $113. Cramer then went to the parts department and asked San- son if someone was supposed to be ordering a drive shaft for his car. Sanson replied in the affirmative. Cramer "told him to just hold up on it because I'm going to check Royal Oldsmobile." Cramer told Sanson he would let him know later. Royal was a competitor automobile dealer which han- dled Oldsmobiles. The following morning, Wednesday, Cramer phoned Royal, told them what he understood was wrong with the car, and was told that Royal "had a kit to repair that" and that it would cost about $34. Cramer said he would bring the car in on Friday, March 31, to have the work done, which he did. Upon all the evidence I conclude that Royal installed a new universal joint and used the existing drive shaft, rather than replace the drive shaft as C & 0 Motors would have done. Cramer credibly testified that if Royal's solution had been the same as C & O's he would have had the work done at C & 0 Motors. Sanson's alleged wrongdoing was that, at the request of Cramer's son Tony, who was a school friend of Sanson's, the latter gave Tony some information which might help his father save some money. Tony was a parts man in a nearby Chevrolet dealership. He asked Sanson to check on his father's car and let Tony know. From the Oldsmobile parts book Sanson ascertained that the universal joints could be replaced and he so informed Tony. According to the cred- ited testimony of Francis Cramer, however, Cramer did not discuss his car problems with Tony until after his Wednes- day morning telephone conversation with Royal Oldsmo- bile, when he made a date to bring his car in on Friday and have the repairs made. So it is clear that Sanson's reply phone call to Tony had nothing to do with Cramer's deci- sion to have the competitor dealer, Royal, do the work, since the decision was made before Cramer learned any- thing about the information Sanson gave Tony. When the mechanic, Jesse White, ordered the drive shaft from the parts man, Sanson, the latter had to make a special order for it, since it was not in stock. Sanson wrote up the special order. Special orders were not mailed in but were taken to the General Motors warehouse in Cincinnati, Ohio, by Parts Manager Edwards, twice a week. When Cramer went to the parts department on Tuesday afternoon and told Sanson to hold up on the order until he let him know, Sanson relayed this to Parts Manager Edwards, who okayed this procedure. One or two days later Cramer phoned San- son to cancel the order, which Sanson did. The order had not yet gone to Cincinnati. When Mechanic Jesse White ordered the drive shaft from Sanson at the parts counter that Tuesday morning March 28, Service Manager Mark Docteur was standing there. San- son, knowing that Cramer's car was involved, asked Doct- eur why new universal joints could not be installed in the shaft rather than replace the whole thing, since there was a price difference of $100. Docteur asked Sanson if he thought he could run the shop better than Docteur does. Sanson replied he knew nothing about running a shop but that he had promised to call Tony Cramer back and tell him what he found out about his father's car. Docteur told him not to call anybody. Docteur said that anytime a part was ordered by Docteur or a mechanic it was Sanson's job to order it. Sanson told him there was a reconditioning kit for it. Docteur replied he wanted a drive shaft, not a recondi- tioning kit .3 Parts Manager Edwards overheard the conver- sation, and after it was finished Sanson told Edwards he would go ahead and order the drive shaft but that he doub- ted if Cramer would take it. Edwards replied that if he was right, stick to it. Sanson told Edwards he thought Cramer was getting a raw deal, and Edwards agreed with this senti- ment. Sanson observed that he would probably get fired over this. Edwards assured him that he would not. Edwards was Sanson's superior and Docteur was not. Edwards and Docteur were equals and both reported to Respondent's general manager, Kenneth Tyler. Neither Docteur nor Edwards (insofar as the record showed) made any mention of this incident to General Manager Tyler, or to President Love, so they could not have been very excited about it. Edwards did not testify. As appears above, Edwards agreed with Sanson that Respon- dent was about to give Cramer a "raw deal." As a witness Docteur admitted that his discussion with Sanson was not "too much of an argument. . . . I didn't think too much about it. He was stepping out of position and I just told him where it was, that 's all." There was talk in the evidence that the Cramer car was still under warranty, but there was no hard proof that it was. I Docteur placed this conversation, or some of it, 2 days later. Whichever day it occurred makes no difference to the result herein C & 0 MOTORS, INC. In any case , in all its contacts with Cramer Respondent told him the new drive shaft would cost him $113, and no one suggested that the factory would pay for it because the car or its power train was still under warranty. It was the cost factor which led Cramer to get an additional bid on the job from Respondent's competitor, and which lost Respondent its valued customer. A few days before President Love decided to discharge Sanson, Love learned of this incident involving Sanson from General Manager Tyler. The record did not disclose how Tyler learned about it. Love learned of it during the period that Love was going from man to man interrogating and threatening them concerning union activity. Love testi- fied that Tyler told him that "Sanson and Docteur had had words and he felt that Docteur was right and that we should do something about the fact that one of our customers was called and was lost." Love then talked with Docteur and Edwards, and then Tyler again, about the Sanson incident, and then instructed Tyler to discharge Sanson. Love's inves- tigation did not include discussion of the matter with San- son or with the customer, Cramer. Had he talked with Cramer he would have learned that Sanson's action did not contribute to Cramer's decision to have the work done at Royal, because the decision was made before Sanson called Tony Cramer. Tyler called Sanson to discharge him on April 18. Before doing so Tyler listened to Sanson's version of the facts. There was no suggestion in the evidence that Tyler could have altered the instructions to discharge Sanson which Love had given Tyler. Then Tyler told Sanson, "This bull- shit cost me a customer and you've lost a job." In view of the timing of the two discharges on successive days just after Love's violations of the previous week; as Love was willing to close up and put all his employees out of jobs to block the Union, which included the discharge of merely two of them; as neither Edwards nor Docteur report- ed Sanson's action concerning the Cramer car to Love and thus displayed no evidence that they thought it involved a dischargeable offense ; as the defense related to an incident which occurred prior to the union activities; and as Love was dead-set against allowing his employees to bring the Union into C & 0 Motors, I believe and hold upon the preponderance of the evidence that the real reason Love decided to discharge Sanson was because of Sanson's actual or suspected union activities , Respondent by the discharge thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 2. The discharge of Jimmy L. Puckett The defense to the Puckett discharge was that he was drinking liquor on the plant premises and giving drinks on the premises to other, younger, employees. Prior to being warned by Love about this some 3 weeks before his dis- charge, Puckett had offered drinks to other employees in his car parked on or just off the company parking lot. He did this a few times after working hours and after all partici- pants had finished work. The record established that Love's concern was that there be no drinking on the plant premises, not that there be no drinking at all by his employees on their own time. When Love warned him against drinking or pass- ing out drinks in and around Respondent's plant Puckett 1163 agreed to stop doing so. Puckett credibly testified that he did not thereafter do so. After working hours thereafter Puckett and two or three employees sometimes had drinks in a car at a public park one quarter of a mile or more away from the plant. Once, which I find to have occurred prior to the warning, Puckett offered Chapman a drink in the plant just after Chapman had punched out at the end of his day's work. Chapman admitted that he was not sure of his dates, and he thought this incident occurred no more than 2 weeks before the discharge. I find upon all the evidence that it was over 3 weeks before the discharge. Service Manager Docteur testified he never warned Puck- ett about drinking because Puckett was a good mechanic and he didn't want to start an argument with him. Docteur's testimony was of no help in resolving whether Puckett broke his promise to Love, because Docteur didn't know whether Puckett's drinking occurred a month before his discharge or 2 weeks. Docteur testified, contrary to Love, that Puckett's drinking had not caused any problem and that it didn't suddenly become a problem. Love's testimony was that Puckett was adversely influencing the younger men by of- fering them drinks around the plant, and that this became a problem. However the drinks around the premises ceased 3 weeks before Puckett's discharge and Puckett's union ac- tivities and Love's violations occurred thereafter. In the light of the entire record, and by his demeanor, Love did not impress me as a fully credible witness. I do not credit his testimony that he knew of no union activity at C & 0 Motors and that after he was warned Puckett continued drinking on the premises and offering drinks on the prem- ises to other employees. As Puckett was discharged the day before Sanson was unlawfully discharged; as these discharges occurred just after President Love's violations of the previous week; as Love was willing to close up and put all his employees out of jobs to block the Union, which included the discharge of merely two of them; as Respondent knew that Puckett and Sanson were the two employees who talked in the shop in favor of the Union; as Respondent's defense was uncon- vincing; and as Love was deadset against the Union; I hold upon the preponderance of the evidence that Love had Docteur discharge Puckett because of his actual or suspect- ed union activities, Respondent thereby further violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. C & 0 Motors, Inc., of St . Albans, West Virginia, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local Lodge 598, International Association of Ma- chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor orga- nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discriminatorily discharging Basil E . Sanson and Jimmy L. Puckett because of their actual or suspected union activities Respondent has violated and is violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By interrogating employees concerning their actual or suspected union activities Respondent has violated and is violating Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. 1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. By threatening to close its doors and put the employees out of jobs because of their actual or suspected union activi- ties Respondent has violated and is violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. By requesting an employee to engage in surveillance upon other employees' union activities and report his find- ings to Respondent , Respondent has violated and is violat- ing Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY In order to effectuate the policies of the Act , I recom- mend the customary broad cease -and-desist order and the affirmative relief conventionally ordered in cases of this nature, where Respondent 's unfair labor practices were of a character which struck at the roots of employee rights safeguarded by the Act. To remedy its disciminatory discharge of the two employ- ees Respondent will be required to offer Basil E . Sanson and Jimmy L. Puckett reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their senior- ity or other rights and privileges , and to pay each of them backpay (less net interim earnings ) computed on a quarterly basis, plus interest at 6 percent per annum , as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950 ), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), from the date of the discharge , April 17, 1972, in the case of Puckett and April 18 , 1972, in the case of Sanson , to the date when Respondent offers him reinstatement. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ° ORDER Respondent, C & 0 Motors, Inc., of St. Albans, West Virginia , its officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their actual or suspected union activities. (b) Threatening to close its doors and put the employees out of jobs because of their actual or suspected union activi- ties. (c) Requesting employees to engage in surveillance upon other employees' union activities and report their findings to Respondent. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the pur- pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec- tion, 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, as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Basil E. Sanson and Jimmy L. Puckett imme- diate and full reinstatement to their former work or, if that work no longer exists, to substantially equivalent work, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and pay them backpay in the manner prescribed in the portion of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision entitled "Remedy" for any loss of earnings suffered by rea- son of the discrimination against them. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its garage and body shop and used car lot in St. Albans, West Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, on forms pro- vided by the Regional Director for Region 9 (Cincinnati, Ohio), after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re- ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to garage employees and body shop employ- ees and used-car lot employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable 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 9, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. 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 5 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" APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through a representative of their own choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all of these things. C & 0 MOTORS, INC. 1165 WE WILL offer to Basil E . Sanson and Jimmy L. Puck- ett immediate and full reinstatement to their former work or, if that work no longer exists , to substantially equivalent work, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, in accordance with the recommendations of the Decision by the Administrative Law Judge. WE WILL pay to Basil E. Sanson and Jimmy L. Puck- ett backpay for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of our discrimination against them , in accor- dance with the recommendation of the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge. WE WILL NOT discharge or in any other way discrimi- nate against any employee because of his union affilia- tion or activity. WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees con- cerning their union activities or sentiments. WE WILL NOT threaten to close our doors and put our employees out of jobs because of their actual or sus- pected union activities. WE WILL NOT request any employee to keep his ears open to learn about other employees' union activities and report his findings to us. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Local Lodge 598, International Associ- ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL- CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur- poses of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activity, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi- zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended. All our employees are free to become, or to refrain from becoming, members of any labor organization. Dated By C & 0 MOTORS, INC (Employer) (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 concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal Office Building, Room 2407, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686.