Gabel Tank Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1967

166 N.L.R.B. 902 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Herman Gabel, d/b/a Gabel Tank Company and
Local 496, Sheet Metal Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO. Case 18-CA-2299
July 28, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
On April 5, 1967, Trial Examiner Leo F.
Lightner issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged 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.
The Trial Examiner also found that it was unneces-
sary to resolve other unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint since they were, at most, cumula-
tive to other violations of the Act. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional 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
brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, as modified below. i
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Delete the Trial Examiner's Conclusions of Law
5, 6, and 7, the present Conclusion of Law 8 being
renumbered as 5.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Herman Gabel, d/b/a Gabel Tank Company, Sioux
Falls, South Dakota, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as
herein modified:
1. Delete from the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order paragraph I (a), and reletter the
remaining paragraphs thereof.
2. Delete paragraph 2(b) from the Trial Ex-
aminer's Recommended Order and substiti,ite the
following therefor:
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"(b) Restore to all of its employees the paid cof-
feebreaks withdrawn from them on October 21,
1966."
3. De!ete from the Appendix of the Trial Ex-
aminer ' s Decision the first indented paragraph.
4. Add the following as the last indented para-
graph of the Appendix of the Trial Examiner's
Decision:
WE WILL restore to all of our employees the
paid coffeebreaks withdrawn from them on Oc-
tober 21, 1966.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those portions of
the amended complaint as to which no violations
have been found are hereby dismissed.
I In view of the General Counsel's assurances at the heanng that he
was not seeking a "bargaining order," and because the acts of Respondent
prior to the certification which are alleged to be violative of Section 8(a)(5)
are herein found violative of other provisions of the Act, and are, in our
opinion, adequately remedied in our Order, we deem it unnecessary to
pass on the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent also violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) by such conduct Accordingly, we are dismissing the 8(a)(5)
allegations of the amended complaint
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEO F. LIGHTNER, Trial Examiner. This proceeding
was heard in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on December
15, 1966, and January 5, 1967, on the complaint of
General Counsel, as amended, and the answer, as
amended, of Herman Gabel, d/b/a Gabel Tank Com-
pany,' herein called the Respondent.2 The amended com-
plaint alleges violations of Sections 8(a)(5), (3), and (1)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act,
1947, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act
The parties waived oral argument and briefs filed by the
General Counsel and Respondent have been carefully
considered.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is an individual proprietorship with its
principal place of business at Sioux Falls, South Dakota,
where he is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
fabricated steel tanks. During the 12-month period ending
August 31 1966, a representative period, Respondent
sold and shipped, to points outside the State of South
Dakota, products valued in excess of $50,000. The com-
plaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find Respondent
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
Amended at opening of hearing, to correctly reflect identity of
Respondent
2 The charge herein was filed on September 23, 1966, and amended on
December 19, 1966 A complaint was issued on November I, 1966,
amended, at the opening of the hearing herein, and an amended complaint
was issued on December 20, 1966
166 NLRB No. 108
GAB EL TANK CO. 903
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 496, Sheet Metal Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Union , is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
THE ISSUES
The principal issues raised by the pleadings and
litigated at the hearing are: (1) whether the Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1), by (a) the removal of a
telephone and a wall clock from the plant area on Sep-
tember 13, 1966, or (b) threats of discharge and reduc-
tion in work hours by Herman Gabel on or about October
12, 1966, or (c) efforts by Herman Gabel to coerce in-
dividual employees, relative to the union election, on or
about November 1, 1966, or (d) threats of layoff, uttered
by Herman Gabel, on or about November 9, 1966; or (2)
whether Respondent was discriminatorily motivated and
thus engaged in conduct violative of the provisions of
Section 8(a)(3) by (a) discharging John T. Fluit and James
J. Smythe on September 20, 1966, or (b) reducing the
hours of work of employees Magnus C. Homes, Lancelot
Lunde, Floyd Matthies, and Ronald Poppenga on Oc-
tober 14, 1966, and on October 21, 1966, or (c) the
elimination of coffeebreaks for its employees on October
21, 1966, or (d) the layoff of Hoines, Lunde, and
Matthies on November 10, 1966, or (e) the layoff of
Ronald Poppenga on November 17, 1966; or (3) whether
on and after September 9, 1966, Respondent instituted
unilateral changes in working conditions, without notice
to or bargaining with the Union, and whether such con-
duct was violative of the provisions of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act in the following respects, by (a) the discharge of
Fluit and Smythe on September 20, 1966, or (b) the
removal of the wall clock and telephone on September
13, 1966, or (c) the reduction of work hours of unit em-
ployees on October 14 and 21, 1966, or (d) the elimina-
tion of two coffeebreaks on October 21, 1966, or (e) the
layoff of employees on November 10 and 17, 1966.
Respondent, by answer, denies commission of any unfair
labor practices, acknowledges the discharges, but asserts
they were for good cause. While the occurrence of the
events, complained of as constituting violations of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (5) are not disputed, Respondent urges
that its conduct was not violative of the Act.
tember 7, 1966, when the assistance of the Union was ini-
tially sought, and November 22, 1966, when the Union
was certified as the result of a Board election.
Herman Gabel commenced operations as Gabel Tank
Company on an unspecified date in 1951. At all times
pertinent herein his three sons, Richard, as office
manager, Dale, as general plant supervisor, and Wayne,
as leadman in the general shop area, have been associated
with him.
At lunchtime, on September 7, 1966, John T. Fluit, al-
leged discriminatee herein, went to the union office, con-
ferred with John McMahon, business representative for
Local 496, and was advised how to proceed in an effort
to organize Respondent's employees. The same after-
noon, with the assistance of James J. Smythe and Lance
Lunde, fellow employees, Fluit obtained the names and
addresses of the Respondent's production and main-
tenance employees. The following day, September 8, a
meeting of these employees was held at the union hall, at
6 p.m., at which nine employees were present, and at
which all of those present signed union authorization
cards. 4
On Friday, September 9, 1966, McMahon mailed a
petition for election, which was received and filed at the
Regional Office on September 12, and docketed as Case
18-RC-6925. On the same date, McMahon, by letter, ad-
vised Respondent that it represented a majority of the
employees and requested bargaining, as more fully set
forth infra. This communication was received by Richard
Gabel on Monday, September 12.
Subsequently, without communication with the Union
relative thereto: on September 20, 1966, Respondent
discharged Fluit and Smythe, under circumstances con-
sidered infra, on October 14, and again on October 21,
1966, Respondent reduced the work hours of Hoines,
Lunde, Floyd Matthies, and Poppenga; on October 21
Respondent eliminated the coffeebreaks previously al-
lowed its employees; on November 10 Respondent laid
off Hoines, Lunde, and Floyd Matthies; and on
November 17 he laid off Poppenga; under circumstances
considered infra.
A hearing, on the petition for election, was held on Oc-
tober 5, 1966, and pursuant to a Direction of Election, is-
sued by the Regional Director, on October 12, an elec-
tion was held, on November 9, 1966. Thereafter, the
Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the unit involved, on
November 22, 1966.
B. Interference , Restraint, and Coercion
Supervisory Personnel and Agents
It is undisputed that Herman Gabel, owner, Dale
Gabel, plant superintendent, and Richard Gabel,3 office
manager, are supervisors within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act, and, the latter two are agents of the
Respondent.
A. Background and Sequence of Events
There is no dispute as to the sequence of events herein
set forth. The principal events occurred between Sep-
3 Referred to in the record as Dick.
4 Identified as James J. Smythe, John T. Fluit, Lancelot (Lance) D.
Lunde, Magnus C. Hoines, Floyd A. Matthies, Ronald Poppenga, Ken-
neth H. Thorson, Roger A. Vant Hul, and James Edwards Croisant. The
It is alleged that Herman Gabel: (a) On or about Oc-
tober 12, 1966, threatened an employee with discharge
and reduction in work hours if the Union won the election
or was voted in; (b) on or about November 1, 1966,
called employees into his office, individually, to coerce
them not to vote for the Union, at the time of the election;
and (c) on or about November 9, 1966, threatened an em-
ployee with a layoff if he continued to support the Union.
The evidence relative to these events is next set forth.
Lunde, a welder who also did some testing, was em-
ployed from March 1, 1964, until his layoff on November
tenth full-time employee, that particular week, according to Respondent's
employment records was Wayne Gabel , son of the owner. In addition,
A J. Mattlues appears as a part-time employee, having worked 15 hours.
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10, 1966, the day after the election. Lunde worked
primarily in the backroom with Poppenga, and others,
until an unspecified date in early September 1966, when
he was moved to the eastroom, where Smythe was lead-
man. Lunde credibly related that, about 2 or 3 weeks
prior to the election, which was held November 9,
Richard Gabel took him to the office where a conversa-
tion with Herman Gabel ensued. Herman Gabel advised
him, "If you want more money, why don't you go some
place else and work, why don't you go out to Hausen-
steins, they've got a union out there " Lunde inquired if
Herman Gabel wanted him to quit. Herman Gabel
responded, "No, that isn't what I mean " Herman Gabel
then advised Lunde that the Gabel Tank Company was
too small a company to have a union , that he felt the
union wages were too high for him to afford, that they
were not making enough money on the tanks to be able to
afford union wages.5
Floyd Matthies, a nephew of Herman Gabel, by affini-
ty, was employed by Respondent from mid-August 1964
until his layoff on November 10, 1966, initially as a
painter and later as a welder and tester Matthies credibly
related that he had a conversation with Herman Gabel,
approximately 2 weeks prior to his November 10 layoff.
He was uncertain if Richard Gabel was present. Matthies
asserted that Herman Gabel advised him that Herman
Gabel did not want a union in the plant, that the plant was
not big enough for a union , and that if he did not have
enough work Matthies would be out in the snowbank,
also. In contrast, Lunde related a conversation, in the
summer of 1965, at which time Richard Gabel advised
Poppenga and Lunde that Respondent intended to try to
keep the same number of men working the same hours,
including overtime, so that they would have steady work.
Magnus C. Homes credibly related that he was advised
by one of the Gabels to go to the office of Herman Gabel,
on approximately November 5, and at that time Richard
Gabel was also present. Herman Gabel advised Hoines
that he understood the employees wanted a union and
inquired as to what Hoines "thought" about it. Homes
responded that he thought it was a good deal. Hoines re-
lated that he thought it was Richard Gabel who asserted
that the plant was too small for a union Herman Gabel
then advised Hoines that Herman Gabel did not have to
sign a contract, and that he could require the employees
to stand up for their coffeebreaks, that, if someone called
up and requested a reference for an employee, Herman
Gabel could advise the caller that the employees were
"rabble rousers and troublemakers." Hoines credibly re-
lated that subsequently, the same day, Herman Gabel
came to his work station and advised him, "You stick
with us and I will make it worth your while "
Poppenga credibly related that, about 2 weeks before
the election, he was advised by either Richard Gabel or
Dale Gabel that Herman Gabel wished to see him.
Richard Gabel was present during his subsequent conver-
sation with Herman Gabel. At that time Herman Gabel
advised Poppenga that they felt the Company was not big
enough to have a union , that he did not have to sign a con-
tract, that he would see the employees out in the snow-
bank before he would sign one, and that if an employer
called for a reference he could refer to the employees
either with a good reference or say they were rabble
rousers. Herman Gabel also advised Poppenga that if the
Union was successful Respondent would stop making the
smaller tanks, because he was not making enough money
on them. Herman Gabel also asserted that the Union was
making promises to the employees, of benefits, which the
employees would never obtain. Poppenga asserted that
he had a further conversation with Herman Gabel on the
morning of the election, November 9. At that time, Her-
man Gabel asked Poppenga if he had changed his mind
about the Union. Poppenga responded that he had not.
Herman Gabel then advised Poppenga there was a circle
cutter which was broken, which they could send away for
a month. Herman Gabel advised Poppenga that, as a
result, he could either put Poppenga to work or lay him
off, "it is up to you." Poppenga responded, "You will
have to lay me off." Poppenga asserted that the circle
cutter had been broken for 2 or 3 months, previous to this
conversation.
Herman Gabel did not appear as a witness, and no ex-
planation was offered for his failure to appear. Richard
Gabel, who did appear as a witness, did not dispute the
recitations of General Counsel's witnesses, relative to the
statements of Herman Gabel at the meetings during
which he was present.
It is alleged that the removal of a wall clock, from the
eastroom, and the removal of a telephone booth, in the
plant area, constituted interference, restraint, and coer-
cion. It is undisputed that these removals occurred on ap-
proximately September 13, 1966. This was the day after
Richard Gabel received the letter from the Union,
requesting recognition. The evidence relative to these
items is next set forth.
Smythe described an electric kitchen clock, which was
located in the eastroom, where Smythe, Fluit, and Lunde
had their work stations. The clock was described as 5 or
6 inches square, having a red face and white numerals It
was used by the employees in the eastroom to determine
break periods and lunch periods. Smythe and Lunde as-
serted that the clock belonged to Paul Erickson.6
Wayne Gabel, at variance with Smythe and Lunde, as-
serted that the clock belonged to him, not to Paul
Erickson. Wayne asserted he placed the clock in the
plant, in 1960 or 1961, when he was running a test, to
determine how fast he could weld different types of tanks.
He described it as a kitchen clock Wayne Gabel asserted
there was a clock "in the old building" on the front wall,
whether this refers to the main plant room is obscure.
Wayne Gabel acknowledged removing the clock, assert-
ing that his wife called, she advised him that his son had
broken a clock at home, so he took the clock home.
While there is an obvious coincidence in the removal of
the clock the day after Respondent received McMahon's
letter relative to the Union representing Respondent's
employees, and on the same day the telephone was
removed, in view of the other events herein, I find the
clock removal was at most cumulative to the other viola-
tions of the Act, by Respondent, and I therefore find it
unnecessary to determine Respondent's motive in remov-
ing the clock.
Smythe, Fluit, and Lunde, each, related there was a'
telephone extension in the eastroom which was used oc-
5 While Lunde was vague about Herman Gable's reference to see:ng
the employees in a snowbank "this winter," I find that such a remark was
made to Lunde, on the basis of similar remarks, by Herman Gabel, to
other employees at approximately the same time
6 Paul Erickson did not appear as a witness , however Respondent's em-
ployment records reflect that he was employed from February 1964 until
approximately October 9, 1964
GABEL TANK CO.
casionally by employees, and which was removed on Sep-
tember 13. It appears undisputed that Respondent had
only one telephone line into the plant , with extensions in
the office , as well as the extension in the plant. Richard
Gabel, by way of explanation, asserted that on two occa-
sions, inferentially either on September 12 or September
13, someone lifted the telephone extension in the plant
and was listening to his conversation with Respondent's
attorney, and related that it was at the suggestion of the
attorney that he had the telephone removed. Richard
Gabel asserted he did not want anyone to listen to his
conversation and this was his only motive in removing the
telephone.
Under the circumstances, as more fully explicated rela-
tive to the wall clock, I find it unnecessary to determine
if the removal of the telephone constituted interference,
restraint, and coercion.7
C. The Discharges of Smythe and Fluit
It is undisputed that Smythe and Fluit were discharged
substantially simultaneously, at approximately the end of
the workday, on September 20, 1966. Respondent con-
tends the discharges were for cause, while General Coun-
sel asserts the reasons assigned were pretextuous.
Respondent's plant, as distinguished from the office, is
divided into three rooms, described as the eastroom, the
general shop area, and the backroom. During the period,
in September 1966, between the advent of the Union and
September 20, Smythe, Fluit, and Lunde assembled, and
the first two named tested, what are variously referred to
as 265-gallon oval oil storage tanks and 300-gallon tanks,
in the eastroom. Floyd Matthies and Wayne Gabel, as
leadman, assembled and tested what are described as
pickup tanks, used by construction companies to haul
diesel oil, of 120-gallon capacity, in the general shop area.
Ronald Poppenga, as leadman, Roger A. Vant Hul, Ken-
neth H. Thorson, and previously Lunde, were employed
in the backroom, where tanks ranging in size from 1,000
gallons up to 10,000 gallons, or larger, including silos,
were assembled and tested . Magnus C. Hoines was main-
tenance man, both in the plant and with relation to
Respondent's trucks. While James Edward Croisant is
described as a welder his work location is obscure. It ap-
pears undisputed that, about June or July 1965, Smythe
was designated as leadman in the eastroom, and at the
same time Poppenga was designated leadman in the
backroom and Wayne Gabel was designated leadman in
the general shop area. All of the employees named were
under the general supervision of Dale Gabel.
Smythe, who was initially employed in May 1962, at a
rate of $1.40 an hour, was receiving $1.90 per hour at
the time of his discharge, while Fluit, who was initially
employed on August 1, 1965, at a starting rate of $1.60
I find no merit in General Counsel 's contention that the members of
the Gabel family, individually and collectively, exhibited less than a
friendly attitude toward the employees, and, as testified to by General
Counsel 's witnesses , confined their conversations with employees to mat-
ters of business , after receipt of McMahon 's letter, while previously they
exhibited their friendliness and carried on numerous conversations unre-
lated to work . While General Counsel would advance the change as an ex-
hibition of union animus , I find Richard Gabel's explanation reasonable
and credible Richard Gabel related that he was advised by the attorney
that he and his brothers should not discuss the Union , not threaten the em-
ployees, not make promises , and that the attorney thought it best that they
refrain from talking to the employees , inferentially beyond the necessities
of carrying on work activity.
905
per hour, was earning $1.75 per hour at the time of his
discharge. Smythe described the procedure followed in
the eastroom as the assembly of the tanks, by welding.
The tanks were then placed in a pretest area, and sub-
sequently Smythe and Fluit would test the tanks for
leaks, by placing 5 tons of air in each tank and running
soapy water around the welding areas, when leaks ap-
peared the tank was patched.8 The tanks were then
placed in a posttest area at the rear of the general shop
area, preparatory to painting. While Fluit corroborated
the assertions of Smythe, there does not appear to be any
dispute as to the procedure.
It is undisputed that, over an unspecified period of
time, a number of tanks were returned to Respondent's
plant because of leaks, while some of the larger tanks,
with similar problems, were repaired in the field. Obsten-
sibly to reduce the number of defective tanks being
shipped out, Respondent instituted a system of assigning
a specific number , between one and nine, to each tester,
and posted a notice on the bulletin board, in the eastroom,
which reflected the numbers assigned and instructed the
testers to punch their respective number, followed by the
number of the calendar month, followed by the number of
the year, on each tank. One set of numbers was paced
under the notice, in a box, in the eastroom, and a second
set of numbers was placed in the backroom. There were
no numbers in the general shop area, and it is reasonable
to infer, and I find, that Wayne Gabel and Floyd Matthies
borrowed numbers, when needed from either the east-
room or the backroom. The stamps were steel stamps,
which caused.an impression on the tank when hit with a
hammer. It is patent that the stamps were used for at least
1 year, if not longer.9
Smythe credibly related that, on an average, three or
four tanks a month would be returned from customers
because of leaks, would be patched, repainted, and then
returned to the customers. The only warning given by
Dale Gabel, was that they should check them over close-
ly the next time. Smythe's assertions were substantially
corroborated by Fluit.
Smythe credibly related that on September 20 he,
Fluit, and Lunde, starting at 7 a.m., welded tanks and
stacked them. After finishing about half the tanks,
Smythe and Fluit, separately, started testing, but did not
stamp the tanks as stamp 6, needed for the year, and was
the number assigned to Fluit, which was also inverted and
used as the figure nine for the month, was missing from
the box. After testing, 11 tanks were placed in the post-
test area. Smythe and Fluit asserted they intended to
stamp them later. About 9:30 a.m., Dale Gabel
discovered that the tanks were not being stamped, went
to Smythe and Fluit, and inquired why the tanks had not
been stamped. Smythe responded that the stamps were
not in the place where they should have been. Gabel ad-
It is patent that an employer can freely express his opposition to unions
and union organization, provided such expressions are not coupled with
threats or promises . No claim appears herein that any of the three sons en-
gaged in conduct constituting an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1),
as distinguished from a derivative finding.
8 Smythe asserted one man could test about 40 tanks a day, and
between one-fourth and one-third would initially reveal a leak. It is ob-
scure if the figure stated relates to a full day's work.
9 Smythe asserted that the notice was initially posted either 2 or 2-112
years prior to his testimony , in December 1966, while Dale Gabel as-
serted variously that the use of the stamps went into effect in December
1964, and also that it was December 1965.
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vised Smythe to read the bulletin Smythe responded that
he knew what the bulletin read. Gabel repeated his state-
ment , and Smythe took the bulletin down and read it.
Shortly thereafter Dale Gabel advised Smythe and Fluit
to stop testing, because he would have to test them all
over because they were not stamped. Thereupon Smythe
and Fluit spent the balance of the day welding. Fluit cor-
roborated Smythe's version of these events, and asserted
that he did not stamp any tanks that morning because No.
6 was missing from the box. I credit Fluit's undisputed
statement that he had always, previously, stamped the
tanks. I credit Smythe and Fluit.10
Dale Gabel related that he had a business appointment
at 10:30 a.m., attended a funeral in the afternoon, and
returned to the plant between 3 and 3:30 p.m , at which
time he and Richard Gabel tested the 15 tanks. Dale
Gabel asserted that he had given Wayne Gabel strict or-
ders if anyone "monkeyed" with the tanks they should be
fired on the spot. The retesting was done in the original
test area, in the eastroom, within sight of Smythe, Fluit,
and Lunde, who, nevertheless, at times would have weld-
ing shields over their heads, while welding. Dale Gabel
asserted that the 4 tanks which were stamped did not
have leaks but that 3 of the 1 i which were not stamped
did have leaks. Dale Gabel asserted, "the last tank, the
last one we found, it was roughly getting close to quitting
time then, and my conclusion, or my opinion was that
they deliberately had allowed these leakers to get by. I
called them over on the last leaker and showed it to them
and I told them to pick up their stuff, that they were
fired." It is thus patent, as related by Smythe and Fluit,
that they were shown only one tank containing a leak. i i
Smythe credibly related the reason he had not stamped
the tanks was that the stamps were not in the box where
they should have been. Fluit corroborated this assertion
of Smythe. Smythe advised Dale Gabel that he had not
passed a leaker purposely. He described the leak he was
shown as a "seeper," or minor leak. Smythe advised
Richard Gabel that if he had wanted to leave leaks on
purpose he would have to put his number on them, and
they would have not been rechecked Dale Gabel
acknowledged that Smythe stated that he had not
deliberately missed any leaks.
Dale Gabel gave as a reason for firing Smythe the fact
that he and Fluit had assembled a 300-gallon tank with
skids, and placed the skids on incorrectly, on July 28,
1966. He asserted that he had advised Smythe, at that
time , "one more mistake from him and he was going to
lose his job." Smythe placed the time of this reprimand,
asserting that it was the only reprimand he ever received,
as a week or 2 weeks prior to his discharge. Smythe as-
serted that Gabel advised him, at that time, "if you can't
do any better work than this, you had better find another
job."i2
Floyd Matthies asserted that when he reported for
work on September 20 he began testing pickup tanks, in
the general shop area, testing some 10 or 15 between
starting time, at 7 a.m., and 9 or 9:30 a.m., but did not
stamp any of them. He asserted that he moved the tanks
to the work station where Wayne Gabel was double test-
ing them. Matthies acknowledged that he also moved
some of the tanks back to the posttest area. Matthies
credibly related that about 9:30 Dale Gabel asked him if
he had been stamping his tanks and he responded that he
had not been and inquired if he should stamp them.
Matthies asserted that Dale Gabel advised him to just
let them sit because they were going to retest them.
Matthies asserted that Wayne was stamping them, after
Wayne tested them. Matthies explained that he continued
testing until about 3 p.m., that he was not stamping
because Wayne was double testing, and applying the
stamp after the completion of the test.13
Matthies asserted that he did have a further conversa-
tion with Dale Gabel, just before quitting time, on Sep-
tember 20, in which Dale Gabel advised him, "Since you
did not stamp your tanks, they retested them. They did
not find no leaks " Matthies asserted that Gabel then ad-
vised him the next time he had to stamp them, and if they
had found a leak, they would have fired him. Gabel added
the caution, "In the future also make sure you stamp
them " I find this testimony in conflict with Matthies' as-
sertion that the pickup tanks were always double tested
10 Dale Gabel asserted that five or six tanks a month were being
returned as leakers pnor to the institution of the identification system,
and thereafter only four or five leakers were returned, inferentially in the
first 9 months of 1966 Gabel asserted that he found 1 1, not 11, tanks in
the posttest area, 2 of which had Fluit's number stamped on them and the
others were not stamped Gabel as3erted that when he questioned Smythe
relative to Smvthe's failure to stamp the tanks, Smythe responded. "so I
miss one once in awhile," and shrugged his shoulders Gabel asserted that
he went back to the posttest area, checked the remainder of the 13 tanks,
and found a second one containing Fl.iit's number then returned and
asked Fluit why he had not stamped the majority of the tanks, and as-
serted that Fluit responded, identical to the statement of Smythe, "so I
miss one once in awhile " Gabel acknowledged that Smythe advised him
the reason Smythe had not stamped the tanks was that "the numbers
aren't here " Gabel asserted that he advised Smythe that the numbers
were there, and that there were nine numbers in the rack Gabel asserted
that Smythe advised him that Matthies or Wayne had borrowed the
stamps and had just put them back Gabel asserted that while he was
checking the remainder of the tanks Flint and Smythe each comp:eted the
testing of an additional tank which was imprinted with their respective
numbe._ c
Dale Gabel asserted that he checked with Floyd Matthtes, who advised
him that he did not have the numbers At 9 30 breaktime, Dale Gabel
checked with Wayne Gabel who asserted he obtained his numbers from
the backroom, that morning Dale Gabel related that, at the end of the
break period, he advised Smythe and Fluit that he could not trust them to
test tanks and that until he had time to retest the tanks they should con-
tinue assembling To the extent the testimony of Dale Gabel is at variance
with that of Smythe and Fluit, I credit the latter two, particularly as to
whether the stamps were in the box , in the eastroom, prior to Dale
Gabel's appearance, at approximately 9 30 a m
11 Later, at variance with his earlier testimony, Dale Gabel asserted
they did not finish retesting these tanks before quitting time a,sd stayed
tnere after quitting time in order to finish them , and that they had not
finished testing all of them when he showed the one leaky tank to Smythe
and Fluit . Dale Gabel did not assert that he advised Smythe and Fluit that
there had been three leaky tanks in the group , although he asserted that he
had discovered a total of three such leaks , prior to exhibiting the one leak
to these two employees
12 1 find it unnecessary to determine credibility on Smythe's assertion
that the repair of this error required only I hour, while Dale Gabel as-
serted that it required 4-1/2 hours However, since Dale Gabel used the
singular pronoun in describing his advice to Smythe , I am unable to credit
Dale Gabel's assertion that Fluit was involved in the incorrect application
of the skids I credit Fluit's assertion, to the contrary, that he had never
received any reprimand or warning, pnor to his discharge , because of de-
fective work
13 In contrast, Matthies asserted that ordinarily he would stamp the
tanks after he tested them , he was unable to ascribe any particular reason
why he did not stamp the tanks on September 20, acknowledging that
Wayne Gabel had not so instructed him, and asserting that Wayne Gabel
did not know that he was not stamping them, but asserting that Dale
Gabel did advise him to go on testing, that they were going to retest his
tanks after he had tested them
GABEL TANK CO. 907
and it was the normal procedure for the man who con-
ducted the second test to stamp the tank . Matthies also
asserted that, on September 20, he was doing only the ini-
tial testing and Wayne was doing the double testing and
stamping . Matthies acknowledged that , on September 20,
he had moved some tanks to the posttest area, without a
stamp , which had not been retested by Wayne, explaining
that he had tested them twice but had not stamped them.
Matthies was unable to state any reason why he had dou-
ble tested "probably 10" and had failed, to stamp them.14
I find it unnecessary to resolve a conflict between the
testimony of Dale Gabel and Wayne Gabel. Wayne
Gabel asserted that the tanks that he retested , on Sep-
tember 20 , had been tested by Flcyd Matthies the day be-
fore , approximately 10, when he found they were not
stamped and so advised Dale. I also find it unnecessary
to resolve the credibility of Wayne, who asserted that he
obtained his stamp from the backroom when he retested
the tanks , and did not know if anyone took the stamps
from the eastroom . However , I do not credit Wayne
Gabel ' s assertion that Matthies should not have taken
stamps from the eastroom , as it is patent that Matthies
was testing pickup tanks, on September 20, and it is.
reasonable to infer that some of these should have been
stamped by Matthies.
Poppenga credibly related that he had been repri-
manded by Dale Gabel, on September 21, 1966, the day
after Smythe and Fluit were discharged . At that time
Dale Gabel advised him that all tanks had to be stamped.
Poppenga acknowledged that in the past there were a
number of tanks which he had tested and not stamped.15
Poppenga also acknowledged that large tanks, which he
had inspected , had required repairs. Poppenga asserted
that Herman Gabel advised him that Herman Gabel had
made a trip to Missouri to repair a tank which had a leak
near the top , in October 1966 . Herman Gabel also ad-
vised Poppenga that one of the tanks that had been made
for Engineering Equipment Company had a leak near the
top, that the purchaser had hired someone to repair it, and
that Respondent would have to reimburse the
purchaser. 16
D. The October 14 and 21, 1966, Reduction in
Scheduled Work Hours and Elimination of Coffeebreaks
It appears undisputed, and Lance Lunde credibly re-
lated, that Respondent's employees, prior to October 14,
1966, with certain exceptions set forth hereafter, worked
a scheduled 10-hour day, and from 7 a.m. to noon on
Saturdays, or 55 hours a week. On October 14, 1966, a
notice was posted on the bulletin board , asserting that due
to a shortage of work the hours , which previously had
been from 7 am. to 5:30 p . m., with a one-half hour lunch
period , were being changed to 8 to 12 and 1 to 5, 5 days
a week, or 40 hours a week , with Saturday work
eliminated . The employees continued to have a 15-minute
break period in the morning and a similar break period in
the afternoon , which were paid coffeebreak periods. The
following Thursday , October 20 , another notice ap-
peared , stating that due to a shortage of work , commenc-
ing the following day, Friday , October 21, the hours were
being further reduced and the scheduled hours were 8:30
a.m. to noon and 1 p . m. to 4 : 30 p.m . or 7 hours a day and
35 hours a week , and at the same time coffeebreaks were
eliminated. Absent any dispute relative to these facts, I
find it unnecessary to set forth the corroborative evidence
of other witnesses.
It appears that , at least during the period of 1964, 1965,
and 1966 , prior to the discharges of Smythe and Fluit,
Respondent 's normal scheduled workday approximated
10 hours, with 5 hours on Saturday or a 55-hour week,
with some exceptions , when for several weeks the work-
week would be increased to approximately 58 and 64
hours,17 or reduced to approximately 47 hours.18 The
normal work force appears to have been on the order of
8 to 10 employees, with a notable exception , covering a
period of 2 or 3 months, in early 1964 , when Respondent
sought to make use of a partial night shift , inferentially
comprised of employees engaged elsewhere, who did
some moonlighting, by working short hours for Respond-
ent, on a night shift . During this unrepresentative period
the work force was increased to as many as 17 employ-
ees."' It is patent that there were no layoffs for lack of
work, and only seven prior occasions , in the period
specified, when the scheduled workweek was reduced to
40 hours.20
Poppenga credibly related a conversation he had with
Dale Gabel , in mid-summer 1965 , during which Dale
Gabel asserted , in the presence of Lunde, that Respond-
ent was going to keep the men they had working 55
hours, and not hire additional men, in order to permit the
employees to continue working 55 hours a week on a
year-round basis.
E. The Layoffs of Hoines, Lunde, and Floyd Matthies,
on November 10, 1966, and Poppenga , on November
18, 1966
It is undisputed that, on November 10, 1966, Hoines,
Lunde, and Floyd Matthies were advised, by letter,
14 1 have set forth, supra, that Matthies' father is the brother of the wife
of Herman Gabel, owner of Respondent. Dale Gabel acknowledged hav-
ing a conversation with Floyd Matthies, on September 20, after he
discharged Smythe and Fluit. Dale asserted that he advised Matthies that
he (Dale) and Wayne had tested the tanks previously tested by Matthies
and had not found a leak in them , that he would not fire him at that time.
Dale then related he gave Matthies a warning, asserting if he had found a
leak he would have been fired, also. Dale asserted that Wayne had advised
him that Matthies had failed to stamp some tanks and that Wayne was
rechecking his tanks. In view of Dale Gabel's testimony that he worked
beyond quitting time, to complete the test of the tanks tested by Smythe
and Fluit , I do not credit his testimony that he and Wayne tested the tanks
which had been tested by Matthies
is Dale Gabel denied the assertion of Poppenga that he had, at previous
times , reprimanded Poppenga for not stamping tanks, denying knowledge
of such failure Yet, Dale Gabel acknowledged cautioning Poppenga the
day following the discharges, of Flint and Smythe, to make certain he
stamped all tanks. This precaution would appear to be a needless exercise
if Dale Gabel 's recitation was accurate I credit Poppenga on this conflict
16 I have noted , supra, that Herman Gabel did not appear as a witness,
and this testimony of Poppenga stands undisputed.
17 Respondent's records reflect 38 such weeks: ending March 6 to July
3, 1964, both dates inclusive, April 30 to June 25, 1965, both dates inclu-
sive ; and April 8 to June 24, 1966, both dates inclusive , excluding the
week endingJune 3, 1966.
18 The 13 weeks ending January 3, July 10, October 16 and 23,
November 20 and 27, 1964, February 12 and 19, and November 19,
1965, and J anuary 7, March 4 and 11, and J my 8, 1966.
19 A composite of the testimony of Lunde , Homes , Poppenga, and
Smvthe , and Respondent 's records
20 These exceptions were the weeks ending September 11, November
13, and December 4 and 31, 1964, January 8, 1965, and June 3 and Sep-
tember 8, 1966.
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signed by Respondent , that due to " slack business condi-
tions" they were being !aid off as of the end of that work-
day. Respondent 's letter recites that these conditions had
existed in excess of 2 weeks , but the layoffs were not ef-
fectuated previously "for fear it might have been con-
strued" as being motivated as an effort to interfere with
the election , which was held the prior day, November 9.
The letter also asserts that the layoffs were being made in
the order of seniority , "even though we have not at any
prior time recognized seniority." The letter then recites
that the employees would be recalled on the basis of
seniority and that no new employees would be employed
as long as laid-off employees were available for work.
Respondent ' s letter to Poppenga , on November 18,
1966, contained the same representations.
F. The Refusal to Bargain
The Appropriate Unit-The Union's Majority Status
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and the
Board has previously found , in Case 18-RC-6925, the
following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
All production and maintenance employees of the
Respondent at its Sioux Falls , South Dakota , location;
excluding office clerical employees , all other employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
There is no prior collective-bargaining history. I have
found supra. under Background , that on September 8,
1966, a total of 9 production and maintenance em-
ployees signed union authorization cards , at a time when
the unit described was compromised of 10 full-time em-
ployees, and I part-time employee. There is no evidence,
or claim, of revocation. It follows, and I find, that the
Union , at all times since September 9, 1966 , has been the
duly designated representative, for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining , of the employees in the unit described,
and pursuant to the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Act,
has been and is the exclusive representative of all of the
employees in said unit for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of em-
ployment , and other conditions of employment.
It is undisputed that on Friday, September 9, 1966,
John J. McMahon, business representative, advised
Respondent, by letter, as follows:
Sheet Metal Local Union No 496 of Sioux Falls,
So. Dak. represents a majority of the employees
working for your company. This is an appropriate
unit under the collective bargaining act, and will in-
clude all production employees at your Sioux Falls
location . Excluded from the bargaining unit is
management , supervisory, office clerical, and guards.
In the very near future the above stated union
request a meeting for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or a labor agreement covering these em-
ployees.
It is undisputed that the foregoing communication was
received by Richard Gabel on Monday, September 12,
1966. During the morning of September 12, Richard
Gabel called McMahon , and explained to McMahon that
he did not know that the employees were represented by
a union . McMahon responded that the employees had
signed authorization cards. Richard Gabel then asserted
that his father was out of town, that he could not do
anything until the return of his father, which he asserted
would be approximately October 1. McMahon offered to
prove, to a neutral party, that he had authorization cards
signed by a majority of the employees. It is undisputed
that subsequently, to and including the date of certifica-
tion, on November 22, 1966, and prior to December 5,
1966, McMahon met with the representatives of Re-
spondent on only two occasions; i.e., on October 5, at a
Board representation hearing, and on November 9, at a
preelection conference. It is undisputed that, after receiv-
ing the certification, and pursuant to a new request of the
Union, the parties did meet for the purpose of collective
bargaining on December 6, 1966. By agreement, no
further meetings were held prior to the closing of the
record in the instant case on January 5, 1967.
It is undisputed that Respondent's actions, set forth in
the complaint, of discharging Smythe and Fluit, on Sep-
tember 20, 1966, removing the wall clock and telephone
from the plant area, on September 13, 1966; reducing the
scheduled hours of work of unit employees, on October
14 and again on October 21, 1966; elimination of two cof-
feebreak periods, on October 21, 1966; and the layoffs of
identified employees on November 10 and 18, 1966;
were , in each instance , unilateral actions of Respondent,
without bargaining with or notification to the Union.21
Respondent's Defenses
Respondent urges that the discharges of Smythe and
Fluit were not discriminatonly motivated, and it is not
contended that the failure of these employees to stamp
the tanks was the reason for their discharge. Rather, ac-
cording to Dale Gabel the reason for the discharges was
that he believed that they deliberately allowed three leaky
tanks to pass their inspection. These contentions are
further considered infra
Respondent's defense relative to the shortening of
hours, the termination of the coffeebreaks, and the layoff
of various employees, is an assertion that these modifica-
tions were required by reason of economic conditions,
specifically a reduction in anticipated workload and pend-
ing orders. The record evidence fails to support these
contentions, as of the time the modifications were made.
Dale Gabel related that the large silos, which were
produced in the backroom , on occasions would require a
week or more, each, to produce.
Richard Gabel described as two large customers for
Respondent's tanks Tryco Manufacturing of Decatur, Il-
linois, and Engineered Equipment , of Waterloo , Iowa. He
asserted that Tryco has been purchasing tanks for 4
years, and normally purchased liquid fertilizer tanks of
2,000 or 1,500-gallon capacity and also applicator tanks
of 440-gallon capacity. He further described the normal
order as on the order of 15 to 20 of the 2,000-gallon tanks,
75 to 125 1,500-gallon tanks, and 75 to 90 440-gallon
tanks. The Respondent normally begins fabricating these
tanks upon a verbal order, normally received in the latter
part of October or early part of November, although
11 It is not contended that the Union was not advised of these actions,
by employees involved , after the actions were taken
GABEL TANK CO. 909
delivery is in the following February and March.22
Richard Gabel asserted they had received no order in the
fall of 1966, from Tryco, by reason of the pendency of a
Federal Government tax suit relative to a Federal
Government claim that an excise tax applies under
trucking and automotive regulations , the claim amounting
to more than $125,000. Richard Gabel asserted that he
first learned of Tryco's difficulty, and Tryco's intent not
to place an order, when he placed a telephone call to
Tryco about the middle of November 1966.23
Richard Gabel related that Engineered Equipment
purchased seven silos, in 1965, used for storage of dry ce-
ment. Richard Gabel asserted that each silo represented
265 man hours of work.
On October 3, 1966, Engineered Equipment advised
Respondent that a silo, which had been resold and
delivered to an Arkansas firm had developed a crack, in
the roof seam, allowing water to enter the silo, and caus-
ing certain losses and repair costs. Respondent's atten-
tion was directed to the problem in order that it could ad-
vise its insurance carrier. Subsequent correspondence,
under date of December 22, 1966, indicated that the
claim relative to this silo would exceed $39,000, and
further called attention to a different claim in the amount
of $2,000.
Richard Gabel acknowledged that Respondent had
received no order from Engineered Equipment in the year
of 1964. He asserted the order received from this firm in
1965 represented approximately 5 to 8 weeks' work for
8 or 9 employees. Richard Gabel asserted that Respond-
ent does not maintain a sales force, does not conduct
mail solicitation, and relies for business on orders which
are received. Richard Gabel asserted no order, in 1966,
had been received from Engineered Equipment.
Richard Gabel asserted that commencing on an un-
specified date in September 1966, he undertook a system
of cost accounting, to determine if they were losing
money on the production of any of the particular tanks
produced, and ascertained that they were losing an
average of $3.80 a tank, on the 265-gallon oval basement
tanks and on the 300-gallon tanks. These were the tanks
previously produced in the eastroom by Smythe, Fluit,
and Lunde. As a result, Respondent, on November 18,
1966, advised Farmland Industries, Inc., and some 9 or
11 other major customers, for these particular tanks, that
effective December 1, 1966, a price increase of approxi-
mately 10 percent would become effective, that the
Respondent was in the process of working out new price
sheets, which would be forwarded upon completion.
Richard Gabel asserted that Farmland Industries, a cou-
ple of days after November 18, called and canceled their
pending orders on both the oval basement tanks and the
300-gallon tanks. Richard Gabel described Farmland In-
dustries normal yearly purchases as "400 or 500 or 300"
of the basement tanks, and approximately the same
number of 300-gallon tanks. Richard Gabel described the
pending order which was canceled as including 64 oval
basement tanks and sixty 300-gallon tanks. Thereafter,
Richard Gabel acknowledged that the order of Farmland
Industries constituted approximately 15 days' work for
two men in the eastroom. Richard Gabel did not relate
any other cancellations by reason of the price increase.
Richard Gabel asserted that Respondent's past prac-
tice was to keep 2 to 4 weeks ahead in terms of workload,
and this had been standard for the past several years. He
asserted there was a peak season in the spring and
another in the fall, with low seasons toward the end of the
year and during the summer. The latter assertion is
questionable in view of Richard Gabel's assertion that the
Tryco order was normally received in November and
would provide sufficient work for the entire work force
for the months of December and January.24
Richard Gabel asserted that, on the day of his
testimony, January 5, 1967, the pending workload con-
stituted 1 week's work for two employees and his brother
Dale.25
Richard Gabel's assertion that the reason for the reduc-
tion of the workweek, misstated by him as having been in
November, and for the layoffs, was due to the failure to
receive orders from Tryco and Engineered Equipment,
and the cancellation by Farmland Industries, is patently
erroneous and incredible. These events were unknown to
Respondent, in October, at the time of the reduction of
the work hours, of an already reduced labor force, since
Smythe and Fluit were not replaced, and also at the time
of the layoff of Hoines, Lunde, and Floyd Matthies, on
November 10, and the cancellation by Farmland Indus-
tries was patently after the layoff of Poppenga.
Concluding Findings
1. Interference, restraint, and coercion
I have found, supra, that the Union, by letter, advised
Respondent that it represented a majority of the em-
ployees in the production and maintenance unit, and it is
undisputed that this letter was received by Richard Gabel
on September 12, 1966. Thereafter, while Respondent
had made no meaningful reply to the Union's request for
bargaining, and after the Direction of Election, issued by
the Regional Director, on October 12, Herman Gabel en-
gaged several of the employees in a series of interviews,
which I find constituted unlawful interrogation, threats,
and promises of benefit, and were an effort by the
Respondent to undermine the efforts of the employees to
organize.
The evidence relative to these events was not disputed
by Richard Gabel, who assertedly was present on several
of the occasions, and the failure of Herman Gabel to ap-
pear as a witness stands unexplained in this record. A
22 Richard Gabel estimated that the Tryco order would be the
equivalent of 6 to 8 weeks of work for a crew of eight, and was normally
completed in the months of December and January
23 Pressed for more specificity relative to the date of his telephone call,
Richard Gabel was certain that it was before his letter of November 18,
relative to price increases , set forth infra, then asserted that it might have
been approximately November 11. It is thus patent that Tryco's intent
was unknown to Respondent at the time of the events herein, other than
the layoff of Poppenga.
24 In addition , I have found from Respondent 's records: a scheduled 55-
hour workweek in 4 of the 5 weeks in January 1964, 6 of 9 weeks in
December 1964 and January 1965; and a schedule of 50 or 55 hours in
each week of December 1965 and January 1966, except the week ending
December 3
25 The two employees are identified as his brother Wayne and A. J.
Matthies. It is obscure if A. J. Matthies is related to the Gabel family, or
to Floyd Matthies. It is undisputed that Floyd Matthies is a nephew of
Herman Gabel
While Respondent 's records do not permit a conclusion relative to the
seniority of A. J. Matthres, it is noted that he was, at times, a part-time em-
ployee, working 25 or less hours per week in many of the weeks when
other employees were working a substantial amount of overtime.
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recapitulation of these events reflects that Lunde was ad-
vised that if he wished to make more money he should
work elsewhere, that Respondent was too small a com-
pany to have a union , and that Respondent would see the
employees in a snowbank "this winter"; Floyd Matthies
was similarly advised by Herman Gabel that Herman
Gabel did not want a union in the plant , that the plant was
not large enough for a union, that if Respondent did not
have enough work Matthies would be out of work (in the
snowbank); Homes was interrogated as to what he
"thought " about the Union, was advised by either
Richard Gabel or Herman Gabel that the plant was too
small for a union , Herman Gabel advised Homes that he
did not have to sign a contract, that he could require the
employees to stand up for their coffeebreaks, and that if
a potential employer called for a reference he could refer
to the applicants as "rabble rousers and troublemakers,"
later the same day, Herman Gabel advised Homes, "you
stick with us and I will make it worth your while"; Pop-
penga was advised by Herman Gabel that Respondent
was not large enough to have a union , that he did not have
to sign a contract, that he would see the employees in the
snowbank before he would sign a contract, that if a poten-
tial employer called for a reference he would refer to the
applicants with either a good reference or classify them as
rabble rousers, Herman Gabel also advised Poppenga
that if the Union won the election Respondent would stop
making the smaller tanks, Herman Gabel also asserted
that the Union was making promises to the employees of
benefits, which the employees would never obtain, in a
separate interview, on the morning of the election, Her-
man Gabel inquired if Poppenga had changed his mind
about the Union, and when advised that Poppenga had
not, Herman Gabel advised Poppenga that he could
either continue his employment or lay him off
Prior to the Blue Flash case26 all interrogation, by em-
ployers, was held to be per se unlawful. I n the decision in
Johnnie's Poultry case27 that holding has been modified
to permit legitimate inquiry, where legitimate inquiry is
essential and proper safeguards are established. Legiti-
mate inquiry is warranted to verify a union's claim of
majority status, to determine whether recognition should
be extended, and in the investigation of facts concerning
issues raised in a complaint where such interrogation is
necessary in preparing an employer's defense for the trial
of a case. Neither situation was established as the motive
herein.
The Board and courts uniformly have held, and Section
8(c) provides, that an employer may express a view, argu-
ment, or opinion, indicating his opposition to unions, or
union organization, or the employees need for a union,
however such expression is violative when it contains a
threat of reprisal or promise of benefit.
Absent requisite safeguards or purpose, and having
found the interrogation complained of was coercive, I
find each of the acts of interrogation, threats of economic
reprisals, and promises of benefit, constituted inter-
ference, restraint, and coercion, and were, in each in-
stance, violative of the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
2. The discharges of Smythe and Fluit
The single question to be resolved , under this section,
is whether the discharges were for cause, as contended by
Respondent , or were discriminatorily motivated , as con-
tended by General Counsel.
It is undisputed that , on September 20, Smythe and
Fluit had inspected tanks and placed them in the posttest
area, without placing thereon the stamps which would
permit identification of the inspector , as required by
Respondent ' s bulletin . 26 While Dale Gabel asserted that
he found three tanks containing leaks, in the group he and
Richard Gabel retested , it is patent the dischargees were
shown only one tank containing a "seeper ," and it is un-
disputed that Smythe and Fluit were not, at that time, ad-
vised by Dale Gabel that other leaks had been found in
the tanks inspected up to that time.
I find it reasonable to conclude that Dale Gabel did not
ascribe the failure to affix identification stamps as the
reason for the discharges . This is specifically reflected by
his subsequent conversations with Floyd Matthies and
Poppenga , with particular reference to his advice to
Matthies , that Matthies was not being discharged , in spite
of his failure to stamp some 10 tanks, "because no leakers
were found ." It may also be inferred from the fact that
Smythe protested immediately , to both Dale Gabel and
Richard Gabel , that if he had wanted to pass a leaker
deliberately , and not be caught , he could have avoided
such a result by stamping them , and no reinspection
would have ensued.
We are concerned here, however , not with the adequa-
cy of the reason assigned for the discharge , but rather the
motive underlying such action . It is undisputed that a
number of tanks, inferentially of all sizes , had been
returned to Respondent because of leaks, and large tanks
inspected by Poppenga , had required repair in the field,
by reason of leaks. It is reasonable to assume that a
number of these tanks bore identification numbers. It is
undisputed that at no time had Respondent ever fired, or
threaten to fire, an employee by reason of his having
passed a leaky tank through inspection , as distinguished
from cautioning them to use more care in inspecting.
Twelve days prior to these discharges , Fluit, with the
aid of Smythe and Lunde , instituted the union activity.
Dale Gabel denied that he was upset by reason of the em-
ployees having sought the aid of a union , asserting "It
didn 't bother me any." I find this assertion improbable.
This is particularly true in view of Dale Gabel 's assertion,
immediately thereafter, when asked if he agreed with his
father and his brother Richard that it was a small plant
and they did not need a union , he responded, "I don't be-
lieve a union would really help us any."
The Supreme Court in Universal Camera Corp v.
N.L.R.B ., 340 U.S. 474, 477, defined the "evidence"
required by Section 10 (e) of the Act as:
Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Ac-
cordingly , it must do more than create a suspicion of
the fact to be established, it must be enough to justi-
fy, if the trial were to a jury , a refusal to direct a ver-
dict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it
is one of fact for the jury.
The abruptness of a discharge, and its timing, have
been found to be persuasive evidence as to motivation.
26 Blue Flash Express, Inc , 109 NLRB 591
27 Johnnie's Poultry Co, 146 N LRB 770, 775
28 Contrary to the assertions of Dale Gabel, 1 have found that I i un-
stamped tanks had been so placed, while Dale Gabel asserted there were
13 of which 2 bore the identifying number of Fluit
GABEL TANK CO. 911
N.L.R.B. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 242 F.2d 497,
502; N.L.R.B. v. Southern Desk Co., 246 F.2d 53, 54.
The Board has found a discharge discriminatorily
motivated by reason of the unconvincing character of the
reasons adduced to support the discharge , including the
timing of the discharge . Pacemaker Corporation, 120
NLRB 987, 991.
In numerous cases the Board and courts have held that
direct knowledge of an employee 's union activities is not
a sine qua non for finding that an employee had been
discharged because of such activities , but may be inferred
from the record as a whole. The small number of em-
ployees, the abruptness and timing of the discharge are
among the factors considered. Wiese Plow Welding Co.,
Inc., 123 NLRB 616.
... the unexplained coincidence of time with
respect to the principal events was really no coin-
cidence at all, but rather part of a deliberate effort by
management to scotch the lawful measures of the
employees before they had progressed too far toward
fruition. . . If employees are discharged partly
because of their participation in a campaign to
establish a union and partly because of some neglect
or delinquency, there is nonetheless a violation of the
National Labor Relations Act. N.L.R.B. v.
Jamestown Sterling Corp., 211 F. 2d 725.
In view of the above facts, and upon the entire record
as a whole, I believe and find that Respondent's pur-
ported reasons for discharging Smythe and Fluit were
pretextuous , and the real reason and "moving cause" was
the known union activities of said employees, and said
discharges constitute discrimination to discourage mem-
bership in the Union, in violation of the provisions of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. The reductions in scheduled work hours and
elimination of coffeebreaks
I have found supra, from undisputed evidence, that on
October 14, 1966, Respondent reduced the workweek
from 55 hours to 40 hours, and on October 21, 1966,
Respondent further reduced the workweek to 35 hours,
with the elimination of a 15-minute morning and after-
noon coffeebreak, on the latter date.
I have set forth supra, that Richard Gabel asserted that
Respondent's slack season was in the summer and winter
of each year. Obviously October is not commonly so
characterized. It is also patent, from the testimony of
Richard Gabel that the intentions of Tryco, Engineered
Equipment, and Farmland Industries, relative to placing
orders, were unknown to Respondent on these dates.
Respondent produced no evidence herein which reflects
comparable workloads, either at the time in question or in
other comparable periods.
A review of Respondent's employees work records
reflect that in the 5 weeks ending October 2 to 30, 1964,
the scheduled workweeks were between 50 and 55 hours,
with a slight modification in the week of October 23. In
the 5 weeks ending October 1 to 29, 1965, the scheduled
workweek appears to have been on the order of 55 hours
in each week. Thus, it is reasonable to find, on the basis
of 1964 and 1965, that October was not normally a low-
production month.
In view of the antiunion campaign undertaken by Her-
man Gabel , set forth supra under Interference , Restraint,
and Coercion , including advice that the employees would
be in the snowbank , and that he could require them to
stand up for their coffeebreaks, and that he did not have
to sign a contract with the Union , in view of the other un-
fair labor practices found herein, and absent any effort by
Respondent to show a reduction in pending work, I find
it reasonable to conclude that the reduction in work hours
and elimination of the coffeebreak , as contended by
General Counsel , was solely a part of Respondent's cam-
paign to retaliate against the employees and to destroy the
Union's majority status, and such conduct is obviously
discriminatorily motivated and violative of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. I so find.
4. The layoffs of November 10 and 18, 1966
I have found supra, and it is undisputed, that Hoines,
Lunde, and Floyd Matthies, were each advised by
Respondent, on November 10, 1966, that their layoffs
were due to "slack business conditions ," and a similar
notice was given to Poppenga , a leadman, on November
18, 1966. The layoffs must be considered in the light of
the fact that the election was conducted on November 9,
and it is reasonable to infer that Respondent was apprised
of the result on that date, even though certification did not
issue until thereafter.
It is patent from the testimony of Richard Gabel that he
was not advised of Tryco's intent not to place an order
until November 11, at the earliest. While it is true that
Engineered Equipment advised Respondent of a substan-
tial claim against the Respondent by one of its customers,
on October 3, 1966, there was no further correspondence
relative to this matter until December 22, 1966, after the
hearing in the within matter commenced . There is no af-
firmative evidence, by Respondent, that it was advised by
Engineered Equipment relative to the latter's intent with
respect to further orders, on or prior to November 18,
1966. The cancellation by Farmland Industries, accord-
ing to the testimony of Richard Gabel, was between
several days and a week after Respondent's notice of a
contemplated price increase , which notice was not mailed
until November 18, 1966. Thus, I find no evidence to
support a claim of reduced workload on or before
November 18.
The attitude of Respondent is undoubtedly revealed by
the recitation of Richard Gabel that he was not exactly
happy when he learned that the employees had sought the
assistance of the Union , and his acknowledgement that he
felt the employees were disloyal as a result of this activi-
ty. The reaction of Herman Gabel, owner , is manifest
from his conduct , set forth supra, which he did not deign
to dispute.
Dale Gabel acknowledged that it was his intent to re-
call the laid-off employees , if available , as needed, in the
order of seniority.
Absent any evidence reflecting economic justification
for the layoffs it must be concluded, in the light of the en-
tire record herein, that these layoffs were discriminatorily
motivated, and thus were violative of the provisions of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I find accordingly.
5. The refusal to bargain
General Counsel correctly urges that the undisputed
evidence reflects that the Union represented an un-
coerced majority of the employees, in an appropriate unit,
on September 8, 1966, and appropriately requested
recognition and bargaining on September 12, 1966 , offer-
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing proof of its majority status, through a card check by
an independent third party. General Counsel correctly
urges that Respondent did not at any time assert a good-
faith doubt as to the Union's majority status, and, ac-
cordingly, was not free to unilaterally modify wages,
hours of employment, or other working conditions.
General Counsel correctly urges that the Board and
courts have uniformly held that there is no absolute right
vested in an employer to demand an election. While it is
true if an employer has a good-faith doubt as to the
Union's majority, he may, without violating the Act,
refuse to recognize the Union until its claim is established
by a Board election, the doubt must be genuine, and the
Act does not require an election before an employer may
bargain with the Union. 29
It is patent that the Respondent made no effort to ap-
prise the Union of the enumerated and contemplated
modifications of work hours, working conditions, and the
layoffs. The Board has held such conduct violative of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Evans Products Com-
pany, 160 NLRB 1822.
The Board has held that where, as here, Respondent
unilaterally discharges its employees, without notice to
the Union, it not only violates Section 8(a)(3), but also
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Northwestern Publishing
Company, 144 NLRB 1069,107 1.
It has been held that the unilateral layoffs, under the
circumstances indicated herein, without prior notice to or
consultation with the Union is violative of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act. Exchange Parts Company, 139 NLRB 710,
711, enfd. 339 F.2d 829. The unilateral reduction of work
hours of employees under these circumstances, has been
held violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act Nelson B. Al-
len, 149 NLRB 229.
It follows, and I find, that the unilateral acts of Re-
spondent, enumerated herein, without notice to the
Union, constituted a refusal to bargain and, in each in-
stance, was violative of the provisions of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.30
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occuring 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 and the free flow o^'commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that he cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent having discharged John T Fluit and James
J. Smythe, because of their union activities, I recommend
that Respondent offer to each immediate and full rein-
statement to the former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion of each, without prejudice to the seniority and other
rights and privileges of each, and make each whole for
any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of
Respondent's discrimination against each, by a payment
to each of a sum of money equal to that which each nor-
mally would have earned as wages from the date of the
discharges , September 20, 1966 , to the date when, pur-
suant to the Recommended Order herein contained,
Respondent shall offer reinstatement , less the net
earnings of each during said period . Said backpay shall be
computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established
by the Board in F. W . Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289. Interest on backpay shall be computed in the manner
set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB
716.
Respondent having reduced the hours of employees
Magnus C. Homes, Lancelot Lunde , Floyd Matthies, and
Ronald Poppenga , on October 14, 1966 , and again on
October 21 , 1966, and having eliminated paid cof-
feebreak periods on October 21, 1966 , and having laid off
the first three named employees , on November 10, 1966,
and having laid off Ronald Poppenga , on November 18,
1966, in each instance because of the union activities of
the named employees , I recommend that Respondent
offer each immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to
the seniority and other rights and privileges of each, and
make each whole for any loss of pay each may have suf-
fered by reason of Respondent ' s discrimination against
each , by a payment to each of a sum of money equal to
that which each normally would have earned as wages,
during the period the hours of each was reduced com-
mencing October 14 , 1966, to the date of the respective
layoff of each , said sums to include payment for cof-
feebreaks on and after October 21, to the date of the
layoff of each , and, in addition , by the payment to each of
a sum of money equal to that which each normally would
have earned as wages from the date of the layoff of each,
November 10, 1966 , in the instances involving Hoines,
Lunde , and Floyd Matthies , and November 17, 1966, in
the instance of Poppenga , to the date when , pursuant to
the Recommended Order herein contained , Respondent
shall offer reinstatement , less the net earnings of each
during said period . Said backpay shall be computed on a
quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest on
backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
I shall also recommend that Respondent be ordered to
make available to the Board , or its agents , upon request,
payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the
amount of earnings due.
I recommend that Respondent , upon request , bargain
collectively with Local 496, Sheet Metal Workers Inter-
national Union , AFL-CIO , as the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the unit herein found to be ap-
propriate for the purpose of collective bargaining.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices com-
mitted , the commission of similar and other unfair labor
practices reasonably may be anticipated . I shall therefore
recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and de-
sist from in any manner infringing upon rights guaranteed
its employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
29 Citing S S Logan Packing Company, 152 NLRB 421.428 See also
Joy Silk Mills, Inc v NLRB , 185 F 2d 732,741-742 (C A D C ), cert
denied 341 U S 914, Bernel Foam Products, Co. Inc , 146 NLRB 1277,
Natioi al Can Corporation, 159 NLRB 647
10 Cf N L R B V Katz, 369 U S 736, 743, Decoral Corporation, 163
NLRB 146, at fn 8
GABEL TANK CO. 913
2. Local 496, Sheet Metal Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in the conduct set forth in the section
entitled "Interference, Restraint, and Coercion," to the
extent therein found, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminating with respect to the hire and
tenure of employment of John T. Fluit, James J. Smythe,
Magnus C. Homes, Lancelot Lunde, Floyd Matthies, and
Ronald Poppenga, by reducing the hours of employment
of employees in the unit, and by elimination of cof-
feebreaks, for said employees, thereby discouraging the
free exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act,
and discouraging membership in or activities for the
above-named labor organization, the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. All production and maintenance employees of
Respondent at its Sioux Falls, South Dakota, location;
excluding office clerical employees, all other employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
6. At all times, since September 9, 1966, Local 496,
Sheet Metal Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
has been the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the aforesaid unit for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other terms and conditions of employment.
7. By refusing on and after September 12, 1966, to the
extent herein found, to bargain collectively with the
aforesaid labor organization, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend
that the Respondent , Herman Gabel, d/b(a Gabel Tank
Company, his officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 496, Sheet Metal Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees of the
Respondent at its Sioux Falls, South Dakota, loca-
tion; excluding office clerical employees, all other
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their or-
ganizational activities in a manner violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
(c) Threatening employees with elimination of jobs,
less desirable working conditions , or other economic
reprisals, if the employees select the Union.
(d) Promising employees more desirable working con-
ditions if they will desist from union activities , or aid in
Respondent 's effort to defeat the organizational activities
of employees.
(e) Discouraging membership in Local 496, Sheet
Metal Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization of its employees , by discharging,
laying off, reducing hours of work, eliminating coffee-
breaks, or otherwise discriminating against employees in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term
or condition of employment.
(f) 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 Union , or any other labor or-
ganization , to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing , and to engage in other con-
certed activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any and
all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to John T. Fluit, James J. Smythe, Magnus
C. Homes, Lancelot Lunde , Floyd Matthies, and Ronald
Poppenga , immediate and full reinstatement to the former
or substantially equivalent position of each, without
prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges previ-
ously enjoyed by each and make each whole for any loss
of pay each may have suffered by reason of Respondent's
discrimination against each , in accordance with the
recommendations set forth in the section of the Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively
with Local 496, Sheet Metal Workers' International
Union , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all
the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit , and, if an
understanding is reached , embody such understanding in
a signed agreement.
(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 amounts of backpay due
and the rights of employment under the terms of the
Recommended Order herein.
(d) Notify the above-named employees if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their
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.
(e) Post at its plant in Sioux Falls , South Dakota, co-
pies of the attached notice marked "Appendix. "31 Copies
of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 18, after being signed by Respondent, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained by him for 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding each of Respondent 's bulletin boards. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
31 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further and Order."
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
notices will not be altered , defaced , or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 18, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
with the foregoing Recommended Order.-12
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless within 20
days from the date of the receipt of this Decision the
Respondent shall notify the said Regional Director, in
writing , that it will comply with the foregoing Recom-
mended Order , the National Labor Relations Board
issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid
action.
32 In the event that this Recommended Ordei is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer 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 em-
ployees that:
WE WILL , upon request , recognize and bargain col-
lectively with Local 496, Sheet Metal Workers In-
ternational Union , AFL-CIO , as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the bargaining
unit described below , with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment , and other terms and
conditions of employment , and, if an understanding
is reached , we will embody such understanding in a
signed contract . The bargaining unit is:
All production and maintenance employees of
the Gabel Tank Company at its Sioux Falls,
South Dakota , location ; excluding office clerical
employees , all other employees , guards , and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local
496, Sheet Metal Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our
employees, by discriminating in regard to their hire
or tenure of employment , or any term or condition of
employment , including reduction of work hours, or
elimination of coffeebreaks.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees in a manner
violative of the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with elimination
of jobs, less desirable working conditions, or other
economic reprisals, if the employees select the
Union to represent them.
WE WILL NOT promise employees more desirable
working conditions if they will desist from union ac-
tivities , or aid in our effort to defeat the organiza-
tional activities of employees.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization , to form labor or-
ganizations , to join or assist the above -named Union,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collective-
ly through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activity for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion , or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer to John T. Fluit, James J. Smythe,
Magnus C. Hoines, Lancelot Lunde, Floyd
Matthies , and Ronald Poppenga , immediate and full
reinstatement to the former or substantially
equivalent position of each, without prejudice to the
seniority and other rights and privileges of each, and
make each whole for any loss of pay that each may
have suffered as a result of our discrimination against
each.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of the
above-named Union or any other labor organization.
GABEL TANK COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Herman Gabel) (Owner)
NOTE: We will notify the above-named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their 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.
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Federal
Building , 110 South Fourth Street , Minneapolis, Min-
nesota 55401, Telephone 334-2611.