Thrifty Supply Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 24, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 370 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

370 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NOTE.-We will notify Perillo, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States, of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of
1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Boston
Five Cents Savings Bank Building, 24 School Street, Boston, Massachusetts, Telephone
No. 523-8100, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Harold Gorlick and Morris Gorlick, Co -Partners, d/b/a Thrifty
Supply Company and Teamsters Local Union No. 174, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America , Independent
Thrifty Supply Co. of Tacoma, Inc. and Teamsters Local Union
No. 599, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Independent. Cases
Nos. 19-CA-2949 and 19-CA-2951. June 24, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 15,1965, Trial Examiner Louis S. Penfield issued his Deci-
sion 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 Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and a brief in support of its exceptions.
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 these cases to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep-
tions and brief, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts
the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations
except as modified below.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that Respondent, Harold Gorlick and Morris Gor-
lick, Co-partners, d/b/a Thrifty Supply Company, Seattle, Washing-
ton, and Thrifty Supply Co., of Tacoma, Inc., Tacoma, Washington,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as so modified.
153 NLRB No. 34.
THRIFTY SUPPLY COMPANY 371
1. Add the following as paragraph 2 (b) to the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, the present paragraph 2 (b) and those subse-
quent thereto being consecutively relettered :
"(b) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstate-
ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces."
2. The telephone number for Region 19 given in the last paragraph
of the Appendix attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision, is amended
to read : Telephone No. 682-4539.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, with all parties represented , was heard before Trial Examiner
Louis S. Penfield in Seattle , Washington , on January 5 and 6 , 1965, upon a consoli-
dated complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Harold Gorlick and Morris
Gorlick, Co-Partners, d/b/a Thrifty Supply Company and Thrifty Supply Co. of
Tacoma, Inc., herein collectively called Respondent.) The issues litigated were
whether Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act , as amended , herein called the Act. Upon the entire record, including con-
sideration of briefs filed by Respondent and the General Counsel, and upon my
observation of the witnesses , I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Harold Gorlick and Morris Gorlick, Co-Partners , d/b/a Thrifty Supply Company,
herein called Respondent Seattle, have a place of business in Seattle , Washington,
where, as copartners , they are engaged in the wholesale distribution of plumbing and
heating supplies. During the year ending December 31, 1963, Respondent Seattle,
in the course and conduct of its business operations , purchased goods valued in excess
of $50,000 which were shipped directly to it from points outside the State of
Washington.
Thrifty Supply Co. of Tacoma, Inc., herein called Respondent Tacoma, is a
Washington corporation with a place of business in Tacoma, Washington , where it is
engaged in the wholesale distribution of plumbing and heating supplies. During the
year ending December 31, 1963, Respondent Tacoma, in the course and conduct of
its business , purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped to it
from points located outside the State of Washington.
I find that Respondent Seattle and Respondent T:,coma are each engaged in busi-
nesses affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that the assertion of
jurisdiction over each is warranted.
The individual copartners in Respondent Seattle own, between them , 99 percent
of the corporate shares in Respondent Tacoma. It stands undisputed that although
a local manager is responsible for the day-to-day functioning of Respondent Tacoma,
Respondent Seattle, through the copartners, is engaged in the active management of
Respondent Tacoma, performs certain administrative functions for it, including
the preparation of the payroll, and formulates and administers the labor policies which
govern the operations of both Respondent Seattle and Respondent Tacoma. Con-
trary to the contention of Respondent, I find that in view of the foregoing , Respondent
Seattle and Respondent Tacoma not only are subject to common control but also
'The vinplaint issued on October 30, 1964, and is based upon a charge filed in Case
No. 19-CA-2949 on August 24 , 1964 , and a charge filed In Case No . 19-CA-2951 on Au-
gust 26, 1964. Copies of the complaint and the charges have been duly served upon
Respondent.
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that a controlling ownership interest is held by the same individuals and that there-
fore together they constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2(2)
,of the Act.2
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Teamsters Local Union No 174, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Independent, herein called Local 174,
and Teamsters Local Union No 599, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Independent, heiein called Local
599, are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
This proceeding is concerned with the response of Respondent to the efforts of its
employees at Seattle and Tacoma to seek representation through Local 174 and
Local 599, respectively. The General Counsel alleges that at various times since
March 1964, Respondent engaged in unlawful interrogation of its employees at both
locations, and at Tacoma it warned its employees that if they joined Local 599 they
would be discharged. The General Counsel further alleges that on August 21, 1964,
Respondent Seattle terminated the employment of David Berg, and on the same date
Respondent Tacoma terminated the employment of Hughie Olmstead, and since that
time Respondent has refused to reinstate such employees because each had engaged
in union activity on behalf of the local at each location Respondent denies any
unlawful interference with its employees' rights, and denies the unlawful discrimi-
natory discharge of either employee.
At the opening of the hearing, an issue arose concerning a motion of the General
Counsel to amend the complaint. The complaint, as issued, alleged in paragraph
4(a) certain acts, claimed to be unlawful, attributed to Harry Ollard, manager of
Respondent Tacoma, an admitted supervisor The proffered amendment sought to
add the words "and its supervisor, Roger Fisher," so that the paragraph, as amended,
would read "Since on or about March 1964, Respondent corporation through its
manager, Harry Ollard, and its supervisor, Roger Fisher, has warned its employees if
they joined Local No. 599 they would be fired." Respondent opposed the motion,
claiming that Fisher was not a supervisor for whose conduct it was responsible, and
that such fact had been previously determined by the Regional Director.
A representation hearing in a proceeding involving Respondent Tacoma, known
as Case No 19-RC-3506, was conducted on September 8, 1964, less than 2 weeks
after the filing of the charges herein, and it resulted in a Decision and Direction of
Election issued by the Acting Regional Director on September 25, 1964, which in
material part reads as follows:
According to Mr. Gorlick, Fisher and the other employee in the warehouse are
hourly paid. The other employee was hired on August 28 or 31, 1964, and is
very inexperienced. He works under the direction of Fisher who was hired
April 1, 1963. Mr. Gorlick was unable to testify what would happen as this new
employee gained experience but I find on the basis of the record in the Seattle
case that as the warehousemen learn their job they generally know what to do
without being told.
Fisher does not have authority to hire, to discharge, or to lay off employees,
this being the function of the manager, who also handles promotions. While
Mr. Gorlick testified that Fisher could make recommendations on hiring or
discharging, he did not know to what extent the manager would follow any such
recommendations. Nor did he appear to know of any specific instances of
recommendations having been made by Fisher. Mr. Gorlick was likewise far
from positive as to whether Fisher kept time for the other warehouse employee.
Fisher takes no part in employee grievances other than to relay them to the
manager.
Having in mind that the Employer has a manager with only seven employees
under him, that all operations are in one building, and that there are only two
persons in the warehouse, I find that Fisher does not possess any unequivocal
indicia of a supervisor and that the direction he exercises is routine and com-
parable to that which a more skilled and experienced employee would exercise
over a lesser skilled employee. Accordingly, I find Fisher not to be a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act and include him in the unit. The inclusion of
Fisher in the unit constitutes it a two-man unit.
2 Cone Brothers Contracting Company, 135 NLRB 108 ; Dearborn Oil and Gas Corpora-
tion, et al, 125 NLRB 645; Technical Tape Corporation, 111 NLRB 845 ; National Elec-
tronic Manufacturing Corporation and Mylsher Realty Corporation , 113 NLRB 620.
THRIFTY SUPPLY COMPANY 373
Respondent and Local 599 were parties to this representation proceeding, and no
request for review of the Acting Regional Director's decision appears to have been
made. Respondent urged this determination as to Fisher's status to be controlling,
and the issue not properly subject to relitigation in a subsequent unfair labor practice
proceeding. Agreeing in substance with Respondent's position, I denied the motion
to amend inasmuch as the conduct of Fisher as a nonsupervisor would not bind
Respondent. Upon such denial, the General Counsel made an offer of proof. To
support his contention that Fisher was a supervisor, he offered the entire transcript in
the representation proceeding, claiming that it contains admissions by Respondent
which establish Fisher's supervisory status, and he offered to adduce testimony
through witnesses which he claimed would buttress these admissions and show Fisher
to exercise independent discretion, and responsibly to direct the work of employees
in the warehouse. This offer of proof was rejected and further evidence as to Fisher's
conduct or status was not permitted, but the transcript of the representation pro-
ceeding came into the record as a rejected exhibit.
The General Counsel, in his brief, argues that I reverse my rulings and permit the
amendment, reopening the record, if necessary, to take further testimony. After
giving the matter further consideration, I hereby reaffirm my original rulings.
It is well settled that generally issues raised and determined in earlier representation
cases may not be relitigated in subsequent complaint proceedings, and that a Trial
Examiner is bound by earlier unit determinations. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company
v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 157-158; N.L.R.B. v. Botany Worsted Mills, 133 F. 2d
876, 882 (C.A. 3); N.L.R.B. v. West Kentucky Coal Company, 152 F. 2d 198, 200-
201 (C.A. 6); Quaker City Life Insurance Company, 138 NLRB 61; Air Control
Products of St. Petersburg, Inc., 139 NLRB 413; Esquire, Inc. (Coronet Instructional
Films Division), 109 NLRB 530; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 146 NLRB
1577. This rule, however, does not apply where a showing is made that there is
newly discovered evidence, or evidence which was unavailable at the representation
proceeding. The General Counsel, in the instant case, makes no claim of this nature,
asserting only that "there was not sufficient testimony taken at the `R' hearing to
accurately determine the facts." He argues that the line of cases above noted is
applicable only to refusal to bargain situations, and that where we have the issue
arising in a discriminatory discharge case and it involves "not solely whether .Fisher
was. in fact a supervisor but also encompasses the question of whether Respondent led
the rank and file employees to conclude that Fisher was speaking for management,
either as a supervisor in fact or as an agent, it may be relitigated."
Section 102.67(f) of the Board's Rules and Regulations Series 8, as amended,
reads as follows;
The parties may, at any time, waive their right to request review. Failure to
request review shall preclude such parties from relitigating, in any related subse-
quent unfair labor practice proceeding, any issue which was, or could have
been, raised in the representation proceeding. Denial of a request for review
shall constitute an affirmance of the regional director's action which shall also
preclude relitigating any such issues in any related subsequent unfair labor
practice proceeding.
The section does not, on its face, purport to limit relitigation to refusal-to-bargain
proceedings, and the logic of such a limitation is not readily apparent. The instant
case can hardly be described as an unrelated unfair labor practice proceeding, inas-
much as Respondent's responsibility for Fisher's conduct turns on his supervisory
status which was also a unit issue in the representation case. It also may be noted
that the issue was a major one in the representation hearing since Respondent was,
at that time, claiming Fisher to be a supervisor, and a determination to that effect
would have resulted in a dismissal of the entire proceeding, inasmuch as it would
have left only one may in the unit. The issue thus was one which either was, or
could have been, fully litigated by the same parties. Although the General Counsel
argues to the contrary, litigation of Fisher's supervisory status in the representation
proceeding could have included an inquiry into both the actual or apparent authority
with which Respondent had clothed him. The position now urged by the General
Counsel is indeed anomalous. In the instant case, based on a complaint issued by the
same Regional Director and relying substantially on the same evidence which led the
Regional Director to find Fisher not to be supervisory, he urges that I now receive
evidence that he claims would lead to the opposite conclusion. Moreover, he would
accomplish this without making any showing of substantial change of circumstances,
or any claim that he had available newly discovered evidence or evidence which was
unavailable at the time of the representation proceeding. To support his claim, he
places reliance upon a line of cases alleged to stand for the proposition that a repre-
sentation proceeding does not "finally and conclusively" resolve an issue of super-
374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visory status where it arises in a subsequent 8(a)(1) and (3) case as distinguished
from an 8(a) (5) case. See Southern Airways Company, 124 NLRB 749; N.L.R B.
v. Griggs Equipment, Inc., 307 F. 2d 275 (C.A. 5); and Leonard Niederriter Com-
pany, Inc., 130 NLRB 113. Although the matter is not free from doubt, I do not con-
strue these cases to stand for so broad a proposition. In no one of them does either
the Board or the courts fully discuss or explore the issue in all its aspects. In both
Southern Airways and Niederriter, the Board barely touches upon the question in
footnotes. In Griggs, the issue was not even mentioned in the Board's Decision, but
is noted in the decision of the court of appeals. The use of such terms as "finally and
conclusively" and "not so fully litigated as to preclude reconsideration" suggests the
possibility of relitigation, or at least that some test other than newly discovered or
unavailable evidence might be appropriate in certain situations. However, I am not
persuaded that this means that ielitigation is to be permitted as a matter of course
where the issue is something other than a refusal to bargain. In both Griggs and
Southern Airways, the representation hearings took place from 9 to 11 months after
the unfair labor parctices had taken place The unfair labor practice hearings had
already been completed before the representation hearings were held. The issue
thus did not involve relitigation in subsequent unfair labor practice proceedings, but
the binding effect of the representation decision. In affirming the Board in both
cases, the court of appeals recognized that the Board had an area of discretion
regard its unit findings which normally would not be disturbed. In the Southern
A tr ways case, the court stated:
Thus we have two decisions based on the facts as they existed at two different
times, several months apart. The intervening certification order is not, there-
fore, controlling although, to the extent it represents an analysis of similar facts,
it may have some persuasive relevance.
This suggests a belief by the court that lapse of time might be a factor showing change
in circumstances between the time of the unfair labor practice hearing and the
representation hearing. In Niederrtter, the basic issue in the unfair labor practice
hearing was whether an employee, who was admittedly a supervisor at one time, had
ceased to be one at a later date, and if so, whether he was discharged for his union
activity after he had become a nonsupervisory employee. It was thus necessary to
consider circumstances as they existed at a different time to ascertain whether or not
any change had occurred. All three cases seem to be explained by the existence of
circumstances indicating that changes may have occurred between the two proceed-
ings which were properly to be considered or explored, and not to constitute broad
holdings that, absent some considerations of this sort, matters previously adjudicated
among the same parties can be relitigated.
In the instant case, we have no substantial lapse of time between the unfair labor
practices and the representation hearing, and no other indication that any change in
circumstances had taken place. Rather, we note that within 2 weeks from the filing
of the charges, we have a hearing in which a major issue concerns the supervisory or
nonsupervisory status of Fisher. At that time, the same parties had a full opportunity
to present evidence which would go directly to the issue of Fisher's actual or ostensible
authority as it existed at the time the unfair labor practices were committed. The
Regional Director, upon the record made, resolved that Fisher was not a supervisor
and thus was in the bargaining unit I am of the opinion that the cases urged by the
General Counsel, despite any language which may suggest a more far-reaching result,
go no further than to hold that relitigation in subsequent proceedings will be per-
mitted only if sufficient showing is made of some sort of change in circumstances.
The purpose of forbidding relitigation is to put to rest an issue once litigants have been
afforded full opportunity to meet it. The exceptions to this rule rest upon the need
for preventing an injustice where something has occurred or been discovered which,
if previously known, might have affected the outcome Relitigation is for this
purpose alone, and not to provide the parties with an opportunity to have a second
chance of litigating the same issue in the hope that another, and what they regard as
a more favorable, conclusion may be reached. Accordingly, since I am satisfied that
there has been no sufficient showing of any circumstances affecting Fisher's status
which could not have been developed in the earlier proceeding, I regard it as inappro-
priate to relitigate the issue here I find, therefore, that since I regard myself as
bound by the determination that Fisher is not a supervisor, the motion to amend was
properly denied and the offer of proof properly rejected.
A. The discharge of Hughie Olmstead
Hughie Olmstead was hired as a warehouseman on December 31, 1963, by
Respondent Tacoma. He continued to work in this capacity until his termination on
THRIFTY SUPPLY COMPANY 375
August 21, 1964. Immediately prior to Olmstead's termination, Respondent Tacoma
employed three warehousemen-Olmstead, Roger Fisher, and Andrew Baird. The
work of the warehousemen consisted in receiving, storing, and shipping or delivering a
wide variety of plumbing supplies. In addition to the three warehousemen, Respond-
ent Tacoma employed two persons in the office, Kenneth Broadhead and Hal
Williams, and three other persons as outside salesmen who solicited orders from
plumbing contractors. The entire operation at Respondent Tacoma was supervised
by Manager Ollard, who in turn was responsible to the Gorlick brothers.
Prior to July 1964, there had been no attempt at organization among employees at
Respondent Tacoma. Organization, or the possibility of organization, however, at
all times was a matter of continuing interest to Manager Ollard. Ollard testified that
"as a matter of being manager I would be interested in knowing whether people were
or were not going to join the union" and "if there was a rumor or feeling from anyone
that they might be someone interested, I would ask them are you interested or have
you joined." Ollard, although failing to be specific about any conversations with
any particular employee at any definite time, acknowledged that during the 5 years
he had been manager, he had undertaken to question everyone who had worked for
him about joining a union, and he stated that he regarded it as "a part of [his] respon-
sibility" to ascertain "whether his employees are making a move of one type or
another." Kenneth Broadhead testified, without contradiction, that shortly after his
first employment in October 1962, he had asked Ollard if it were necessary that he
join a union and had been told by Ollard that "he didn't want the union poking a nose
around here." Andrew Baird, who was hired as a warehouseman on February 28,
1964, testified that about a week after he was hired, Ollard had asked him if he
intended to join a union and, when Baird had replied that he did not, Ollard had
then told him "that it was a company policy actually that the union was not there,
and I would be terminated if this came about." This statement is denied by Ollard.3
Olmstead became interested in the possibility of union organization among the
employees sometime in May or June 1964. Together with Baird, he visited the office
of Local 599, either in late June or early July, to discuss with the business agent the
possibility of union representation. At that time, both Olmstead and Baird signed
union designation cards. Olmstead reported this activity to Roger Fisher and sought
to interest him in the Union. Fisher declined to sign a card, however, indicating that
he felt that union organization at Respondent Tacoma might bring about the dis-
charge of those involved.4 Olmstead also discussed the union with Broadhead and
Williams, the two office employees.
Olmstead does not appear to have discussed his union activity with Ollard prior
to his discharge. Ollard undertakes to deny knowledge of Olmstead's union activity
prior to that date, but circumstances point to a contrary conclusion. As we have
seen, Olmstead freely discussed his activity not only with the other warehousemen, but
also with the office employees. It is unlikely that in so small an establishment a
manager, who regarded it as his duty to track down rumors of union activity, would
not have learned of Olmstead's participation. His knowledge, however, is more
specifically established by Broadhead's credited testimony that in July he had told
Ollard that Olmstead had approached him about joining the Union. Despite an
earlier general denial of knowledge, Ollard, himself, later in the proceeding, con-
ceded that he did "remember Mr. Broadhead told me that Olmstead had asked him
or had talked to Mr. Broadhead about the possibility of joining a union." Further-
more, it is Broadhead's undisputed testimony that at the outset of the very week
of Olmstead's discharge, Ollard had "indicated to [Broadhead] he had heard that
the fellows in the warehouse might be or were thinking about organizing." Ollard,
although stating that he did not believe that Broadhead had told him who the indi-
viduals were, conceded "it would obviously have to be one, two or all three of the
3 O11ard tended to be evasive as a witness , and consistently was vague concerning par-
ticular conversations and incidents On matters upon which he would be expected to
have knowledge, he would continually answer "it might have been" or "it could have
been " In contrast, Broadhead, Olmstead, and Baird testified consistently, and each im-
pressed me favorably as a witness undertaking to relate the sequence of events fully and
without evasion or distortion. Accordingly, I find their versions of events to be the more
credible, and throughout the proceeding where they conflict with those advanced by
Ollard, I credit their testimony.
4 As noted above, I regard Fisher as a nonsupervisory employee. The above finding thus
relates solely to Olmstead's union activity, and Fisher's response is not to be construed
as conduct for which Respondent is responsible
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fellows" and then Broadhead "could have named the names " It stands undenied that
on or about August 20, the day before Olmstead's discharge, Ollard had questioned
Baird about joining the Union, and that Baird had advised Ollard that he had not.-)
It is also undisputed that at sometime during this same week, Broadhead overheard
Fisher tell Ollard "I will not join any God damn union Mr. Ollard " It is thus
apparent that, not only was Ollard well aware, at all times since July, of Olmstead's
involvement in the Union , but also that from his questioning of the others and the
nature of their replies to him that by August 20, Olmstead had been identified as the
principal union protagonist , and I so find
Olmstead's competence and versatility as an employee stands undisputed. His
warehouse work was regarded as good, and on occasion he had done administrative
work in the office in a satisfactory manner. Broadhead, feeling that an increase in
the administrative staff was in the offing, had suggested to Ollard that Olmstead was
the "obvious choice for recruiting within the organization," and Ollard had responded
favorably. In early June, Ollard had discussed with Olmstead a drinking problem
he had with Roger Fisher, the senior warehouseman. He told Olmstead that he might
have to discharge Fisher because of this, and he asked if Olmstead would be interested
in Fisher's job should this come about. Olmstead told Ollard that he would be
interested, and then they engaged in a discussion of the scale that the new job would
pay. Olmstead states that at the time he mentioned the union scale, but he does not
claim that he and Ollard discussed Olmstead's role in promoting union organization.
In addition to his discussion with Olmstead, Ollard had also talked with Broadhead
about Fisher's drinking problem, and had stated to him that he was considering
putting Olmstead in Fisher's spot.
During the month of August 1964, the plumbing contractors in the Seattle-Tacoma
area were engaged in contract negotiations with the Plumbers Union It had become
apparent by mid-August that the negotiations were not proceeding well, and that there
was a distinct possibility that a strike might ensue Virtually all of Respondent's
customers at both the Seattle and Tacoma locations were plumbing contractors who
purchased supplies from Respondent, and it was obvious that an industrywide strike
would, for its duration, diminish Respondent's business in a substantial manner. By
the start of the week of August 17, it had become clear that a strike was imminent.
A strike vote was actually taken on August 20, and an industrywide strike against the
plumbing contractors was thereafter announced to commence on August 21. The
strike continued after that date until September 28, 1964.
Thus, at the outset of the week of August 17, Respondent was faced with the
virtual certainty that a numbers' strike might commence any day. On August 17
Baird notified Ollard that he would be leaving Respondent's employ on September 1
to take another job. As noted above, Ollard's concern about union organization right
at that time is evidenced by his questioning of Fisher, Baird, and Broadhead concern-
ing their knowledge of union activity. We have also seen from their collective
responses that not only had Ollard been made aware of an organizational effort, but
also that Olmstead clearly had been placed as the principal union proponent. Broad-
head had been granted permission to take a week's vacation commencing the follow-
ing week. On or about August 18 or 19, according to Olmstead, Ollard had told
Fisher, in the presence of Olmstead, "Say, Roger, Monday morning I want Hughie to
come into the office and help out in there while Broadhead is on vacation, and he
said I think you can get along out here without him due to the plumbers' strike and
due to the fact that we have this other man coming in to take Andy's place. You will
have plenty of help out here." 6
On Friday, August 21, near the close of the working day, Ollard came to Olmstead
and stated that he had bad news for him. Ollard then told Olmstead that he was
letting him go because, "due to the plumbers' strike, there is not going to be enough
work." Olmstead replied that he believed that he was being terminated because he
had signed with the Union. Ollard denied knowledge of Olmstead's union activity
and stated that he was letting him go upon instructions from Seattle . Olmstead then
5 As noted above, Baird had, in fact , signed a union designation card prior to this time.
It does not appear why he undertook to deny his relationship to the Union, although at
the time he was questioned , he had given notice that he was leaving Respondent ' s employ
on September 1 and , in view of this, it is possible that he regarded it as no longer a factor
of any significance
9 Ollard first testified that he didn 't remember any such remarks When questioned
more specifically, he denied making such statement As indicated above , I have some
reservations as to Ollard ' s reliability as a witness . I have no reason to find his memory
to be any more reliable with respect to the above statement and, accordingly , I credit the
version offered by Olmstead.
THRIFTY SUPPLY COMPANY 377
stated that it really did not come as a surprise, since he had anticipated such an out-
come as a result of his union activity. Ollard replied "Well, if you knew you were
going to be fired why did you join?" And then, according to Olmstead, Ollard stated
"You knew we had plans to put you in the office in about six weeks." Ollard's ver-
sion of the discharge itself does not substantially differ from that of Olmstead. Ollard
states that he made the decision to terminate Olmstead on the morning of August 21
following a telephone conversation with Gorlick, in which Gorlick had advised him
that, in view of the plumbers' strike, one of the warehouse employees must be termi-
nated. Ollard states that he received no instructions from Gorlick to choose Olm-
stead for termination but that this decision was his alone. He states further that
Gorlick was also aware that Baird was leaving the following week. Gorlick cor-
roborates him on both matters.
The following week, the first full week of the plumbers' strike, Baird finished out his
employment as a warehouseman with Respondent Tacoma. Broadhead went on vaca-
tion as scheduled, and Harry Gonseth, a new employee who had had no previous
experience as a warehouseman, came to work in the warehouse. Respondent asserts
that it had made arrangements to hire Gonseth previous to the strike because he had
experience that indicated that he might develop into a salesman, and that it placed
him in the warehouse following the strike so that he could become familiar with
Respondent's lines of supplies. Nevertheless, it stands undisputed that during the
week of August 24, Gonseth commenced work in the warehouse doing the same
work which Olmstead had been doing. Moreover, he continued in such capacity not
only for the duration of the strike but thereafter until he terminated his employment
in early October for reasons not appearing in the record. At no time during his
entire period of employment did Gonseth ever work as a salesman. At the end of
the strike, in late September, Respondent immediately hired a new employee for full-
time work as a warehouseman. Olmstead appears to have been available at all times,
but he was never offered his job. Respondent asserts that it did not follow a policy
of seeking to reemploy terminated employees regardless of the reasons for their
terminations.
B. The discharge of David Berg
David Berg was first employed by Respondent Seattle as a warehouseman in May
1963. He worked continuously thereafter until his termination on August 20, 1964.
In addition to doing warehouse work, Berg also drove a truck to make deliveries, and
on occasion to transport materials from the Seattle to the Tacoma location. During
one of these trips in June or July 1964, Berg had a conversation with Olmstead con-
cerning unions, and Olmstead suggested that Berg undertake to get union cards from
the Seattle local and sign up Respondent's Seattle employees. In early August 1964
Berg obtained cards from Local 174. Berg signed a card himself and spoke with
fellow warehousemen Stephen Mermelstem and David Gow. Gow signed a card but
Mermelstein declined to do so. At this time, Berg, Melmelstein, Gow, and George
Willingham were the full complement of warehouse employees at Respondent
Seattle. Willingham was the senior warehouseman and, like Fisher at Tacoma, also
had been found by the Regional Director in a prior representation proceeding to be
a nonsupervisory employee. 7 No attempt appears to have been made to obtain
Willingham's signature to a union designation.
Berg became eligible for draft into the armed services in March 1964, and some-
time during that month he signed for service with the National Guard. In June 1964
Berg advised Respondent Seattle that he would probably be called for active duty
in the near future. In early August he learned that September 1 had been set as the
date for his reporting for duty, and he so notified Respondent Seattle. It stands
undisputed that at that time Respondent advised him that he would be able to work
through the last week in August which would mean that he would terminate his
employment with Respondent Seattle on August 28, 1964.
On August 20, 1964, Respondent Seattle received a telegram from Local 174 advis-
ing it that Local 174 represented a majority of its warehouse employees, and request-
ing a meeting for August 24 to discuss wages, hours, and working conditions. This
appears to be the first knowledge that Respondent Seattle had concerning any union
activity among its employees. Immediately after receiving this telegram, Gorlick
went to the warehouse and questioned each of the warehouse employees concerning
his knowledge of Local 174. Willingham and Mermelstein each told Gorlick that he
knew nothing about it, and Gow, in response to a direct question concerning his sign-
ing, replied in the negative. Berg, however, told Gorlick that he had joined the
7 See Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election, Thrsty Supply Company,
Case No 19-RC-3504, issued September 25, 1964.
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union and Gorlick replied that "it wasn't going to do any good." 8 Gorlick states
that, following his questioning of the employees, he "went back upstairs, read the
telegram and threw it away since they did not represent a majority of the employees."
The plumbers' strike, of course, affected Respondent Seattle as well as Respondent
Tacoma. According to Gorlick, he decided on Friday morning, August 21, that it
would be necessary to lay off warehouse employees at both locations. He states that
after advising Ollard to lay off one employee at Respondent Tacoma, he decided that
inasmuch as Berg would be going into the service at the end of the following week,
Berg was the logical choice for layoff at Respondent Seattle, and accordingly he
directed that this be done at the close of the working day. When Berg had completed
his duty on August 21, he was advised that he was being terminated because of the
plumbers' strike. During the following week, in which Berg was at all times avail-
able for work, Respondent, despite the strike, hired extra part-time help to work in
the warehouse. The record indicates that this extra help worked a total of approxi-
mately 30 hours during that week. It also appears that at no time did Respondent
make any effort to use Berg for any of this needed warehouse work.9
C. Discussion of the issues and concluding findings
The central issue turns on the lawful or unlawful character of the discharges of
Olmstead and Berg. The General Counsel asserts that an underlying motivation for
the discharge of each was his participation as the central figure in the effort to bring
about the organization of Respondent's employees at each location, and that Respond-
ent used the plumbers' strike as a pretext to cover up an unlawful aim. Respondent
denies this allegation and asserts that each employee was terminated solely because
of the plumbers' strike which had the foreseeable immediate effect of substantially
curtailing business operations, with the corollary need for cutting expenses, and that
a reasonable basis existed for the selection of each employee as the one to be termi-
nated. Subsidiary issues include the alleged unlawful threat to terminate employees
engaging in union activity, and alleged unlawful interrogation of employees by
Respondent at both the Seattle and Tacoma locations.
I have already found, upon the basis of Baird's credited testimony, that sometime
in March 1964, shortly after Baird first came to work for Respondent, Ollard told
him that if he should join a union, he and other employees would be fired. That
such a statement constitutes an unlawful threat is too obvious to merit discussion,
and I find that by such conduct Respondent violated Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act.
Interrogation of employees at both the Seattle and Tacoma locations is not denied.
Respondent, however, asserts that the interrogation was carried on in a manner and
under circumstances that render it lawful. Interrogation in Seattle was limited to
questions directed to employees concerning their designation of Local 174 as their
bargaining representative. It took place immediately after Gorlick had received a
claim from Local 174 for recognition as the statutory representative. Respondent
urges that, faced with the claim to representation, it had a right to ascertain if the
union claiming majority status in fact represented a majority of its employees and,
it asserts, that its interrogation was carried on for this purpose alone. In this con-
nection, Respondent relies upon the so-called Blue Flash doctrine,10 which stands
for the proposition that an employer, under certain circumstances, may lawfully
interrogate its employees. The Blue Flash doctrine, however, does not purport to
license interrogation of employees concerning their union affiliation except under
certain very limited conditions. It recognizes that interrogation of this sort may
implant in the minds of employees an apprehension that the employer seeks the
information for reasons that could affect their job status, and that, to the extent that
it does, it may properly be regarded as coercive. Blue Flash goes no further than to
hold that interrogation undertaken for the purpose of determining union majority
representation, when carried on in an atmosphere otherwise free of coercive aspects
and accompanied by reassurances that in responding to the questioning employees
need not fear reprisals, is not unlawful per se. Failure to give assurances against
8 Gorlick's version of his questioning of Berg and the others differs in no material
aspects from the versions of Berg and Gow.
0 Berg's availability was limited to this week alone since he did report for active duty
in the armed services on September 1 as scheduled, and he was still on active duty at the
time of the hearing. At the end of the week of August 24, David Gow was also laid off
at Respondent Seattle Gow's layoff was also the subject of a charge, but the charge
was subsequently amended to drop Gow's name. There is nothing in the record to indicate
that the layoff of Gow had any bearing upon the issues in this proceeding.
10 Blue Flash Express, lne, 109 NLRB 591.
THRIFTY SUPPLY COMPANY 379
reprisal, however, necessarily leaves the apprehension in the minds of the employees,
and the coercive aspects of the interrogation are not effectively dissipated. Gorlick,
regardless of the legitimacy of his purpose, does not claim to have accompanied
his interrogation by appropriate assurances against reprisal, and accordingly it
acquired no license. I find therefore, that by questioning the employees at the Seattle
location, Respondent engaged in unlawful interrogation and thereby has violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act."
As we have seen, Ollard admits that at Respondent Tacoma it was his uniform
practice to question employees concerning their interest in, or activities on behalf
of, labor organizations whenever it was rumored that employees might be interested
in union organization. Ollard insists that he regarded this as his obligation as a man-
ager. He makes no claim that it took place in relation to a demand for recogni-
tion by a union, or that he undertook at any time during the course of such question-
ing to give the employees assurances against reprisals. Moreover, it stands undisputed
that he engaged in interrogation of this sort during the very week in which Olmstead
was discharged. Thus, we find interrogation of employees at Respondent Tacoma
taking place under circumstances showing neither legitimate purpose nor accom-
panied by appropriate assurances against reprisals Under the circumstances, I find
the Blue Flash doctrine not to be applicable and the interrogation at Respondent
Tacoma to be coercive. I find further that Respondent thereby has engaged in con-
duct violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
We can determine the lawful or unlawful character of the discharge of Olmstead
only by an examination of the record to ascertain its motivation. As we have seen,
Respondent's defense relates solely to the effect of the plumbers' strike. There can
be no doubt but that Respondent reasonably regarded the plumbers' strike as likely
to occasion an immediate and substantial loss of business; and that ordinary business
piudence might call for some retrenchment. It does not necessarily follow, however,
that this would include the abrupt and permanent discharge of a promising and ver-
satile employee at a time when the effects of the strike were not even fully realized.
Olmstead, at the time, was not only the one warehouseman under consideration for
advancement, but he had been told by Ollard only a day or two before his discharge,
at a time when the imminence of the strike and its effects were well known to Ollard,
that Respondent planned to use him to help out in the office during the following
week because Broadhead was taking his vacation then. Ollard assumes full respon-
sibility for Olmstead's selection but he does not explain why he changed his mind
about the fill-in for Broadhead, or why he selected Olmstead over Baird when he
knew that Baird was leaving for good at the end of the following week, and that Baird
was junior in point of service and apparently not so well regarded in point of compe-
tence as Olmstead.12 The hiring of Hsriy Gonseth during the following week and
his continued work as a warehouseman for the duration of the strike and thereafter,
throws further doubt upon the good faith of the explanation offered. The fact that
Gonseth worked in the warehouse exclusively for a period longer than training would
appear to require, and the fact that he never worked as a salesmen but left Respond-
ent's employ under circumstances not explained in this record, cast doubt upon the
validity of Respondent's assertion that it hired Gonseth as a salesman, and only had
him in the warehouse to learn the stock. Moreover, even if we assume Respondent
did have some long-range plans for Gonseth, he had not even come to work when
the strike started, and Respondent fails to explain why, when faced with the crisis
of the strike, it did not seek to defer Gonseth's employment in favor of retaining an
experienced employee of demonstrated competence. Finally, Respondent's conduct
after the strike is scarcely consistent with its asserted position. When the strike
ended, it had an immediate need for a full-time warehouseman. It hired a new and,
apparently, inexperienced employee although Olmstead appears to have been avail-
able. It would explain this by claiming that it had no policy regarding the rehire of
terminated employees. At best, this is a negative assertion and good business would
normally dictate the rehire of a satisfactory and experienced employee whose ter-
mination had been effected by circumstances beyond the employer's control. The
inadequacy of Respondent's explanations, both as to the termination and the failure
to recall Olmstead, suggests that something other than the exigencies of the plumbers'
strike may have motivated the action. The threat to Baird, despite its occurrence
"Blue Flash Express, Inc, supra; New French Benzol Cleaners and Laundry, 139
NLRB 1176; P-M Garages, Inc, at at., d/b/a P-31 Parking System, 139 NLRB 987;
Clodomiro Isolino, doing business under the trade name and style of Ravena Sportswear,
142 NLRB 1299.
is At Respondent Seattle, it was Berg's departure for the service, also at the end of the
following week, that Respondent offers as the reason for Berg's selection for termination.
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nearly 6 months before the discharge, when buttressed by Ollard's persistent unlaw-
ful interrogation, constitutes evidence of Respondent's opposition toward the organi-
zation of its employees. This gains particular significance when we note that during
the very week Olmstead was discharged, Ollard not only questioned Broadhead,
Baird, and Fisher concerning the status of union organization at Respondent Tacoma,
but also learned through their responses that Olmstead must be the principal propo-
nent of union organization at Respondent Tacoma. These considerations, when
contrasted with the unconvincing character of Respondent's explanations as outlined
above, offer a more likely and probable explanation of the real reasons underlying
Olmstead's termination. Considering all the circumstances, I regard it as a fair infer-
ence and accordingly find that the real motivation for the termination of Olmstead is
to be found in his organizational efforts among the employees, and that Respondent
used the onset of the plumbers' strike as a mere pretext to cover the real reason for
its undertaking to terminate the services of an otherwise competent and promising
employee. Accordingly, I find that on August 21, 1964, Respondent terminated
the employment of Hughie Olmstead because of his membership in, and activities on
behalf of, Local 599, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) of the Act and thereby inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
At the Seattle location, Respondent's first knowledge of organizational activity
came from the Local 174 telegram of August 20 requesting recognition. Immediately
thereafter, Gorlick embarked upon his unlawful questioning of all the Seattle ware-
house employees concerning their union affiliation. They all denied signing with
Local 174 but Berg. Berg was terminated at the end of the day on August 21 alleg-
edly because of the onset of the plumbers' strike which, as at Tacoma, was anticipated
to have a devastating effect on Respondent Seattle's business, and to bring on a need
for retrenchment. The need for the precipitate action taken on August 21, however,
is not so apparent. Thus, when the strike commenced, Respondent had outstanding
orders for goods which must be received, labeled, and stored at the warehouse.
Apparently, that is exactly what happened during the following week, for it stands
undisputed that after the termination of Berg, Respondent found it necessary to make
use of some 30 hours of casual labor in the warehouse to meet its needs. Berg, who
had been told that he might continue to work until the time he had to report for
duty, was not offered any of this work although still available. Respondent defends
its selection of Berg by pointing to his imminent departure at the end of the following
week. However, Respondent offers no explanation for failing to use Berg for the
needed warehouse work. As we have seen, on August 20 Gorlick ascertained from his
questioning that Berg alone, among the Seattle warehousemen, had signed with Local
174. This, coupled with the absence of a convincing explanation for not using Berg
for this needed warehouse work while he was still available, and the evidence of
Respondent's attitude toward union organization as shown by the conduct of Ollard
at Tacoma, and by Gorlick's interrogation and comment to Berg at Seattle, makes it a
fair inference that Respondent used the strike as a pretext to cover up its real reason
for Berg's termination. I find the underlying motivation to be found in Respond-
ent's hostility toward organization and that it terminated Berg not only to rid itself
of the one known union proponent at Seattle, as it had done with Olmstead at Tacoma,
but also, and perhaps more significantly, at the same time to demonstrate its opposi-
tion to union organization to the other employees and serve warning on them that
their jobs too might be imperiled if they followed Berg's lead. Accordingly, I find
that, under all the circumstances, Respondent terminated David Berg on August 21,
1964, because of his membership in, and activities on behalf of, Local 174 and that
by such conduct Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and also has
thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among 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 Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend below that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
THRIFTY SUPPLY COMPANY 381
Having found that Respondent has discriminated against Hughie Olmstead and
David Berg by terminating their employment , I will recommend that each be offered
immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position,
and that each be made whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered because
of the discrimination against him , by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the
amount of wages he would have earned from the date of discrimination to the date of
the offer of reinstatement , together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per
annum, and that the loss of pay and interest be computed in accordance with the
formula and method prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB
289 and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716 , to which the parties hereto are
expressly referred.13
The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent strike at the heart of the
rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act . 14 The inference is warranted
that Respondent maintains an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act with
respect to the protection of employees in general . It will accordingly be recom-
mended that Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.15
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this
proceeding , I make the following conclusions of law:
1. Harold Gorlick and Morris Gorlick, Co -Partners , d/b/a Thrifty Supply Com-
pany and Thrifty Supply Co. of Tacoma, Inc., are each , and have been at all material
times, employers within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. Respondent Seattle and Respondent Tacoma, by virtue of their common own-
ership and control, constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2(2)
of the Act . Local 174 and Local 599 are, and have been at all material times, labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Hughie Olmstead and David Berg, as found above, Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act , as found above , Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and 2 ( 7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this proceeding , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended , it is hereby ordered that Respondent, Harold
Gorlick and Morris Gorlick , Co-Partners , d/b/a Thrifty Supply Company, and
Respondent , Thrifty Supply Co. of Tacoma, Inc., and each of them, and their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership of any of their employees in Local 174 or Local
599, or any other labor organization of their employees , by discharging, or in any
other manner discriminating against, any individual in regard to his hire , tenure of
employment or any term or condition of the employment, except as authorized in
Section 8 ( a)(3) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing 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 , or to engage in other concerted activi-
13 Since It appears in the record that David Berg went into the armed services on Sep-
tember 1, 1964 , and was still on duty at the time of the hearing , Respondent's obliga-
tion is to notify him immediately of his right to reinstatement and thereafter to rein-
state him upon application after his discharge from the armed services . Reimbursement
for back wages will be limited to his period of availability before going into the service,
and after his discharge for the period, if any, during which Respondent might fail to
reinstate him as required
14 N L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co, 120 F 2d 532 ( C.A. 4).
is May Department Stores , d/b/a Famous-Barr Company v. N.L R.B., 326 U S. 376,
Bethlehem Steel Company v. NL.R.B, 120 F. 2d 641 ( C.A.D.C.).
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ties for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion 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 Hughie Olmstead and David Berg immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their senior-
ity or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay each may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner provided
above in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its usual place of business, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A " 1e Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 19 of the National Labor Relations Board, shall, after being signed by
Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof at both the Seattle and
Tacoma locations, and be maintained by it for 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 insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt by Respondent of a copy of this Decision, what steps it has taken
to comply therewith.17
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of its
receipt of this Decision, Respondent notify the Regional Director that he will com-
ply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the National Labor Relations Board
issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" In the notice. In the additional event that the Board's Order Is en-
forced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order".
'71n the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, paragraph 2(d)
shall be modified to read, "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith."
APPENDIX A
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, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of, Teamsters
Local Union No 174 or Teamsters Local Union No. 599, each affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, Independent, or any other labor organization of our employees, by
discharging, or in any other manner discriminating against, any individual in
regard to his hire, tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment, except as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Hughie Olmstead and David Berg immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each whole for any loss
of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him
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 organi-
zations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage
LOS ANGELES BUILDING & CONST. TRADES COUNCIL, ETC. 383
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization , as a condition of employment as authorized in Sec-
tion 8(a) (3) of the 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 organizations.
HAROLD GORLICK and MORRIS GORLICK , Co-Partners,
d/b/a THRIFTY SUPPLY COMPANY; THRIFTY SUPPLY
CO. OF TACOMA, INC.,
Employers.
Dated- ------------------ By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employees if serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 500 Union
Street, 327 Logan Building , Seattle, Washington , Telephone No. 682-4553, if they
have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades Council ; and Local
No. 844 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Amer-
ica and Quality Builders, Inc. Case No. 21-CC-715. June 24,
1965
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed on February 28, 1964, by Quality Builders, Inc.,
against Los Angeles Building & Construction Trades Council and
Local No. 844, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Amer-
ica, both herein referred to as the Respondents, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 21, issued a complaint and notice of hearing. This complaint,
as amended, alleged that the Respondents had engaged in and were
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (i), (ii) (A) and (B) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of
the charge and the complaint and notice of hearing were duly served
upon Respondents.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged,
in substance, that Respondents unlawfully picketed a construction
project at which the Charging Party was the general contractor and,
further, that the Respondents instructed, directed, and appealed to
individuals employed by subcontractors and other persons to cease
work at the construction project, all of which resulted in a refusal by
153 NLRB No. 38.