Consolidated Supply of Madison, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 982 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Consolidated Supply Co., Inc. and its successor Consol-
idated Supply of Madison , Inc. andDrivers, Sales-
men, Warehousemen, Milk Processors , Cannery,
Dairy Employees and Helpers Union Local No. 695,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America. Case 30-CA-1428
August 24, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY- CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING, AND KENNEDY
On April 7, 1971 , Trial Examiner Milton Janus
issued his Decision in theabove-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent , had engaged in , and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending, that it cease and desist therefrom, and
take certain affirmative action , as set .forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision . He' further
found that Respondent had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint
and recommended", that such allegations be dis-
ri issed, Thereafter, the Respondent ; and 0eneral
Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and sup-
porting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed . The rulings are
hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders
that the Respondent, Consolidated Supply Co., Inc.
and its successor Consolidated Supply of Madison,
Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order.
i We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent's discharging
employee Kirk shortly after the Union made its demand for recognition
was for purposes of "chilling" the umon activities of its employees and,
therefore, unlawful. In reaching our result, we conclude, at some variance
from the position of the Trial Examiner, that Wood, who discharged
Kirk, had reasonable grounds for believing that Kirk was an active
supporter of the Union. We predicate our result here on the conversation
between employee Schneider and Wood shortly before Kirk 's discharge.
At, that time, in answer to Wood's accusation , Schneider`denied being the
instigator of the Union, stated all the employees were in the unit, and
stated that he too had signed a card . At that point wood, asked where he
could find Kirk and on being told proceeded to seek him out and
discharge him.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION ,
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MILTON JANUS , Trial Examiner : This - case was heard at
Madison , Wisconsin, on February -9-11, , 1971, upon a
complaint ,, issued December 29, 1970, pursuant to. the
original charge filed on November,6, ,1970, and amended
charges- filed on November 16, and December ' 16, 070.
The complaint alleges violations of Section 8 (a)(1), (3), and
(5) of the National Labor 'Relations Act, as amended.
Upon the entire record,' including my observation of the
demean or of the witnesses , and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respon-
dents, I make the following: `
FiNDINGs of FACT
L THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT'
Consolidated Supply'Co., Inc.,-a Wisconsin•corporation,
the predecessor Respondent here , wai,^engaged in the`sale
and distribution in Madison, Wisconsin, of paper products,
glassware , other supplies and equipment to taverns,
restaurants, and other institutional users in and around
that city. In its last fiscal year its gross sales exceeded $1
million and it purchased and received goods and material
from points outside the State of Wisconsin, valued in
excess of $50,000.
Its stockholders and officers were Del Wood, Matt
Rideout, and Mel Anderson. On November 19, 1970, they
agreed to sell all the corporation's assets to Joseph Beck,
Jr., and Joseph Ogden who then became stockholders in a
newly formed corporation, Consolidated Supply of Madi-
son, Inc., the successor Respondent here. The sale became
effective January 1, 1971, at which time the successor took
control of the going business previously operated by the
predecessor at the same location, in the same manner, and
with most of the same employees. The premises at which
the business is conducted is owned individually by Del
Wood, and has been leased to Beck and Ogden for a
specified term.. Wood is no longer associated with the
operations of the successor corporation, but Rideout and
Anderson, formerly officers and minority stockholders of
the predecessor, continue to be employed in supervisory
capacities, by the successor, but are neither officers nor
stockholders therein.
At the hearing I granted the motion of the General
Counsel to amend the complaint to strike the names of
Beck and Ogden as individual Respondents, since they are
now officers and agents of the successor corporation.
I find that both Respondents, Consolidated Supply Co.,
Inc., and Consolidated Supply of Madison, Inc., are
2 I hereby grant the unopposed motion of the Respondent to correct
the transcript in certain respects.
192 NLRB No. 134
CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO., INC.
employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act I also find that the latter corporation is the successor
to the former corporation.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Charging Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Sequence of Events
The Union began an organizing campaign among the
Company's warehousemen and drivers which resulted in
six of them signing authorization cards-four on Novem-
ber 3 (Kirk, Sornson, Thompson, and Canon), one on
November 4 (Schneider), and one on November 9 (Meyer).
On Thursday, November. 5, the Union requested recogni-
tion of the Company, first orally and then in writing, which
the Company refused to grant .2 The unit requested was
one of all regular full-time, truckdrivers and warehouse-
men. Within an hour of the. Union's oral request for
recognition, made by two union representatives of Del
Wood, president of, the predecessor Company and its
majority stockholder, Wood discharged Robert Kirk, one
of the drivers who had signed an authorization card. On
the following Monday, November 9, the six employees who
had signed cards went on strike. The strike lasted until
January 6, 191 when the Union requested the successor
Company to reinstate the six strikers to their former jobs.
The Company immediately, offered reinstatement to all the
strikers but Kirk, advising him that it was its understand-
ing he had been discharged by the predecessor, and that he
had engaged in serious misconduct during the strike.
Sornson had found other employment during the strike,
and did not choose to return. The other four, Thompson,
Canon, Meyer, and Schneider, did return and were still
employed by the Company at the time of the hearing.
On January 11, the Union obtained new authorization
cards from Kirk, Meyer, Canon, Thompson, and Schneid-
er, and again- requested the Company to recognize it as the
bargaining representative for a unit of warehousemen and
drivers. On January 13, the Company's attorney advised
the Union that the Company ,doubted that it represented
an uncoerced majority of its employees in an appropriate
unit, and suggested that it file another petition with the
Board for an election.
E. The Issues
The issues presented by the complaint, answer, and
testimony are:
1. Whether the Company unlawfully interrogated
certain employees, promised them, benefits, and threatened
them, in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
2. Whether it discriminatorily discharged Robert Kirk.
3. Whether the unit requested by the Union is appro-
priate, and who should be included in it.
2 On November 6, the Union filed a petition for an election in' the
requested unit. The Regional Director dismissed the petition on December
29, the date the complaint in this proceeding was issued.
3 The parties agree that these salesmen, as well as the office clerical
983
4. Whether a bargaining order is warranted under the
circumstances.
5. Whether Kirk engaged in misconduct during the
strike, such as to deny him reinstatement, and whether
there was such misconduct by strikers during the strike as
to forfeit whatever right the Union might have to a
bargaining order. -
C. The Company's Operations
The Company supplies, bars, restaurants, and similar
users with a wide variety of equipment and supplies,
ranging from furniture and food preparation equipment to
disposable products such as paper and janitorial items. All
its operations are conducted from a single building, most
of which is devoted to the storage of its inventory. Goods
are received at,its truck docks and are stacked in the
warehouse area. In the same building is an office area and
a store fronting on a public street with direct access to the
warehouse. The store caters both to the general public and
to the barn or restaurants which- may prefer to make their
own pickups rather than have-them delivered.
Warehouse sales derive either from telephone orders or
from orders taken, by outside salesmen who work on a
commission basis 3 The orders are transferred to forms
which indicate what part of the warehouse the specific
items are to be found. The warehousemen use these forms
to pick their orders in the warehouse. They then load their
trucks and make daily deliveries, either on city routes in
Madison, or on country routes in the surrounding area.
None of the routes requires a driver, to, -stay away from
home overnight.
As of, November 5,_ the Company employed six individu-
als as warehousemen-drivers, whose duties were primarily
to pick orders in the warehouse and to deliver them on
their route. These were James Canon, Erwin Thompson,
Harry Meyer, Tommy Anderson, Robert Kirk, and Jerry
Wood, who had been hired just the day before. The first
day ^ of the strike, Jim Wood was hired, and in December
Tommy Anderson was inducted into the Armed porces.4
Jerry Wood was retained after the end of the strike but Jim
Wood was let go at that time.-
Three individuals were employed primarily in the
warehouse, Joe Schneider, whom Respondent claims to be
a foreman, Willard Sornson, who also did maintenance
and repair work on the Company's trucks, and Floyd
Russell, who also did janitorial work. Three individuals
were employed exclusively in the store, 'Wanda Sammons,
Albert Helmstetter, who also installed and repaired
equipment sold to the Company's customers, and Ben
Yamano.
The goods .in the store are obtained from the warehouse,
and .the store clerks go into the warehouse with some
frequency in order to stock their shelves, or to pick up
special items which are not stocked in the store.
employees, are to be excluded from any unit found to be appropriate.
Jerry and Jim Wood are nephews of Del wood, the president of the
predecessor company, and Tommy Anderson is the son of Mel Anderson,
an officer and stockholder in the predecessor company.
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. The 8(a)(1) Allegations if made it was nevertheless coercive. Neither Anderson's
nor Schneider's testimony is wholly satisfactory, and there
is little to go on in choosing between their respective
versions. Under all the circumstances, what disposes me to
find Schneider's story more credible is that given Ander-
son's intoxication it would be more likely that he would say
more about the troubling advent of the Union than he was
willing to testify to at the hearing, if indeed he could
remember the entire conversation. I therefore find that
Anderson told Schneider that the plant would be closed
before the Union could get in. I also find that Anderson's
asking Schneider why he had done this to them (going to
the Union) was more plaintive than coercive, since
Schneider had already disclosed to Wood that he had
signed a card.
3. On November 7, there was a conversation between
Anderson and Harry Meyer, a driver. Anderson admitted
that he asked Meyer if he had signed a 'union card, and
that Meyer had told him he had not. Anderson then asked
him who had signed and Meyer said he didn't,know. Such
queries by a supervisor of an employee, even' if asked in a
friendly manner are nevertheless coercive; since they tread
into an area which is no concern of the"employer 6
4. Meyer testified that on November ' 7, Del Wood
came up to him and said that anyone who didn't go out on
strike would get a raise, and that Kirk was causing him
some trouble and he wanted Meyer to be a witness. Meyer
said he walked away without saying anything.
' Wood testified, however, that his conversation with
Meyer consisted of Meyer telling him that he wasn't part of
any union movement. Wood flatly denied that he had said
to Meyer either that anyone who didn't go out on strike
would get a raise, or that Kirk was causing him trouble and
he wanted Meyer to b 6a witness. '
There, are some' difficulties with Meyer's story. First,
there is' no 'evidence that Wood knew on Saturday,
November 7, that his warehousemen were planning a
strike. Although a strike vote had been taken the evening
before, the employees had all come to work Saturday
morning and no one testified that Wood had been told of
their decision. Second, there is also no evidence that Wood
knew that Saturday morning that he would ,be having
trouble with Kirk. The charge alleging that Kirk had been
discriminatorily discharged had been filed on the 6th and
was not served on the Company until the following
Monday, November 9, the first day of the strike. On the
other hand, even assuming that Wood had not learned
from one of his employees that a strike and a Board
proceeding were pending, he could have suspected that
something was coming up-because of the Union's request
for recognition on November 5, and his discharge of Kirk
which had followed immediately thereafter.
Taking all these considerations into account and credit-
ing Wood's testimony that Meyer had told him on
Saturday morning that he wasn't part of the union
movement, I believe, and so find, that Wood, suspecting
that something was brewing, attempted to ensure that at
least some of his warehousemen would disregard the strike
s Butler Aviation Company, 183 NLRB No. 43, and J. J. Newberry, 183
NLRB No. 69, fn. 2.
- The complaint ; alleged a number of incidents of
interrogation, threats, , and promises, made to the ware-
housemen or drivers. These occurred between November 5,
the date of the Union's request for recognition, and
November 9, the first day of the strike, inclusive . In some
of these incidents, Schneider, one of the warehousemen,
was the recipient of the alleged threat or interrogation, and
Respondent , admitting at least some interrogation , defends
on the ground that Schneider was himself a supervisor. My
reasons for finding to the contrary will be given later, so
that the following discussion is based on the assumption
that Schneider's nonsupervisory status has been estab-
lished.
1. Schneider testified that the morning of November 5,
Del Wood approached him in the warehouse , asked him if
he was trying to get the Union in, and accused him of
being the instigator . Schneider denied that he was the one
who, had brought the Union in, claiming that all the
employees were acting as a unit. Wood then asked
Schneider where Kirk was, and a few minutes later Kirk
was discharged. Wood readily admitted that, shortly after
the union representatives had asked him to recognize the
Union, he had asked Schneider if, he was trying to start
another union and that Schneider told him he had signed a
card.5
Whether or not Wood specifically asked Schneider if he
was the instigator of the Union's campaign, the effect of
his confronting Schneider as to whether he was trying to
start another union campaign in the warehouse is tanta-
mount to an accusation that he was again active in trying
to bring the Union in. I find that such an accusation, even
though it was posed as a question, is an intrusion into an
employee's union sentiments which he is entitled not to
reveal , and is of the type which can reasonably be said to
be coercive, of the employees' Section 7 rights.
2. Schneider testified that Anderson approached him
the afternoon of November 5, somewhat intoxicated, and
said that he (Schneider) was his hero, that he would never
get the Union in, and that they would close the doors
before they would have the Union in. Anderson denied
that he had said to Schneider that he would never get the
Union in, or that they would close the doors before that
happened.
According to Anderson, he had asked Schneider in their
only conversation (which I find occurred on November 5),
why Schneider had done this to them , and that Schneider
answered that this was the only way to straighten the men
out, that he was tired of doing all the work himself.
If Anderson was intoxicated when he spoke to Schneider
(Anderson was not asked about his condition), he probably
had no clear recollection of everything he had said to him.
That Anderson was only a minority shareholder and' that
the business was on the verge of being sold , as Respondent
points out , does not necessarily establish that Anderson
could not or would not have said that they would close, the
doors before the Union got in. The threat may have been
an empty one, and Schneider may have known it was, but
5 In 1964, a Board election had been held in a unit of the Company's
warehousemen-drivers, which the Union lost by'a tie vote.
CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO., INC. 985
call by promising Meyer, who had not yet revealed his
prounion sympathies, a raise if he continued to work.
5. The first day of the strike, as Schneider and Canon
were picketing, one of the company trucks drove out to
make some deliveries . In the truck were Jerry Wood, Del
Wood's nephew, and Tommy Anderson, Mel Anderson's
son, both , of them about 18 years of age. As the truck left, a
car with two union agents proceeded to follow . Del Wood
was concerned over the safety of the two young men, and
when he saw that the truck was being followed, he left the
warehouse and spoke to Schneider and Canon. According
to Wood, he said to them that they would be sorry in later
years if any harm came to those boys , and then he said to
Canon that he was lucky to have a job because his eyesight
was bad . Schneider testified that Wood had said to Canon
only that he was blind, could never see and that he was
fired. He also said that Wood 's remark about being sorry if
anything happened to the occupants of the truck occurred
in another conversation later that day. Wood denied that
he had told Canon he was fired, and Mel Anderson
corroborated his story. Canon, at whom the crucial remark
about being fired was directed , was called as a witness by
the General Counsel but was immediately released by him
without being questioned . I infer therefrom that the
General Counsel was unwilling to vouch for Canon's
testimony, even though there is no indication that Canon
was in any way obligated to Wood or to the Company so
as to suggest that his testimony would be other than
truthful. I credit Wood on this matter and find that he did
not tell Canon he was fired. I find not to be coercive or
intimidating the remarks admitted by Wood, that Schneid-
er and Canon would later be sorry if any harm was done to
the young men, or that Canon was lucky to have a job
because of his poor eyesight.
E. The 8(a)(3) Allegation
Kirk was employed in mid-August as a warehouseman-
driver and was discharged less than 3 months later, on
November 5, 1970. He had been hired at $100 per week,
had been told then that he would get a $10 increase after
60 days, and had received it shortly before his termination.
Discharges were rare-there had been only- two in the
past 10 years or so, both for stealing . The testimony of
company witnesses Anderson and Rideout, with reference
to Kirk, was intended ) to show that Kirk was not a wholly
satisfactory employee that he had had some problems
with customers over eliveries, and that he had not been
progressing satisfacto y in learning his job. Some of
Kirk's deficiencies had been brought to the attention of
Del Wood, by Ridedut and Anderson. Rideout in fact
testified that he had made up his mind to discharge Kirk
late in October and had checked with both Anderson and
Wood who had both told him to go ahead. Wood also
testified that based on Rideout's decision he had hired his
nephew, Jerry Wood, to start work as a driver the following
week . Rideout, however, had felt sorry for Kirk who had
just returned from his' wedding trip a week or so earlier,
and had not discharged him on October 30, as he said he
had intended to. According to Rideout , Wood had asked
him the following week if he had discharged Kirk yet, and
Rideout had said he wanted to_ give him another week. In
any event, the decision , supposedly initiated by Rideout
and agreed to by Wood and Anderson , to discharge Kirk
at the end of October was never made known to Kirk. He
was never warned that his job was in jeopardy , nor were his
shortcomings ever discussed with him.
As noted earlier, he had been given a $10 weekly increase
just about the time that Rideout said he had decided to
discharge him. Rideout sought to vitiate the effect-of the
raise by claiming that it was automatic, having been
promised to Kirk when he was hired. It seems to me,
however, that an employer who considers an employee so
unsatisfactory as to be close to discharge would not give
him a raise the same week without at least calling his
deficiencies to his attention and extracting a commitment
for improvement . Rideout had not done so.
It is true that Kirk had made mistakes and may on
occasion have ruffled the feelings of customers, but other
drivers with much more experience also made mistakes,
which the Company took in its stride. None of these had
ever before been considered to be grounds for discharge.
Despite the Company's efforts, through the testimony of
its officers , to emphasize Kirk's shortcomings as a
warehouseman and a driver, the immediate and final cause
for discharging Kirk, according to Wood , was an incident
occurring the morning of November 5, involving Kirk and
Meyer. What in fact occurred , the reaction of the
participants to the incident and how, if at all, Wood was
informed about it, are all matters of some uncertainty.
Wood testified that Meyer told him - that morning that he
had just had an altercation with Kirk in the warehouse
because he (Meyer) had earlier told Wood that Kirk had
made a mistake in delivering too many "play pokers" to
the Wings Inn, a personal customer of Wood. It is clear
that the altercation did not result in any blows being
struck. At most, it was a threat that Kirk would beat Meyer
up for informing on him . ,Meyer and Kirk both testified
about this incident and, in evaluating Meyer's version, I
have considered that he would be somewhat interested in
playing down the incident, since he had joined the strike
over Kirk's discharge , had signed a union card , and was
thus allied with Kirk in supporting , the Union's and the
General Counsel's case.
Meyer testified that Kirk and he had an argument over
how many cases of candles Kirk should have delivered to a
customer, and that Kirk had told him to mind his own
business and keep his mouth shut. Meyer was somewhat
uncertain whether Kirk had said that he would hit him in
the head, but seemed to consider Kirk's admonition to
mind his own business as being in some way a - threat.
Kirk's testimony as to the confrontation with Meyer on
November 5 is that they had had an argument - over the
candles , and that he had told Meyer to mind his own
business . He denied that he had threatened to beat Meyer
up. It is clear that no blow was, struck and no- hand was
raised in anger . At most, there were some angry words
uttered by Kirk. Meyer is older, taller, and heavier than
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kirk, and his appearance leads me to believe that-he would
not be intimidated by rough talk.?
Even more crucial than the nature of the altercation to
Respondent's claim that Wood discharged Kirk because of
it is 'the. question whether Wood had even heard about the
matter , when he decided on the,discharge. Just about the
time of the encounter between Kirk and Meyer in the
warehouse, Wood was confronted with, a, demand for
recognition from two union representatives in the store
area. -After they left, ` Wood told Rideout about the
demands He then went into the warehouse where he asked
Schneider if he was trying to get the Union-in, and in effect
accused him of being the instigator. According to Schneid-
er, Wood then asked 'him where Kirk was. Sometime
during these crowded moments, Wood testified that Meyer
had come' to ^ tell him about his confrontation with Kirk,
and Wood immediately decided that he did not want that
kind of problem in the warehouse and sought -out Kirk to
discharge him.
Meyer testified that he told Mel Anderson about the
Kirk incident,the morning it happened, but it is undisputed
that Anderson did not tell Wood about it Wood says that
it,was Meyer who told him, but Meyer said that he had
not. Meyer gave a ,statement to Respondent's attorney
during his investigation of- -this case '(Resp. Exh. 11) in
which he said he had told Mel Anderson about the Kirk
incident; and believed that he had also told Del Wood'
about it. His testimony under oath, however; is that he did
not tell Wood. Meyer's recollection was poor in some
instances, 'he seemed somewhat confused about matters he
testified to, but it did not appear to me that he was being
deliberately, evasive in his testimony.' He may have felt
some identification of interest with Kirk because of their
mutual support. of the Union during the strike, but his
interest in ' the - outcome of the proceeding is certainly
exceeded by that of Wood's, whose testimony may also
therefore be colored by self-interest.
I believe under all the circumstances that Meyer's
testimony that he did not tell Wood about his argument
with Kirk ' is to , bC credited. Wood- had more important
matters on his mind that morning than a flareup between
two drivers. He had been suddenly and unexpectely
confronted with a demand for recognition,, had talked to
Rideout about it, had then sought out Schneider to
interrogate him, and had asked him where Kirk was. When
he found Kirk he told him to go get his check from hideout
without giving him any reason for discharging him. Add to
all this the fact that Rideout never mentioned to Kirk the
very reason which Wood insists prompted him to discharge
Kirk, and it is evident to me that Wood learned of the
argument between Kirk, and Meyer only- after Kirk' had
been let go. =
What then -induced Wood to fire Kirk? Wood did not, it
is true, know that. Kirk was involved with the Union, but
he knew than some of the' warehousemen were. In his
surprise at this wholly unexpected turn of events (he was
then in serious negotiations for the sale of the business and
? Cf. Star-News Newspapers, Inc., 183 NLRB No.-98,;andJohn,F. Cuneo
Co., 160 NLRB 670, where the Board took into account, in finding certain
discharges to have been for cause, that they were occasioned by threats
made by male against female employees.
8 If he also told Rideout then that he was going to fire Kirk, he did not
the Union's demands - could have complicated those
negotiations) he would expect, that- the quick discharge of
any employee just after the Union's appearance on the
scene would have a chilling effect on the others.-Ifind, on
the basis of the foregoing, that Wood -selected -Kirk for
discharge, not because he knew of the Meyer incident or
even because- of Kirk's past performance as an employee,
but only to show the other employees that they also were
vulnerable, and that the appearance of the Union` might
have unexpected consequences. I find that the Company's
discharge of Kirk violated Section 8(a)(3). _ ' -
E. The 8(a)(S)" Allegations
The complaint alleged that the Company has refused` to
recognize and bargain with the Union, on and' after
November 5, 1970, even though the Union has been
designated by a majority of the employees in anappropri-
ate ,unit of truckdrivers and warehousemen, as 'their
exclusive collective-bargaining representative. The Compa-
ny's answer to the complaint denies that the designated
unit is appropriate, and the Company's testimony and brief
seek to establish that the three store, clerks should, be
included with- the drivers and warehousemen because such
a combined unit is homogeneous in terms of'functions and
interests.
Before deciding between these "opposed views of what
constitues an appropriate unit atthe Company's'--establish-
ment, it is necessary to settle other disputes -between 'the
parties as to whether certain individuals are to be included
in a unit consisting only of warehousemen-drivers. The
placement of the ' following individuals is in dispute:
1. Floyd Russell: Although the General Counsel- stipu
lated at the hearing that Russell was properly included in'a
warehouseman-driver unit , he argues in his brief that
Russell should nevertheless be' excluded as a sporadic or
casual employee. Russell is 68 years old, and an annuitant
from his previous full-time employment ., He earns ' $140' per
month for his work as a warehouseman and' jsniior. He
works part-time on a regular basis, apparently limited in
hours and pay so as not to decrease his annuity. I find that
his work is neither sporadic nor casual but that of a regular
part-time employee. The'fact'that he limits his working
time and earnings to protect his annuity is no longer a
ground for excluding him from the units
2. Tommy Anderson: He is`ihe son of Mel Anderson, an
officer' in the ' predecessor company and" the owner of ;10
percent of its stock. Mel Anderson is still employed by the
successor company but is no longer , an officer or
stockholder in it. His son Tommy, age 18, was employed as
of November 5 as a full-time warehouseman driver., He
worked the , regular ,schedule of the other drivers, was paid
a wage comparable to theirs,' and was given no special
privileges. The General Counsel contends that lie should
nevertheless be excluded-as the relative of, a principal
owner. Since the General Counsel does not, however, seek
to exclude Jerry Wood, the nephew of Del Wood, and thus
tell him it was because of the argument with Meyer. When Kirk went to see
Rideout in his office to be discharged, Rideout first went out of the room
and, after returning, told Kirk that he was being discharged because he had
not been learning his job satisfactorily.
9 Holiday Inns of America. Inc., 176 NLRB No. 1aa.
CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO., INC. 987
also a relative of a principal owner, the General Counsel's
contention must be-based on Section 2(3), of the Act. This
provides that the term "employee" shall not include any
individual employed by his parent. The legal principle
applicable to employment by a corporation of .a child of
one of its stockholders is that children of individuals who
have substantial stock interests in closely held corporations
are to be excluded from -the bargaining unit.ic The
question thus remaining is whether Mel 'Anderson's 10-
"percent stockholding in the predecessor company (a closely
held corporation) is a substantial interest-so that his son
should be excluded. I do not need to decide here how
much less than 50 percent of a stockholding Would be
substantial, since I am-satisfied that with the two other
stockholders in the predecessor company owning 90
percent of the stock, Mel Anderson's interests in the
company were not substantial. I therefore include Tommy
Anderson in the appropriate unit.
The supervisory status of Schneider, the employee with
the 'longest service in the warehouse, is in dispute. The
General Counsel argues that `he should be included in the
unit while the-Company would exclude him.
Kirk, Canon, Thompson, Meyer,, and Jerry Wood, Who
had just started on November 4, were primarily drivers
spending from 60 to 80 percent of their time making
deliveries by truck; The rest of their time was spent in,the
warehouse, packing the orders for deliveries on their
routes, and settling up for their collections after their
return at the end of the day. Russell, Sornson, and
Schneider worked primarily in the warehouse, receiving
and unloading goods, storing them in designated areas of
the warehouse and also helping the drivers in preparing
their orders for delivery. Schneider did most of the
receiving of the goods since, as noted above, Russell was
not a full-time employee and also did janitorial work while
Sornson was also engaged in repair and maintenance work
on the Company's vehicles. If a driver was absent,
Schneider would take over his delivery route.
-Mel Anderson was in charge of all receiving, storing, and
shipping functions. Schneider assisted him by relaying
instructions and by advising and aiding the warehousemen
and drivers in their- work. Most of Schneider's time was
spent in manual work, no different in its routine nature
than that of the other warehouse employees. Anderson had
an office in the office area, which was itself located in'the
warehouse, and was thus immediately available whenever
there was need to, consult him. Schneider testified that
Anderson usually contacted the warehousemen personally
to give - them directions but would sometimes relay them
through him.
Schneider cannot hire or fire employees, authorize them
to take time off, or direct them to- Work overtime. He is
paid $10 more per week than the next highest warehouse
employee.
He testified that Wood had told him a year or two ago
that he was the warehouse foreman, but his duties were not
changed then' nor was any announcement of any change in
status made to the other employees. One of the warehouse-
10 Foam Rubber City #2,of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Scandia 167 NLRB 623.
n Benson Wholesale Company, Inc., 164 NLRB 536, 548.
men, Thompson, testified-that he had never been told to
consider Schneider as his foreman or supervisor.
I find that Schneider does not direct any employees other
than in- a routine manner, not, requiring the use of
independent judgment. He possesses no other indicia of
supervisory authority, and I -find that before and after
November; 5, he was a nonsupervisory employee, properly
included in,any appropriate bargaining unit."
,As -of November 5, the date of its demand for
recognition, the Union had five valid authorization cards,
signed by, Canon, Kirk, Thompson, Sornson, and Schneid-
er. The next day, it obtained a card from Meyer. The total
complement of a warehousemen-driver's unit as of either
November ' 5 or' 6 was nine, (the six named above, plus
Russell, Jerry Wood, and Tommy Anderson) so that the
Union had a clear majority in such a unit. The Company,
however, contends that the unit requested is inappropriate
because the three store clerks are excluded, and that the
Union's request for recognition^must fail because it did not
have a majority in the larger unit.
The Company's business is conducted from a single large
building, divided into a store area fronting on the street,
and two warehouse areas, one at the side of the store and
the other to its rear, separated from it by the office area.
There is a direct connection with the side, or old,
warehouse and routes through or at the side of the office
area which lead directly into the back warehouse. The store
is stocked' with goods obtained from the warehouse areas,
and any item handled by the Company can be ordered
either through the store or through the warehouse.
Presumably, the customer's decision whether to come
directly to the store, to phone in an order, or to order
through a commission salesman will depend on whether he
wants his purchase immediately and whether it is too large
to carry away with him. There was testimony that a store
clerk will on occasion use his 'personal auto to make a
delivery of goods ordered through the store, on his lunch
hour or after work on his way- home, but this seems to be
done as a matter of courtesy by the clerk`for the customer
rather than as a required part of his job. -
The three store clerks are Ben Yamano, Albert Helmstet-
ter, and Wanda Sammons. They are paid a weekly wage, as
are all but one of the warehousemen who is paid a
comparable hourly rate. The female clerk is paid-$95 per
week, one of the male clerks gets $440 and the other $150
per week. The warehousemen-drivers start at $100 per
week and after 60 days are given a $10 -raise . Those with
longer service are paid $115, while Schneider receives $125
per week. Fringe benefits such as sick leave;vacations and
group insurance are the same for both groups of employ-
ees. The warehousemen wear work clothes suitable to their
jobs and the male store clerks wear slacks and sport shirts.
Helmstetter handles the installation , adjustment, -and
servicing of all kinds of equipment ranging from refrigera-
tors and ovens to fryers , grills, etc. which the Company
sells. There is an area within the warehouse where some of
this work is done, while the installation and the servicing of
nomnovable equipment is performed on the customer's
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
premises . On jobs requiring more than one man, Hehnstet-
ter is assisted by one of the drivers.
Because the three owners ' of the predecessor were all
active in the business, and because less than 25 people were
employed all told, lines of supervision over particular job
classifications were not sharply drawn. 'Responsibilities
were, as much on the basis of function as on employee
classification. Receipts from store sales and drivers'
deliveries were all accounted for to Rideout. (I infer. the
business is operated mainly on ' a cash rather than credit
basis, since drivers receipts were accounted for daily). The
inventory of goods in both store and warehouse -was
Anderson's responsibility, and sales efforts, by clerks or
commission salesmen , were directed by Wood. However,
since employees were engaged in specific functions, it
followed that Anderson had more direct contact with the
warehousemen than he did with the store clerks, but it is
significant, for example, that it was Wood and Rideout
who discharged Kirk, rather than Anderson, with whom he
worked most closely. I am not certain whether it was Wood
or Rideout who handled the routine operations of the
store, but, in any event, direct supervision seems to have
been quite minimal.
In retail department stores, a warehouse unit will be
found appropriate only if it is geographically separated
from the retail store operations, is under separate supervi-
sion, and is not substantially integrated with other store
functions.12 In retail, department stores, the warehouse
services the store's operations and its employee comple-
ment is less than the sales personnel . In this case, it is the
warehouse which is most important, in terms of number of
employees and the amount of business done. Here, it is the
store which , is an , - extension of the warehouse.
Also relevant here are cases of a warehouse or wholesale
operation which deals directly with customers. There,
office clerical employees whose direct contact with
warehousemen is limited are normally excluded.13
Even closer to the situation here are cases which involve
the relationship -"of warehousemen to salesclerks who sell in
an area of the warehouse, where such sales are a minor part
of the entire business. The sales area is included in the
warehouse or plant, the products sold are obtained from
the warehouse, and the salesclerks usually have some
functions in the warehouse itself . In these cases , the Board
has included store clerks in warehouse, production, or
route drivers units.14
In this case, the three sales, clerks have many interests in
common with the warehousemen and drivers. Their wage
structure is comparable to that of the warehousemen, their
hours of work are the same, and although, they do much
less physical work, they are not clerical employees. They
stock merchandise in the store obtained from the ware-
house, they deal with the same : customers to whom the
drivers deliver, so that the traits which are desired in
12 A. Harris & Co., 116 NLRB 1628 , and Sears Roebuck and Co., 180
-NLRB-No. 132.
13 Arts & Crafts Distributors 132 NLRB 166; , Garrett Supply Company,
165 NLRB 561; and Pacific Abrarive Supply Co., 1,82 NLRB No. 48.
i4' Teamsters ' Local 327 (American Bread Company), 170 NLRB No. 19;
Capital Bakers, Inc., 168 NLRB 908, 909 ; and Gunzenhauser Bakery, Inc.,
137 NLRB 1613 , 1617 (returned goods employees).
15 See Westinghouse Electric Supply Company, 83 NLRB 174, 176, where
department store selling personnel are less im rtant here.
The store is an extension of the warehouse, d closely
bound _to it. It is more comparable to taking o ders at a
counter in , a wholesale operation, than it is to cl g in a
department store or specialty shop.15 ,
The corollary of the rule enunciated , in A., Ilarri 'I Co.,
116 NLRB 1628, is that warehouse- employ and
salesclerks must be joined in a,single unit when the work
in the same building, are not under separate sup 'ion,
and are substantially integrated in their functions The
same rule, it seems,to me, should be applied where sales
part of the business is an, adjunct to the warehou , as
where the warehouse is an adjunct of the lugger, ales
operation. All the employees here are based in one
building, there is a significant overlapping of supervision in
both the store and the warehouse, and the respective
functions of both groups are interrelated since they deal
generally with the same type of customer. I'therefore hold
that only a unit composed of the warehousemen-drivers
and the salesclerks is appropriate, here. Since the' Union did
not have a majority in such a unit, I, find that it was not the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in an
appropraite unit, on the basis of its demand alone. I shall
therefore recommend that the_ allegations of the complaint
relating to the Company's refusal to Bargain be dismissed.
In view of that recommendation I need not decide
whether the violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) which I
have found would have necessitated a' bargaining order
here under the principles of Gissel Packing Company, 395
U.S. 575. Nor do I need to decide whether the Union's
conduct during the strike was so reprehensible'as to justify
denying it a bargaining order, in accord with such cases as
Laura Modes Company, 144 NLRB'1592,'or Artcraft Mantel
& Fireplace Co., 174 NLRB No. 110, on which the
Respondent relies.16
G. Kirk's Right To Reinstatement
However, since Kirk was a participant in all the alleged
misconduct during the strike , there remains the related
question whether he should be denied, reinstatement
because of his individual acts.
,In the ,,main, the strike, was peaceful. There was .no
blocking of ingress or egress at the warehouse, no
extravagant name-calling, and no violence against non-
strikers. There were some incidents in which Kirk is
claimed % to have damaged company trucks, to have
threatened the nonstrikers who continued to make deliver-
ies,,and to have threatened, their safety by following the
trucks in a dangerous manner. The strike lasted about 2
months, from November 9, 1970, to January 6, 1971. The
incidents in which Kirk was involved occurred in a 2-week
period, from about November 16 through December 2.
Events before December 1: (a), On or about November 16,
Kirk and Schneider followed Jerry Wood to the Ramada
a counter salesman was included in a warehouse unit , despite the agreement
of the parties to exclude him
1s The General , Counsel's contrary positionis based on World Carpets of
New York Inc, 163 ,NLRB 597, and a Supplemental Decision in the same
case, 188 NLRB No . 110, pursuant to a remand of the Court of Appeals,
403 F .2d 408 (C.A. 2), and United Mineral & Chemical Corporation, 155
NLRB 1390, reversed in pertinent part in 391' F.2d 829 , 838-841 , (CA. 2).
CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO., INC.
Inn where he was to make a delivery. Wood phoned Mel
Anderson from there to tell him he had been followed, and
Anderson then drove over to the inn in his car. As Wood
was leaving in the truck, Anderson proceeded to follow
him. Kirk followed them and, at one point on the inn's
private road, attempted to get between the truck and
Anderson's car. Anderson either squeezed Kirk's car onto
the shoulder, or Kirk did the same to Anderson's car,
depending on'whose testimony is to be believed. Eventual-
ly, Kirk got ahead of the truck and slowed down, forcing
Wood also to drive slowly, until Kirk pulled over to the
side of the road. Neither'the squeezing onto the shoulder of
the road, even if committed by Kirk, nor his slowing down,
endangered anyone.'7
(b) About 10 days later, Jerry and Jim Wood each drove
a company truck to Emery Transport, a freight hauler, to
pick up some goods which Emery had refused to deliver.
Two union business agents, together with Kirk and
Schneider, were already there. The Woods were not able to
make their pickup and, as they returned to their trucks, an
unknown party threw a rock at one of the trucks,
shattering its windshield. Jim Wood got in and started to
drive away when he discovered, that one of the tires was
flat. Jerry Wood testified that he saw the tire later, and that
it had been slashed.
Despite the denials of Kirk and the other union men who
were at Emery that they had anything to do with the
slashing or the rock throwing, I consider it extremely likely
that one or more of them had, done,the damage, since no
one else was near the trucks. However, I feel I would not
be justified in denying reinstatement to Kirk over this
incident simply because-he was one of the four men on the
scene, in the absence of evidence that he had actually
participated in the rock throwing or the tire slashing.
Events on -December 1 and 2: (a) On December 1, some of
the nonstriking employees used company trucks to block
the 'car of Meyer, a striker, which was parked near but not
on company property. Business Agent Marketti called the
police to complain. While waiting for them to appear,
Marketti took two or three baseball bats out of-his car,
held one himself, and gave another to Kirk. Some of the
nonstrikers were watching from inside the warehouse, and
Marketti- called out to them from the street to come out,
that he would take them on.18 A short time later, the police
arrived, told Marketti to put the bats away, and had the
trucks moved away from Meyer's car. Although neither the
blocking of the car nor the brandishing of the bats can be
excused, there was no close physical confrontation which
could have escalated into violence, since the nonstrikers
were all inside the warehouse,'and the union men were all
across the street.
(b) Later the same day, Kirk first blocked Jim Wood for
a few moments as he was attempting'to park in a freight
loading zone at the Madison Telephone Company, and
then followed Tommy Anderson on Northport Road,
cutting in once or twice. After a half mile of this
17 The facts in Titan Metal Manufacturing Co., 135 NLRB 196, which the
Company cited in its brief , reveal a much more serious and dangerous kind
of reckless following and driving.
18 This is based on the testimony of Jerry Wood. Marketti denied that he
989
maneuvering , Kirk turned around and let Anderson
proceed.
(c) The next day, Marketti and Kirk followed Jerry
Wood and Tommy Anderson on their route. Wood and
Anderson testified that at one of their stops, the Simon
Douse, Marketti and Kirk got out of their car and swung
their picket signs in their direction. Wood then phoned -Mel
Anderson who said he would call the police. When Wood'
got back' to his truck, Kirk pointed at -him, and said he
would die. - Just then the police arrived. Wood and
Anderson then drove on to -their next stop, the Hideaway
Lounge, with Kirk and Marketti in -pursuit. At this stop,
when they all got out, Kirk said to Wood, "You're going to
die hard." Kirk denied that he or Marketti had swung
picket signs at Wood or Anderson, that he had had any`
conversation with them, and specifically denied that, he
had said anything to Wood about dying.
(d)' Kirk and Marketti- continued, to follow the truck,
getting out to picket it whenever it stopped to make a
delivery. Again the Company called the police, who came
and spoke to Kirk and Marketti. At some point, according
to Anderson, Kirk yelled out to him that he was going to
break the Company and all of them.
I do not believe that either the General-Counsel's or the
Respondent's witnesses were wholly truthful in their
respective testimony as to the incidents related above.
However, only the baseball bat incident and Kirk's alleged
threat against Jerry Wood that he would die, seem to me to
be of sufficient weight even to consider in determining
Kirk's reinstatement . The other incidents,' of following the
truck or blocking it momentarily, are the sort of trivial,
rough incidents which are to be expected during a long,
contested strike where an employer attempts-to continue
operating with nonstrikers. On the whole, I have less faith
in the truthfulness of Kirk's and Marketti's versions than I
have in that of the other witnesses . I have also taken into
account, however, the provocation by blocking Meyer's car
which led to the display of the bats. Even assuming that
Kirk's gestures and words actually happened just, as
Respondent's witnesses attested to, I do not believe that
they were of so aggravated a nature as to justify denying
reinstatement to Kirk. The cases, cited by Respondent
where the Board refused reinstatement to a discriminatee
involve conduct, such as unprovoked assaults and other
violence, threats which seemed to be liable to being carried
out, and dangerous , reckless following , of nonstrikers. The,
incidents in which Kirk was involved were less likely to put'
anyone in fear, and no physical assaults ever resulted. I
find that Kirk's misconduct during the strike was not of
such a serious character as to render him unfit for further
service with the Company, and I will recommend that he
be reinstated.'9
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Consolidated Supply Co.; Inc. and Consolidated
Supply of Madison, Inc., are employers engaged in
had said he would take them on, clainung only that he had shown them his
Mickey Mantle batting stance, and that he had said two can play that game.19 Terry Coach Industries, Inc., 166 NLRB 560.
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of,
the Act.
2. The, Union - is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Consolidated Supply of Madison, Inc., is a successor
employer to Consolidated Supply Co., Inc., and is
re' pansible for remedying, the latter's unfair labor prac-
tices.
4. By discriminatorily discharging Robert Kirk on
November 5, 1970, thereby discouraging membership in
the Union, the predecessor, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
5. By refusing to reinstate Robert Kirk the Respon-
dents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
6. By interrogating employees in a coercive manner, by
threatening them that it would close the plant if the Union
got, in, and by promising raises to employees who would
refuse to strike, predecessor Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act:.
8. The Union was not the authorized representative of
a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit on
November 5, 1970, or thereafter, and the Respondents are
not in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of theAct in refusing to
recognize and bargain with it.
THE REMEDY
In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find it
necessary that the Respondents be ordered to cease and
desist from the unfair labor practices found and from other
invasions of the employees' Section 7 rights; to take certain
affirmative action, including the offer of reinstatement to
Robert Kirk, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis,
from the date of his discharge to the date on which the`
Company offers him reinstatement, plus interest at 6
percent per annum, as 'prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.;
138 NLRB 716; and to post appropriate notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 20
ORDER
Respondents Consolidated Supply Co., Inc., and Consol-
idated Supply of Madison, Inc., their officers,, agents,
successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging, membership in Drivers, Salesmen,
Warehousemen, Milk Processors, Cannery, Dairy Employ-
ees and Helpers Union Local No. 695, affiliated with
20 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, 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
International Brotherhood , of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and,Helpers of America , or, in any other
labor organization - of ,its employees , by discriminatorily
discharging, or in any other manner discriminating against
any employee in regard to hire , tenure, or any other term
or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees in, a coercive manner,
threatening them that, it would close the plant if the Union
got in, and promising themraises if they would refuse to
strike. -
(c) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor -organizations, to join or assist
the above-named labor organization , or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representa=
tives of their own choosing , to engage in ,other concerted
activities for the purpose of mutual
.
aid or protection as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary- to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Robert Kirk, immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former,,or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole- for any loss of earnings
suffered by reason of the discrimination-practiced against
him, in the manner ' setforth in the section entitled ` "The
Remedy."
(b) Notify immediately the above=named individual; if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States,
of his right to full reinstatement, upon application after
discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance- with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act. ,
(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 reports
necessary to analyze the amount,of backpay due, and the
right to reinstatement.
(d) Post at its warehouse, and office in Madison,
Wisconsin, , copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix" 21 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly
signed by authorized representatives of the Respondents,
shall be posted immediately upon,receipt:thereof, and be
maintained for,60,consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
successor Respondent to insure, that said notices'are not
altered, defaced, or, covered by any other, material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region '30, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondents have taken to comply
herewith :2
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be
21' 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 torn Judgment -of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
22 In "the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO., INC.
dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not
found herein. `
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, m writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the- Respondent has taken to comply
herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL offer Robert Kirk full reinstatement, and
pay him for the earnings he lost as a result of his
discharge on November 5, 1970, plus 6-percent interest.
WE WILL NOT discharge or discriminate against any
employee for supporting Drivers, Salesmen, Ware-
housemen, Milk Processors, Cannery, Dairy Employees
and Helpers Union Local No. 695, affiliated with
Inteernational Brotherhood of-Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and.Helpers of America, or any other
Union.
WE WILL NOT promise raises to employees for not
going on strike.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the warehouse if the
Union becomes the bargaining representative of our
employees.'
991
WE WILL NOT question employees about the Union
in a coercive manner.
Dated By
CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY Co.,
INC. AND ITS SUCCESSOR,
CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY OF
MADISON, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative} (Title)
WE WILL NOTIFY immediately the above -named individual,
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States,, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application
after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act.
This -is, an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone;
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's- Office,
Second Floor, Commerce Building, 744 North Fourth
Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 414-224-
3861.