Super Toys, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 651 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

SUPER TOYS, INC. 651
Super Toys, Inc. and Wholesale Delivery Drivers &
Salesmen Local 848, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America . Case 31-CA-1682
November 19, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On August 10, 1970, Trial Examiner George
Christensen issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief. The General Counsel
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 this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Delivery Drivers & Salesmen Local 848, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of Amenca3 and additionally violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating its employees concerning
their union activities.
The Respondent admitted receipt of the charge, the
correctness of the jurisdictional and labor organization
allegations of the complant, that its branch manager,
Harold Boigan, its assistant branch manager, Harold
Brown, and its supervisor, Berton Diamond, at all pertinent
times were its supervisors and agents acting on its behalf,
and that it discharged Calvaresi and has refused to reinstate
him at all times subsequent. Respondent denied that it
discharged Calvaresi for engaging in union activities and
that it interrogated its employees regarding their union
activities.
The issues are (1) whether the Respondent discharged
Calvaresi for engaging in union activities and (2) whether it
interrogated its employees regarding their union activities.
A hearing was held at Los Angeles, California, on March
31 at which the parties appeared by counsel and were
afforded full opportunity to present evidence, examine and
cross-examine witnesses, argue, and file briefs. Briefs have
been submitted by the General Counsel and the Respon-
dent. Based on his review of the entire record, observation
of the witnesses, and perusal of the briefs, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
The jurisdictional facts, the qualification of the Respon-
dent as an employer engaged in commerce in a business
affecting commerce and the Union as a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (5), (6), and (7) of the
Act is conceded by all parties and I therefore so find and
conclude.
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, Super Toys, Inc., North Holly-
wood, California, 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
GEORGE CHRISTENSEN , Trial Examiner : On January 7,
1970,' the Union filed a charge which caused the issuance
on February 10 of a complaint alleging that Super Toys,
Inc.,2 violated Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (Act), by discharging Philip
Calvaresi for engaging in activities on behalf of Wholesale
I Hereafter date references for the months between October and
December refer to the year 1969 and the date references for January and
February refer to the year 1970
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
In October Diamond was working for the Respondent as
a driver in the Los Angeles area. He had previously worked
for the Respondent in Detroit. He and Calvaresi lived in the
same apartment building and were acquainted. Sometime
that month Diamond introduced Calvaresi to Boigan and
the latter employed Calvaresi as a freelance salesman to
solicit new accounts for the Company on the basis of $25
commission for each new account secured (including one
rack) plus $5 for each additional rack. Calvaresi was
reimbursed for car expense and used his own auto. He was
latter permitted a draw against commissions.
The Respondent is essentially a rack jobber, installing
racks and supplying them with small, cheap toys in various
retail outlets. Respondent followed the practice each year
of disposing of larger and more expensive boxed toys
turned in by its customers and stacked in its warehouse
2 Hereafter referred to as the Company or the Respondent
3 Hereafter referred to as the Union
186 NLRB No. 96
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during the year through weekend sales meetings in
November and December, at which meetings the toys were
sold for whatever price they would command. These sales
meetings were called swap-meets. Whatever toys were not
sold by Christmas were donated to charity.4 Boigan
authorized Calvaresi to attend the November and Decem-
ber swap-meets in 1969 and attempt to sell its accumulated
boxed goods. It was agreed that 25 percent of the receipts
derived were to go to the Company and the balance split
between Calvaresi and the Company.
Calvaresi attended several swap- meets in November, sold
a quantity of the toys, accounted for the proceeds to the
Company, and turned over the requisite amount of money.
About December 1, Boigan made Calvaresi a driver at a
salary of $150 a week. It was made clear to Calvaresi,
however, that the assignment was a temporary one because
of the Christmas rush, and that he would revert back to his
status as a freelance salesman on or about January 1. There
were two regular drivers employed by the Company to
service its accounts in the Los Angeles area at the time;
namely, Diamond and Larry Epstein. Diamond was paid
$175 per week and Epstein $150 per week. The duties of the
drivers were to stock the racks at the various retail outlets
on their respective routes and install racks as required.
They left invoices for the amounts due to the Company,
and with rare exception did not handle any money. They
drove trucks supplied and serviced by the Company.
Sometime during the month Boigan was advised by the
home office. that he was over his budget and to lay off
Calvaresi and one more employee. Boigan asked for and
received permission to desist from any changes until
January since he had to be in San Francisco during the
month on a special project and needed all the current
employees for the month. The home office agreed. Boigan
offered Calvaresi a job as branch manager at the Company
in Las Vegas, but Calvaresi declined because of his and his
wife's reluctance to move and change their childrens'
school enrollment without an employment contract, which
Boigan could not offer.
In early December Calvaresi asked Boigan if he might
take some of the merchandise unsold at the swap-meets to
his apartment to try to sell it to neighbors and friends.
Boigan consented. Calvaresi realized $220 by such sales.
About a week later Calvaresi asked Boigan if he might
borrow the Company's share of the $220 in proceeds from
his home sale, saying he needed money to pay back child
support to his former wife, had some pressing bills and
needed money for the holidays. Boigan told him it was
company money, that the Detroit home office of the
Company knew about the sale, and that he could not loan it
to Calvaresi. He suggested that Calvaresi apply for a
personal loan at a finance company. Calvaresi replied he
had tried that, without success. Boigan then instructed
Calvaresi to turn in the money owed the Company the
following week.
Instead of following instructions, Calvaresi applied the
money to his personal obligations. About December 18,
Harold Brown, who was acting as manager of the branch
during Boigan's absence that week in San Francisco, told
Calvaresi he had been holding back mailing the envelope to
the home office containing the invoice accounting for the
$220 home sale awaiting the money and asked Calvaresi for
the money so he could mail it in . Calvaresi confessed to
Brown that he had used the money, stating that he could
not get a personal loan and had to pay back child support
to his ex-wife. Brown then sent in the envelope containing
the invoice even though no money was enclosed.
On either the following Monday or Tuesday (December
22 or 23) Calvaresi sought out Boigan, who had returned
from San Francisco, apologized for appropriating the
Company's money for his own use , pleaded with Boigan
not to fire him, promised not to repeat his action, and
offered to endorse his next two paychecks back to the
Company to satisfy the debt. Boigan accepted.
A day or so later, paychecks for the preceding week were
distributed. Calvaresi asked Boigan to let him keep that
check and not endorse it over, that he needed the money
badly. He promised to pay the debt with his next paycheck
plus his earnings as a waiter on New Year's Eve. Boigan
agreed.
On the following Monday (December 29), Boigan
announced that there were going to be some changes made
in the operation of the branch and that there would be a
general meeting of employees to outline them on Saturday,
January 3. Diamond, Epstein, and Calvaresi lunched
together after the announcement. Worried about possible
job loss and/or income reduction, they decided to seek
union representation. The three returned to the Company's
offices and placed a telephone call to the Union wherein it
was arranged for the three to meet with representatives of
the Union at Calvaresi's apartment that evening. At that
meeting the three expressed their fear of either job loss or
income reduction or both, signed cards authorizing the
Union to act on their behalf in bargaining collectively with
the Company over their wages , hours, and working
conditions, and asked the Union to notify the Company of
its representative status before the January 3 meeting to
forestall any changes in their job status or earnings. The
three also agreed among themselves to deny any knowledge
of the Union if questioned by the Company.
On receipt of his paycheck that week (covering the week
of December 22-26), Calvaresi waited until the other
employees had left and then endorsed his check over to the
Company and gave it to Boigan (Boigan testified that
Calvaresi was sensitive about the other employees knowing
of his debt and wanted the matter kept in confidence). On
December 31, Boigan passed out yearend bonus checks.
Calvaresi received a check for $50. He did not apply it to
the debt, nor did Boigan request that he do so.
On January 2 Calvaresi informed Boigan he did not make
anything on New Year's Eve. That same day (a Friday),
Boigan held the meeting originally scheduled for Saturday,
January 3, to announce changes in the branch operation.
The meeting was moved ahead a day at the employees'
request, so they would have their weekend free and not
have to come in on Saturday . Boigan, Brown , Diamond,
Epstein, Calvaresi, and Dale Day (the warehouseman) were
present at the meeting. Boigan announced there would be
4 On December 20 the remaining unsold boxed goods in the warehouse
were donated to Synanon.
SUPER TOYS, INC 653
some changes effective January 5, but that no one would
lose his job, Brown was to become assistant branch
manager, Diamond was to become supervisor over the
warehouse and truck operations, Epstein was to remain a
Los Angeles route driver and Calvaresi was to take over
Diamond's former job as the other Los Angeles route
driver:5 Day would continue to handle the warehouse. He
further stated, however, that the drivers' compensation
would be changed to between 8 and 10 percent commission
of sales with a minimum guarantee in an amount he did not
yet know (apparently the Detroit home office had not set or
approved a figure). When Calvaresi and Epstein protested
on the ground the existing routes did not generate sales
sufficient to cover their existing salaries at the proposed
commission rates during their busiest month, December,
Boigan stated if they did not like the new arrangement, they
could leave. Both subsided at that, and Diamond assured
them he would work to increase the number of accounts so
their income would not drop.
On opening the mail the next day (Saturday, January 3)
at the office, Boigan found a letter from the Union dated
December 30 asserting that it represented a majority of the
Company's drivers and requesting recognition and bargain-
ing. Boigan telephoned Diamond, (awakening him), told
him he had received a letter from the Union stating it
represented the drivers and asked what Diamond knew
about it. Diamond replied that he would come down to the
office and talk to Boigan about it.
Boigan also telephoned Calvaresi and told Calvaresi that
he had received the union letter and asked Calvaresi what
he knew about it, and had he authorized the Union to
represent him. Calvaresi said that he knew nothing about
the Union and had not authorized it to represent him.
Diamond subsequently appeared at Calvaresi's apart-
ment and told Calvaresi that Boigan had telephoned him to
ask if he knew anything about the Union. Calvaresi told
Diamond he also had received a call from Boigan and had
told Boigan that he didn't know anything about the Union.
Calvaresi then asked Diamond what he was going to do.
Diamond replied that since he now was a supervisor, he
would have to protect his job by going to the office and
telling Boigan the truth about the union activities of all
three of them-Calvaresi, Epstein, and himself.
Diamond went to the office and saw Boigan. Boigan
asked Diamond if he had signed an authorization card for
the Union. Diamond replied that he had, and related that
he, Calvaresi, and Epstein all had signed cards.
Calvaresi followed Diamond to Boigan's office and saw
Boigan and Diamond conversing there when he arrived.
After Diamond left, Calvaresi entered Boigan's office and
said that after hearing Diamond's story, he wanted Boigan
to hear his. Boigan replied that it made no difference who
started the Union or whether or not the employees wanted
a union, he had orders to let Calvaresi go because Calvaresi
had withheld company funds 6 Calvaresi then left Boigan's
office.
Later that day Boigan also asked Epstein if he knew
anything about the Union. Epstein replied that he did, that
he had signed an authorization card for the Union.
The balance of Calvaresi's debt to the Company was paid
by deduction from Calvaresi's paycheck on January 8
paying him for the preceding week. Subsequent to
Calvaresi's discharge, Diamond carried his former route
with the assistance of Day for a few weeks, after which a
new driver was employed on the route.
Epstein has been continuously employed by the Compa-
ny since the Calvaresi discharge.
`, Epstein and Diamond corroborated Calvaresi's testimony to this
effect, Boigan denied making the statement, Brown neither confirmed nor
denied that Boigan made the statement, Day did not testify Boigan's
denial is discredited in view of his failure to deny the earlier statement that
no one would lose his job and his corroboration of Calvaresis testimony
that Boigan sought to employ Calvaresi as a branch manager for the
Company in Las Vegas and his further testimony that he made that offer
because he wanted to retain Calvaresi in the Company's employ, which is
consistent with his filling of the vacancy created by Diamond's promotion
with Calvaresi
6 Boigan testified that he had been ordered by the Detroit home office
the previous evening (Friday, January 2) to discharge Calvaresi because of
his misappropriation of company funds previously set forth, that this order
came by telephone from the president of the Company, who had learned of
the misappropriation from an employee who had gone to Detroit from Los
Angeles just previous to the holidays Brown testified that Boigan informed
him of the impending discharge before he opened the union letter
requesting recognition, Diamond testified that Boigan informed him that
he was going to discharge Calvaresi for misappropriating company funds
before he told Boigan that he, Epstein, and Calvaresi had authorized the
Union to represent them, and Epstein testified that Boigan informed him
at Boigan's office about 10 am on the day of the discharge (before it
occurred) that he was going to discharge Calvaresi for misappropriating
company funds While there is no question that Calvaresi appropriated
company funds for his own use, Boigan accepted Calvaresi's excuses and
promise not to repeat, and continued Calvaresi in the Company's employ I
discredit Boigan's testimony as set out above, the home office knew of the
misappropriation at or shortly after it occurred and not only failed to
countermand Boigan's decision to condone the matter, but also accepted
the fruits of that condonation On or about December 8, Boigan informed
Calvaresi that the home office knew of the home sale proceeds as
justification for his refusal to treat Calvaresi's withholding of such proceeds
as a loan , on or about December 18, Brown mailed the invoice showing
such proceeds to the home office without enclosing the moneys due
thereunder, on or about December 31, Calvaresi endorsed his paycheck
over to the Company in partial satisfaction of the amount due In these
circumstances it appears both illogical and unreasonable, particularly in
view of the fortuitous timing therefor , that the home office would suddenly
order Boigan to discharge Calvaresi for the misappropriation This
conclusion is additionally strengthened by Boigan 's announcement
(obviously with the approval of the home office) the very afternoon
preceding the evening the alleged order was given that no one was to lose
his job in the reorganization of the Los Angeles branch, that Calvaresi was
to be promoted to fill the vacancy created by Diamond's promotion With
regard to the testimony of Brown, Diamond , and Epstein that Boigan
announced to them that Calvaresi was to be discharged for
misappropriating company funds prior to his acquisition of the information
that Calvaresi had lied to him about the Union, this Just does not appear
reasonable Boigan failed to mention any intent to discharge Calvaresi
when he telephoned him prior to conversing with Diamond to inquire into
his knowledge of the Union Epstein's testimony appears suspect inasmuch
as the whole purpose of the Friday general employee meeting was to excuse
the employees from going to Boigan's office on Saturday, yet Epstein
relates an alleged conversation at 10 a m on Saturday morning at Boigan's
office Diamond was evasive and contradictory on the stand and appeared
anxious to avoid any testimony which could reflect adversely on the
Company. which coincides with his admitted statement to Calvaresi on
January 4 that he wasn ' t going to risk his job as a supervisor Brown
demonstrated the same anxiety For these reasons and based on my
observation of their demeanor on the stand, he discredits the testimony of
Epstein , Brown , and Diamond of statements by Boigan prior to his receipt
of the Union's letter and knowledge of Calvaresi's union activities that he
was going to discharge Calvaresi for misappropriating company funds on
orders from Detroit
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. Conclusions
I find and conclude that the stated reason for Calvaresi's
discharge was pretextual and that the moving factor
precipitating his January 3 discharge was his support of the
Union.
On the day before the discharge Boigan had succeeded in
his effort to retain Calvaresi in the Company's employ; he
had secured authority to employ Calvaresi as a full-time
route driver, after failing to secure his employment as a Las
Vegas branch manager on mutually acceptable terms. He
had accepted Calvaresi's pleas and promises and condoned
an earlier misappropriation of the Company's funds. Yet
one day after announcing Calvaresi's promotion (he had
been scheduled to revert back to his former position as a
freelance salesman from his temporary position as an extra
driver on January 5), Boigan discharged Calvaresi.
The only changes between the time Boigan promoted
Calvaresi and the time he discharged him were: ( 1) Boigan
learned that the Union had organized his drivers; (2) that
both the remaining local drivers, Epstein and Calvaresi
(plus Diamond, the newly made supervisor) had authorized
the Union to represent them; and (3) Calvaresi denied,
while Epstein and Diamond admitted, that they had so
authorized the Union.
Boigan undoubtedly was outraged that the employee for
whom he had done so much-saved his job, condoned his
misappropriation of company funds, gave him an opportu-
nity for extra income (the swap-meets)-not only brought
the Union, but also lied about the fact he had done so. It is
also clear that with Calvaresi discharged, the Union's
support in the original supposed three-man unit would
dwindle to one-Epstein-thereby dissipating ^ the Un-
ion's majority within the unit.
I therefore find and conclude that Boigan discharged
Calvaresi on January 4 for authorizing the Union to
represent him and not because he had misappropriated
company funds, which Boigan had condoned, and
therefore violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
It is undisputed that Boigan on January 4 polled Epstein
and Calvaresi (and Diamond) concerning the Union's
claim of majority representative status. Even though
unaccompanied by any threat of reprisal or promise of
benefit, such polling has repeatedly been held to be
inherently coercive inasmuch as the interrogated employees
necessarily (and correctly, in Calvaresi's case) reason that
admission of union support jeopardizes their employment
status. The Board has held such polling is unlawful unless
accompanied by assurances against interference with the
employees' Section 7 rights and reprisal, an absence of
coercion and a declaration that the purpose of such inquiry
is merely to inquire into the validity of the Union's
assertion of majority representative status. Struksnes Const.
Co., 165 NLRB 1062; also see N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Inc., 340
F.2d 803, (C.A. 5). All of these safeguards were absent in
these interrogations.
I therefore find and conclude that by Boigan's January 4
poll of Epstein and Calvaresi concerning their support of
the Union the Company interfered with, restrained, and
coerced Calvaresi and Epstein in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights under the Act and thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
The General Counsel alleges that the Respondent
additionally violated Section 8(a)(1) by Diamond's January
3 statements to Calvaresi that he was going to tell Boigan
the truth about his union activities and those of Calvaresi
and Epstein. I find and conclude that Diamond's
declaration was not intended to interfere with, coerce or
restrain Calvaresi in the exercise of his Section 7 rights but
rather to alert Calvaresi to Diamond's personal renuncia-
tion of his earlier committment to deny any knowledge of
the Union and therefore fell outside the scope of his agency
powers vis-a-vis the Respondent.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce and in a business affecting commerce and the Union
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(5), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent discharged Calvaresi for authoriz-
ing the Union to represent him and thereby wiolated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. The Respondent interfered with, coerced, and
restrained Calvaresi and Epstein in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights under the Act by polling them concerning
their support of the Union and thereby violated Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce as
defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondent did not otherwise violate the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has committed unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that the Respondent be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom, to post notices as
specified hereafter, to offer Calvaresi reinstatement to his
former position, and to make him whole for any loss of
earnings he suffered by reason of his discriminatory
discharge for a period dating from the date of his discharge
to the date he is offered reinstatement by the Respondent,
calculated in the manner established by the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate
of 6 percent per annum as set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees for supporting the Union or any other labor
organization.
(b) Refusing to reinstate Philip Calvaresi to his former
position or, if that position no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent one.
(c) Polling or otherwise coercively interrogating employ-
ees concerning their support of the Union.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Offer to Philip Calvaresi immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if the job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges,
and make him whole financially in the manner set forth in
"The Remedy" for any loss in earnings he has suffered
because of the discrimination against him.
SUPER TOYS, INC.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
pension records, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary or appropriate for the purpose of
ascertaining the backpay due under this Recommended
Order.
(c) Post at its North Hollywood, California, premises,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7
Immediately upon receipt of copies of the notice on forms
furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31, the
Respondent shall cause copies to be signed by an
authorized representative and posted and maintained in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily placed, for 60 consecutive days
thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.8
The complaint allegations that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Diamond's January 3
statement to Calvaresi that he was going to tell Boigan the
truth about his union activities and those of Calvaresi and
Epstein shall be, and are, dismissed.
7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted
by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all
objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 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 "
8 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 31, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it 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
655
After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
found that we violated the law and ordered us to post this
notice; we intend to carry out its order and do the
following:
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against you for supporting or assisting Wholesale
Delivery Drivers & Salesmen Local 848, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
& Helpers of America, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT coercively question or poll you about
your support of the above Union, or any other union.
Since the Board ruled that we discharged
Philip Calvaresi for supporting the above Union,
WE WILL offer him his old job back and give him
backpay for any financial losses he suffered since we
discharged him.
SUPER TOYS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
Representative Title
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
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, 11000
Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90024, Tele-
phone 824-7357.