Dollar General Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 27, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 601 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION Dollar General Corporation and Marvin Billingsley. Case 9-CA-7168 June 27, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On March 14, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Eu- gene F. Frey issued the attached Decision in this pro- ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the 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. 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 the Respondent, Dollar General Corpora- tion, Scottsville, Kentucky, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE EUGENE F. FREY , Administrative Law Judge : This case was tried before me , on due notice , on November 14, 1972, at Scottsville Kentucky , with General Counsel and Respon- dent, Dollar General Corporation , appearing by counsel, and Marvin Billingsley appearing in person, after pretrial proceedings in compliance with the National Labor Rela- tions Act , as amended , 29 U.S .C. Sec 151 , et seq. (herein called the Act). The issue in the case is whether Respondent discharged three employees for cause , or thereby discrimi- nated against them in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act because they engaged in activities on behalf of District No. 53, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO, or General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89 , affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein called the Unions).' 601 At the close of the testimony all parties waived oral argu- ment , but General Counsel and Respondent filed written briefs on December 11, 1972, which have been carefully considered in the preparation of this Decision. A motion of Respondent at close of the testimony for dismissal of the complaint on the merits is now denied on the basis of the findings and conclusions set forth herein. This decision was signed and released by me on March 7, 1973, for distribu- tion to the parties in the usual course. Upon the entire record in the case, observation of the witnesses and their demeanor on the stand, and consider- ation of the arguments of counsel, I make the following: FINDING OF FACT I RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS AND THE UNIONS INVOLVED Respondent is a Kentucky corporation engaged in the warehousing and distribution of merchandise through a plant and store in Scottsville, Kentucky, the only facility involved in this case. In the calendar year 1971 Respondent had a direct outflow of goods and products from the Scotts- ville facility valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent ad- mits, and I find, that it is and has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act .2 Each of the Unions named above is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Discharges and Background Events In 1969 in Case 9-CA-5247, a Trial Examiner of the Board found that an office employee of Respondent had been unlawfully discharged by President Cal Turner, Sr. Because she had talked critically about Respondent's wage rates in presence of a union agent .' The decision of the Trial Examiner became the decision of the Board by order of- March 3 , 1970, for lack of exceptions to the decision of the Trial Examiner. In a Decision and Order issued March 25, 1971, the Board found that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by interrogation of, and threats to, em- ployees , and surveillance of a drivers ' organizing meeting on November 30, 1969 , at a tabernacle on the outskirts of Scottsville by Wayne Dugas, a supervisor of Respondent, and discharge of 5 employees (Mitchell Lewis , Plymouth Eaton , Tommie Jones, Billy Landrum , and Billy Word), who had been active organizers for the Machinists Union herein in its organizing drive of 1969 . These 5 as well as drivers Marvin Billingsley , Shelby Lawson , and Kenneth C. Isenberg were openly present at the November 30 taberna- I The issues arise on a complaint issued August 31, 1972, by the Board's Regional Director for Region 9, after Board investigation of a charge filed by Billingsley on July 12, 1972, and answer of Respondent admitting Jurisdic- tion but denying the commission of any unfair labor practice 2 The Board has previously taken jurisdiction of Respondent's Scottsville operation in two cases noted below Respondent admits that its President Cal Turner , Sr, Vice-President Cal Turner, Jr, Personnel Director Tim W Turner, and dispatcher Ray Garrison are agents of Respondent and supervisors within the meaning of the Act 204 NLRB No. 106 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cle meeting observed by Dugas. The Board Order aforesaid was enforced by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 1, 1972, thus in pertinent part requir- ing Respondent to offer immediate reinstatement to the 5 employees named above. Respondent received notice of the Courts's decision in due course shortly after June 1, 1972.4 In November 1971, driver Otis J. Hurt, Jr., initiated an- other drive for membership in the Teamsters Union by securing the usual authorization cards and soliciting other employees to sign them, at their homes, in public restaurants in and near Scottsville, and also on company property. He secured signed cards from 14-15 out of about 20 drivers. He signed a card November 13, 1971. Billingsley and Isenberg signed cards for him at their respective homes in the same month. On December 20, 1971, Hurt, Billingsley, Isenberg, and Shelby Lawson were temporarily laid off by then warehouse supervisor Jimmie Polston for lack of work. When they asked why they had been chosen for layoff, he answered that names of all drivers had been put in a hat, and theirs were drawn. Hurt was recalled to work February 14, 1972, Billingsley was recalled February 24, 1972, and Lawson and Isenberg on January 20, 1972. After recall, Hurt, Billingsley, and Isenberg continued actively to urge drivers to join the Teamsters Union, in talks in the plant and at restaurants usually patronized by Respondent's employees. There is no proof that Lawson did the same; he quit Respondent's em- ploy May 24, 1972. After Respondent received official notice in June 1972, of the Court decision requiring reinstatement of Lewis, Eaton, Jones, Landrum, and Word, it took steps to reinstate Word, Lewis, and Eaton,5 and they were put back to work as drivers on July 3, 1972. Prior to that, Respondent had con- sulted counsel about its right to release other drivers to create the necessary vacancies for the three discriminatees, as it claimed it did not have trucks enough for use of its present driver force plus those three. Counsel advised Exec- utive Vice-President Cal Turner, Jr., that Respondent could legally discharge its three least desirable drivers to make room for the three discriminatees. Turner then discussed the selection of drivers with Polston and Personnel Director Tim W. Turner, because he felt that all present drivers were generally satisfactory employees; the only factor differenti- ating employees was the layoff of Billingsley, Hurt, and Isenberg in December 1971, and their alleged "negative attitude" in their work after recall. Turner says Polston chose these three for discharge, telling Turner he "drew their names out of a hat." However, Turner, Jr., and Tim W. Turner testified that Turner, Jr., accepted this choice and discharged them because of their negative attitude." On July 7, 1972, Tim W. Turner called Hurt and Isenberg to his office, gave each a discharge letter, telling them to read it, and saying that the letter explained itself, and that "we will take it from there." The letters were identical in terms except name of the addressee, and read as follows: The above facts are found from the Board proceedings, culminating in its Decision and Order reported in 189 NLRB 301, of which I take judicial notice , stipulated facts, and credited testimony of Billingsley and Isenberg 5 Jones and Landrum refused the offer of reinstatement This week the National Labor Relations Board's order that Pete Lewis, Plymouth Eaton and Billy Word be reinstated to their former positions in our company has been enforced (Billy Landrum has elected not to be reinstated and Tommy Jones is being reinstated to his former warehouse job.) Because of this action by the Labor Board, the company is now terminating your job. The ruling that three drivers be reinstated leaves us with no alternative but to terminate three other drivers. You will be given one week severance pay and are further offered any assistance we can give in finding employment. Yours very truly, Dollar General Corporation Tim W. Turner Personnel Director The letters to Hurt and Billingsley also contained identical postscripts, saying: P.S. Please come by my office Saturday, July 8, at 9:00 and we will take care of your severance pay and other business concerning your dismissal. We will also offer any assistance possible to you. If this time is not con- venient for you, please contact me by phone. TWT Turner also told each that he would help them to get other jobs by showing their employment files to other employers who asked for information about them. When both men asked why they were chosen for discharge, Turner replied that it was a decision of Respondent, reached after discuss- ing it with counsel and receiving advice that the discharges of them were legal. Turner added that their work was satis- factory, but Respondent was compelled to discharge them to make room for the three drivers it had to reinstate. Billingsley came in from vacation leave that afternoon to see Turner, at the request of the truck dispatcher. The same conversation occurred as between Turner and the other two. None of the three discharged drivers have been recalled or offered reinstatement; Turner's offer to help them by recommendations for other employment makes it clear that Respondent was not interested in recalling them. B. The Contentions of the Parties, and Final Conclusions General Counsel contends that Respondent's prior unfair labor practices show it has long displayed a union animus and a desire to get rid of employees who engage in union or concerted activities , and that it implemented that attitude in 1972 by using Board and Court orders for reinstatement of three drivers as the pretext to get rid of three more known union adherents. His contention rests on two theories: (1) Respondent 's economic situation in June 1972, and later, DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION did not in fact require discharge of three drivers to make vacancies for those to be reinstated, because the record shows a turnover of drivers about this time and expansion of the driver force thereafter; and (2) even if the economic situation warranted release of three drivers to make room for those reinstated, Respondent chose Billingsley, Hurt, and Isenberg, all workers with long and satisfactory service, only because of their known past and recent union activi- ties. Respondent, of course, argues the converse of these propositions. As two of the three discharged drivers had openly attend- ed a meeting of drivers on November 30, 1969, which was under illegal surveillance by Respondent's supervisor, and Respondent thereafter illegally discharged five other drivers who attended that meeting, as found by the Board in the prior case, I must infer that Respondent was well aware of the presence of Billingsley and Isenberg at the meeting. As these two and Hurt actively and without apparent attempts at secrecy solicited for the Teamsters Local after their layoff of December 1971, in a new organizing campaign initiated by Hurt in November 1971, I am convinced and find that Respondent was aware of their continued activity .6 Respondent's past illegal conduct including discharge of union organizers also warrants the inference that its strong dislike of unions and union or concerted activity of its em- ployees has continued. These circumstances plus the timing of discharge of the three drivers within a month after Re- spondent received notice of court enforcement of the Board Order in the prior case suffice to make a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge which requires Respondent to ad- duce evidence of economic need for the discharges and nondiscriminatory choice of the three which is adequate to rebut that case .7 The only testimony on the alleged need to get rid of three 6 The Board's prior finding that Respondent had continually tried by coercive surveillance , interrogation , threats, and warnings to dissuade em- ployees from attending union meetings or engage in other union activity shows that it took active and illegal steps to keep abreast of the identity and union activity of union adherents among its drivers and to discourage such activity by discharging active union adherents . When the 1971 -72 union campaign was conducted without secrecy and resulted in at least 14 out of the small force of about 20 drivers signing with the Teamsters , there is a strong inference that word of the campaign and its progress spread very quickly in the small facility and work force and that Respondent was at all times aware of it and of the identity of Hurt as the leader and of Billingsley and Isenberg as active union adherents I also take note of the fact that Scottsville is a small country town of only about 3300 population. See Dubin- Haskell Lining Corp, 154 NLRB 641, 650; The Circle K Corporation, 173 NLRB 713, 715. 1 do not credit testimony of company officers denying any knowledge of the union activities of Billingsley , Hurt, and Isenberg 7 I place no reliance on the choice of Billingsley , Hurt, and Isenberg for layoff in December 1971 in reaching this conclusion Credible testimony of Turner, Jr, indicates that. December is usually a slow month in Respondent 's business , and although the 1971 layoff was the first in its history, the fact that Respondent became publicly owned late in 1968, with greater pressure from stockholders to run its business more efficiently , played some part in making that layoff. The above drivers were chosen for layoff by random choice (drawing names from a hat) because Respondent has never followed a policy of discharge or layoff according to seniority. When busi- ness picked up in January and February , the three were recalled to work Billingsley specifically disclaimed any contention that he was illegally chosen for layoff in December 1971; General Counsel did not question the other two on this point These circumstances militate against any inference that the 1971 layoff was other than economic or that the three were chosen from discriminatory considerations. 603 drivers to comply with the Board Order comes from Execu- tive Vice-President Turner, Jr., who said that when Respon- dent received notice that it had to reinstate three drivers, it found it would then have three more drivers than trucks to be driven, so it had to get rid of three current drivers. Com- pany records show that on June 1, 1972, it had 20 drivers on the payroll, presumably with one truck assigned to each, or 20 trucks operating at all times; there is no proof from any source that several drivers operated the same truck in rotation, as on different shifts, or that some drivers were held in reserve, as "spares," or to handle another driver's truck if he was absent for illness, on vacation, or other good reason. However, company records show that in 1972 up to the time of trial, there was some turnover among drivers. Thus one of the 20, Joe Lee Garner, was hired in March, William Logsdon quit in February, and Shelby Lawson quit in May. Willie James Morris was hired in June, possibly to take the place of Logsdon or Lawson, but apparently no one filled the other vacancy. Hence as of February 1, for exam- ple, Respondent had 23 drivers, presumably driving 23 sep- arate trucks. By June 1, the force was down to 21, with the quitting of Lawson and Logsdon, leaving two idle trucks. Hiring of Morris on June 19 accounted for only one truck. There is no proof from Respondent of any slack in business at that time, nor any showing of the number of trucks out of service for repairs or maintenance, on average or at any crucial time. One truck without a driver on or after June 1 would seem to call for the discharge of only two, not three, drivers on July 3. The availability of more trucks, with need for more drivers thereafter, is shown by the death of Aubrey N. Austin on July 27, the termination of John R. Foster on August 3, and the quitting of a reinstated driver, Mitchell A. Lewis, on September 1. The hiring of a new man, Jerry D. Ethridge, on August 14 may have returned one of these three trucks to operation, but Respondent does not account for the presumed idleness of the other two by showing any slump in business or truck use or other good economic reason. To the contrary, the hiring of Morris on June 19, after Respondent knew it would have to take back Eaton, Lewis, and Word, argues against any dropoff in business or need for drivers. Hence, the record as made tends to show that Respondent had need (by number of usable trucks) for two or three more drivers, besides those reinstated, in July, August, and on September 1. In short, Respondent has not adduced cogent proof that it lacked sufficient business or need for trucks to warrant the retention of the three dischar- gees after reinstatement of Eaton, Word, and Lewis. On the issue of the choice of Billingsley, Hurt, and Isen- berg for layoff, Respondent's case is even weaker. I find from uncontradicted testimony of the three and admissions of Personnel Director Tim W. Turner that they had satisfac- tory work records up to their discharge, without recent spe- cific warnings or reprimands on their records, and at the discharge Tim W. Turner emphasized that he had the res- ponsibility to give them proper recommendations on their records on inquiry from future employers. Turner, Jr., ad- mitted he was in a dilemma when called on to choose drivers for discharge, because all were satisfactory in their work. Hence, the choice was left to Warehouse Manager Jim Pol- ston. According to Tim Turner, Polston selected the above three because of their "very negative" attitude since their 604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD December layoff. None of the three Turners could explain that "attitude," and Respondent did not call Polston to explain it, although he dealt directly with drivers and hence was given the responsibility for selecting three for discharge. The failure to produce Polston to substantiate the given reason warrants the inference, of course, that he would not have been able to support Respondent's claim with sworn testimony,8 or that it might have been adverse to that claim. Since the only remaining factor differentiating the three from other drivers, according to the record, is their open activity for the Teamsters Union after their recall from lay- off, an activity which Respondent has always strongly dis- liked in its employees, I can only infer that this activity was the "negative attitude" which company officials had in mind, when making the layoff choice. While company officials testified without contradiction that seniority has never played any part in the layoff or discharge of employees, they did not credibly deny that it was a factor in work assignments or other supervision of drivers. They do not explain why, as professed prudent managers of a publicly owned company, they chose to lose three drivers of long experience with satisfactory records,9 while keeping two drivers of only a few month's experience (Morris, hired June 19, 1972, and Garner, hired March 21, 1972) and hiring a new man, Ethridge, on August 14, 1972, without trying to recall any of the three more experienced dischargees. This does not appear to be the action of compa- ny managers operating in an efficient manner under stock- holder pressure. Nor do they try to justify on efficency grounds their retention of Morris after he had wasted al- most a day of company time and money in July 1972, by hauling the wrong trailer on a long trip and being compelled to return it and take the right one out, and then assigning him within a week thereafter to a preferred job as trainee on a sleeper truck with Isenberg . 1° In addition, I find from credible testimony of Billingsley, Hurt, and Isenberg that Respondent has a policy of considering longevity in assign- ing new trucks to drivers, and also in assigning drivers to sleeper trucks, yet Respondent does not explain why it devi- ated from this policy in letting the new but questionable driver, Morris, train on a sleeper truck." In argument Respondent relies on uncontradicted testi- mony that Billingsley had received in 1970 two reprimands for violations of Interstate Commerce Commission driving regulations , plus a notation in his record of a violation of a traffic ordinance against speeding . While one reprimand s Gibbs Die Casting Aluminum Corp, 174 N LRB 75, and cases cited at page 80 9 Billingsley was hired in February 1967, and worked steadily until his 1971 layoff, with recall 2 months later . Isenberg was hired in October 1966, anc worked steadily until the 1971 layoff , with recall I month later Hurt was hired in June 1970, and worked steadily until the 1971 layoff , with recall 2 months later . Billingsley received a special no-accident bonus for 1970 and 1971, Hurt received it for 1971 , and Isenberg for 1970 10 I find the facts as to Morris from uncontradicted testimony of Hurt and Isenberg Moms did not testify. 11 Cal Turner, Jr., testified the main consideration for choice of a second driver on a sleeper was his compatibility with the main driver, but then admits this was only one, though an overriding factor He does not try to explain or defend the choice of Morris to ride with Isenberg , or the circum- stances under which he was chosen , and no direct supervisor , like Polston, is called by Respondent to do so specifically warned Billingsley that further violations would result in discharge, there is no proof that the violations were repeated, and the derelictions of 1970 apparently did not weigh effectively in Respondent's later appraisal of his per- formance, for they admittedly were not used in his random choice for layoff in 1971, nor did they hinder his recall early in 1972. There is no proof that they were part of the nebu- lous "negative attitude" proferred by Respondent as the reason for discharge. The offer of and reliance upon a re- mote or obviously irrelevant dereliction as a defense is an- other factor weighing against the credibility of the claim of discharge for cause. 2 and warrants the inference that the true reason is being concealed. Considering all the pertinent facts and circumstances pro and con, and appraising Respondent's overall defense, in- cluding its failure to adduce credible and persuasive proof of the crucial "negative attitude" of the three dischargees on which it relies, plus its other implausible and shifting argu- ments, I am constrained to conclude that Respondent has not sustained its burden of going forward with cogent and substantial evidence of discharge motivated in whole or main by good cause which is adequate to rebut the prima facie case of discriminatory discharge adduced by General Counsel, and that on the entire record General Counsel has sustained his ultimate burden of proof that Respondent chose Billingsley, Hurt, and Isenberg for discharge on July 7, 1972, because of their continued adherence to and activi- ty on behalf of one of the Unions. I find and conclude that by such discharges Respondent coerced employees in exer- cise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act and discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employees in order to discourage membership in a labor organization, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.13 III THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with Respondent's operations de- scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several states and tend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. IV THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged Otis J. Hurt, Jr., Marvin Billingsley, and Kenneth C. Isenberg on July 3, 1972, I shall recommend that it offer each of them immedi- ate reinstatement in the usual manner, with backpay to be computed under the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with proper interest added, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Since unlawful discharge of employees is conduct striking at the fundamen- 12 N L R B v Joseph Amel!, Inc, 358 F 2d 880, 883 (C A. 1, 1966) 13 This conclusion makes it unnecessary to analyze or make findings on other events, noted in the record, on which both parties rely in arguments DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION 605 tal purposes of the Act, I shall also recommend a broad cease-and-desist order. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce, and the Unions are labor organizations, within the meaning of the Act. 2. By its unlawful discharge of Marvin Billingsley, Otis J. Hurt, Jr., and Kenneth C. Isenberg, thereby discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employees in order to dis- courage membership in labor organizations, and also inter- fering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(3) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 14 conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re- spondent has taken to comply herewith. 14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 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 15 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 be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX Respondent, Dollar General Corporation, of Scottsville, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging, or in any other manner discriminating against, employees in regard to their hire or tenure of em- ployment or any term or condition of employment in order to discourage membership in a labor organization. (b) By the above conduct or in any other manner inter- fering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exer- cise of rights guaranteed to them under Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights 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. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effec- tuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Marvin Billingsley, Otis J. Hurt, Jr., and Kenneth C. Isenberg immediate and full reinstatement to their former, or substantially equivalent, positions, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges previous- ly enjoyed by them, and make each whole for any loss of pay suffered by him as a result of Respondent's discrimina- tion against him, in the manner set forth in the section hereof entitled "the Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant and ne- cessary to a determination of the right of reinstatement and the amount of backpay due, as provided under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its Scottsville, Kentucky, facility and place of business, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 15 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, be post- ed by it immediately upon receipt thereof and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge or in any other manner dis- criminate against our employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment, in order to discourage membership in any labor organization. WE WILL NOT by such discharges, or in any other man- ner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them under Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights 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. WE WILL offer to Marvin Billingsley, Otis J. Hurt, Jr., and Kenneth C. Isenberg immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former, or substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privilege's previously enjoyed by them, and make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered by him as a result of our discrimination against him. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORA- TION (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Federal or covered by any other material . Office Building, Room 2407 , 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with Ohio 45202, Telephone 513-684-3686.