Victor Otlans Roofing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 898 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Victor Otlans Roofing Co and United Slate, Tile & Compo
sition Roofers , Damp & Waterproof Workers' Associa-
tion, Local Union No 153 AFL-CIO Case 19-CA-4475
May 28, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING BROWN AND JENKiNS
On February 12, 1970, Trial Examiner David E Davis
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending 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 a brief
in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision and in
opposition to the Respondent's 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 con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner 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, the briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except
as modified herein
The Trial Examiner in his Conclusions of Law found
that Respondent, by its discharge of Larrell Lane on
April 18 1970, and its failure to reinstate him thereafter,
because of his union activity, engaged in conduct viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act We except
for the date of Lane's discharge
Our review of the record convinces us that Otlans,
Respondent herein, was on April 18 willing to retain
Lane in its employ after the latter's protest at not
receiving the journeyman s rate, if Lane were willing
to work as a kettleman at the helper's wage rate After
the Etherington meeting with Otlans on April 21, which
resulted in the payment of the journeyman's wage rate
to Lane, Otlans intention to retain Lane vanished It
is clear that after the April 21 meeting Lane, although
reporting for work, was refused employment without
a satisfactory explanation by Respondent or its supervi
sor for such refusal, even though Etherington had been
informed by Otlans on April 21 that Lane was not
discharged and was to report for work the next morning,
which 1 ine did Then on April 25 when Lane picked
up hi, paycheck for the previous pay period he was
' I hL Respondent his included in its brief a motion to reopen the
he inn, The. s ime motion ss is included in its brief to the Trial Examiner
The Tri it I x unmer denied Respondent s motion for the reason stated
in his Decision We i,ree with the Tn it Ex'immer s reasons for denying
the motion and hereby idopt his re icons is our own in denying the
motion
informed by Bostnick that he was discharged, with
no reason given On the basis of the above, we conclude
and find that Lane was constructively discharged on
April 21, and that his discharge was formalized on
April 25, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act Accordingly, we shall amend the Trial Examiner s
Conclusion of Law number 3 to read as follows
3 Respondent, by its constructive discharge of Larrell
Lane on April 21 which was confirmed in fact by
a formal discharge on April 25, and its failure to reinstate
him after April 21, because of his individual grieving
and by the intervention of the Union on his behalf,
engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act
We further amend the Trial Examiner's Decision,
section V entitled "The Remedy, by changing the
date in the second paragraph from April 18 to 21
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order
of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Victor Otlans Roofing Co
Tacoma, Washington, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as modified below
I Delete paragraph 2(a) and substitute the following
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to
employee Larrell Lane to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and to make him whole in the manner
described in `The Remedy" section of this Decision
for any loss of earnings suffered by him by reason
of the discrimination against him "
2 Delete the last indented paragraph of the Appendix
and substitute the following
WE WILL offer immediate and full reinstatement
to employee Larrell Lane to his former job or,
if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equiva
lent position, without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges, and make him whole
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against him with
interest at 6 percent per annum
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting
In the circumstances of this case, I believe that the
matter in dispute would be handled more appropriately
through the salutary procedures of the grievance-arbitra-
tion provisions of the parties' agreement than in this
unfair labor practice proceeding I would therefore dis-
miss the complaint
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID E DAVIS, Trial Examiner Upon a charge
filed on August 18, 1969 , by United Slate Tile & Compo-
182 NI RB No 137
VICTOR OTLANS ROOFING CO. 899
sition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Workers' Associa-
tion, Local Union No. 153, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union, this proceeding, under Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act,
was heard pursuant to due notice in Tacoma, Washing-
ton, on December 18, 1969. The complaint, issued Octo-
ber 16, 1969, alleged in substance that Victor Otlans
Roofing Co., herein called Respondent, refused to
employ Larrell Lane on and after April 22, 1969, because
Larrell complained to the Union that Respondent was
not paying him the proper rate required under the terms
of the labor agreement in effect between the Union
and Respondent. The answer of Respondent dated
November 18, 1969, while admitting some of the allega-
tions of the complaint, denied that Respondent had
committed any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record' in the case, my observation
of the demeanor of the witnesses and consideration
of the briefs,' I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Washington corporation with an office
and place of business in Tacoma, Washington, has been
engaged in roof contracting work at jobsites in the
State of Washington. It performs services valued in
excess of $50,000 annually for customers engaged in
interstate commerce and purchases and causes to be
transported and delivered to its various jobsites goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were
received by the sellers from points outside the State
of Washington. Respondent is a member of the Roofing
Contracting Association of the State of Washington,
herein called the Association, a multiemployer associa-
tion of various roofing contractors in the State of Wash-
ington. Said Association was formed and exists for
the purpose, among other things, of representing its
members in collective bargaining with labor organiza-
tions, including the Union. The members of said Associa-
tion receive an annual gross income exceeding one mil-
lion dollars and annually produce goods and supplies
from outside of the State of Washington valued in
excess of $50,000. Respondent is a party to a contract
between the Union and the Association executed on
April 1, 1968, and terminating on March 31, 1971.
Respondent admitted the foregoing allegations of the
complaint and I find that Respondent and the Association
are, and have been at all times material herein, employers
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
I further find that it would effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted and I find that the Union is, and
has been at all times material herein, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Evidence
Leland Etherington, financial secretary and business
agent of Roofers, Local 153, Charging Party herein,
testified that he has held the foregoing positions for
the past 11 months; that prior to that he was a journey-
man roofer; that on April 21, 1969,3 Larrell Lane, an
employee of Respondent classified as a helper, contacted
him at his office about 7:30 to 8 a.m.; and that Lane
complained that he was not being paid the proper rate
under the terms of the labor agreement in effect between
the Union and Respondent. Specifically, the complaint
was directed to the fact that Lane was being paid
$4.83 per hour while he was employed as a kettleman
when he should be paid $5.68 for this work.4 Etherington,
upon hearing Lane's complaint, called Victor Otlans,
president of Respondent, on the telephone and made
an appointment with him for 10 a.m. While Lane waited
outside of Respondent's office, Etherington discussed
the situation with Otlans and explained to him that
the terms of the labor agreement required that Lane
be paid kettleman's wages for the period he was
employed as a kettleman by Respondent. Otlans contend-
ed that as Lane was classified as a helper he was
not entitled to journeyman's wages. Otlans finally con-
sented to pay Lane the difference between kettleman's
and helper's wages for all the hours Lane had been
employed by him as a kettleman. Otlans called his
accountant, had a check made out for the difference,
and went outside where he gave the check to Etherington
who in turn turned it over to Lane.' At this point,
Etherington asked Otlans if Lane was discharged or
if he still had a job. Otlans replied that he still had
a job and to report to work that next day.
Larrell Lane testified that he was presently employed
by E. George Scofield Co. as a kettleman; that he
commenced his employment with Scofield on August
13; that he had other employment prior to that as a
' The transcript is hereby corrected so that page 39, line 21, gill
read, "$4 83 an hour as a helper " Page 40, line 21, substitute, "$4 83
for "$4 38."
Y Respondent in its brief to the Trial Examiner included a motion
to reopen the hearing to receive additional evidence regarding Lane's
qualifications as a kettleman stating that this was a genuine issue in
the case The General Counsel filed a statement in opposition
I deny Respondent's motion as it had a full opportunity to
present evidence at the hearing The proffered evidence is neither
newly discovered nor was it otherwise unavailable Moreover, for
the reasons explicated in this Decision the ultimate result would
not be affected by the introduction of the proffered evidence
9 Hereafter, all dates will refer to the year 1969 unless otherwise
specified
" Art 3 of the collective -bargaining agreement introduced in evidence
as G C Exh 2 provides that a kettleman's wages shall be $5 68 per
hour commencing April 1,1969 It further provides as follows "Helpers
may be employed when there is a shortage of journeyman at 85 percent
of the journeyman scale for the job classification in which he works
The helper classification applies to roofers, waterproofers, tile and
slate roofers only A helper working as a kettleman shall receive kettle-
man's wages "(Emphasis supplied)
' G C Exh 5 It was stipulated by Respondent Counsel that the
check dated April 16 was actually issued on April 21
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
kettleman; that he is classified as a helper by the Union
but that during the 3 years of membership in the Union
he has worked approximately 2 years as a kettleman;
that he was employed on April 7 by Respondent after
he met Millon Bosnick, Respondent's superintendent,
and Ronald Nelson, Respondent's foreman, at a tavern.
There were two other employees of Respondent present
when Lane asked about a job and both Nelson and
Bosnick told him to report to work on April 7 as they
were short of kettlemen. At the time Lane went to
work for Respondent, he believed that he would receive
$5.68 per hour as a kettleman and not $4.83 per hour
as a helper. He received his first paycheck from Respond-
ent on April 11 and found that he was being paid
at the rate of $4.83 per hour." When Lane received
his paycheck, he tried to see Otlans who was not in.
He then went to a tavern and saw Bosnick and told
'Bosnick that he received the wrong pay. According
to Lane, Bosnick replied, "I know, I understand that.
I know what you are receiving. You go in to see Mr.
Otlans Monday morning." On Monday, April 14, Lane
went in to see Otlans who told him to see him later,
that he didn't have time to "fool with you now." Lane
thereafter continued to work as a kettleman except
for one day. When he received his second paycheck
on April 18,' Lane noticed that he continued to receive
helper's wages rather than kettleman's. Upon receipt
of this check, Lane again went to see Otlans who
told him that if he didn't like his paycheck to see
Etherington. Accordingly, Lane did see Etherington on
Monday, April 21. Thereafter, Lane accompanied Ether-
ington to Otlans' office and received a check for the
difference in wages as described above.
Lane reported for work on Tuesday, April 22, and
was not put to work. Lane testified that he took a
cab and went to Fort Lewis, the jobsite where he
had been working, and found that there was another
man who was replacing him on the kettle." Lane contin-
ued to report to work on the next day and again was
not sent out to work. On Friday, April 25, Lane reported
and received his paycheck for the work he performed
from April 17.1 According to Lane's credited testimony,
Bosnick gave him the check and told him he was fired.
Lane asked him why he was fired but Bosnick refused
to answer. Whereupon Lane said he was going to file
an unfair labor practice claim against him. Bosnick
replied, "Go ahead, I don't think you will." Lane went
to see Otlans but was unable to talk to him as he
was busy. He went out of Otlan's office and again
met Bosnick. He again talked with Bosnick and Bosnick
said that he knew how it was and how Lane felt but
that Otlans was the boss. On cross-examination it was
brought out that while Lane was on a certain job for
Respondent hot asphalt was spilled on the pavement
G C Exh 3
7GCExh4
" Lane testified that a Mr Strickland replaced him on the kettle
Apparently , from additional testimony, there was no such man employed
by Respondent However, whether Strickland or another employee
replaced Lane is immaterial
"G C Exh 6
and that there was a flash fire in the kettle on another
occasion. It was established that these incidents occurred
on April 11 and that thereafter Lane continued to be
employed by Respondent as a kettleman. It was brought
out also that Lane had worked for Respondent for
a period of a month and a half in 1967 during which
time he was employed as both helper and kettleman.
Millon Bosnick, superintendent for Respondent, called
as a witness,"' testified that Lane did complain to him
about his wages on April 11 ' and that he told him
to see Otlans. He acknowledged that on one occasion
he told Lane "I know what you are getting, I know
it is not right, you should talk to Mr. Otlans." Bosnick
testified that he spoke to Otlans on several occasions
concerning Lane and Otlans and he discussed various
complaints about Lane's 'workmanship. Otlans told him
that he didn't think Lane was qualified to run' a kettle
at a kettleman wages. The Trial Examiner then asked
Bosnick the following questions:
Q. You mean he could be running the kettle
but he shouldn't be getting the kettleman's wages?
THE WITNESS: Absolutely.
Q. That was what Mr. Otlans said?
THE WITNESS: I think that was what he replied.
On examination by Respondent's counsel, Bosnick
testified that in his opinion Lane should not receive
kettleman's wages because he "wasn't efficient enough.
He didn't have the experience:" I do not credit Bosnick's
testimony that he never told Lane he was fired 'or
that he never gave Lane his paycheck. Neither do I
credit Bosnick's statement that the reason Lane did
not work was because Bosnick couldn't place him.
Otlans, the president of Respondent and its principal
stockholder, testified on direct examination that he never
discharged Lane. On cross-examination, the General
Counsel showed him a signed statement executed by
Otlans on September 3. The statement contained the
following paragraph:
The last day Lane worked on April 17, 1969.
He did not show up on the 18th or 21st. After
that he showed up some mornings but I didn't
pay any attention to him. He was terminated on
the 18th, terminated himself by not coming to work.
It is possible that this was the first day Lane
missed.
Francis E. Yost, a commerical roofing contractor,
testified that he employed Lane in January as a helper;
that Lane worked as a kettleman about 20 minutes
for him and had burned $4,000 worth of machinery
before he was taken off the kettle. Yost further testified
that he told Otlans about the incident when he met
Otlans in San Francisco in January. Mearle J. Wright,
a roofing contractor, testified that he employed Lane
as a helper and had removed him from the kettle after
two days because he wasn't qualified. He' testified that
Lane was employed by him during February. He further
testified that he told Otlans about it on the day of
"' Under Rule 43(b) under Rules of Civil Procedures for Federal
District Courts
VICTOR OTLANS ROOFING CO.
the hearing. Additionally two foremen in the employ
of Respondent testified that in their opinion Lane was
not qualified as a kettleman.
B. Analysis and Concluding Findings
Essentially the General Counsel contends that Lane
was discharged because of his complaint to the Union
and his insistence that he receive kettleman's wages
in accordance with the labor agreement for work as
a kettleman. On the other hand, Respondent strenuously
urges that Lane is not qualified as a kettleman and
is not entitled to kettleman's wages even though he
is placed on the kettle. Indeed Bosnick's testimony
emphasizes the fact that Otlans would have continued
to employ Lane in the capacity of a kettleman provided
Lane did not receive the kettleman's wage scale. Viewing
the contrasting arguments , it would appear that the
primary dispute centers around an interpretation of the
terms of the labor agreement. Respondent insists that,
until a man is fully qualified as a journeyman kettleman,
he should not receive -kettleman's wages despite the
plain wording of the contract. Such a dispute, it would
seem , could more properly be resolved by the arbitration
machinery of the labor agreement . However, as I find
that Lane was discharged because he complained to
the Union and because the Union successfully intervened
in Lane's behalf, more than a dispute of contract inter-
pretation is involved. Etherington testified that the execu-
tive secretary of the Association failed to communicate
with him concerning Lane's grievance because of illness
for about 2 months and as he did not wish to wait
any longer he urged Lane to file a charge with the
Board on behalf of the Union. At any rate, it is clear
that under established Board principles a discharge of
an employee because he seeks the help of his Union
to redress a grievance is a 'violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1)."
The circumstances surrounding Lane's failure to
secure further employment from Respondent either as
a kettleman or as a helper permit no other conclusion
than that Lane was discharged because of the Union's
intervention and insistence that Lane receive kettleman's
wages when employed as a kettleman. In short, I believe
that Otlans in his sworn statement of September 3
revealed his true attitude toward Lane and that he
discharged him on April 18 and thereafter ignored him.
I also fully credit Lane's testimony that Bosnick told
him on April 25 that he was fired.
The qualifications of Lane and his competence are
not a genuine issue in this case. Bosnick, Nelson, and
Otlans knew from Lane's work record for Respondent
and Yost's information that Lane was not a fully qualified
journeyman kettleman. Nevertheless, Respondent con-
tinued to employ Lane as a kettleman even after Lane
spilled asphalt over a pavement and had a flash fire
in the kettle. Indeed, as Bosnick testified, Lane would
" Nu-Car Carvers, Inc , 88 NLRB 75, enfd 189 F 2d 756 (C A 3)
cert. denied 342 U S 919, Halsey W Taylor Co , 342 F 2d 406
(C A 6)
901
have been retained as a kettleman provided he did
not receive kettleman's wages. I conclude, therefore,
that Lane's lack of experience and failure to meet the
standards of a journeyman kettleman constitute pretextu-
al afterthoughts to avoid the consequences of Respond-
ent's unlawful conduct. Accordingly, it must be conclud-
ed that Lane's employment was terminated because
he insisted on receiving kettleman's wages. A discharge
for this reason constitutes a violation of Section 8 (a)(3)
and (1). I so find.12
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of facts,
and the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent, by its discharge of Larrell Lane on
April 18 and its failure to reinstate him thereafter because
of his Union activity, engaged in conduct violative of
Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, as set forth above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respond-
ent described above, have a close, intimate, and substan-
tial 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 com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of -Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Respondent having unlawfully discharged Larell Lane
and thereafter refused to reinstate him, I shall recom-
mend that Respondent offer him immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or to a substantially
equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority rights
and privileges, and that Respondent make him whole
for any loss of pay that he may have suffered by
reason of Respondent's discrimination against him, by
payment to Lane of a sum of money equal to that
which normally he would have received as wages from
April 18 until the day Respondent reinstates him, less
any net earnings in the interim period. Backpay is to
be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner estab-
lished by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company,
i2 George W Kennedy Construction Company , Inc , 172 NLRB No
196, Bowman Transportation , Incorporated, 134 NLRB 1419, enfd
314 F 2d 497 (C A 5)
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent
per annum to be computed in the manner set forth
in Issi s Plumbing & Heating Co , 138 NLRB 716
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law, and the entire record in this case, I recommend
that Victor Otlans Roofing Co , its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership and/or activity in United
Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Waterproof
Workers' Association, Local Union No 153, AFL-CIO,
or in any other labor organization , by discharging any
employee because he engaged in union activity, or by
discriminating against any employee in any like or related
manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the purpose of the Act
(a) Offer to reinstate Larrell Lane to his former or
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
his seniority or other rights and privileges, and to make
him whole in the manner described in "The Remedy"
section of this Decision for any loss of earnings suffered
by him by reason of the discrimination against him
(b) Notify the above-named employee if presently
serving the Armed Forces of the United States of his
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act, as amended, after dis-
charge from the Armed Forces
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records, and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Recommended Order
(d) Post at its plant in Tacoma, Washington, copies
of the attached notice marked ' Appendix"13 Copies
of the said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 19, shall, after being duly signed
by the Company's representative, be posted by the
Company immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to
'1 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board
the 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 Appe ils Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board
employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Company to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of
this Recommended Order,'" what steps have been taken
to comply herewith
" 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 19 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
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United
Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp & Water
proof Workers ' Association , Local Union No 153,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our
employees , by discharging any of our employees
for their concerted or union activities , or in any
like or related manner discriminating against them
in regard to their hire or tenure , or any term or
condition of employment
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with , restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self -organization,
to form , join , or assist the above -named labor
organization , or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing , to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any
or all such activities
WE WILL offer Larrell Lane immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equiva-
lent job together with all the rights and privileges
due him and make him whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered because of the discrimina-
tion against him
VICTOR OTLANS
ROOFING CO
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
Note We will notify the above-named employee 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, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces
VICTOR OTLANS ROOFING CO 903
This is an official notice and must not be defaced Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
by anyone with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive 1511 Third Avenue, Republic Building, 10th Floor, Seat-
days from the date of posting and must not be altered, tle, Washington 98101 Telephone 583-4532
defaced, or covered by any other material