Penn Carpet Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 8, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 74 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Penn Carpet Service, Inc. and Lenwood Robinson. Case 6-CA-5225 September 8, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND KENNEDY On June 22, 1971, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to those allega- tions. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed excep- tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof. The Respondent subsequently filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Penn Carpet Service, Inc., Pitts- burgh, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM F. SCHARNIKOw, Trial Examiner: The com- plaint alleges, but the answer of the Respondent denies, that the Respondent, Penn Carpet Service, Inc., has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sects. 151, et seq., by interrogating employees concerning their union activities and sympathies and by discharging Lenwood Robinson and Dale Butler on or about October 5, 1970, because they engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection, and in order to discourage membership in United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Floor Coverers and Decorators Local Union 1759, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on March 19 and 20, 1971, before the Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent appeared by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence on the issues. Since the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel and for the Respondent have submitted briefs which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, Penn Carpet Service, Inc., a Pennsylva- nia corporation with its principal office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, operates a carpet installation business. During the past 12 month period immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint, the Respondent performed services in excess of $50,000 within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for Gray Flooring, International Broadloom Carpet & Decorating Company, Inc., and Busy Beaver Building Centers, Inc., all of which are directly engaged in interstate commerce. I find that the Respondent is engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act and is subject to the Board's jurisdiction. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Floor Coverers and Decorators Local Union 1759, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Evidence Generally The Respondent ordinarily employs 15 or 16 carpetlayers or "mechanics" and helpers who install wall-to-wall carpeting under Respondent's contracts with individual homeowners or under the Respondent's subcontracts with larger carpeting firms who hold primary carpeting contracts with residential builder-developers. Alfred Pagano has been the president, owner, and manager of the Respondent's business since its inception. At all material times in the present case, Albert Kaiser, assisted by Dave Pagano (the president's brother), has been the Respondent's warehouse- man, carpetcutter, and delivery man. Two supervisors, Ray Bossong and Bill Thompson, have had general supervisory 193 NLRB No. 14 PENN CARPET SERVICE, INC. 75 assignments, including supervision of the mechanics and the helpers. Until their discharges by the Respondent on October 5, 1970, Dale Butler and Lenwood Robinson had worked for the Respondent as mechanics for approximately 2 years (in Butler's case) and for about 8 months (in Robinson's case). In July 1970, Butler and Robinson had discussed joining the Union and Robinson spoke by telephone with Joseph Poplowski, the Union's business agent. But after talking also with five of the other mechanics (Bob Beatty, Thomas Pegg, Thomas Rabbitt, Douglas Hardt, and Bill Miller), they decided that, in view of the number of summer help employed by the Respondent, the time was not ripe for organization and Robinson so informed Business Agent Poplowski. In late September, Robinson and Butler again spoke with the same five mechanics and two additional mechanics (Robert Van Kirk and Frank Paga), and upon their indicating a willingness to join, or at least an interest in joining, Robinson again telephoned Poplowski on Friday, October 2. On Saturday, October 3, Robinson and Butler visited Poplowski at the Union's office, signed union membership applications, and arranged for a meeting between Poplowski and other interested mechanics em- ployed by the Respondent, to be held at the Union's office on Monday evening, October 5. During the workday, on Monday, however, both Robinson and Butler were discharged and the two men notified Business Agent Poplowski of this fact and called off the evening meeting with Poplowski. On that Monday morning, October 5, the Respondent's mechanics and helpers, including Robinson and Butler, attended a short meeting with President Pagano in the shop as they usually did on Monday mornings before going out to their assignments for the day. Before the meeting and as the men set out on their assignments, Butler and Robinson told each of the other seven mechanics, whom they had already spoken to about the Union, that there would be a union meeting that night. There is no evidence that conversations between the men at such times were unusual nor is there any direct evidence, or evidence from which I would infer, that Pagano or his supervisors noticed anything unusual about the conversations that morning or overheard anything of their substance At the meeting with the employees that morning, Pagano told the men that an error made by one of the mechanics the previous week, would cost the Respondent $500. He did not name the mechanic, but it is clear that it was neither Butler nor Robinson. It is also undisputed that Pagano did not mention Butler's or Robinson's name at this meeting nor criticize any job on which either of them had worked. Later in the morning, President Pagano left the shop for an hour and a half and, while driving mechanic Frank Paga in the Respondent's truck in search of a power stretcher to be used by Paga's crew, had a conversation with Paga in which the subject of unions came up. Pagano had delivered carpet to one of the Respondent's jobs to which Paga and mechanics Robinson and Robert Kruljak had been sent that morning. Ordinarily, Pagano did not make such deliveries and the General Counsel suggests that he did so on this occasion to learn what he could about his mechanics' interest in a union. But, crediting Pagano's testimony, I find no credible basis for any such conclusion. After Paga's crew had left for the job, Pagano realized there was no one else in the shop to deliver the carpet' and so Pagano himself left the shop with the carpet after asking John Kruljak, a neighboring tavern owner and father of mechanic Robert Kruljak, to take his telephone calls during his absence. At the jobsite, Pagano learned from Paga that the crew had no power stretcher and so, accompanied by mechanic Paga, he left the site in the truck and telephoned his shop to find out from his installation schedule whether there was a crew of the Respondent working on a nearby job where he might pick up a power stretcher. His accomodating neighbor answered the telephone but could not understand the schedule book and so Pagano returned Paga to the j obsite and told Paga that he would send out a power stretcher from the shop. There was actually no dispute as to the substance and course of Pagano's and Paga's conversation while they were riding in the truck that morning and the following findings are based on a composite of the testimony given by both men. Pagano talked with Paga about Paga's family and also about layoffs of carpet mechanics which were taking place at other shops including the Colonial Carpet Company, which they passed as they were driving. Paga said, "That's a union shop." Pagano then said that they did not "stretch" out their work as the Respondent did and, saying that he knew that Paga had once been a member of the Union, he asked Paga what he thought about the Union and whether he would go back into it if he had a chance. Paga answered that "it is okay if you get enough seniority," and that he would "vote" for the Union if everyone else in the shop did. President Pagano returned to the shop at 11 a.m. Supervisor Bossong had been out of the shop earlier in the morning but had come in again before Pagano's return. According to Pagano's and Bossong's testimony, they and Supervisor Bill Thompson2 discussed four or five com- plaints about Robinson's and Butler's work which had just been received in the mail that morning from Ryan Construction Company and Pagano, urged by the two supervisors to discharge the men, decided to hold a special meeting of all the mechanics that afternoon at which, as a warning to the rest of the men, he would discharge Robinson and Butler as incompetent, not only because of the current complaints but also because Pagano and the supervisors had for some time been dissatisfied with Robinson's and Butler's work and the numerous earlier complaints received about it. Whether or not the evidence as to numerous complaints against Robinson and Butler generally supports the Respondent's contention that these were the actual grounds for their discharges will be considered later in my discussion of the Respondent's defense. In any event, a special meeting with all the mechanics was held by Pagano at the end of the day and, although Pagano admittedly had never before reprimanded mechanics nor discharged any of I Warehouseman Kaiser was out picking up an order and Supervisor Ray Bossong had left the shop for an hour or two because of an injury to his son 2 Thompson was in the hospital for surgery at the time of the hearing and therefore did not testify 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD them in the presence of other mechanics, he told Robinson and Butler at the meeting that they were "publicly discharged" for "incompetence" and the number of complaints made about their work for the past 6 months. In addition , as Pagano testified and I find , he told the other mechanics that if their work got as bad as Robinson's and Butler 's, they would also be fired and "if they didn't like it that they were free to leave now." On October 6, the day following the discharges, Robinson filed the unfair labor practice charge in the present case alleging that the Respondent had discharged him and Butler because of their membership in, and their concerted activities on behalf of, the Union. A copy of the charge was received by the Respondent in the mail on October 7 and on October 8 President Pagano presented to his supervisors and his mechanics a typewritten form on which each of them was asked to express his "opinion" of whether Robinson 's and Butler's discharges were because of their union activities or because of "professional inefficiency," by affixing his signature to one of four paragraphs in the form; i.e., (1) the employee was "not aware of Robinson's and Butler's Union activity and "believed" they were terminated because of "professional inefficiency"; (2) the employee was "aware " of Robinson's and Butler 's union activity but believed that they were terminated "because of professional inefficiency" and not because of their union activity; (3) the employee "was not aware" of Robinson's and Butler's union activity but believed that they were terminated "because of this alleged activity and not because of professional inefficiency"; or (4) the employee "was aware" of Robinson 's and Butler's union activity and believed that they were terminated because of "this activity and not because of their professional inefficiency." Of the I I persons complying with Pagano's request that they sign this paper indicating their "opinion ," 6 of them (including Supervisors Bossong and Thompson) signed under alternative paragraph ( 1), and the remaining 5 (all of whom were mechanics ) signed alternative (2). No one signed alternative (3) or (4). B. The Evidence Bearing Upon the Reasons for the Discharges As I have already found, President Pagano told Robinson and Butler when he discharged them that they were being discharged for "incompetence" and the number of complaints made about their work for the past 6 months. Robinson testified that , in his 8 months of employment by the Respondent , he had never been reprimanded because of his work nor previously told that he was incompetent. Butler testified that in the 2 years of his employment, he had been reprimanded only three times; i.e., in December 1969 for forgetting to take a power stretcher on a job, in April 1970 for leaving a job as a member of a four-man crew before the end of his workday (although he had first explained the necessity for his doing so), and finally in mid- July or possibly as late as the end of August 1970 by Supervisor Thompson for not having done enough work on a Lorraine Hotel job . Both Robinson and Butler admitted, however , that there were complaints from customers at times about jobs on which they had worked. Robinson testified that these complaints were posted on the bulletin board, listing the job and the names of the mechanics involved, but insisted that his name was included only with other mechanics on the same jobs. Butler testified, too, that there had been customer complaints about his jobs although he "would really have no idea how many I received." He testified that he might "have received only one or two during the last month of his employment." President Pagano and Supervisor Bossong testified, however, that the complaints against Robinson and Butler were much more numerous than against the other mechanics and that Supervisor Thompson (who could not appear to testify because he was in the hospital), as well as Bossong, had for some time recommended that the two men be discharged. According to the testimony of Joseph Voytosh (who was employed in an "administrative" capacity in the office) and the testimony of Supervisor Bossong, they had both spoken to Robinson about the complaints against him , and, on one occasion when Pagano wanted to cut Robinson 's wages , Voytosh, impressed by Robinson 's regular attendance , interceded for Robinson and merely spoke to Robinson and warned him without actually reducing his wages. Concerning the Lorraine Hotel incident for which Butler testified he had been reprimanded, there is no dispute that Supervisor Thompson had actually recommended Butler's discharge but that, in a discussion of the matter with Thompson and Bossong in Butler's presence , Pagano relented and said he would give Butler another chance. Butler testified that Pagano had told him of Thompson's recommendation and then asked Bossong if he, too, had recommended Butler 's discharge but that Bossong said he had made no such recommendation. According to Butler, he was not handed his pay in an envelope on this occasion, and it was only after Pagano made it clear he would not be discharged that Butler said, "Thanks, I will try to do better, and to do what you expect of me ." But Bossong testified, and I credit his testimony and find, that on this occasion, Pagano handed Butler an envelope with his paycheck and told Butler that Thompson had recommended Butler's discharge "several times before and [that Pagano] had held on because [Butler's] work might have improved, but it hasn't improved"; that Butler pleaded for his job and another chance to improve his work; and that Pagano then said he would give him the chance. Coming down to the number of complaints which were made about their work , it seems clear to me that whatever the number may have been , both Robinson and Butler were aware of each of them since they were posted on the bulletin board and the men had to go out and correct them. Complaints about bad work are made to the Respondent either by telephone or by letter. Telephoned complaints are noted on the pages of a so-called "service call book" which lists not only the job but ordinarily, although not always, the mechanics involved. Letters of complaint from developers are ordinarily addressed to the prime carpeting contractor, forwarded to the Respondent as subcontractor, and eventually returned by the Respondent to the prime carpeting contractor after the complaints have been attended to. Each complaint is listed on the Respondent's bulletin board for the attention of the mechanic or PENN CARPET SERVICE, INC. 77 mechanics involved. In the cases of developers' complaints and those of the telephoned complaints in which there are sometimes no notations of the mechanics who did the work, the names of the mechanics are procured from the Respondent's day-to-day "schedule book of installations." In checking back for a list of all complaints against Robinson, Butler , and the other mechanics for the year 1970, as the Respondent was asked to do under a subpena issued by the General Counsel and served upon the Respondent before the hearing, the Respondent was therefore required to secure this information from a number of journal sources, including not only its "service call book" and its "schedule book of installations" but, in the cases of developers such as Ryan Construction Company, also a separate series of such complaints which were apparently listed under lot and block number rather than chronologically. In apparent realization of the complexity of this task, the subpena stated (as the General Counsel admitted at the hearing) that the Respondent "could supply a summary." Such a seven-page summary of all complaints against all mechanics during 1970 was provided by Respondent and admitted in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. As I have noted, Pagano and Bossong testified that Pagano decided to discharge Robinson and Butler during the day of October 5, not only because of the four or five complaints about their work on the Ryan Construction jobs which had been received in the mail that morning but also because Pagano and Supervisors Thompson and Bossong had long been dissatisfied with the men's work and the numerous earlier complaints about it, although Pagano had, up to this time , refused to follow the repeated recommendations of the supervisors that the men be discharged in the hope that their work would improve. According to Bossong's testimony, "about fifty percent [of the complaints received in 1970] was Mr. Butler's and Mr. Robinson's and the balance of them were divided up among the other twelve or fourteen men in the shop." The summary of the 1970 complaints submitted by the Respondent in reply to the subpena, generally supports this estimate . Of 77 complaints received, 33 were against Butler, Robinson, or both of them. In the case of Butler who was employed for the first 9 months of this year, there were 21 against him alone and 8 against him and Robinson as a team. In the case of Robinson, who was employed for 8 months of this time, there were four against him individually in addition to the eight against him and Butler as a team. I accept this summary and make the corresponding findings.3 C. Conclusions The foregoing evidence reveals at most two instances of 3 As I have noted in the text, the General Counsel's subpena served upon the Respondent before the hearing, indicated that a summary of the 1970 complaints taken from the Respondent's records would satisfy the subpena At the hearing, however, the General Counsel objected to the admission of the Respondent's summary and sought to introduce in evidence only the Respondent's "service call book," claiming that there were discrepancies between the "service call book" and the summary I admitted the Respondent's summary in evidence and rejected the General Counsel's offer of the "Service call book" for the following reasons The "service call book" was a bound book with numerous entries and, as I have unfair labor practices by President Pagano, first in his asking mechanic Frank Paga what he thought about the Union and whether he would go back into the Union, and then in his later asking his employees (after he had been served with the unfair labor practice charge accusing him of discharging Robinson and Butler because of their union activities) to indicate by their signatures on the form of questionnaire provided by Pagano, whether they knew of any union activities on the part of Robinson and Butler and whether, having been present when the two men were discharged, they believed that they had been discharged for such union activities or for "professional inefficiency." I conclude that by thus questioning Paga about his feelings concerning the Union and by asking his employees about their knowledge of Robinson's and Butler's union activities as well as their opinions of the reasons for their discharges, in each case without showing the necessity for such questions and without giving the employees the assurances against discrimination required by the Board's decisions in Blue Flash (109 NLRB 591) and Struksnes Construction Co. (165 NLRB 1062), President Pagano interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in their freedom to exercise the employee rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1). But these isolated instances in which the employees' nghts were infringed do not indicate either a knowledge on the part of Pagano that union activity was actually taking place and that Robinson or Butler was involved, or that Pagano was at all disposed to curb it by discharging Robinson and Butler. For I am convinced that Pagano's conversation with Paga was a casual conversation in which Paga first referred to the Union, and that Pagano's presentation of the questionnaire to the employees, although devoid of any real value in preparing his defense to the unfair labor practice charge which had just been served upon him, was in fact innocently intended by him solely to serve that purpose. Nor are there any other indications in the record of knowledge by Pagano of Robinson's and Butler's union activity or of an antiunion disposition on Pagano's part unless they can be found in the coincidence of the discharges with the inception of Robinson's and Butler's attempt to organize the mechanics and in a patent fabrication of the grounds given by Pagano and Bossong for their discharges. And of this I am not persuaded since, upon consideration of the evidence already summarized, I conclude that Pagano and his two supervisors had for a long time considered discharging the two men because of the numerous complaints about their work; that the matter finally came to a head when the batch of four or five complaints were received on October 5; and that Pagano had not only bowed to his supervisors ' recommendations already found in the text upon Bossong's and Pagano's testimony, it was only one of the sources of relevant information about the 1970 complaints, none of which were complete nor intelligible without explanatory testimony from Bossong who had prepared Respondent's summary. These sources , including the "service call book" and "schedule book of installations," were inspected by the General Counsel during the hearing and his examination of Supervisor Bossong disclosed no substantial variances from nor any lack of support for, the items in the Respondent's summary 78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD but decided to discharge the two men in the presence of the other mechanics as a warning to them of the consequences of poor work and an unusually high number of complaints about it. Accordingly, I conclude that the Respondent discharged Robinson and Butler, not because of their union activities, but because of their incompetence as shown by the number of complaints about their work. I will recommend the dismissal of the allegations of the complaint that the Respondent committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act in its discharge of Robinson and Butler. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the business operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce between the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ORDER The Respondent, Penn Carpet Service, Inc., a Pennsylva- nia corporation, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Questioning employees about their feelings concern- ing United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Floor Coverers and Decorators Local Union 1759, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, about their knowledge of the union activities of other employees, or about their opinions as to whether particular employees have been discharged for union activities or for Just cause. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its shop in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, shall, after being signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by it 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 Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in wnting, within 20 days from the receipt of the Trial Examiner's Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except for the unfair labor practices specifically found in the Trial Examiner's Decision, the complaint be, and the same is hereby, dismissed. 1. Respondent, Penn Carpet Service, Inc., a Pennsylva- nia corporation, is an employer engaged in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Floor Coverers and Decorators Local Union 1759, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. By questioning employees about their feelings concerning the Union, about their knowledge of the union activities of other employees, and about their opinions as to whether particular employees had been discharged for union activities or for incompetence, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1). 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondent did not commit the other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. 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: 4 4 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 , 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. s 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 " 6 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government We hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT question our employees about their feelings concerning United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Floor Coverers and Decorators PENN CARPET SERVICE, INC. Local Union 1759, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization , about their knowledge of the union activities of other employees, or about their opinions as to whether particular employees have been discharged for union activities or for just cause. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce any of our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. All of our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining , members of any labor organization. Dated By 79 PENN CARPET SERVICE, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board 's Office, 1526 Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue , Pittsburgh, Penn- sylvania 15222 , Telephone 412-644-2977.