Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 309 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARK ASSOCIATION, INC. 309
atmosphere tending to impair the untrammeled and uninhibited choice by
employees under the statutory conditions required by the Act.
It is the function of the Board to provide a forum under which an election can
be conducted under conditions as ideal as possible. It is concluded that the
disparate application of the rule under all of the circumstances involved herein
rendered it impossible for the Board to fulfill its functions in accordance with
the strict standards designed to assure that the participating employees have
the opportunity to register their free choice for or against a bargaining
representative.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the election conducted on September 27,
1950, be set aside and a new election conducted.
FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARK ASSOCIATION, INC. and MORTUARY
EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL No. 151, INTERNATIONAL BROTHEIZIIOOD
OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, A. F. OF L. Case No. 21-CA -1077.
December 10, 1951
Decision and Order
On August 15, 1951, Trial Examiner Bruce Hunt issued his Inter-
mediate Report 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 copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The request of the Respondent for oral argument is hereby denied,
as the record, including the brief and exceptions, adequately presents
the issues and positions of the parties.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the brief and exceptions, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and
modifications :
Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the Employer is engaged in
commerce and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction in this case.
In computing the dollar volume of the Employer's out-of-State
shipments during the 12-month period ending April 30, 1951, the
Trial Examiner properly included the value of embalming and other
services rendered in each case within the State prior to shipment,
I Pursuant to Section 3 Q) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and
Styles].
97 NLRB No. 62.
980209-52-vol 97-21
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as well as the value of the caskets and shipping cases in which the
remains were transported? Even if we were to consider only the
value of the caskets and shipping cases, as the Respondent contends
we should, the total value of all3 out-of-State shipments during the
period involved, added to the value of the Respondent's direct and
indirect inflow, would, under the rule of the Rutledge Paper Products
case,4 satisfy the Board's minimum requirements for asserting
jurisdiction .5
Order
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Forest Lawn
Memorial-Park Association, Inc., Glendale, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Mortuary Employees Union,
Local No. 151, International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers,
A. F. of L., or in any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Inquiring of employees concerning the identity of employees
who contemplate organizational activity or who attend union meet-
ings ; inquiring of them concerning their expectations of gain from
organizational activity; characterizing as disloyal to the Respondent
their attendance at union meetings and their refusal to identify pro-
ponents of organizational activity; telling employees that a choice
must be exercised between loyalty to the Respondent and to the Union;
and seeking to induce any employee to disrupt union activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Mortuary Employees Union,
a Riverside Memorial Chapel , Inc, 92 NLRB 1594
There is no legal basis for the Respondent 's contention that we should exclude from our
determination of the extent of the Respondent' s operations in commerce shipments made
out-of-State at the request of local, rather than out-of-State, clients . Such shipments
constitute interstate commerce. See Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v Bondurant , 257 U. S.
282 While we stated in the Riverside Memorial case, supra, that the out-of-State shipments
in that case were made at the request of out-of-State clients, we did not intend to imply
that we would have reached a different result if the shipments there made had been ordered
by local clients
4 91 NLRB 625.
4 The record shows , and we find , that during the 12-month period under consideration the
Respondent received from points out of the State goods valued at $40,452, and purchased
within the State goods valued at $ 216,684, which originated out of the State. While it
appears, as the Respondent contends , that more than half of tlfe.latter figure consisted of
purchases of capital equipment , and that none of the articles purchased ' were further
processed by the Respondent , these circumstances are not significant in determining whether
the Board's current minimum jurisdictional requirements have been met.
FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARK ASSOCIATION, INC. 311
Local No. 151, International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, A.
F. of L., 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 of such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization as authorized in Section 8
(a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Ralph M. Bailey, Donald J. Isham, Harlan E. Phil-
lippe, and Darrell E. Ward immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights or privileges, in the manner set forth
in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."'
(b) Make whole Ralph M. Bailey, Donald J. Isham, Harlan E.
Phillippe, and Darrell E. Ward in the manner set forth in the section
of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of
pay and vacation allowance each may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them.
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying all payroll and other records necessary to
determine the amount of back pay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post in conspicuous places in its offices and place of business,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted,
copies of the notice attached hereto as an Appendix to the Intermediate
Reports Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region, shall, after being duly signed
by the Respondent's representative, be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for at least sixty (60) consecu-
tive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. '
(e) File with said Regional Director within ten (10) days from
the date of this Order, a report in writing, setting forth in detail the
steps which the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A charge having been duly filed, a complaint and notice of hearing -thereon
having been issued and served by the General Counsel, and an answer having
9 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner ," the words "A Decision and Order ." If this Order is enforced by a decree
of a United States court of appeals , the notice shall be further amended by inserting the
words "A Decree of a United States Court of Appeals Enforcing " before the words "A
Decision and Order."
312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been filed by the above-named Association, a hearing involving allegations of
unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat.
136, herein called the Act, by said Association, herein called the Respondent,
was held upon due notice at Los Angeles, California, on July 9 and 10, 1951, before
the undersigned Trial Examiner. The allegations, in substance, are that the
Respondent discharged Ralph M. Bailey, Donald J. Isham, Harlan E. Phillippe,
and Darrell E. Ward because of their union or concerted activities, in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, and interrogated and made threats
and coercive statements to employees concerning their union activities, in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (1) thereof. All parties were represented by counsel or
other representative, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues, to argue
orally upon the record, and to file briefs and proposed findings and conclusions.
Briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Respondent, and have
been considered. Motions by the General Counsel and the Respondent, to strike
certain portions of a written "Stipulation of Facts" they had entered into con-
cerning the Respondent's business , which were made during the course of the
hearing'and taken under advisement by me, are hereby denied. The Respondent's
motion to dismiss the complaint upon jurisdictional grounds, also taken under
advisement, is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS or FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Association, Inc., is a non-
stock, nonprofit cemetery association of lot owners in Forest Lawn Memorial.
Park, a private cemetery in Glendale, California, herein called Forest Lawn.
The Respondent is engaged in the operation and maintenance of Forest Lawn,
and has 27 departments and approximately 500 employees. Its mortuary de-
partment, with which we are concerned here, has 58 employees. The Respondent
advertises that it "offers complete undertaking service and all forms of inter-
ment" and that its mortuary "is the only undertaking establishment within
cemetery grounds."
During the 12-month period ending April 30, 1951, the Respondent's sales
of property, services and supplies, including graves, crypts, niches, inter-
ment charges , cremations, and mortuary services, amounted to $4,621,803.
Included within this figure were charges for 3,870 instances in which mortuary
services were performed, 3,716 of which involved interments in Forest Lawn.
The remaining 154 interments were as follows : 40 within the State of Cali-
fornia elsewhere than in Forest Lawn, and 114 outside the State. Of the
114, 98 represented instances in which the Respondent's services were con-
tracted for by local individuals, and 16 represented instances in which the
services were contracted for by out-of-State individuals or mortuaries. In
the 98 instances, the Respondent received a total of $43,595 as follows : $26,767
for embalming and other services, $13,383 for caskets, and $3,445 for shipping
cases. - In the 16 instances, a total of $9,977 was received as follows : $6,225
for embalming and other services, $3,112 for caskets, and $640 for shipping
cases. The total thus received for the 114 instances is $53,572. In approx-
imately 85 percent of the 114 instances, the bodies were shipped out-of-State
FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARK ASSOCIATION, INC. 313
within a week, and in all the 114 instances the Respondent made appropriate
arrangements with the carriers.'
The Board has exercised jurisdiction over a mortuary in only one instance,
Riverside Memorial Chapel, Inc., 92 NLRB 1594.2 The jurisdictional standard of
$25,000 announced by the Board in Stanislaus Implement and Hardware
Company, Lemited, 91 NLRB 618, is applicable here. The figure of $53,572 set
forth above is substantially in excess thereof a The Respondent asserts, how-
ever, that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Board, and raises several
defenses. According to the Respondent, it is engaged in an entirely local
enterprise, the operation and maintenance of a private cemetery, and its
mortuary and other operations are all incidental thereto. The fact, however,
is that the mortuary is not operated exclusively in connection with interments
in the cemetery, but competes with local mortuaries. As related, the Respondent
furnishes mortuary services whether interment is to be within or outside
California. While the Board appears not to have asserted jurisdiction over
a cemetery, and it may be assumed arguendo that the Respondent's cemetery
operations are outside the Board's jurisdiction, it does not follow that the
Respondent is wholly exempt from the provisions of the Act. Cf. Di Giorgio
Fruit Corporation, 80 NLRB 853, where the employer was engaged in agri-
cultural and related operations. Contrary to the Respondent's contention, I
also find that jurisdiction is not to be declined because the proportion of the
Respondent's income which is derived from services and supplies furnished
in connection with out-of-State shipments is relatively small. J. L. Brandeis
d Sons v. N. L. R. B., 142 F. 2d 977 (C. A. 8), cert. den. 323 U. S. 751, 65 S. Ct.
85. Next, the Respondent emphasizes that the Board, in the Riverside Memo-
rial case, spoke of shipments at the request of out-of-State clients, and points
out that in 98 of its 114 out-of-State shipments the contractual arrangements
were made with local individuals. I do not believe, however, that the location
of the client or the contractual arrangements is controlling. Cf. the Brandeis
case, supra. Finally, the Respondent contends that only the value of the
shipping cases, in which the corpses and caskets were enclosed for shipment,
should be considered in determining jurisdiction. This contention also must
be rejected. In the Riverside Memorial case the Board gave consideration to the
entire value of the employer's services, specifically including caskets.
I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce and that, under applicable
decisions of the Board, jurisdiction should be asserted herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Mortuary Employees Union, Local No. 151, International Brotherhood of Fire-
men and Oilers, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent.
2In some instances, the corpses were called for at Forest Lawn by the carriers. In
other instances, the Respondent made delivery to the carriers. The transportation charges
in the 114 instances totaled not less than $5,700. In most of the instances, the Respond-
ent's clients gave to it checks payable to the carriers ; in a few instances the Respondent
advanced the transportation charges and later billed its clients. Contrary to the conten-
tion of the General Counsel, I believe that the $5,700 figure should not be added to the
figure of $53,572 in determining jurisdiction. The former figure represents expenditures
for the services of persons other than the Respondent.
2 In the Riverside Memorial case, jurisdiction was based upon the facts that the employer
(1) was engaged in commerce and (2) was also an integral part of a multistate enterprise.
8 Since, in my judgment, jurisdiction is to be exercised on the basis of this figure, I find
It unnecessary to discuss the General Counsel's contention concerning application of the
jurisdictional theory established by the Board in The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 01
NLRB 625.
314 DECfSIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary
The Respondent did not participate in the hearing during the presentation of
evidence by the General Counsel concerning the unfair labor practices, nor did
the Respondent call witnesses in its own behalf. Consequently the findings
below are based upon the testimony of the discharged employees, which I believe
is reliable and probative.
B. Chronology of event8
About mid-March 1951, organizational activity occurred among the Respond-
'ent's embalmers, who numbered about 15, as well as among embalmers of other
local mortuaries. A few days later, Darrell E. Ward, an embalmer, talked with
Harry T. Rowe, director of the mortuary department. Ward told Rowe that
"the embalmers as a whole were very disgruntled" and that the matter "was
-getting very serious." Rowe asked Ward to give him the names of any embalmers
who were thinking of organizing, but Ward refused.
On March 23 a union meeting was held. Among the Respondent' s embalmers
_in attendance were Ward, Ralph M. Bailey, and Donald J. Isham, who then
-or later became members of the Union. Harlan E. Phillippe, another of the
Respondent's embalmers, arrived at the meeting as it ended and at that time
applied for membership.
On March 26, Attorney Blalock questioned Bailey in the presence of Rowe.
Blalock inquired what the employees expected to gain by the organizational
activity and whether working conditions at the Respondent's mortuary com-
pared favorably with. conditions at its competitors. Blalock asked Bailey to
disclose the names of employees in attendance at the union meeting, and Bailey
avoided the inquiry. Blalock then asked the number of employees who had
attended, and Bailey said he believed the number was five. Bailey inquired
as to his standing with the Respondent, and Blalock said that he could not
answer the question. Later on that day, the Respondent called a meeting of its
embalmers. Present on behalf of the Respondent were Rowe, Blalock, one
Christenson, personnel director, and one Llewellyn, executive vice president.
Rowe opened the meeting by saying that "a very grave injustice and disloyal act
had been done," that he understood there had been a union meeting, and that
he wished to know who had attended. There was no response. Blalock then
inquired, ". . . Are you fellows ashamed of what you did? Why don't you
want to tell us?" He also asked what the employees expected to gain, and said
that they should have been satisfied with their working conditions. Bailey,
Isham, Ward, and Phillippe all acknowledged having been present at the union
meeting. One other employee of the Respondent, Eugene Ridge, had attended
the meeting, but did not acknowledge having done so. He does not appear to
have been discharged. Blalock, Rowe, and Llewellyn at different times during
the meeting said that the employees should choose between loyalty to the Re-
spondent and to the Union.
On the next day, March 27, Ward inquired of Rowe whether the employees
were to be dismissed or what was the outcome of the whole situation." Rowe
answered that he did not know, adding that Ward "had done him a very disloyal
act by not beforehand telling him who the troublemakers were down around all
the other funeral homes." On the same day, Phillippe inquired of Rowe what
action would be taken toward the employees who had engaged in organizational
activity, and Rowe answered that he could not say "because some of those same
men have been in this same experience before." Late that afternoon, Ward,
Bailey, Isham, and Phillippe were discharged by Rowe, who gave to each of
FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARK ASSOCIATION, INC. 315
them a brief letter saying that their services were being terminated as of that
day and that they were being given "two weeks' pay in advance." The letter
contained no explanation for the discharges, and Rowe refused to elaborate,
saying that he "was very sorry that this all happened" and that he had been
instructed by his superiors ""not to say anything."
A few days later, Bailey and Isham chanced to meet Christenson in a cafe.
Christenson said that he liked all of the discharged employees and that he
regretted "what he had to do." Bailey called attention to the fact that a union
meeting had been scheduled for March 28, the day after the discharges, and
inquired of Christenson whether the motive for the discharges had been "the
psychological effect" on the remaining embalmers so that they would refrain
from attending that meeting. Christenson answered in the affirmative. He
said also that the work of the discharged employees had been good and that
they "would be missed."
About a month later, Bailey called upon Blalock, seeking reinstatement.
There was some discussion of union activity, in which Blalock inquired whether
Bailey still retained his membership. Bailey answered in the affirmative, and
Blalock made the same inquiry concerning Isham. Bailey answered that Isham's
attitude toward the Union "was about the same as" his own. Blalock asked
whether Bailey thought that by playing along with the Union he could "break
it up," and Bailey answered in the negative. Bailey said that all he wished was
reinstatement and "to get withdrawn from the blacklist." Blalock said that
he did not know what could be done. Later he telephoned Bailey and said that
he could not do anything.
0. conclusions
The above facts, based upon uncontradicted and reliable testimony offered
by the General Counsel, leave no doubt that the employees were discharged,
and that Bailey was refused reinstatement, because of their union activities.
No extensive discussion is necessary. It suffices to say that no other basis is
offered for the discharges, nor can one be inferred from the record. Accordingly,
I find that by the discharges, and the refusal to reinstate Bailey, the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. I find also that the Respondent,
by inquiring of employees concerning the identity of employees who contemplated
organizational activity and who had attended union meetings, by inquiring of
them concerning their expectations of gain from organizational activity, by
characterizing as disloyalty to the Respondent the attendance at a union meet-
ing and the refusal to identify proponents of organizational activity, by telling
the employees that a choice must be exercised between loyalty to the Respond-
ent and to the Union, and by seeking to induce Bailey to play along with the
Union in an effort to disrupt it, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the 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 burden-
ing and obstructing, commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I have found that the Respondent discharged Ralph M. Bailey, Donald J.
Isham, Harlan E. Phillippe, and Darrell E. Ward on March 27, 1951, and there-
after rejected Bailey's request for reinstatement, because of their union activi-
ties. I shall recommend, therefore, that the Respondent offer them immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions
(The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto R4co
Branch, 65 NLRB 827), without prejudice to their seniority or other rights or
privileges, and that it make each of them whole for any loss of pay and vacation
allowance' he has suffered by reason of the discrimination against him by pay-
ment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have
earned as wages, including vacation pay, from the date of the discrimination to
the date of a proper offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings (Crossett Lum-
ber Company, 8 NLRB 440, 497-8) during said period, the payment to be com-
puted upon a quarterly basis in the manner established by, the Board in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. I shall also recommend, in accordance with
the Woolworth decision, that the Respondent, upon request, make available to
the Board and its agents all pertinent records.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, particularly
the unlawful discharges, I shall also recommend, in order to make effective the
interdependent guarantees of Section 7 of the Act, that the Respondent cease
and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in '
the case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Ralph
M. Bailey, Donald J. Isham, Harlan E. Phillippe, and Darrell E. Ward, and
each of them, and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
4 The General Counsel correctly contends that the vacation rights of the employees
should not be prejudiced by reason of the discharges. Eureka Vacuum Cleaner Company,
69 NLRB 878.
PIERCE BROTHERS 317
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in MORTUARY EMPLOYEES UNION,
LOCAL NO. 151, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS,
A. F. OF L., or in any other labor organization of our employees, by dis-
charging or refusing to reinstate any of our employees or discriminating in
any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of their employment.
WE WILL NOT inquire of employees concerning the identity of employees
who contemplate organizational activity or who attend union meetings ; or
inquire of them concerning their expectations of gain from organizational
activity, or characterize as disloyalty to us their attendance at union meet-
ings and their refusal to identify proponents of organizational activity, or
tell employees that a choice must be exercised between loyalty to us and to
the Union, or seek to induce any employee to disrupt union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist MORTUARY EMPLOYEES UNION, LocAL No. 151,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, A. F. OF L., or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, or to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay and vacation allowance suffered as
a result of the discrimination.
Ralph M. Bailey Harlan E. Phillippe
Donald J. Isham Darrell E. Ward
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining, members in good standing of the above-named union or any other
labor organization except to the extent that this right may be affected by an
agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
FOREST LAWN MEMORIAL-PARK
ASSOCIATION, INC.
(Employer)
Dated ------------------------------ By -------------------------------
(Representative) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
PIERCE BROTHERS and MORTUARY EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL No. 151,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, A. F. or L.
Case No. 01-CA-1078. December 10, 1951
Decision and Order
On July 24, 1951, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
97 NLRB No. 63.