Liberty Electronics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 27, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 1074 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because of their concerted or union activities, or in any other manner dis-
criminate in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT solicit our employees to give us their union authorization cards.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist Retail Clerks Union Local No. 455, AFL-CIO,
Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities.
WE WILL make Edward Cloud whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against him and we will notify him of his right
to apply for reinstatement within 90 days after his discharge from the Armed
Forces.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining, members in good standing of Retail Clerks Union Local No 455,
AFL-CIO, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
MORRIS, SEWALL & CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 650 M & M
Building, 1 Main Street, Houston, Texas, Telephone Number, Capitol 2-7201,
Extension 041, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Liberty Electronics Corp. and Flight Electronic Supply Corp.
and Warehouse Processing & Distribution Workers' Union,
Local 26, International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's
Union. Case No. 21-CA-4523. September 27, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 1, 1962, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and Were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the Respondents' exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
i The request for oral argument, filed by the Respondents , is hereby denied as the
record , including the Respondents ' exceptions and brief , adequately presents the issues
and the positions of the parties.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]
138 NLRB No. 110.
LIBERTY ELECTRONICS CORP., ETC. 1075
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following excep-
tions and modifications.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents' letter of
August 30, 1961, to the employees who went out on strike on August
29, constituted a discharge of these employees because of their con-
certed activities, and that Gallegos was later discharged for the same
reason, in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. How-
ever, it is the Board's established practice to award employees who
are discharged while on strike backpay only from the date on which
they make unconditional application for reinstatement. In this case,
the strikers made such application as of September 22, and their
unconditional offers were refused by the Respondents that day. We
shall, accordingly, modify the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
to provide that the 17 employees discriminated against be made whole
by the Respondents from September 22,1961.
For the reasons stated in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716, we agree with the Trial Examiner that the backpay obligation
of the Respondents should include the payment of interest, which
shall be computed at the rate of 6 percent in the manner set forth in
the Isis Plumbing case.'
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner with the following modifications :
1. Section 2 (a) shall be modified to read :
Offer to the 17 employees named in the appendix attached to
the Intermediate Report immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
them whole from September 22, 1961, for any losses suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth
in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy,"
as modified by the Board's Decision and Order.
2. The following note shall be added to the bottom of the notice
immediately below the signature :
NoTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees pres-
ently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
3. Change the notice by substituting the words "60 consecutive days
from the date of posting." for the words "60 days from the date
hereof. ...."
8 Member Leedom dissents from the inclusion of interest in the backpay obligation for
the reasons stated in the dissent in the Isis Plumbing case.
662353-63-vol. 138-69
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case was heard at Los Angeles, California, on December 7, 8, 13, 14, 19,
and 20, 1961 before Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett. The complaint' alleges
that Respondents, Liberty Electronics Corp. and Flight Electronic Supply Corp.,
herein called Liberty and Flight, had engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. More specifically, it alleges that
Respondents, on August 30, discharged 11 Liberty and 6 Flight employees who had
commenced a strike on August 29, 1961 The Liberty employees are Kenneth
Gene McBride, Valerie E. Glover, Glen T. Harbeck, Esther Gallegos, Rene L.
Thezan, Gwendaline Lyrics, Irene Davis, Betty Fletcher, Jackie Jackson, Fred
Martinez, and Alice Miller. The Flight employees are Shirley A. McCright, Jean
Marie Donahue, Jacqueline King, Margie Harbeck, Elvin E. Talley, and Roger B.
Williams. Oral argument at the close of the hearing was waived and briefs have
been received from all parties.2
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
Liberty Electronics Corp. and Flight Electronic Supply Corp. are commonly owned
and controlled California corporations which maintain their principal offices and
places of business on adjacent premises in Inglewood, California, where they are
engaged in the assembly and distribution of electronic components. During the
year prior to the issuance of this complaint, each corporation received goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to it directly from points
outside the State of California.
The record demonstrates that these corporations are one integrated employer.
Liberty handles five lines of electronic components and Flight handles two other
lines, all in the same general category. Irving Zeiger is the central and controlling
figure of these companies, owning more than 50 percent of the stock. He is the
president and chief executive officer of both and his wife is their vice president; more-
over, both concerns have the same secretary-treasurer. These officers are also the
board of directors for each corporation and Zeiger normally fashions labor relations
policies for all.
Frederick Corrick is accounting supervisor at Liberty and is also supervising
accountant at Flight. There are two other affiliated corporations, one of which
is identified herein as Orbit. Corrick coordinates all four concerns, is general
supervisor of all, and is also accounting supervisor of all. The office staffs of these
four firms are under his direction and he spends most of his time at the Liberty
office. The record discloses that Flight, Liberty, and Orbit are in close physical
proximity. In at least one case during the strike described below, Flight work was
done for 2 days on Orbit premises and the employee was thereafter temporarily
transferred to Flight. Norman Jones, who plays a major role herein, was retained
as a labor relations consultant to handle the dispute involving Liberty and Flight
and it is clear that one single uniform policy was applied to the employees of both
concerns.
I find that the operations of Respondents affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it would effectuate the purposes of the
Act to assert jurisdicition herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Warehouse Processing & Distribution Workers' Union, Local 26, International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
'Issued October 29, 1961, and based upon a charge and amended charge filed Septem-
ber 22 and October 12, respectively, by Warehouse Processing & Distribution Workers'
Union, Local 26, International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union, herein called
the Union. The corporate names of Respondents appear as amended at the hearing
2 Respondents have also submitted a reply brief which the General Counsel has moved
to strike. As the Rules and Regulations of the Board make no provision for this, it has
not been considered. The motion to strike is hereby granted and the document is ordered
transferred to the rejected exhibit file.
LIBERTY ELECTRONICS CORP., ETC. 1077
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issue; sequence of events
Employees of Liberty and Flight jointly commenced a strike for union recogni-
tion on August 29, 1961. The issue here is whether Respondents, pursuant to a
decision made on August 29, terminated and discharged 17 strikers on August 30,
11 at Liberty and 6 at Flight, or whether Respondents merely paid them their
accumulated wages allegedly pursuant to the requirements of California law but
did not terminate their employment.
The Union commenced organizational activity among the employees of Respond-
ents in mid-August 1961, and ,many employees of both concerns signed up. On
August 28, the Union sent a night telegram to Respondents wherein recognition was
requested. International Representative Chester Meske and other union representa-
tives met with President Zeiger of Respondents at approximately 9 a.m. on Tuesday,
August 29, and Zeiger acknowledged receipt of the wire. The union representatives
offered to prove their majority by a card check but Zeiger refused, claiming, as
Meske testified, that he wanted "some Government agency to conduct an election."
The union representatives immediately telephoned the Regional Office of the Board
as well as the California State Conciliation Service. They then told Zeiger that
either of these agencies could hold an election in 1 or 2 weeks if Zeiger consented
to it.
The details of the consent election, including unit and elegibility list, were ex-
plored and the parties were in agreement thereon, although not on the date of an
election. In fact, Zeiger stated that he had no objections to a single unit of Flight
and Liberty employees. He then insisted that he would not agree to a consent
election either under the auspices of the Board or the State agency. Immediately
thereafter, Meske met with the employees of both plants in the street adjacent to
the plants and accurately reported Zeiger's refusal to consent to an election. After
some discussion, a secret ballot was taken and the employees voted to strike unless
Zeiger either agreed to recognize the Union or to the holding of a consent election.
An employee committee entered the plant and Meske reported the decision to
Zeiger. The latter replied that he would not agree to an election and that he would
not recognize the Union. Zeiger also stated that he wanted 1 week to think it
over, but that under no circumstances would he agree to an election. In specific
references to the strike threat, Zeiger added, "If that's the way you want it, be my
guest." Meske accepted the challenge and told Zeiger that he left the employees
no alternative but to strike. The strike commenced at once and picket lines were
set up at both plants shortly before noon.
Consultant Jones was retained by Respondents at 2 or 2:30 p.m. that day, August
29. He was given full control over Respondents' labor relations with authority to
discharge, although he denied herein that anyone was discharged. In addition,
Jones took personal charge of Respondents' records pertaining to the strikers. He
testified that he did so because an arbitrator had once resolved a dispute adversely to
a former client because of incomplete records. He stressed to Accountant Corrick,
as well as to the latter's subordinates, the importance of keeping records concerning
the strikers.
Jones concluded that the most important records would be the payroll ledger
sheets and the original employment application of each striker. He promptly
instructed Accountant Corrick to make entries on the strikers' payroll ledger cards
as to their status in the last pay period during which they performed work. Jones
stressed to Corrick the importance of accurate entries on these payroll ledger cards
and on company records. Jones arranged for his personal access to these recoids
and, on a number of occasions removed them to areas in Respondents' buildings
where he could and did work on them privately.
The record discloses that the employees of both plants are paid by check every
Friday. The next payday would have been Friday, September 1. The checks
distributed at Flight normally reflect work performed during the current week up
to and including Friday. At Liberty, there is a 1 week's wait and checks are issued
on Friday for the week ending on the previous Friday.
I find that Respondents arrived at a decision concerning the strikers on the after-
noon of August 29, 1961, shortly after Jones was retained. Thus, Accountant Cor-
rick testified that he instructed Bookkeeper Elizabeth Heagren of Flight on August 29
as to the notations to be placed on the payroll ledger cards of the Flight strikers.
Jones testified about similar instructions to Heagren on August 31. Corrick further
testified that he made notations on the Liberty payroll ledger cards pursuant to
instructions from Jones given to him on the afternoon of August 29 and on the
morning of August 30. These notations on both sets of ledger cards are considered
hereinafter.
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Corrick later testified that he received his first instructions from Jones at a meet-
ing on the afternoon of August 29; that they held a telephone conversation later
that day; and that on August 30 he received a letter, described hereinafter, wherein
his instructions were summarized. These instructions treated with the paychecks
to be mailed to the strikers and the accompanying statements. He also testified
that Jones instructed him during the telephone talk that "we must pay the people"
and to send out certified paychecks "tomorrow [August 30].1 13
On August 30, Bookkeeper Heagren, pursuant to instructions from Jones and
Corrick, sent letters, identical except for the sums of money set forth therein, to
the seven strikers together with paychecks? That to striker McCright stated: "En-
closed herewith is a check in the amount of $84.49, that is all monies due you as
of August 30, 1961." Flight employees annually accrue 5 days of sick leave and
at the end of the year are paid for the unused portion thereof. The reference in
the letter to "all monies due" is to the fact that S of the 6 received sums which
included accrued sick leave: 4 were paid for 3 days of sick leave, and another was
paid for 1 day.
On the same day, Corrick personally sent letters and paychecks to 10 of the
11 Liberty employees named in the complaint, excluding Gallegos; these were iden-
tical but for names and amounts due. That to Martinez is in evidence and stated:
Enclosed herewith is a check in the full amount of $58.14, that is full pay-
ment of all monies due to you as of this date. The sick leave, paid to you
in advance, was pro-rated and deducted from the amount you have received
in the enclosed check .5
The above language stems from the fact that the sick leave policy at Liberty
differs from that at Flight. As set forth, the workweek at Flight ends on Friday
and payday is each Friday for work through that day. Early in August, Liberty
abandoned an identical policy and instituted a delayed payday, still on Fridays, for
work performed through the previous Friday. In order to avoid a 1 week hiatus
with no paychecks, employees of substantial tenure received their regular checks
on this particular Friday, these reflecting advance payment of 5 days of sick leave.
In reference to the above statement mailed to the strikers, Corrick testified, "When
they left . . . short of the year, which would have entitled them to the full five days
. we deducted" a proportionate amount. He elsewhere put it that "we had paid
them in advance and we made the deduction for that amount that they had been
paid over what they would have been entitled to." This deduction, it is clear,
covered sick leave paid in advance for a substantial period subsequent to August 29.
No letter was sent to Esther Gallegos who had commenced a 2-week vacation
on August 28 and was due back at work on September 12. According to Corrick,
it was not sent because Respondents did not know "whether she was involved or not."
On or about September 11, Foreman Marvin Hanich telephoned Gallegos, as the
latter uncontrovertedly testified, and asked if she was returning to work. Gallegos
replied that she had signed a union card and was "going with the rest of the people."
I find that she then joined the strikers. Inasmuch as I find hereinafter that the other
strikers were discriminatorily discharged on August 30, it is further found that she
became an unfair labor practice striker as of September 11, 1961. It is clear and
I find that as of September 11, in view of Hanich's offer, that she had not been re-
placed and that her job was open.
Jones testified that on September 9, a foreman, apparently Hanich who did not
testify, told him that he had asked Gallegos if she was returning to work and that
Gallegos had replied in the negative. Jones then marked her payroll ledger card
"Being replaced and for economic reasons." This meant that it had not been deter-
mined if her job would be filled due to retrenchment. Whether or not this conversa-
tion took place on September 11 or 9, I further find for the reasons stated hereinafter
that when Gallegos disclosed for the first time that she was joining the other strikers,
S Jones in general admitted having a conversation with Corrick at the plant as well
as a telephone conversation later that day on August 29. In the talk at the plant, he
referred to State law allegedly requiring wage payments to strikers on the following pay-
day. He also testified that he told Corrick in the telephone conversation to send out the
checks on the next payday, September 1, and stressed the importance of accurate ledger
entries. In view of subsequent events, I credit Corrick as to the day the checks were to
be sent out.
* Only six are named in the complaint. The General Counsel has not proceeded in the
case of the seventh.
5 All emphasis is added unless otherwise indicated
LIBERTY ELECTRONICS CORP., ETC. 1079
Respondents treated her in precisely the same manner as they had the others and
discharged her prior to her replacement.
On September 20, the Union sent the following telegram, signed by its secretary-
treasurer, to Respondents:
This is to advise that our strike at Liberty and Flight Corporations has been
called off and terminated on Wednesday, September 20, 1961 at 59:30 P.M. On
behalf of the following named employees, we hereby unconditionally offer
to return to work:
Liberty Electronics Corp. Flight Electronic Supply Corp.
Kenneth Gene McBride Irene Davis Shirley A. McCright
Valerie E. Glover Betty Fletcher Jean Marie Donahue
Glen T. Harbeck Jackie Jackson Jacqueline King
Esther Gallegos Fred Martinez Margie Harbeck
Rene L. Thezan Alice Miller Elvin E. Talley
Gwendaline Lynes Roger B. Williams
They will present themselves ready for work no later than Friday, Septem-
ber 22, 1961 at 8:30 A.M. Please advise me immediately of your acceptance
of this offer by the above named employees.
Striker Rene Thezan of Liberty reported at the plant on the morning of September
22. He was joined by other strikers including Fred Martinez of Liberty and Margie
Harbeck and Shirley McCright of Flight and the group was referred to Jones who
was on the Liberty premises. Jones appeared on the scene with a bundle of enve-
lopes and asked them to call out their names. As they did so, Jones gave each an
envelope containing two employment applications with the individual's name on it.
These had been prepared for all the strikers and Jones testified that all but four,
Williams, Talley, Donahue, and King appeared on this occasion.
The group had learned from other strikers who had appeared earlier that morning
that these envelopes contained employment applications. Martinez then asked,
as he testified and I so find, "What are these for? We have jobs here." Jones then
replied, "You terminated yourself when you walked out." Jones further stated that
there were no jobs available. Thezan and Harbeck substantially corroborated the
testimony of Martinez as to the above statement by Jones. Thezan specifically
denied that Jones said they had been replaced, He was also asked if Jones said
their jobs had been abolished and replied that Jones stated they "had terminated
ourself [sic] when we checked out."
Harbeck similarly corroborated Martinez. She testified that Martinez had pro-
tested that they had jobs to which Jones replied, "No, we terminated ourselves
when we punched out [on August 291.1 16 I find that all of the complainants ex-
cept four unconditionally requested and were denied reinstatement on Septem-
ber 22. As Respondents had applications as new employees ready for these four, I
find that it would have been futile for them to have appeared at the plant that day.
In any event, they were named in the telegram sent to Respondents.
B. Analysis and conclusions
The central issue, as indicated, is whether Respondents pursuant to a decision
made on the afternoon of August 29, 1961, permanently severed the employment
of their striking employees on August 30, or whether Respondents merely paid them
their accumulated wages and maintained their employment status. The evidence
strongly preponderates in favor of the former view for the following factors.
6 Jones denied saying that the strikers had terminated themselves or had been termi-
nated . He testified about his remarks to a Mr. Harbeck and a female employee and
denied telling them that they were terminated for walking off the job. However, this is
manifestly another Harbeck and not the female Harbeck who testified herein. He identi-
fied a second group including Tbezan and Martinez as appearing on the scene some 5 to
10 minutes later and claimed that be held a similar conversation with them. He
allegedly told Martinez that there were no jobs available, that they "had all been re-
placed" and that they would be considered for employment as new employees.
I have credited the mutually corroborative testimony of Harbeck, Martinez, and Thezan
herein. They impressed me as honest witnesses who were endeavoring to tell the truth
as they recalled it. As will appear, there is strong evidence herein that the payroll
records of Liberty strikers have been doctored so as to remove from them an abbreviation
of the word "terminated." Still other evidence, described hereinafter, detracts from the
reliability of this testimony by Jones. Accordingly, it is not credited herein.
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1) Striker Rene Thezan of Liberty received a telephone call on the evening of
August 29 from Foreman Marvin Hanich. As Thezan uncontrovertedly testified,
Hamch stated that he was calling with regard to Thezan returning to work. Thezan
replied that as a union member he could not cross a picket line. Hanich offered
to "guarantee" Thezan his job, adding that "they were only calling two people and
the rest were out." Hanich's supervisory status and his hiring authority are not
disputed herein.
(2) On or about September 6, Striker Gwendaline Lynes of Liberty telephoned
Hanich from the home of striker Irene Davis. In order to ascertain their precise
status for the unemployment compensation office, Lynes, as she uncontrovertedly
testified, asked Hanich, "Are we fired?" Hanich replied in the affirmative. The
record demonstrates that as of that date Respondents were still recruiting and hiring
new employees.
(3) Respondents took other moves which reflect an attempt to permanently sever
the employment relationship of the strikers. A petition for an election had been
filed by the Union in Case No. 21-RC-7348, prior to the filing of the instant charge.
In connection therewith, Jones, on September 12, submitted a list of employees who
were on the payroll as of August 30 and therefore were allegedly in the appropriate
unit. The list included the strikers.
In a subsequent letter sent on September 19, Jones submitted revised employee
lists from which the names of the strikers were omitted. He stated in this letter:
In reviewing our records, we find that the lists sent you on that day con-
tained all the names of employees that had worked during the named pay
periods. However, we would contend that the employees named on the en-
closed pages were the only employees on the payrolls the date of the ending
of such payroll periods.
As noted, the end of the payroll period at both plants was on Friday, September 1,
and not on Wednesday, August 30. It therefore follows that Respondents were
taking the position that the strikers were no longer on the payroll as of the day
after the strike began, despite the fact that Jones, an experienced labor relations
consultant, must have known that the strikers remained employees under the Act.
(4) Jones claimed that section 209 of the California Labor Code, requires that
strikers be paid their wages on the next regular payday. Compliance with this pro-
vision of the code would have required that the checks be issued at the plant on
Friday, September 1. For the code states only that the unpaid wages "shall be-
come due and payable on the next regular payday." It hardly needs stating that
an employer is understandably reluctant to finance a strike by getting paychecks
into the hands of employees in advance of a payroll date.
This view as to the timing is buttressed by Respondents' treatment of the sick
leave situation. The Flight strikers were paid the annual sick leave due them, as
prorated, and the prepaid sick leave was deducted from the checks of Liberty strikers.
A note of finality is readily apparent in this action and from the specially prepared
letter sent to Liberty strikers which refers to the checks as being "in full payment of
all monies due you." This, of course, is consistent with the statement of Hanich
to Thezan on August 29 that Respondents were calling back only two employees
and that the rest were "out."
(5) Respondents maintain identical individual payroll ledger cards and those of
the strikers are in evidence. All of them bear the longhand entry "TEMP FC"
beside the payroll entry for the week in which the strike began. There are some
variations in these. The Flight entries are all in ink; the "TEMP" is in lowercase
and in script and the "FC" is printed in capitals. On one card there is a period
after "TEMP" and on all but one there is a period or a dash after the "F." These
entries on the Flight cards were made by bookkeeper Elizabeth Heagren, who did
not testify, pursuant to instructions from Jones and Accountant Corrick.
The Liberty cards received much attention herein. The entries on the 11 Liberty
cards were made in pencil by Corrick "personally" on specific instructions from
Jones. All of these bear the notation "TEMP FC" in print although in two cases
the "TEMP" is in script. Certain expert testimony concerning erasures under these
entries on the Liberty cards is considered hereinafter.
According to Jones, this entry on both series of cards is intended to stand for
"temporary off payroll, final check " It is immediately apparent, on Respondents'
theory, that this entry makes no abbreviation for the two words "off payroll." The
absence of such an abbreviation lends support to the expert testimony discussed
below that the entry was originally "TER FC," reflecting the phrase "terminated
final check."
LIBERTY ELECTRONICS CORP., ETC. 1081
Corrick testified herein that he made the entries in their present form on these
Liberty cards on August 29 or August 30, immediately after the checks had been
prepared. There were, he claimed, no changes in these entries after he made them.
While Respondents concede that there are erasures on these cards, these are mani-
festly, and I so find, other erasures made by a bookkeeper who, in October, placed
numerical totals in the wrong columns. Erasures of these were then made and
the totals placed in the appropriate columns. I find that these latter erasures and
the ensuing new entries were made in an area near the disputed entries but not in the
identical location and that they relate to another topic. The record also discloses
that a representative of the Regional Office interviewed Jones on October 3, 1961,
and, according to Jones, was shown one of the Liberty cards. According to Jones,
it then bore the entry which is now on it, namely, "TEMP FC."
There are several factors which, aside from the expert testimony, indicate that
the present entry on the payroll ledger cards does not truly reflect the actions
which Respondents actually took. Thus, on September 29, Corrick wrote to the
Regional Office concerning the matter. He testified here that Jones told him
what to say in this letter. Corrick stated as follows, in part:
... On the payroll ending August 31st I closed out the striking persons pay
records and sent them a check for all monies due them as required by the
State Labor Code. I noted final check and terminated on their payroll cards.
In his affidavit of October 3 to an investigator from the Regional Office, Corrick
similarly stated as follows:
At the time I made up the final checks for the striking employees I noted
on their individual payroll records that they were final checks and that the
employees were terminated, per Mr. Norman E. Jones' instructions.
It should be noted that this affidavit, according to Corrick, purportedly reflects
Jones' instructions to him. Jones also gave an affidavit on October 3 to the
Regional Office. This stated as follows:
I, Norman E. Jones, being first duly sworn, depose and say that on or about
August 30, 1961, I instructed Mr. Frederick B. Corrick, Accounting Supervisor
of Liberty Electronics Corp., to make out final payroll checks for the striking
employees of Liberty Electronics Corp. and Flight Electronic Supply Corp.,
because the State Labor Code requires all monies must be paid individuals
leaving work within 72 hours.
Under California State Law, if a person is discharged from employment, they
must be paid their full amount of monies due them before they leave the
premises. In all other circumstances, such as a labor dispute, or voluntary
termination, or layoff for lack of work, all monies due them are to be sent to
their last address known to the Company.
I told Mr. Corrick to note on their payroll voucher that these were final
checks. I also told Mr. Corrick to note on their payroll record card that they
were terminated because they were being replaced by other permanent
employees.?
Jones claimed that the Board representative on this occasion wished to use the
word "discharge" and that Jones corrected him and replaced it with the word
"terminated." In his testimony, Jones made a distinction between the terms. He
described a discharge as reflecting a management decision to cut off the payroll
one whose return is not desired. He viewed a terminated employee, on the other
hand, as one who might conceivably be desired back by management. However, he
later conceded, as is readily apparent and I so find, that the word "terminate" is
broad enough to include a severance of the employment relationship undertaken by
the employer.
Jones claimed that had the word "terminated" been entered on the payroll ledger
cards, it would have reflected neither his instructions to Corrick nor his advice
to his clients. In view of this concession that a termination might be, in effect, as
broad as a discharge, it is in order to consider the expert testimony as to what
entries were originally on the payroll ledger cards.
The reference to the 72-hour requirement is not in point . Section 201 of the Cali-
fornia Labor Code requires that certain seasonal workers who are laid off shall be paid
their wages within a reasonable time not to exceed 72 hours. Section 202 also provides
that an employee who quits work and who does not have a written contract shall be
paid his wages not later than 72 hours thereafter. Strikers, as indicated, are to be paid
on the next regular payday.
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(6) In considering the expert testimony concerning the payroll ledger cards,
it should be noted that neither Corrick nor Jones in their letters and affidavits quoted
above made any differentiation between the employees of Flight and Liberty. True,
the evidence of alteration of payroll records described below applies only to Liberty.
However, the statements of Jones and Corrick demonstrate that the strikers of
both concerns were treated alike and, in view of the integration of these concerns,
the inference is well warranted that such was the case.
Testimony was presented herein by John J. Harris, a duly qualified examiner
of questioned documents. No challenge was made of his qualifications, and his
testimony as to his tests and observations is uncontroverted and unassailed. He
examined for erasures; writing over; and spacing the Liberty payroll ledger cards
in the area of the penciled notation "TEMP FC." His examination was made by
the naked eye; with a microscopic light; and then with a stereoscopic microscope.
These payroll ledger cards are identified herein as General Counsel's Exhibits Nos.
5A through K, inclusive. These are the cards of the Liberty strikers named in the
complaint, that of Gallegos being Exhibit No. 5D.
In addition, the witness also prepared at the hearing what has been received in
evidence as Charging Party's Exhibit No. 5, wherein the witness illustrated, by use
of different colored pencils, the markings on the paper resulting from the alleged
erasure of letters and the subsequent placing in the area of different letters. This
exhibit treated with General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 5C, B, H, J, K, I, and G in
that order. It is to be further noted that the witness set up his equipment in the
hearing room and that he used it in explaining the various markings on the docu-
ments. In fact, the exhibits were inspected thereunder by all counsel and me.
With respect to Exhibits Nos. 5C, D, E, and F, an erasure was found in the space
occupied by the letter "M" in TEMP. It was his opinion that the letter R had
originally been written in the space where the M now is. This opinion was, inter
alia, based upon the impression or embossing left in the paper from the erased
original writing. Harris further testified that as to Exhibits Nos. 5C, D, E, and F,
the letters "M" and "P" in TEMP had been written at a different time and not in
continuity with the letters "TE" and "FC." He relied herein on the fact that the
pencil impressions of these two letters were darker and had wider lines than those of
the other letters; that in general there were no erasures where the P is now located;
and that the P was crowded in and unnaturally close to the M and to the F.
As to General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 5B, H, J, and K, he found erasures in the
area of the letter M. He concluded as to Exhibit No. 5B that because the M and
the P were softer than the FC and because the P was crowded, the M and P were
not written in continuity with the other letters and were written at a later time.
In essence, the same conditions were found with respect to Exhibits Nos 5H, J, and
K. He found the embossing on the erasures to be consistent with the letter R
although not as complete as in the cases of Exhibits Nos. 5C, D, E, and F
As to Exhibit No. 51, he also found an erasure under the M in TEMP; noted that
there was a mixture of script and print in the entry; and concluded that the entry
was not made entirely by one person . As to Exhibit No. 5G, he detected erasure in
the area of TEMP but could not discern any particular letter. As to Exhibit No.
5A, he detected erasures in the area of the M. He also testified that it was his
opinion, based upon all the exhibits, that the TE and the FC are consistent and
that the M and P are different, either through crowding or because of a different
intensity of the pencil, or both.
The foregoing warrants the conclusion that the General Counsel's Exhibit No.
5 series of exhibits originally bore the entry TER FC, this standing for "terminated
final check" consistent with the various statements given by Jones and Corrick, as
quoted above. Moreover, as noted, Jones conceded that the word "terminated"
can include a permanent severance of the employment relationship which is under-
taken by the employer, as is the fact. It inevitably follows that the alteration of
the records was undertaken to eliminate what Respondents conceived to be their
damaging or incriminating character and the inference is warranted that this demon-
strates guilty knowledge on the part of Respondents.
(7) The record warrants the finding that what Respondents actually undertook
and did carry out was the severance of the strikers in contemplation of hiring re-
placements thereafter rather than by the act of hiring replacements.
While Respondents did adduce evidence of several hirings on August 30 and one
on August 29, the great majority of the hirings came thereafter. And there is
evidence that Respondents initially made temporary arrangements to carry on the
work. Thus, an employee of Orbit, Davis, performed Flight work at Orbit, after
about 2 days was transferred to the Flight payroll, and on September 13 or 14
went back to the Orbit payroll. And 10 of the 15 office employees of Liberty were
temporarily assigned to the plant to process orders during August 29, August 30,
LIBERTY ELECTRONICS CORP., ETC. 1083
and perhaps on August 31. Jones testified at several points that the transfer of
Davis from Orbit to Flight was permanent. In view of the time sequence and his
prompt return to Orbit, I find that such is not the fact and that the transfer was
temporary.8
(8) The true motivation of Respondents is otherwise disclosed. During the
strike, Jones handled the payroll ledger cards on a number of occasions and made
entries which purportedly reflected personnel action. Jones testified at one point
that on September 19, Respondents decided to stop all hiring after September 21.
This allegedly reflected a decision to operate with three to five less personnel than
at the start of the strike and was predicated upon economic factors, namely a
reduction in business caused by the strike.
The card of Liberty striker Alice Miller bears the notation made by Jones on
September 9, "Being replaced & economic reasons." This indicates, according to
Jones, that as of September 9 either Miller was in the process of being replaced or
that, because of economic factors, her position was one of those which might be
left unfilled. It is clear, however, that the decision had not been made as of that
date. Miller's original employment application also bears a notation identical with
that on her payroll ledger card on September 9 and further has the entry "RE-
PLACED 9-19-61." 9
Jones conceded that he did not know as of that date whether Miller had been
replaced "by name and classification." He did not handle this record again until
September 19 when he marked the card "replaced." Yet, he admitted that had
Miller applied for work on September 10, she would have been considered "as prob-
ably a new employee, and if there was a job opening we would use her."
I find, therefore, that, despite this razzle-dazzle of notations, (a) Respondents do
not contend that Miller had been replaced on her job abolished prior to September 19;
(b) the decision on job abolition was not made earlier than September 19; and
(c) as of September 10 Miller would have been considered only as a former employee
who had been discharged and who was applying for a job as a new employee.
(9) There is yin evidence a 2-page letter, the pages stapled together, dated August 29
and allegedly sent on that date to Corrick by Jones. On page 1, reference is
made to their prior talks that day concerning the strike, as described above. Jones
stated in the letter that paychecks are normally issued on Fridays and directed that
checks be sent so as to reach strikers on the payday. He then set forth the notice
which was to accompany the checks. It is identical to that sent to Liberty strikers
and appears above. He noted that the form notice stated that prepaid sick leave was
being deducted and that this would "take care of the problem you face because of
the advance in sick leave pay."
He stated that President Zeiger wanted to continue operations and "we will
replace the striking employees with permanent employees and transfer some from
the other companies on a permanent basis." It may be noted at this point that
the record discloses that there is no evidence of transfer of employees from the
other companies on a permanent basis. Indeed, 10 Liberty office workers and I
Orbit employee were brought in on a temporary basis only.
On page 2 of the letter, Jones states, "I do not know now" if all the strikers will
be replaced because of the drop in business; states that he is enclosing a copy of
the State Labor Code with attention directed to section 209 thereof; and instructs
Corrick to write "Temp. F C." on the payroll records. He further stated that this
means "temporary off payroll, final check "
I have previously set forth the documentary evidence wherein the word "termi-
nated" was used by both Corrick and Jones. There is an intrinsic lack of logic
in the very use of the indicated phrase "TEMP FC." to mean what Jones contends
it means. The convincing testimony from the examiner of questioned documents
In view of the fact that the decision to terminate the strikers was arrived at on
August 29 and this was followed by the letters of August 30, it is not material that
there was one new hire on August 29 and several on August 30. Moreover, Respondents'
records disclose that six August 30 hirings at Liberty were on a temporary basis Jones,
it is noted, refers to replacements on August 81 Indeed, Charging Party's Exhibits
Nos. 51 and J, the ledger cards, refer to replacements of these two employees no earlier
than August 31. And there is, of course, the fact that Foreman Hanich made it clear to
strikers Thezan and Lynes on August 29 and September 6, respectively, that their em-
ployment relationship was permanently terminated. This, too, is consistent with the
statements made by Jones on September 22 to the returning strikers, as found above.
As elsewhere indicated, Respondents as of September 19 had not decided on their ultimate
complement.
It is not clear whether this reads September 19 or September 17
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
impels the conclusion that the August 29 letter, or at least page 2 thereof, was
actually written at a later date as a self-serving document to support the changed
payroll ledger entries. And although there is no evidence that the ink entries on
the Flight series of payroll ledger cards were tampered with, those records, it is
interesting to note, were not displayed to the Board investigator on October 3 as
were the Liberty records. Moreover, the bookkeeper who allegedly made those
entries did not testify herein and there is no claim that she was unavailable. And
there is no evidence as to precisely when they were actually made except for the
testimony of Jones that he saw Heagren make these entries on August 31
CONCLUSIONS
To sum up, the statements by Foreman Hanich to strikers Thezan and Lynes
demonstrate that they had been discharged and were out of a job. As Hanich put it
to Thezan, "two people" were being called back and "the rest were out." Respond-
ents' amended correspondence in the representation case further demonstrates that
Respondents regarded the strikers as no longer on the payroll. The final account-
ing of the respective sick leave pay systems is consistent not with an attempt to
get payroll checks to the strikers as required by law, but rather with an effort to
make a final accounting with a terminated employee. There is also the fact that
Corrick wrote to the Regional Office and referred to marking payroll records with
the notation "terminated." He made a similar statement to an investigator from
the Regional Office. Even Jones in his affidavit referred to the employees as being
"terminated."
Actually, taking Respondents' position at face value there is an inherent conflict
in the phrase that is used. The concept of giving a final check to someone who is
only temporarily off the payroll does not hang together, because a check which is due
to someone on the payroll and who has not been terminated is hardly a final check.
Moreover, there is manifestly no provision in this abbreviation, on the theory ad-
vanced by Respondents, for the words "off payroll." This serves only to further
buttress the belief of the expert witness that the phrase originally read "TER FC";
it then reflects a decision that the employee was terminated and accordingly had
been sent his final check.
And the conclusion is warranted on this record that Jones well knew the implica-
tions of using the word "terminated." It is clear that a termination may result
either from employer or employee action. An employee obviously may terminate
himself by resigning from his employment and it is, of course, not to be equated
with a discharge. On the other hand, an employer may effect a termination of the
employee, thus putting an end to the employment relationship This is identical
with a discharge and it is precisely what Respondents did in this case I find, there-
fore, that Respondents on August 29 decided to terminate and permanently sever
the employment relationship of their strikers and that on August 30, pursuant to
this decision, letters to this effect were sent to the strikers I find that Respondents
thereby discharged the complainants, except Gallegos whose discharge came later
on September 9 or 11 , but for the same reason.
It is true that an employer has the right to continue his business and protect
himself against an economic strike by filling places left vacant by strikers The Act,
however, forbids an employer to terminate the employment of strikers merely be-
cause they went out on strike. It is well established that it is an unfair labor
practice to discharge economic strikers prior to the time their jobs have been filled.
I find that this is precisely what Respondents did here. Accordingly, it is found
that by such conduct Respondents have discriminated with respect to the hire and
tenure of those named in the complaint and have thereby engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I further find that by
such conduct Respondents have interfered with, restrained, and coerced their
employees in the right to engage in concerted activities as guaranteed by Section 7
and have accordingly engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N.L R.B. v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304
U S 333; N.L R R. v Globe Wireless, Ltd, 193 F 2d 748 (C A 9); N.L.R B. v.
Buzza-Cardozo, 205 F. 2d 889 (C.A. 9). cert denied 346 US. 923: N.L R B. v.
Cowles Publishing Company, 214 F 2d 708 (C A 9). cert denied 348 U S. 876;
and European Cars Ypsilanti, Inc, 136 NLRB 15959.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section TTI, above, occurring in connec-
tion with their operations described in section I. above. have a close. intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States. and
LIBERTY ELECTRONICS CORP ., ETC . 1085.
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
It has been found that Respondents have respectively discriminated with respect
to the hire and tenure of employment of the 17 employees named in the complaint.
The record discloses that Gallegos was offered a job on November 15 but refused
it when she learned that she was to be considered a new employee and would re-
ceive a lesser rate of pay than that she had previously enjoyed. I find therefore that
this was not an offer of her former or substantially equivalent position.
I shall recommend that Respondents offer to the employees named in the attached
Appendix immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiv-
alent positions, without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges. See
The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827. I shall further recommend that Respondents respectively make
them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them.
The General Counsel has urged that interest at 6 percent be allowed on the back-
pay award and has submitted a detailed statement in support thereof. At law, the
element of loss caused by the passage of time during which funds have been wrong-
fully detained is regularly remedied by an award of interest on the principal sum,
thus measuring the value of the loss. The request also seems appropriate in equity
so that there will not be an unjust enrichment of the wrongdoer to the ensuing
detriment of the discriminatee. The request has therefore been granted.
Accordingly, it is recommended that said loss of pay, plus interest, based upon
earnings which each normally would have earned from the date of the discrimina-
tion, less net earnings, be computed on a quarterly basis as established by the Board
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. See N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling
Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344.
As set forth above the date of the discrimination is August 30, 1961, in the case
of all the complainants except Gallegos in whose case it was either September 9
or 11, 1961. Viewed realistically, a striker who is discharged for engaging in a
concerted activity wherein union recognition is sought is in no different a position
than an employee who has been discharged for engaging in union activities. In
both cases, employment has been lost because of equally unlawful conduct by the
employer. In logic, therefore, backpay should commence with the date of the
discrimination and it is so recommended. Of course, backpay is customarily with-
held for periods when employees incur willful losses or have removed themselves
from the employment market, this including engaging in picket line activity, but
all this falls into the compliance aspect of the case where the precise amount of
backpay is determined. Inasmuch as the employer by its unlawful conduct has
brought about the unemployment of these discharges, equity dictates that backpay
should commence with the date of the discharge and not with the date of the
application for reinstatement. Surely, the burden to remedy unfair labor practices
should initially rest with the wrongdoer rather than with the innocent victim.
Moreover, there is nothing to show to what extent the various discriminatees re-
moved themselves from the employment market
The Board has in effect recognized this in the case of discriminatees who there-
after strike or join a strike in protest of the discrimination; backpay is then awarded
from the date of the discrimination and the period of strike activity is not tolled.
See, e.g, Ozark Hardwood Company, 119 NLRB 1130, and West Coast Luggage
Co., 105 NLRB 414. I deem recent language by the Board, in another con-
text critical of tolling backpay, to be appropriate. It stated ". . . the particular
respondent, who is responsible for the wrong committed, is, to the extent of the
tolling relieved of its obligation to restore the discriminatees to the status quo ante
and thus is permitted to profit by its violations of the Act-the respondent's bene-
fit being both in the monetary sense and in the advantage it may enjoy by reason
of the delay in returning unwanted employees to the plant " A.P.W. Products Co.,
Inc., 137 NLRB 25.
These discharges and the circumstances under which they were made demonstrate
the need for an order that is coextensive with the threat of future violations, and.I
shall therefore recommend a broad cease-and-desist order.
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 Warehouse Processing & Distribution Workers' Union , Local 26, International
Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union , is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Liberty Electronics Corp. and Flight Electronic Supply Corp. are employers
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. Respondents Liberty and Flight have engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminating with respect
to the hire and tenure of the 17 employees named in the attached Appendix.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce 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, it is
recommended that the Respondents, Liberty Electronics Corp. and Flight Electronic
Supply Corp., Inglewood, California, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Warehouse Processing & Distribution Workers'
Union, Local 26, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, or in
any other labor organization of their employees, by discharging employees or by
discriminating in any other manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or
any term or condition thereof, except to the extent permitted under Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act.
(b) In any other 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 the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain
from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreemnt 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 is deemed necessary to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to the 17 employees named in the attached Appendix immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any
losses suffered by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth
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 records necessary to determine
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at their respective plants at Inglewood, California, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 10 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall, after being signed by a representative of
Respondents, be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in writing, within
20 days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended
Order, what steps they have taken to comply herewith.ll
110 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision 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 be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
11 In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 Respondents have 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 National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
HERMAN BROTHERS PET SUPPLY, INC., ETC. 1087
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activity in behalf of Warehouse
Processing & Distribution Workers' Union, Local 26, International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen's Union, or any other labor organization of our
employees , by discriminating in any manner in regard to hire or tenure of
employment , or any term or condition thereof, except to the extent permitted
under Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to the employees named below immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice
to seniority or other rights and privileges, and we will make them whole for
any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination against them.
Flight Electronic Supply Corp.:
Shirley A. McCright Margie Harbeck
Jean Marie Donahue Elvin E. Talley
Jacqueline King Roger B. Williams
Liberty Electronics Corp.:
Kenneth Gene McBride Gwendaline Lynes
Valerie E . Glover Irene Davis
Glen T. Harbeck Betty Fletcher
Esther Gallegos Jackie Jackson
Rene L. Thezan Fred Martinez
Alice Miller
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection , and 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 Sec-
tion 8 ( a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain , or refrain from becoming or
remaining , members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
LIBERTY ELECTRONICS CORP. AND FLIGHT
ELECTRONIC SUPPLY CORP.,
Employers.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date thereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 849
South Broadway, Los Angeles, California, Telephone Number, Richmond 9-4711,
Extension 1031, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Herman Brothers Pet Supply , Inc.; and Francis Herman, d/b/a
Herman Brothers Bird Products ; and Leon Herman, d/b/a
Herman Brothers Seed Merchants; and Julius J. Herman and
Joseph M. Gondek. Case No. 7-CA-3376. September 27, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 3, 1962, Trial Examiner David London issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Interme-
diate Report. Thereafter, the Respondents and the General Counsel
138 NLRB No. 104.