Dayton Town and Country Furniture Shop, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 2, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 955 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

DAYTON TOWN & COUNTRY FURN. SHOP
Dayton Town and Country Furniture Shop , Inc. and
Sales Drivers , Sales & Service Local Union 1176,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Hel-
pers of America. Case 9-CA-4245
July 2, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
955
2. Delete from the fourth paragraph of the
Notice to All Employees that part thereof which
reads "in any like or similar manner " and substitute
therefor " in any other manner ..."
i We do not adopt the Trial Examiner' s gratuitous conclusion that had
Mays testified , his testimony "undoubtedly would have been of little value"
because Mays assertedly was taken into custody by the F B.I.
r Inasmuch as Respondent 's unfair labor practices strike at the very roots
of employees' rights safeguarded by the Act, we shall issue a broad Order
herein. Dennison Manufacturing Company, 168 NLRB 1012, Barnwell Gar-
-ment Co , 163 NLRB 51
By MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On March 28, 1968, Trial Examiner Wellington
A. Gillis issued his Decision in the above -entitled
proceeding , finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir-
mative action , as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer 's Decision . The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other alleged unfair labor practices and recom-
mended dismissal of those allegations of the com-
plaint . Thereafter , the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner 's Decision together with 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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner 's Decision , the exceptions and brief,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner , as modified herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below and hereby orders that Respondent, Dayton
Town and Country Furniture Shop , Inc., Dayton,
Ohio, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order , as herein modified.
1. Delete from paragraph 1(c) of the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Recommended Order that part thereof
which reads "In any like or similar manner" and
substitute therefor " In any other manner ..."
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WELLINGTON A. GILLIS, Trial Examiner: Upon a
charge filed on April 7 , 1967, by Sales Drivers,
Sales & Service Local Union 176, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
hereinafter referred to as the Union , the General
Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board,
hereinafter referred to as the Board , issued a com-
plaint on June 19, 1967, against Dayton Town and
Country Furniture Shop , Inc., hereinafter referred
to as the Respondent or Etnployer , alleging viola-
tions of Section 5(a)(1), (3), and ( 5) and Section
2(6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended ( 61 stat. 136), hereinafter referred to
as the Act . A timely answer to the complaint was
filed on June 29 , 1967, wherein the Respondent de-
nied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
In Case 9-RC-7152, based upon a representation
petition filed by the Union on February 16, 1967,
and pursuant to an Agreement for Consent Elec-
tion , approved by the Regional Director on March
17, 1967, an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on March 31, 1967, among certain of the
Employer 's employees .' Thereafter , on April 7,
1967, the petitioning union filed timely objections
to conduct affecting the results of the election. Pur-
suant to the provisions of Section 102.69 of the
Board 's Rules and Regulations , the Regional
Director conducted an investigation of the issues
raised by the objections . Based upon the results of
his investigation , the Regional Director overruled
some of the objections and referred others for the
purpose of hearing to a Trial Examiner by his order
dated July 14, 1967, consolidating Case
' The appropriate bargaining unit described in said Agreement consisted
of "all warehousemen , truck drivers and helpers employed by the Em-
ployer at its warehouse located at 605 South Patterson Boulevard , Dayton,
Ohio, but excluding all office clerical employees , salesmen and all guards,
professional employees, and supervisors , as defined in the Act, and all
other employees ." The tally of ballots issued by the Regional Director for
Region 9 showed that the Petitioner failed to receive a majority of the votes
cast by the approximate nine eligible voters.
172 NLRB No. 103
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
9-RC-7152 with Case 9-CA-4245.2 Pursuant to
notice , a hearing on the consolidated cases was
held by me at Dayton, Ohio, at which all parties
were represented by counsel and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses , to introduce evidence pertinent to
the issues , and to make oral argument . Timely
briefs were subsequently filed by counsel for the
General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this matter , and from
my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor
on the witness stand , and upon substantial , reliable
evidence " considered along with the consistency
and inherent probability of testimony " ( Universal
Camera Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474,
496), I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Dayton Town and Country Furniture Shop, Inc.,
an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the retail sale of
furniture from its stores located in Dayton, Ohio.
During the past calendar year, the Respondent has
retailed gross sales in excess of $500,000 and had a
direct inflow of goods in excess of $50,000, which
it purchased and caused to be shipped in interstate
commerce from points directly outside the State of
Ohio to its warehouse on South Patterson Bou-
levard in Dayton, its only location involved in this
proceeding. The parties admit, and I find, that the
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Parties admit, and I find, that Sales Drivers, Sales
& Service Local 176, affiliated with the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Whether, on January 31, 1967, and at other
times during the month of February,3 the Respon-
dent, through its warehouse superintendent, Clifton
Purvis, interrogated and threatened its warehouse
' The portion of the Petitioner 's objections referred to the by Trial Ex-
aminer asserts that ( I) after the petition was filed, the Employer
discharged employees Andrew Thomas, James Louis, and Zenith Combs
because they had authorized the Petitioner to represent them in collective
bargaining with the Employer, and (2 ) on or about February 17, 1967, the
Employer by its supervisors coercively questioned its employees concern-
ing their activity on behalf of the Petitioner This alleged election conduct
is also set forth as Section 8(a)(3) and ( I) violations , respectively, in the
complaint in Case 9-CA-4245
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
2. Whether, in terminating the employment of
David Griffith, Zenith Combs, Andrew Thomas,
and James Louis, during February and March, the
Respondent did so for reasons relating to their
union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
3. Whether, in refusing to recognize and bargain
with the Union since February 16, the Respondent
did so in bad faith, thereby violating Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
4. Whether the results of the election conducted
on March 31, among Respondent's employees,
should be set aside.
B. The Facts
1. Background
In late January, warehouse employee David Grif-
fith, one of the alleged discriminatees herein, con-
tacted Robert Rodgers, secretary-treasurer of the
Union, seeking an appointment to discuss the or-
ganization of the Respondent's warehousemen and
drivers. As a result of an ensuing conversation in
the Union's office, Rodgers gave Griffith a number
of union authorization cards for signature, the
former suggesting that Griffith get cards signed by a
majority of the employees as a prelude to
requesting recognition from the Company." Very
shortly thereafter, within, 2 or 3 days, Griffith
turned over to Rodgers approximately 10 cards, all
of which had been signed by the employees on
January 3 1.
Thereafter, on February 13, or 14, Rodgers at-
tempted to call Kenneth Lebensburger, the Respon-
dent's vice president, at his office, and, when told
that Lebensburger was not available Rodgers left
his name "and who he was." On February 14,
Rodgers sent Lebensburger a letter, which was
received on February 16, apprising him of the fact
that his drivers and warehousemen had become
members of the Union and requesting a reply from
him concerning a meeting for the purpose of con-
tract negotiations.
On February 15, Rodgers filed a representation
petition with the Board, which petition was
received by the Regional office on February 16.
The Union made no further effort to contact the
Respondent, and at no time during this period did
the Respondent attempt to get in touch with the
Union.
' Unless otherwise set forth, all dates refer to the year 1967
' The authorization card, in addition to providing blank spaces to be
filled an, states that the employee signing authorizes "Local Union No 176,
of the 1 B of T C W and H, my collective-bargaining representative, to
enter into agreement with my employer for wages and working conditions
and requiring membership in the Local Union No 176 of I B of T C W
and H as a condition of employment "
DAYTON TOWN & COUNTRY FURN. SHOP
2. Alleged interrogation and threats
Based upon the credited and uncontradicted
testimony of alleged discriminatee Zenith Combs,
approximately 30 minutes after union authorization
cards had been signed in the warehouse on January
31 by some 10 warehouse and driver employees, in-
cluding Combs, Superintendent Purvis met Combs
in front of his office in the warehouse. Purvis asked
Combs whether Dave Griffith had approached him
with a union card, to which Combs replied that he
had not. Later the same day, according to the
testimony of Combs, while on the loading dock,
Purvis asked two other employees, Dewey and Hen-
derson, whether each had signed cards and, in each
case, was told that he had. Still later, on the third
floor of the warehouse, Purvis was heard to ask
another employee, Jones, whether he had signed a
card, to which Jones replied that he had not.5 Im-
mediately after querying Jones, Purvis volunteered
to Combs that "he would find out all the men that
had signed cards and he would get rid or fire
them."
According to the credited and uncontradicted
testimony of alleged discriminatee Andrew
Thomas, a few days after he signed a card on
January 31, a date which I find to have been on or
about February 3, Purvis asked him whether he had
signed a card. When Thomas replied, contrary to
the fact, that he had not, Purvis asked him if he
knew of anyone else who had signed a union card.
Thomas answered that he did not.
About a week after signing a union card, which
would place it around February 7, according to the
credited and uncontradicted testimony of alleged
discriminatee James Louis, Purvis asked Louis in
the former's office whether he had signed a union
card. When Louis acknowledged that he had, Pur-
vis informed Louis that he had talked to several fel-
lows and that he (Louis) was only the second one
who had admitted signing the card. In reply to Pur-
vis' query, Louis volunteered that a lot of the men
were scared of him, afraid of their jobs. Purvis
responded by stating, "well, a thing like this ... I
am not saying it can't happen, or it won't happen ...
but they could lose their job like this." Purvis con-
cluded by boasting that "as long as I am here, there
'While the full names of these three employees were not given in
Combs' testimony , G C Exh 3, consisting of the Respondent 's employee
payroll for the period ending February 15, 1967, lists a Jesse Henderson, a
Robert Jones , and a Dewey Merritt I find these to have been the em-
ployees involved.
' Louis, in testifying that he had several other conversations with Purvis,
elaborated by stating that "sometimes if I got in early we would probably
talk 5 or 10 minutes about it, sometime in the morning time while I was
routing my bills, if nobody was around , he and I would talk 5 or 10
minutes." When asked what , if anything , Purvis asked during these conver-
sations, Louis replied, " well, it was all the same old story, just routine con-
versation "
I Purvis' testimony was that when Ledensburger received on February
17 the Board 's notice to employees, which sets forth the rights of em-
ployees as well as prohibited conduct toward employees, Lebensburger
called him and told him that he was not allowed to say anything to the em-
ployees about the Union Even if, as he testified, he followed these instruc-
957
won't be no union come in here ... even if he had
to go into his own pocket to see that it wouldn't."
A week later, which I find to be on or about
February 14, while talking with Louis in his office,
Purvis told Louis that he could not see what the
Union could do for the employees. He told Louis
that he had a pretty fair job and was doing all right,
that no one was breathing down his neck, and that
he could not see where the Union could help him.
This conversation ended with Louis and Purvis
discussing generally the advantages and disad-
vantages of the Union."
The above factual findings relating to conversa-
tions and statements attributed to Purvis are based
upon the credited and reliable testimony of Combs,
Thomas, and Louis. As Purvis, who testified briefly,
was not questioned on these matters, they stand un-
denied.7 Thus, I find the following conduct of
Warehouse Supervisor Clifton Purvis to constitute
interference, restraint, and coercion of employees
within the meaning of Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act:"
(1) Interrogating Zenith Combs on January 31
as to whether Griffith had approached him with a
union card.
(2) Interrogating Dewey Merritt and Jesse Hen-
derson on January 31 as to whether they had signed
union cards.
(3) Interrogating Robert Jones on January 31 as
to whether he had signed a union card.
(4) Threatening Zenith Combs on January 31
that "he would find out all the men that had signed
cards and he would get rid or fire them".
(5) Interrogating Andrew Thomas on February 3
as to whether he had signed a card and whether he
knew anyone else who had signed a union card.
(6) Interrogating James Louis on February 7 as
to whether he had signed a union card.
(7) Threatening James Louis on February 7 with
the loss of jobs of employees who signed with the
Union.
(8) Threatening James Louis on February 7 that
"as long as I am here, there won't be no union
come in here."
I find that Purvis' conversation with Louis on
February 14 and any similar "just routine conversa-
tions" between Louis and Purvis during which they
both discussed the advantages and disadvantages of
tions and those posted on the notice, the fact remains that all of these con-
versations and statements preceded the Company's receipt of the notice
and therefore Purvis' testimony in this regard could not constitute a denial.
Section 8 (a)( I) provides
It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-
(I) to interfere with , restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in section 7,
Section 7 provides
Employees shall have the right to self-organization , to form, join, or
assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion , and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such ac-
tivities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3)
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union do not constitute unlawful conduct but
rather are protected under Section 8(c) of the Act.9
3. Alleged discriminatory layoffs
a. David Griffith
David Griffith went to work for the Company in
late October 1966 as a handler in the warehouse,
and continued to work as such until his layoff on
February 11, 1967. Griffith was the leading union
adherent among the Respondent 's employees and
initiated the movement toward organizing the
Respondent 's warehouse . Thus , after ascertaining a
favorable reaction among the employees toward a
union , Griffith , in late January , contacted Rodgers
of the Union and obtained a number of union
authorization cards . On January 31, Griffith signed
one himself, and then proceeded to secure signa-
tures on nine others from warehouse and driver em-
ployees . All cards were signed at the warehouse in
Griffith 's presence and immediately returned to
him. Griffith , in turn, took all 10 cards to Rodgers
either that day or the following.
A week and a half later , on Friday , February 10,
Purvis approached Griffith on the warehouse floor
and told him that because of a shortage of work he
was going to have to let him go . Griffith accepted
the layoff, apparently without question , but later
asked Purvis if he could work I additional week.
Receiving a negative reply , Griffith reported the
following morning , Saturday , when he worked 4
hours , but, upon reiterating his request of Leben-
sburger, was told that work was very slow and that
this would have to be his last day.
b. Andrew Thomas
Andrew Thomas was hired by the Respondent on
November 15, 1966 , as a truckdriver out of the
Respondent 's warehouse . Thomas was among those
signing union cards on January 31. On Saturday,
March 4, Purvis told Thomas that he had some bad
news for him, that he was going to have to lay him
off. When Thomas asked for an explanation , Purvis
told him that business was dropping, that he was
going to have to lay others off. Thomas then asked
how could business be dropping when he and James
Louis were working from 8 a.m. until 9 or 10 o'-
clock in the evening . Purvis replied that he could
not explain that , that "I just got to lay you off.
That's it."
c. Zenith Combs
Zenith Combs was first hired by the Respondent
in February 1964, and worked as a handler in the
warehouse . Combs signed a union card the same
time as the other employees . On Friday , March 10,
around 3 p.m., Purvis called Combs into his office
and told him that work was getting slow, that he
was going to have to lay off some men. Purvis then
asked him which one of three particular employees
he felt "would be best to be laid off." Combs
replied that he did not know, that they were
truckdrivers and helpers , and therefore he had not
worked with them . About 5 p.m., the same day, as
he was leaving, Combs was approached by Purvis
and told that "he was sorry but he 'd have to let me
go and that was all there was ." The following morn-
ing, Combs returned to the warehouse and inquired
of Purvis as to wages he had coming . Upon being
told to pick it up on Friday, Combs asked Purvis
why he had called him in and asked him his opinion
of whom to lay off, and then turned around 2 hours
later and laid him off. Purvis replied that "he got
orders later on in the day, and that he was a com-
pany man and that 's all he could say." A short
while later, around 10:30 a .m., Combs talked with
Lebensburger and Sidney Weiner , Respondent's
president , on the second floor of the warehouse,
during which conversation Lebensburger asked
Combs what seemed to be the trouble. Combs
asked for a reason why he was laid off. When
Lebensburger replied that it was lack of work,
Combs charged that such was not the reason, that it
was because of the Union , an accusation denied by
Lebensburger.
d. James Louis
James Louis was hired by the Respondent in
February 1965, and worked as a truckdriver until
his termination on Monday , March 13, 1967. Louis,
too, signed a union card on January 31. On March
13, upon arriving at work , Purvis told him that he
did not like to do it, but that he was going to have
to let him go that morning. When Louis inquired as
to the reason , Purvis said that he heard a rumor
that Louis was planning to rob the warehouse. In
reply to Louis ' denial and further inquiry, Purvis
told him that , according to the rumor , it was to
have happened on Wednesday , then on Thursday,
and then on Friday . When pressed further, Purvis
told Louis that he could not trust him , that he had
heard the rumor and could not take a chance with
him. During the conversation Purvis told Louis that
he knew that it would be hard to get someone to
stay out there and work like he did, but that it was
completely out of his hands and that there was
nothing else he could do about it . Louis told Purvis
that he did not believe his story , and accused Purvis
of wanting to get him "because we were getting a
union ." Purvis replied that he did not want to
discuss the Union "because it would only create a
problem or trouble with him."
Respondent 's Defense to the Layoffs
The Respondent asserts that Griffith , Thomas,
Combs, and Louis were all permanently laid off for
economic reasons pursuant to a company decision
The above findings support the complaint allegations 5(a) and ( b)(i),
(ii), and (iii) There is no credible evidence to support paragraph 5(c) of
the complaint , and I shall recommend that it be dismissed
DAYTON TOWN & COUNTRY FURN . SHOP 959
made in October to start curtailing operations due
to an anticipated decline in business . In support of
this position, Weiner and Lebensburger testified
that in December 1965, when business was promis-
ing, they decided to expand their operations by
opening a third store and warehouse in Lima, Ohio,
some 75 miles from Dayton. In April 1966, a
merchandising manager was hired for the Lima
store, which opened in August 1966. A storage
warehouse was also leased in August to serve as ad-
ditional storage space for the two Dayton stores as
well as the Lima store. Based upon a continued ex-
pected increase in its volume of business, the
Respondent added to its employee complement in
the stores , the warehouses , and the service depart-
ment . Then , in October , for reasons hereinafter
commented upon, Weiner and Lebensburger asser-
tedly got together and decided to start on an econo-
my program, cutting back operationally wherever
possible. Thus, they commenced by immediately
eliminating the reupholstering department , letting
go a seamstress and an upholster , and replacing a
service or credit manager with one requiring a
much lower salary. Then, contrary to normal prac-
tice, at the annual October furniture market in
North Carolina, fearful of a "soft" market and
because of a large inventory on hand, Lebensburger
returned without committing himself to any new
merchandise . In early November , during the height
of the selling season , partly due to a newspaper
strike precluding normal advertising , the Respon-
dent 's written sales dropped 40 percent below that
anticipated .1° Then, after an increased business at
Christmas , and because the Respondent "still had
more merchandise than we could possibly ... get
rid of," only three representatives were sent to the
semiannual furniture show in Chicago , and no com-
mitments for the purchase of furniture were
made." The January White Elephant sale, which
resulted in reducing the high inventory to a normal
working inventory, was accompained by additional
economies in the Respondent's operation during
the month . It having been determined earlier that it
was no longer feasible to service the Lima store by
running a truck back and forth every Monday
between the Dayton warehouse and Lima, the lease
to the South Main Street warehouse was canceled
and the Respondent moved out on February 1. At
some point thereafter, the Respondent turned back
one of its leased trucks , leaving it with one leased
truck and one truck of its own. At one point of time
or another, in addition to the two service em-
ployees referred to above, the Respondent severed
from its employ four office personnel, three
salespeople, and the merchandise manager hired
the previous April.
In addition to these economies , and crucial to the
issue here , the Respondent , assertedly having
reduced its inventory and no longer stocking
merchandise in Dayton for the Lima store,
proceeded in February and March to do away with
six unit employees , four warehouse handlers, and
two warehouse truckdrivers.12
Specifically, with respect to the alleged dis-
criminatees , Lebensburger , who alone was respon-
sible for all decisions to lay off, testified that with
respect to Griffith, who was discharged on Februa-
ry 11, his decision was made after he discussed the
matter with Warehouse Superintendent Purvis. Ac-
cording to Lebensburger, Griffith had been hired
during the peak period in October when the inven-
tory was high and they were operating extra
warehouses. Thus, when in February the inventory
got down necessitating a layoff, because Griffith
was "a rather high-priced man," economy dictated
that he be one of those laid off.13
With respect to Thomas' layoff on March 4,
Lebensburger testified that he discussed the matter
of eliminating a truckdriver -helper with Purvis and
that he decided on Thomas "only because we based
this on economics and what we felt were the best
men for the jobs ." In considering economy, effi-
ciency, and, to a lesser degree , tenure with the
Company, factors assertedly used in all cases,
Lebensburger testified that with respect to Thomas,
who had been there only a few months , "we felt
that we could do better by having others, rather
than eliminating someone else we could do the
Company more good by eliminating him."
Lebensburger 's sole reason advanced for select-
ing Combs for layoff on March 10 was economy,
the fact that Combs was, next to Purvis, the highest
paid employee in the warehouse. to
As to Louis, laid off on March 13, Lebensburger
testified that , because of the cutback , it was de-
cided to eliminate a truckdriver, and that the deci-
sion to lay off Louis was based upon three factors.
First, at some point during the summer of 1966,
Lebensburger had received an anonymous
telephone call telling him that Louis was selling fur-
niture off the back of his truck. The following day
Lebensburger confronted Louis with the matter.
10 Written sales differ from delivered sales in that the former reflects an
order for merchandise to be delivered in the future , while the latter reflects
merchandise actually delivered
" Normally at this show , buyers are permitted to spend a specified
amount of money on merchandise to be delivered during February, March,
April . and May.
"The Respondent also laid off a handler in January , and another was
removed by the FBI in April Thus, during the October -June period, some
17 or 18 employees throughout the Respondent 's operation were per-
manently laid off with none having been replaced.
" In reply to counsel 's question of why Griffith was selected over
someone else , Lebensburger testified that "well, we were trying to do it on
what we felt two bases, one, the economics , the other was the most efficient
person for the dollar spent , and we felt that we could-we knew that we
had to eliminate some and he was a rather high-priced man and we felt that
we could eliminate that expense and eliminate the job "
" According to Lebensburger , this decision was difficult because Combs
had been with the Company for a number of years, he knew the operation,
the handling of goods, the delivery and, in effect , was an assistant
warehouse manager who took over Purvis' functions in the latter's absence,
the only employee considered by Lebensburger as capable of doing so
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When Louis denied the accusation, because Louis
had been with the Company quite awhile with a
clean record, Lebensburger told Louis that he be-
lieved him and the matter was dropped. A second
"background" factor assertedly adverted to by
Lebensburger in laying off Louis involved the
problem concerning several instances where Louis
failed to turn in C.O.D. moneys collected from
customers upon delivery of merchandise. In each
case the customer notified the Company upon
further billing and in each case, when asked about
it, Louis admitted the impropriety and promised to
repay the amount involved. Thus, the Company set
up a special account card for Louis permitting him
to pay back the money. In this regard, the ledger
card reflects that the first two such instances oc-
curred on November 16 and 17, 1966, involving
separate customers and amounts of $98.91 and
$74.06. On November 21, Louis paid back $10, but
on January 31, 1967, he again was charged with
$31, when he failed to turn in a C.O.D. Sub-
sequently, on February 28, $40 was deducted from
his wages , reducing the balance to $153.97.15
Finally, early in the week of March 11, Leben-
sburger and Purvis were informed by Lloyd Mays, a
warehouse employee, of a plan to hijack the
warehouse involving Louis, as well as himself.'s
Lebensburger notified the police of the matter, but
before the day it was to take place, Mays told
Lebensburger that it was canceled. Mays then in-
formed Lebensburger that the hijack plan was on
again , and a police stakeout was made, but again
was called off when Lebensburger was notified that
the plan was postponed. It was then that Leben-
sburger assertedly decided to select Louis as the
driver to be laid off.
Analysis and Conclusions
First, apart from the selection of the layoffs in
February and March, notwithstanding the fact that
there appears to have been some curtailment of the
Respondent's operations during the period in-
volved, certain facts in the record challenge the
motivation for such an economy move as well as
the extent to which it was actually effectuated by
the Respondent. Thus, while there may well have
been a decision by the Respondent at some point to
cut back some operations, a question exists as to
when this might have come about. Weiner and
Lebensburger, the only top management officials
involved in this proceeding, testified that in Oc-
tober, long before the advent of the Union, they
made such a decision, including the decision to
reduce the employee complement. Weiner, how-
ever, testified that the decision was compelled by
the fact that written sales were down, whereas,
Lebensburger testified that outside adverse
economic factors generally indicated that a future
decrease in sales could be expected. The record
reflects that shortly after this asserted decision to
engage in an economy program, the Respondent
hired two new warehouse employees, Griffith in
late October, at a high wage, and Thomas in
November," and increased the wages of a third,
Combs, in January.
Indeed, with the exception of one warehouse em-
ployee laid off in January, the first indication of an
intent to curtail operations in the warehouse did
not come about until shortly after the union or-
ganizing effort of Griffith on January 31. At no
time during the crucial period were the warehouse
employees, or any employees for that matter, ap-
prised by the Respondent of its intent to effectuate
a general and necessary curtailment of operations,
and, in each case involving a warehouse layoff, the
employee affected was discharged on the spot, in
the middle of a weekly payroll period, and with no
advanced notice. Furthermore, at the time of the
warehouse layoffs, notwithstanding testimony by
the Respondent's officials that inventory had been
reduced during the January sale, and that no
purchases or orders for merchandise had been
made at the furniture shows, the company invento-
ry records show fairly sizable increases in inventory
for the months of March and April. Pertinent to
this inconsistency is the credible and uncon-
tradicted testimony of truckdriver Thomas to the
effect that at the time of his March 4 layoff, he,
along with driver Louis, was working overtime,
sometimes to 9 and 10 p.m. Bearing still further on
the point, the Respondent's own records reveal that
every week during the month of March outside in-
dependent trucking service was contracted for and
performed services for the Respondent.
Assuming, arguendo, however, the existence of
justification for the Respondent engaging in some
layoff activity in the warehouse, the Respondent's
motivation in deciding the number and the em-
ployee is open to serious question. Thus, between
January 31 when the organizational drive com-
menced and March 31 when the election was held,
the Respondent laid off six warehouse employees,
of which number all but one, a part-time employee,
had signed union authorization cards.18 A perusal of
" The ledger shows that after his layoff, the full balance was taken from
vacation pay Louis had coming to him It further shows that on March 28,
some 15 days after his discharge , another C O D incident came to the
Respondent 's attention from a customer, one Betty Browning , involving
$33 12, which balance was still unpaid In this regard , however , it must be
noted that this last impropriety occurred after his discharge and, therefore,
could not have been relied upon by Lebensburger , and further, as to the
remaining balance, that there is no showing that Louis was asked to make
this good or even confronted with the Browning C 0 D
" According to Purvis' testimony , Mays was supposed to be the " inside
man " He was to remain after work, unlock the door after Purvis left and
lock up again after the merchandise was removed by the two of them
" Neither Griffith nor Thomas was told that he was being hired as a tem-
porary employee, nor is there credible evidence that such was the case
'" The fifth card signor , Jesse Henderson, laid off on February 25, was
not named in the complaint as an 8(a)(3) Virgil Gross worked part time
for the Respondent as a handler and order-gatherer in the warehouse, and
worked full time for another employer He was released in late February or
early March
DAYTON TOWN & COUNTRY FURN . SHOP 961
the facts concerning Warehouse Supervisor Purvis'
conduct at the very outset provides, in my opinion,
both company knowledge and a key to employer
motivation for the layoff of the alleged discrim-
inatees. 19 Thus, within 30 minutes from the
moment that Griffith solicited and received the
signatures of warehouse employees on union
authorization cards, which activity took place in the
warehouse, Purvis commenced his unlawful inter-
rogation of various employees concerning their
union sympathies. Apart from certain direct
evidence that Purvis became aware of who was for
the Union'20 other evidence exists upon which such
an inference is warranted. First, the warehouse is
small with but 15 (later 9) employees employed by
the Respondent. This, coupled with the fact that
Purvis appears to have had at least one friend
among those who were not union advocates,21 sup-
ports such an inference. Further, with the amount
of interrogation among the employees engaged in
by Purvis, and the intense antiunion sentiments
openly expressed by him, including his threat to
Purvis "that he would find out all the men that had
signed cards and that he would get rid or fire
them," and his threat to Louis that "as long as I am
here, there won't be no union come in here," it is
inconceivable that Purvis did not become
completely aware of where each employee, includ-
ing Thomas and Combs, stood on the union
question. The threats uttered by Purvis, together
with the fact that thereafter all of the five full-time
employee layoffs were union members, warrant the
inference that union considerations certainly played
a motivating part in the decision to select for layoff
Griffith, Combs, Thomas, as well as Louis, and I so
find.22
With respect to Louis, I am of the opinion that
the Respondent's asserted reasons for selecting him
for layoff are but pretexts. The rumor of miscon-
duct in 1966 pertaining to selling furniture off the
back of his truck had long since been dismissed,
and the failure of Louis to turn in C.O.D. collec-
tions had been condoned by the Respondent, even
to the extent of providing him with an opportunity
to make payment to the Company on a time basis.
As to the third asserted precipitating factor, the
hijack rumor that never materalized, there is no
corroborating evidence, either by the police or by
Lloyd Mays, to support the testimony of Leben-
sburger and Purvis.23 There is no evidence that
Mays was disciplined for his alleged part in the
plan. Finally. the improbability of the whole in-
cident is emphasized by the fact that Louis, at no
time prior to his layoff, was confronted with the
rumor or even given an opportunity to deny it.
Based upon the record as a whole , I am of the
opinion , and so find , that in selecting David Grif-
fith , Andrew Thomas , Zenith Combs , and James
Louis for layoff on February 11, and March 4,
March 10 , and March 13, 1967, respectively, the
Respondent did so because of their union activity,
thereby violating Section 8 ( a)(3) and ( I) of the
Act.
4. The alleged refusal to bargain
a. The appropriate unit
The parties agree, and I find, that all
warehousemen, truckdrivers, and helpers employed
by the Respondent at its warehouse located at 605
South Patterson Boulevard, Dayton, Ohio, but ex-
cluding all office clerical employees, salesmen, and
all guards, professional employees, and supervisors,
as defined in the Act, and all other employees con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
b. The Union's majority
As heretofore noted, on January 31, 10 of 15
warehouse and driver employees then in the
Respondent's employ signed cards authorizing the
Union to represent them as their bargaining agent.
All 10 of these cards were turned over to the union
representative a day or two later. Although Griffith
was terminated, unlawfully so, on February 11, the
Union still possessed authorization cards from 9 of
the 14 unit employees employed on February 16,
the date the Respondent received the Union's letter
requesting recognition and bargaining. Ac-
cordingly, I find that the Union represented a clear
majority of the Respondent's employees in the unit
above found appropriate commencing January 31
and continuing through February 16, and, there-
fore, that the Union was the majority representative
on the date of its bargaining demand upon the
Respondent.
c. Conclusion
It has long been established that an employer
commits a Section 8(a)(5) violation when it insists
" While Lebensburger alone made the decision as to who was to be laid
off, he did so only after discussing each case with Purvis , who, in turn, car-
ried out Lebensburger 's directives
10 Such evidence as it pertains to the alleged discriminatees herein, in-
cludes Purvis' question of Combs, as to whether Griffith approached him
with a union card, and Louis ' admission to Purvis that he was a union ad-
herent
21 In this regard, on March 9, Combs overheard a conversation in Purvis'
office during which Jessie Leigh , a warehouse employee who had not
signed with the Union, said that he understood that if the Union won the
election the employees who did not vote for the Union would be fired Pur-
vis replied by telling Leigh to sit tight , to let him handle it This occurred
the day before Comhs was laid off and 4 days before Louis was terminated
22 1 discredit the testimony of Lebensburger and Purvis to the extent that
they denied having knowledge of union activity of any of the dis-
criminatees, or that such activity was involved in the decision to lay off
'As Mays was subsequently removed from the Respondents premises
by the FBI, his testimony undoubtedly would have been of little value in
any event
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 1 - 62
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
upon a Board election as proof of a Union's majori-
ty claim where its insistence is based upon a rejec-
tion of the principle of collective bargaining or by a
desire to gain time within which to undermine the
union. Whether an employer who insists upon an
election to determine the union's majority status is
motivated by a good-faith doubt as to that majority
or by an intention to destroy such majority can be
determined only by looking at all of the facts relat-
ing to the case, including any other unlawful con-
duct by the employer."'
In finding here that the Respondent did not pos-
sess a good-faith doubt as to the Union's majority,
but rather, in refusing to recognize the Union
without an election, was motivated by a desire to
gain time in which to dissipate the Union's majori-
ty, I rely in part upon the fact that: (1) at no time
did the Respondent in any way attempt to reply to
the Union's letter of February 14, requesting bar-
gaining; (2) the Respondent, at the time it received
the Union's request, was completely aware of union
activity among its warehouse employees and had al-
ready unlawfully discharged the principal union ad-
herent; and (3) thereafter, between the date of the
Union's demand and the holding of the election,
the Respondent terminated the employment of
three other union members.
I find no merit to the position asserted by the
Respondent with respect to the Section 8(a)(5) al-
legation. In this regard, the Respondent contends
that it never refused to bargain, that, before it had
an opportunity to respond to the Union's demand,
the petition had already been filed. As it is well
established that the filing of a representation peti-
tion does not, in itself, suspend an employer's
obligation to bargain, absent evidence of a good-
faith doubt, this argument must fail. See Galloway
Manufacturing Corporation, 136 NLRB 405, and C.
J. Glasgow Co., 148 NLRB 98. Further, in asserting
that it had good reason to doubt the Union's
majority the Respondent relies upon the fact that
the Union failed to offer proof of its majority status.
In view of the Respondent's failure to communicate
in any way with the Union, including making a
request that the Union prove its majority by cards,
coupled with the unlawful conduct before and after
the Union's bargaining request, I find such a posi-
tion to be completely untenable.25 Accordingly, on
the record as a whole, I find that the Respondent's
refusal to recognize the Union was unlawfully
motivated and that such refusal was violative of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION
As heretofore set forth, the petitioning union
filed timely objections to conduct affecting the
P1 Joy Silk Mills, Inc, 85 NLRB 1263, entd 185 F 2d 732 (C A D C ),
cert denied 341 U S 914 See also Irving Air Chute Company, Inc , 149
NLRB 627
" See Harrisburg Building Units Co , Inc , 116 NLRB 334 at 348
election, two of which the Regional Director
referred for hearing Thus, referred to the Trial Ex-
aminer were objections asserting that (1) after the
petition was filed, the Employer discharged
Thomas, Louis, and Combs because they had
authorized the Union to represent them in collec-
tive bargaining; and (2) that on or about February
17, 1967, the Employer, through its supervisors,
coercively questioned its employees concerning
their activity on behalf of the petitioner.
Having found that the Employer, through its su-
pervisors, at no time after February 7, 1967, which
date precedes the filing of the petition herein, en-
gaged in the unlawful questioning of its employees,
I shall recommend that objection (2), above, be
dismissed.26 Having found, however, that the Em-
ployer unlawfully discharged Thomas, Louis, and
Combs in early March, between the filing of the
petition and the holding of the election, conduct
which a fortiori interferes with the exercise of a free
and untrammelled choice in an election, I find
merit to objection (I), and, accordingly, shall
recommend that the representation election hereto-
fore held on March 31, 1967, in 9-RC-7152 be set
aside.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above , occurring in connection with the
Respondent 's operations described in section I,
above, have a close , intimate , and substantial rela-
tionship to trade , traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has en-
gaged in certain unfair labor practices , it is recom-
mended that it cease and desist therefrom and that
it take certain affirmative action which is necessary
to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been
found that the Respondent engaged in acts of inter-
ference , coercion, and restraint , thereby violating
Section 8 ( a)( I) of the Act, it is recommended that
the Respondent cease and desist therefrom.
It having been found that the Respondent dis-
criminatorily discharged David Griffith, on Febru-
ary 11, 1967, Andrew Thomas on March 4, 1967,
Zenith Combs on March 10, 1967, and James Louis
on March 13 , 1967, thereby violating Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, it is recommended that
the Respondent offer the above-named individuals
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
' It is well established law that the Board will not consider objections
which are based upon conduct occurring prior to the date of the filing of
the petition Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453
DAYTON TOWN & COUNTRY FURN. SHOP
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their rights or privileges to which they are enti-
tled, and to make them whole for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them, by making payment to
them of a sum of money equal to the amount they
would have earned from the date of the discrimina-
tion to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less
net earnings during said periods to be computed on
a quarterly basis in the manner established by the
Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
and shall include the payment of interest at the rate
of 6 percent to be computed in the manner set
forth by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.27 In this regard, it is further recom-
mended that the Respondent preserve and, upon
request, make available to the Board or its agents
for examination or copying all payroll records and
reports, timecards, and all other records necessary
to compute the amount of backpay.
It having been found that the Respondent refused
to bargain in good faith with the Union and en-
gaged in unfair labor practices designed to destroy
the Union's majority, thereby violating Section
8(a)(5) of the Act, it is recommended that the
Respondent bargain upon request with the Union,
embodying in a signed agreement any understand-
ing reached.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the fol-
lowing:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Dayton Town and Country Furniture Shop,
Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Sales Drivers, Sales & Service Local Union
176, affiliated with the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Hel-
pers of America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of David Griffith, Andrew
Thomas, Zenith Combs, and James Louis, thereby
discouraging membership in, and activity on behalf
of, the above-named labor organization, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. All warehousemen, truckdrivers, and helpers
employed by the Respondent at its warehouse
located at 605 South Patterson Boulevard, Dayton,
Ohio, but excluding office clerical employees,
963
salesmen , and all guards, professional employees,
and supervisors, as defined in the Act, and all other
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
6. At all times material since January 31, 1967,
the Union has been the exclusive representative of
all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit
for the purpose of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, or other terms or conditions of employment.
7. By refusing on February 16, 1967, and
thereafter, to bargain collectively with the Union,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record
in this case, it is recommended that Dayton Town
and Country Furniture Shop, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their
union activities and threatening its employees with
discharge for engaging in union activities.
(b) Discouraging membership in Sales Drivers,
Sales & Service Local Union 176, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or
in any labor organization, by discharging or refus-
ing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any like
manner discriminating in regard to hire and tenure
of employment, or any term or condition of em-
ployment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any like or similar manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Sales Drivers,
Sales & Service Local Union 176, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining and other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or 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 in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
(d) Refusing to bargain collectively with Sales
27 See Reserve Supply Corporaleon of L I , Inc v N L R B , 317 F 2d 785
(C A 2)
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Drivers, Sales & Service Local Union 176, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees in the following appropriate unit:
All warehousemen, truckdrivers, and helpers
employed by the Employer at its warehouse
located at 605 South Patterson Boulevard,
Dayton, Ohio, but excluding all office clerical
employees, salesmen and all guards , profes-
sional employees, and supervisors, as defined
in the Act, and all other employees.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer David Griffith, Zenith Combs, Andrew
Thomas, and James Louis immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to any rights
and privileges to which they are entitled, and make
them whole in the manner and according to the
methods set forth above in the section entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of their right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(c) Upon request, bargain collectively with Sales
Drivers, Sales & Service Local Union 176, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the Respondent's employees in the unit found ap-
propriate with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and embody in a signed agreement
any understanding reached.
(d) Post at conspicuous places at its Dayton,
Ohio, warehouse copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."28 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
9, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.29
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that paragraph 5(c)
of the complaint be dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's
Objection (2) be dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 9-RC-7152 be
severed and referred to the Regional Director for
Region 9 with the recommendation that the elec-
tion heretofore held in this proceeding be set aside.
2" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
2" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read " Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees
concerning their union activities or threaten
them with discharge for engaging in union ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
Sales Drivers, Sales & Service Local Union
176, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in
any labor organization, by discharging or refus-
ing to reinstate any of our employees, or in any
like manner discriminate in regard to hire and
tenure of employment, or any term or condi-
tion of employment in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with Sales Drivers, Sales & Service Local
Union 176, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of our em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All warehousemen, truckdrivers, and hel-
pers employed by us at our warehouse at
605 South Patterson Boulevard, Dayton,
Ohio, but excluding all office clerical em-
ployees, salesmen and all guards , profes-
sional employees, and supervisors, as
defined in the Act, and all other em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-or-
ganization , to form labor organizations, to join
or assist Sales Drivers, Sales & Service Local
Union 176, affiliated with the International
DAYTON TOWN & COUNTRY FURN. SHOP
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection, or to refrain
from any and all such activities, except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor or-
ganization as a condition of employment.
WE HAVE offered David Griffith, Zenith
Combs, Andrew Thomas, and James Louis im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any rights and privileges to which
they were entitled and they have declined to
accept said reinstatement offer. WE WILL make
them whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of our discrimination
against them prior to the dates on which they
were offered reinstatement.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with Sales Drivers, Sales & Service Local
Union 176, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of our em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other terms and conditions of
965
employment , and will embody in a signed
agreement any understanding reached.
All our employees are free to become or remain,
or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of
Sales Drivers , Sales & Service Local Union 176, af-
filiated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Hel-
pers of America , or of any other labor organization,
except to the extent that this right may be affected
by an agreement in conformity with Section
8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
DAYTON TOWN AND
COUNTRY FURNITURE
SHOP, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be communicated
directly to the Board's Office, 2407 Federal Of-
fice Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio
45202, Telephone 684-3683.