La Habra Dodge, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

LA HABRA DODGE, INC. I
La Habra Dodge, Inc. and Teamsters Automotive
Workers, Local Union No. 495, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. Cases 21-
CA-17462 and 21-CA-17553
August 11, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
On May 23, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Martin S. Bennett issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the Gener-
al Counsel 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, as modfied
herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
La Habra Dodge, Inc., La Habra, California, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as
so modified:
Substitute the following for paragraphs (1) and
(2), and renumber the subsequent paragraph ac-
cordingly:
"1. Cease and desist from:
"(a) Threatening employees with the loss of their
jobs in the event of unionization.
"(b) Discouraging membership in or activity on
behalf of Teamsters Automotive Workers, Local
Union No. 495, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, or any other labor organization of its
employees, by discharging employees or by dis-
criminating in any manner in regard to hire or
I General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 We will modify the Administrative Law Judge's recommended
Order to conform more fully to his findings.
251 NLRB No. 1
tenure of employment or any term or condition
thereof.
"(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended."
DECISION
MARTIN S. BENNETT, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard at Los Angeles, California, on June 19
and 20, 1979. The consolidated complaint, issued March
12, and based upon charges filed January 22, February 8,
and February 20, 1979, alleges that Respondent, La
Habra Dodge, Inc., has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Briefs have been submitted by the General Counsel and
Respondent and have been carefully considered.'
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my ob-
servation of the witnesses, including their demeanor. I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
La Habra Dodge, Inc., is a Delaware corporation en-
gaged in the sale at retail of automobiles, parts, and serv-
ices at La Habra, California. It enjoys annual gross rev-
enues in excess of $500,000, and purchases goods valued
in excess of 50,000 per annum directly from suppliers
located outside the State of California. I find that the op-
erations of Respondent affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters Automotive Workers, Local Union No. 495,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; The Issues
The consolidated complaint alleges that Respondent
discriminatorily discharged mechanic Wayne McVeigh
on or about January 9, 1979; electrical mechanic Richard
Rutt on or about January 18; painter Forrest Ackermann
on or about February 2; and likewise, on or about the
last date, the latter's helper, Jesus (Jesse) R. Palomino,
all because of union activities, the last, Palomino, deriva-
tively so. Various acts of interference, restraint, and co-
ercion are also alleged.
B. The Discharges
1. The discharge of Wayne McVeigh
The employees of Respondent were not organized at
the commencement of the period relevant herein. On
January 3 or 4, 1979, Respondent passed out to its com-
I The issuance of this Decision has been delayed due to my illness.
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mission mechanics a notice which announced a reduction
in pay for work on holidays, school days, and vacations.
On the following day, alleged discriminatee McVeigh
complained to Service Manager Mel Teasley about the
reduction in pay and accompanied this with an epithet.
Around January 4, employees Richard Rutt and David
Adams asked McVeigh if he still had union contacts. He
said he did and attempted to telephone the office of Busi-
ness Representative Sanders of the Union later that day;
the latter called him back on January 5 and suggested
that McVeigh ascertain potential employee interest in
joining the Union.
Some 20 employees held a meeting in the plant on the
morning of January 6 and the matter was discussed. Ac-
cording to McVeigh, they decided to contact Sanders
and advise him of employee interest in unionization.
Later that day, Teasley held an employee meeting to dis-
cuss the notice referred to above, dated January 1. In
view of the complaints he had received, he announced
that he had his orders from the front office, that these
changes were based upon rates paid by five local com-
petitors and that those who disagreed were free to leave
the employ of Respondent. Teasley admitted that he had
been advised by a named porter that the prior employee
meeting had taken place.
McVeigh was terminated on January 9. His only union
activities were those set forth above. An initial union
meeting was held at his apartment on January 15, after
his discharge, with four other employees of Respondent
present, including Richard Rutt, and union authorization
cards were handed out; these were distributed in the
shop, signed, and turned in to Sanders.2
McVeigh had been employed as a warranty mechanic
for about 6 months. According to Respondent, the deci-
sion to terminate him had been made in December. Thus,
in December, Assistant Service Manager Steven Pace,
then service manager for recreational vehicles, suggested
the discharge to Teasley. Indeed, Teasley proceeded to
advertise for mechanics, found a replacement 2 days
prior to January 9, and the new man started work on
January 10. In addition, there is evidence that on Janu-
ary 9 McVeigh did some work on the turn signals on a
car, that the dissatisfied customer promptly brought it
back that day and Teasley instructed Pace to assign the
repair to another because McVeigh no longer worked
there.
There is no evidence of employer knowledge, and spe-
cifically by Teasley, of McVeigh's union activities or
suspicion thereof. See Maple Shade Nursing Home, 223
NLRB 1475 (1976). There is also evidence of a number
of comebacks that Respondent considered excessive in
comparison to those of his coworkers. Moreover, Teas-
ley testified that about 3 days after the discharge
McVeigh came to the shop, told Teasley that he recog-
nized his mistakes, and offered to mend his ways if re-
hired. Teasley declined, stating that there was too much
water under the bridge and that McVeigh had been re-
placed, as was the fact. While McVeigh was abruptly
discharged and indeed his check had to be prepared, the
2 It appears that an election was later held on March 6 and lost by the
Union.
fact is that there had been a comeback that very morn-
ing. I find that the evidence does not preponderate in
favor of the General Counsel as to McVeigh and accord-
ingly recommend the dismissal of this allegation of the
complaint.
2. The discharge of Richard Rutt
As set forth, a union organizational meeting was held,
and on January 16 Rutt took authorization cards to the
shop. As he testified, he obtained approximately 12
signed cards. Teasley conceded that he was informed
that cards had been circulated about I week prior to the
discharge of Rutt on January 18.
Early on the afternoon of January 18, Teasley ap-
proached Rutt, told him that some changes were to be
made and that one of them affected Rutt; he handed him
his termination slip. This stated that Rutt was terminated
for low production, poor attitude as to his coworkers,
and poor record with his prior employer. Rutt, a com-
mission worker, protested in vain that on many days
there was no work for him after I or 2 p.m.3
Respondent contends that it investigated Rutt's back-
ground as the result of a telephone call to Teasley by the
area warranty manager for Chrysler. According to Teas-
ley they went down a list of mechanics and when Rutt's
name was reached the official stated that Rutt was a
person who had to be watched. As a result, Teasley al-
legedly telephoned a prior employer and was advised
that Rutt had been terminated for falsifying work done
under warranties. It is uncontradicted, however, both in
the testimony of Rutt and coworker Carl Schichtel who
was hired at the same time, that Rutt disclosed this pre-
cise information to a predecessor of Teasley, Terry
O'Brien.
Another reason advanced by Respondent was poor
production, but there is uncontroverted evidence that
delay in a wiring job on a Dodge was caused by an
unduly low estimate by the estimator. As a result, a new
repair authorization was not obtained until January 17
and Rutt accordingly did not start work on this car until
January 18. Indeed, he was working on it at the time he
was terminated.
Of interest is Respondent's attitude to Rutt in Decem-
ber, the previous month. Rutt and employee Chandler
had formed a partnership in the tuneup department,
worked on this basis for a period of time, and tendered
their resignations in December because of mutual dissat-
isfaction. As a result, Teasley decided to dissolve the
partnership and to make Rutt the electrician because he
was the better electrician of the two. This surely demon-
strates Rutt's superior qualifications.
Indeed, Steven Pace, who has served both as assistant
service manager and service manager, testified that he
considered Rutt's work to be good and that he had no
trouble with his individual productivity. Moreover, Pace
had no knowledge that the discharge was imminent even
though his adverse recommendation previously as to the
3 There is no evidence of any difficulty between Rutt and his cowork-
ers
LA HABRA DODGE, INC. 3
retention of McVeigh was made to Teasley on several
occasions.
Rutt's termination, it may be noted, was abruptly made
in midweek and in midafternoon. He was terminated
only 2 days after he passed out union cards of which
Teasley was aware; that is, he conceded learning of the
union activities I week prior to Rutt's discharge. In view
of the foregoing factors, I find that the evidence prepon-
derates in favor of the General Counsel and that Rutt
was discharged because of his union activities and not
for other reasons, this within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. The discharge of Forrest Ackerman
Ackerman entered the employ of Respondent as a
painter in July or August 1978 and was discharged on
February 2, 1979. He testified, and I find, that after the
January 6 meeting at which changed working conditions
were discussed, Teasley asked him and another employee
if they had heard anything about a union. Teasley ad-
mitted learning that union cards were being circulated in
January, and, as noted, had been told of the employee
meeting early in January at which unionization had been
discussed. Indeed, Ackerman himself had thereafter
passed out seven cards.
Ackerman was advised of his discharge by Body Shop
Manager Walter Peters, no longer with Respondent, pur-
suant to instructions from Teasley; Peters, according to
Ackerman, told him that he did "very nice work" and
Peters testified that this indeed was his belief. Thereafter,
the only reason assigned as a basis for the discharge was
Ackerman's alleged falsifying in his work application the
length of time he had worked for prior employers which
Teasley belatedly checked into.
Yet, it is of interest that Ackerman, who was demon-
strably vague on dates, was given a clean bill of health
by a prior employer for whom he had worked by far the
longest period of time, namely several years, as contrast-
ed with several others with much shorter periods of em-
ployment; it is the latter that Teasley claimed his investi-
gation proved to be exaggerated. 4
Respondent has contended that Ackerman was dis-
charged for claiming payment for work which had been
sublet, Teasley claiming that in January he discovered a
repair order had been flagged for Ackerman in the
amount of $350; this, it may be noted, was relatively an-
cient, taking place late in November and was an isolated
incident.
Teasley approached Ackerman about this and the
latter replied that he knew nothing about it and that the
previous body shop manager had done all his flagging.
Indeed, Teasley conceded that.the handwriting on the
flag was not that of Ackerman, but appeared to be that
of the former body shop manager. Throughout the con-
versation with Teasley, as well as at the hearing, Acker-
man insisted that he did not do his own flagging, that he
paid no attention to deductions from his paycheck, and
only looked at the bottom line.
4 Teasley testified that as a new hire by Respondent on November 17.
1978. he routinely reviewed the ork applications of existing employees
pursuant to his custom.
It was as a result of the discrepancy on the repair
order that Teasley investigated the employment applica-
tion of Ackerman and found the discrepancies as to
length of employment with previous employers referred
to above. According to Teasley, these warranted the ter-
mination of Ackerman.
On the other hand, Ackerman testified that he has a
very poor memory for dates and further deposed that,
when he was hired by the previous body shop foreman,
he had told that foreman that he could not recall his
prior employment history precisely; the latter then told
him just to put anything down as well as he could. This
is supported by the employment application of Jesus
Palomino, the helper for Ackerman whose case is treated
below, which is completely blank and yet Palomino was
not terminated by Respondent for such a reason but
under circumstances discussed below.
As found, Ackerman did distribute seven cards prior
to his discharge, had discussions with fellow employees
about the Union, and Teasley admittedly was well aware
of the union activities going on, and there was, as ap-
pears below, a display of animus by management to-
wards the Union. Upon the entire record, I find that the
evidence preponderates in favor of the position of the
General Counsel and that Ackerman was discharged be-
cause of his union activities within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. The termination of Jesus Palomino
Palomino, also referred to herein as Jesse, was a paint-
er's helper assigned to Ackerman. The other painter on
the premises operated without a helper. Palomino was on
Respondent's payroll with all the employee deductions
and benefits, although his gross earnings consisted of one
half of the gross earnings of Ackerman. It appears that it
is an industry custom, although not universal, for a
helper who does the preliminary work to follow his
painter from job to job.
Palomino, not a very articulate witness, was present
when Peters terminated Ackerman. His name was not
brought up, but he assumed that this termination applied
to him as well, according to his testimony and he ac-
cordingly did not report for work on the next workday.
The General Counsel stresses that Palomino had worked
with Ackerman at a prior employer, had followed him to
Respondent, and had thereafter worked with him at yet
another employer.
The General Counsel does not contend that Palomino
was terminated for his union or concerted activities, but
rather that the termination of Ackerman constituted a
constructive termination of Palomino. Although this
painter-helper relationship was common in the industry,
it does not per se follow that Peters expected Palomino
as well not to report for work on the next workday. It is
thus dubious that Ackerman's union activities caused
Palomino's constructive termination, as the General
Counsel urges.
Peters testified flatly that Palomino did not return to
work after the discharge of Ackerman and that he did
not discharge Palomino. As Respondent points out, Palo-
mino testified that he heard Peters tell Ackerman that he
LA HARA DODGE, INC.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was fired for making a false application, treated above,
that no one told him he was terminated and that he did
not return to work on the next workday because he
works with Ackerman and goes where he goes.
Yet the record shows that Palomino filled out a work
application with Respondent approximately a month
after Ackerman started and that Palomino was now
working for an employer where Ackerman is not em-
ployed. And, at one point in his testimony, Palomino
conceded he did not have to leave the employ of Re-
spondent, but left voluntarily because he did not want to
work for Respondent if Ackerman did not.
Teasley testified without contradiction that he had
work for Palomino to do, that he had hired another
painter who did not have a helper, and that if Palomino
had stayed he could have worked as this painter's
helper. 5 Teasley added that if Palomino asked for em-
ployment today as a helper he would hire him since he
has hired helpers without a painter at other dealerships.
Although I disagree with Respondent as to its conten-
tion that the discharge of Ackerman was not discrimina-
tory, the fact of the matter is that Palomino was not an
employee of Ackerman but rather of Respondent. Palo-
mino, in his own testimony, concedes that he could have
continued to work for Respondent but simply chose not
to do so. This is not unlike the situation where an em-
ployee quits because others have been discriminatorily
discharged; this does not constitute a discriminatory dis-
charge of the one who quits. In view of all the foregoing
considerations, I recommend that the case of Palomino
be dismissed.
C. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
(1) Gary Southard is advertising and public relations
head of Respondent, serving previously as used car man-
ager and new car manager, and his supervisory status is
not in dispute. During January, Southard entered the air-
conditioning department of Respondent where employ-
ees John Butler, Dave Adams, and James L'Esperance
were working. 6 Southard asked what they knew about a
labor organization and the three made evasive replies.
Southard then stated that they had good jobs, that if the
Union entered the picture expenses in the shop would
rise and Respondent would be forced to subcontract or
farm out portions of its work including, specifically, the
air-conditioning work.
Southard, a glib witness, recalled speaking with Butler
and L'Esperance on this occasion, saying that he had
heard of some union activity and queried them about it.
He initially denied saying anything about farming out
work, but ultimately admitted that, in a joking manner,
he had said that if the Union entered the scene much
work would have to be farmed out.
I find that Southard was not joking, credit the cor-
roborative testimony of the three employees and find
that Southard threatened them with the possible loss of
their work if the plant were unionized, this within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I He did state that Palomino would have remained unless the nesw
painter objected strenuously
6 The following is based upon their mutually corroborative testimony,
all long-term employees.
(2) Alfred Gielen, who did not testify, is new car sales
manager of Respondent and Respondent challenges his
supervisory status. According to L'Esperance, Gielen
asked him in January if he knew anything about the
Union. L'Esperance replied, "Just rumors." The two
men have been friends for years and indeed go fishing
together. Although this was within a day or two of the
termination of Rutt, under all the foregoing circum-
stances, I find that this was not violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. See Ontario Knife Company, 191
NLRB 388 (1971).
(3) Carl Schichtel is a former employee and, as he tes-
tified, chanced to be talking with Teasley in January
about an unrelated matter. Schichtel, who had previously
worked elsewhere with Teasley, asked how he liked
working for Respondent after his brief tenure. Teasley
allegedly replied that it was fine "until this union thing
came up." He then said, "But you don't know anything
about that, do you?" Schichtel replied in the negative
and the matter was dropped. I do not believe that this
rhetorical question is coercive or that it runs afoul of
Section 8(a)(1) and therefore recommend the dismissal of
this allegation.
(4) McVeigh testified that, on or about January 22, he
telephoned Parts Manager Robert Teich, who did not
testify herein, concerning the availability of certain auto
parts. As noted, McVeigh had been discharged previous-
ly and Teich left the employ of Respondent in April.
McVeigh then commented on his discharge as well as
that of Rutt and asked what was going on.
Teich replied that the men had "really stirred" up
things, that Respondent was getting ready to fire quite a
few people and that word had come from the front
office of a list of potential terminees "because of different
things that were going on."
As Respondent urges, even on its face, there is nothing
in this testimony by McVeigh with respect to unions or
union activity and Teasley testified that he knew of no
such list. On balance, I find that this conversation, even
if it did take place, was not tied down to union activity,
and, although not entirely free from doubt, I recommend
the dismissal of the allegation.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. La Habra Dodge, Inc., is an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Teamsters Automotive Workers, Local Union No.
495, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Richard Rutt and Forrest Acker-
man, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By threatening employees with the shutdown of
their department by subcontracting work in the event of
unionization, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act.
4
LA HABRA DODGE, INC.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent has not otherwise engaged in unfair
labor practices.
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
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(3) and () of the Act by discharging Richard Rutt
and Forrest Ackerman. I shall, therefore, recommend
that Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former positions or, if not available, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to se-
niority or other rights and privileges. See The Chase Na-
tional Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto
Rico Branch, 65 NLRB 827 (1945).
I shall further recommend that Respondent make each
of them whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a
result of this discrimination by payment of a sum of
money equal to that each normally would have earned
from the date of said discrimination, less net earnings,
with interest thereon, to be computed in the manner pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950); Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977),
and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
See also Hansen Cakes, Inc., 242 NLRB 472 (1979).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER7
The Respondent, La Habra Dodge, Inc., La Habra,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
(I) Cease and desist from threatening employees with
the loss of their jobs in the event of unionization.
(2) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
(3) Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Richard Rutt and Forrest Ackerman immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or if these
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make each of hem whole for any loss of
pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimina-
7 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 find-
ings, 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.
tion against them, plus interest, in the manner provided
above in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other rec-
ords necessany to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its premises at La Habra. California, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix. " Copies of
the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 21, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
' In the event that this Order is enftorced by a Judgmclen of a [United
Slates Court of Appeals, the words i the notice reading "Posted hby
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant 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
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or ac-
tivity on behalf of Teamsters Automotive Workers,
Local Union No. 495, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, or any other labor organization of our
employees, by discharging employees or by discrim-
inating in any manner in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition thereof.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge
in the event of unionization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer Richard Rutt and Forrest Acker-
man immediate and full reinstatment to their former
positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to seniority or any other rights and privileges, and
we will make each of them whole for any loss of
wages, including interest, suffered as a result of our
discrimination against them.
LA HABRA DODGE, INC.
5