Mel Croan Motors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 601 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

MEL CROAN MOTORS
ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and from
any like or related invasion of its employees' Section 7
rights, and to take affirmative action, which I find
necessary to remedy and to remove the effect of the unfair
labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing findings and
conclusions of the entire record, I recommend pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, issuance of the following:
.
ORDER
Respondent, World Carpets of New York, Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain with Allied Trades Union, Local
No. 18, National Federation of Independent Unions, as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit:
All warehouse employees at the Comnany's Garden
City, New York, warehouse, excluding office clerical
employees, salesmen , guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) Threatening to close down its warehouse in reprisal
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
601
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL bargain upon request with Allied Trades
Union , Local No. 18, National Federation of
Independent Unions, as the exclusive representative
of our warehouse employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close down
warehouse before letting in the Union.
our
WE WILL NOT promise our employees wage
increases if they abandon their support of the Union.
WE WILL NOT interfere with our employees' union
activities.
WORLD CARPETS OF NEW
YORK, INC.
(Employer)
Dated Byees' union activitiesloitf .yor s emp
(c) Promising wage increases to induce employees to
abandon their support of a union.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-
named Union as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the above-described appropriate unit, and
(Representative ) (Title)
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, 16 Court Street,
Fourth Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201, Telephone
596-5386.
embody in a signed agreement any understanding Mel Croan Motors, Inc. and Robert A. Feral
reached. and Jesse Frields. Cases 23-CA-2360 and
(b) Post at its warehouse in Garden City, New York,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies
of such notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 29, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places , including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing , within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.3
2 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board , the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice . In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order."
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the
Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to
comply herewith."
2360-2.
March 27,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On December 2, 1966, Trial Examiner Samuel
Ross issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
also found that the Respondent had not engaged in
other unfair labor practices and recommended the
dismissal of such allegations. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a
supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
163 NLRB No. 77
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
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 the brief,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Mel Croan
Motors, Inc., Houston, Texas, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
Respondent contends that the Trial Examiner was biased and
prejudiced and that as a result it was denied a fair hearing We
have carefully examined the record and the argument made by
Respondent in support of its contention and are satisfied, on the
basis of the entire record, that the contention is without ment
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
SAMUEL Ross, Trial Examiner: Upon charges filed on
April 20 and May 9, 1966, respectively, by Robert A. Ferstl
and Jesse Frields, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on June 29,
1966, alleging that Mel Croan Motors, Inc., herein called
the Respondent, engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1)
and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. In substance, the
complaint alleges that the Respondent, by unlawful
interrogation and threats of discharge, interfered with,
restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, and that it
discharged two employees because they had engaged in
protected concerted activities, and had formed a labor
organization. The Respondent filed an answer which
denies the commission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in Houston,
Texas, on September 7, 1966. Upon the entire record in
the case, and my observation of the witnesses and their
demeanor, and after due consideration of the briefs filed
on October 19, 1966, by the Respondent and the General
Counsel, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
The Respondent, a Texas corporation whose principal
place of business is located in Houston, Texas, is engaged
in the business of selling, servicing, and repairing
automobiles and parts. During the past 12 months, a
representative period, the Respondent purchased
All dates hereafter refer to 1966 unless otherwise noted
e See Gullen Gin Company, Inc v. N L R B., 179 F.2d 499, 502
(C A. 5), in which the court of appeals refused to enforce the
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
automobiles, parts, and other products valued in excess of
$50,000 from distributors located in the State of Texas,
which were received by said distributors directly from
places located outside the State of Texas. During the same
period, Respondent received gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 from its sales and services. The Respondent's
answer admits the foregoing data concerning its business
operations, admits that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and it is so
found.
II. THE ALLEGED LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
On February 23, 1966,' the Respondent's mechanics
held a meeting at which they agreed to present in concert a
demand upon Respondent for increased compensation,
shorter hours, and other improvements in their conditions
of employment, and designated Jesse E. Frields, one of the
alleged discriminatees herein, to act as their spokesman.
As more fully detailed hereinafter, later that day Frields
presented the agreed-upon demands to Respondent in the
presence of all, or substantially all, of the Respondent's
mechanics.
The complaint alleges, and the Respondent's answer
denies, that this informal "committee" is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The only significance of this allegation to the issues herein
is that, based thereon, the complaint alleges that the
Respondent's later discharge of Frields and Robert A.
Ferstl, another mechanic, violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act, because it was motivated by their activity in forming
the said labor organization. However, the complaint also
alleges that the same activities of Frields and Ferstl
constituted "protected, concerted activities," and that
their discharge for engaging therein violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Since the remedy of reinstatement and
backpay would be the same if either of these violations is
established, and in view of the findings hereinafter made, I
regard it as unnecessary to determine whether the
discharge of Frields and Ferstl violated Section 8(a)(3) as
well as Section 8(a)(1), or whether the informal group or
committee constituted a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.2
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent is an authorized Volkswagen dealer,
and in conjunction with its sales of automobiles, it also
operates a service department for the repair of
Volkswagens. At the times material herein, the
Respondent employed about 12 mechanics in its service
department whose regular hours of employment were from
7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. on week days, and from 7:30 a.m. to
1 p.m. on Saturdays.
The compensation of the mechanics was based on a
percentage (45 percent) of the labor charges3 which
Respondent billed its customers for their work. The
number of hours of labor for which Respondent billed its
customers and paid its mechanics was based, not on the
actual time consumed in performing the particular jobs,
but on the time for that type of repair which is suggested
Board's decision that a like informal group was a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act
3 $6 per hour
MEL CROAN MOTORS 603
by the manufacturer's repair manual.4 Because of this
method of computing their compensation, it obviously was
to the advantage of the mechanics if they could complete
their repair jobs in less than the time allotted by the
manufacturer ' s manual , and conversely, delays in
completing repair jobs diminished their earning potential.
The Respondent on occasion calls service meetings of
the mechanics for the purposes of training, announcing
shop policies or policy changes, and reading the latest
repair bulletins received from the manufacturer. Prior to
the events which precipitated the instant proceeding, the
mechanics at some of these service meetings voiced
dissatisfaction with the percentage of the labor charge
which they received, with the length of their hours of
employment, and with delays which they encountered in
securing parts for their jobs from the Respondent's parts
department. These complaints were not adjusted by
Respondent, at least not to its mechanics' satisfaction.
B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. Interrogation and threats of discharge
As previously noted, on February 23, substantially all of
Respondent's 12 mechanics met by prearrangement at
lunchtime in a drugstore near their place of work, and
there agreed upon certain demands to present in concert
to Respondent after lunch, regarding their compensation,
hours, and other conditions of employment. At this
meeting, the mechanics also requested Jesse Frields to act
as their spokesman in presenting the demands, and he
agreed to do so.
At the conclusion of the mechanics' lunch period,
instead of returning to work, they went to Respondent's
conference room, and Frields and Larry Ancelot, another
mechanic, went to Service Manager Kenneth Sharp's
office to arrange for Mel Croan, Respondent's president
and general manager, to meet with the assembled
mechanics. Frields and Ancelot told Sharp that the
mechanics "had got together," that they were in the
conference room, and that they wanted to talk to Croan.
According to Frields' credited testimony, Sharp reacted to
this request by asking Ancelot and him, "who started it
and how it got started?" Ancelot replied, "What
difference does it make?"5 Sharp then telephoned Croan
and notified him that the mechanics wanted to speak with
him. Croan replied that Sharp, as service manager, should
be able to handle the matter himself. Sharp reported
Groan's response to Frields and Ancelot, but they replied
that they had spoken to Sharp before to no avail, and
"would like to talk to Mr. Croan." Again Sharp telephoned
Croan, and he agreed to meet with the mechanics.
Groan came to the conference room accompanied by
Sharp and Sales Manager George Belin. He was
"admittedly provoked" with his mechanics for insisting on
his attendance there, and because they were not working.6
He asked the mechanics "what was going on?" Frields
replied that "the mechanics had gotten together and
appointed [him] as spokesman." Groan responded:
. that nobody called him to a meeting-it was his
place-if any body called a meeting it would be
him-and the only way he would meet anybody's
demands was through a union.
Frields, apparently startled by Groan's vehemence,
apologetically replied that he "hadn't started it," and that
he "was just appointed spokesman." He then read the list
of the mechanics' demands which were as follows: (a) that
their hours of employment be reduced from 7:30 a.m. to
6 p.m. to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and that they have a "complete
Saturday off every now and then"; (b) that their
compensation be increased from 45 to 50 percent of the
Respondent's charge to its customers for their labor; and
(c) that new help be employed in the parts department to
eliminate the delays which the mechanics had
experienced when they needed parts for their repair jobs.
Groan responded to these demands by repeating his like
responses when the same subjects had been discussed on
earlier occasions. In respect to the commission rate, Groan
told the mechanics that they were making more at 45
percent of $6 per hour, than when he paid them 50 percent
and the hourly labor charge for their services was $5 per
hour. In respect to shorter hours, Groan said that he could
not reduce them and still accommodate his customers'
requirements for speedy service, unless he hired mo.e
mechanics, in which event the present employees would
earn less. Regarding the delays at the parts department,
Groan admitted that Addison, the parts man, was a "smart
aleck" and Groan promised to talk to him "about this."
Finally, according to the credited composite of the
testimony of Frields, Ferstl, and E. Dean Rider, another
mechanic, Groan told the employees that he disliked
having demands presented to him in this fashion, that he
had started the business by himself, that he had operated
it without mechanics in the past, that he could do it again,
and that anyone who "didn't like it," could write their
names down on a sheet of paper, and he would have their
final paychecks prepared. Croan and Service Manager
Sharp then left the room leaving the mechanics and Sales
Manager Belin behind.7
After Groan's departure, instead of returning to work,
all of the mechanics placed their names on a piece of
paper, thereby indicating their amenability to terminating
their employment. Thereupon, Sales Manager Belin urged
' According to Kenneth D. Sharp, the Respondent's service
manager, the length of time suggested by the manual for repair
jobs "is generally more than the time it takes to do the job."
5 In respect to this incident , Sharp testified, "I think I asked
the question what was it about and they wouldn 't comment, they
still wanted to see Mr. Croan." Since Sharp's testimony , unlike
Fnelds', indicates uncertainty regarding the nature of his
interrogation of these two employees, and Frields impressed me
as a frank and credible witness, his version of this interrogation is
regarded as more reliable and credited
6 The quotes are from Resp br , p. 3
' Croan's version of what he told the mechanics after
discussing the demands was as follows-
I suggested to them that Volkswagen mechanics being the
scarcity [ sic] that they are, that they would have no trouble
going any place and finding a job, and if they were not happy
here then I suggested that they quit If, on the other hand,
they did not want to quit , well, for goodness sakes get down
and take care of our people [ customers ] So with this I left
Croan's testimony above is not regarded as reliable and is not
credited for the following reasons Croan was "admittedly
provoked" with his mechanics for calling a meeting and making
demands upon him at a time when they should have been
working In the fight of that admission , the testimony of Frields,
Ferstl, and Rider, credited above, is more likely what an angry
employer would say under such circumstances than the
diplomatic and polite version to which Croan testified Moreover,
on cross -examination Croan was an evasive witness, and on a
number of subjects his testimony was self-contradictory
Accordingly, Croan's testimony is regarded as generally not
reliable, and is credited only when it comports with other credited
testimony or constitutes an admission against interest.
604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the mechanics to remain in Respondent's employ, and told
them "how good the working conditions were." As a
result, first one mechanic, and then another and another,
decided that he couldn't afford "to lose his job," and
"eventually everybody started scratching their names off
the list." The mechanics were still discussing what to do
when Croan cams back to the room after an absence of
about 15 or 20 minutes. Upon his return, Croan
individually asked a number of the mechanics, including
Frields and Ferstl, "Do you want your final check or do
you want to go back to work." Frields replied that he
"couldn't afford to lose [his] job." Others stated, "I need
my job." All of them then returned to work.
2. Concluding findings in respect to interrogation and
threats of discharge
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Sharp's interrogation of
Frields and Ancelot as to "who started" the mechanics'
decision to present concerted demands upon Respondent,
and "how it got started." The Respondent's brief contends
that the matters inquired about by Sharp "were properly
within his purview . to know, and were rhetorical,
impersonal and not individual inquiry."
I regard this contention of Respondent as devoid of
merit. Sharp's questions were neither rhetorical or
impersonal, and unlike the case cited by Respondent in
support of its contention" they were addressed to two
individuals, and not in speeches to large groups of
employees. The Respondent was opposed to its
employees' concerted activities. It had no legal right to
know who started them, and no need to know, unless it
intended to use that knowledge to discriminate against the
offending parties. The interrogation obviously restrained
and coerced Frields and Ancelot since they declined to
answer Sharp's questions, and Frields, at the meeting
which followed, deemed it necessary to tell Croan that he
"hadn't started it," but had merely been appointed as
spokesman. In view of these circumstances, it is found
that by Sharp's interrogation of Frields and Ancelot,
Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of their right, guaranteed by the
Act, to engage in concerted activities, and thereby the
Responcient engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The complaint further alleges that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Croan's threat to
discharge employees for engaging in protected, concerted
activities. The Respondent does not deny that President
"Croan was `put out' about the meeting being called by his
employees during working hours."9 The employees were,
in effect, engaged in a work stoppage or strike in support
of demands for more compensation, shorter hours, and
other improvements in their working conditions. The work
stoppage and/or strike for this purpose was concerted
activity protected by the Act. Croan's reaction to this
activity was to tell his employees that he had managed to
run his business without mechanics before, and could do
so again, and that anyone who "didn't like it," could write
their names down and he would have their final paychecks
prepared. Later, when Croan returned to the meeting after
his employees had deliberated about his ultimatum, Croan
individually asked a number of the employees whether
they desired their final paycheck, or whether they wanted
to return to work. These statements and inquiries by
Croan clearly conveyed the threat that unless the
mechanics immediately abandoned their work stoppage or
strike, their employment by Respondent would be
permanently terminated. By these threats, the
Respondent clearly interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of their right to engage
in concerted, protected activity, and thereby it engaged in
further unfair labor practices within the meaning of
'Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. The Discharge of Frields and Ferstl on February 25
On February 25 at midday, 2 days after the mechanics'
meeting with Croan described above, the Respondent,
without prior warning, discharged three of its mechanics,
Jesse Frields, Robert Ferstl, and Larry Ancelot. 10
Jesse Frields was hired by Respondent as a mechanic on
April 1, 1965. He worked in the Respondent's unit room
rebuilding engines. Ferstl was hired by the Respondent as
a mechanic in August 1965. Ancelot also worked as a
mechanic for Respondent. As noted above, Frields and
Ancelot were the two mechanics who visited Service
Manager Sharp's office on February 23, and insisted that
Croan, and not Sharp, meet with the mechanics in the
conference room. At the meeting which followed, Frields
acted as spokesman for the Respondent's mechanics in
presenting their concerted demands for increased
compensation, shorter hours, and other improvements in
their working conditions.
Ferstl was one of the mechanics who attended that
meeting, and when Croan temporarily left, Ferstl, in the
presence of Sales Manager Belin," attempted to dissuade
one mechanic (who was vacillating) from removing his
name from the list of employees who had accepted Croan's
ultimatum to terminate their employment if they were
dissatisfied.
On February 25, 2 days later, about 10 a.m., Ferstl was
assigned a repair job on a Volkswagen bus on the top of
which there was fastened an aluminum boat. In
connection with this repair job, Ferstl was required to
drive the bus into the service department by way of an
electrically operated rear door which opens up and down
in response to finger pressure on push buttons. Ferstl
quite apparently failed to open the door fully before he
drove the bus into the shop because, as he did so, the boat
struck the bottom of the door, shattered several panes of
glass, and caused some other damage to the door, but none
to the boat or the Volkswagen bus. Ferstl immediately
notified Shop Foreman Carl Newman about the accident,
and the latter helped Ferstl sweep up the broken glass
0 Imco Container Co ofHarnsonburg v. N L R B , 346 F.2d 178,
181(C.A 4).
0 Resp. br., p. 5
10 There is no allegation in the complaint that Ancelot's
termination violated the Act. During the hearing, testimony was
received without objection by either side regarding Ancelot's
dismissal and the Respondent 's alleged reason therefor Just
before the hearing closed, the General Counsel moved to amend
the complaint to include an allegation that Ancelot 's discharge
also violated the Act . However, he later withdrew the motion
when the Respondent claimed surprise and I indicated that I
would grant Respondent a continuance as a condition precedent
to amending the complaint
11 The record clearly discloses that Belin had authority to hire
and fire salesmen for Respondent , and that in Croan's absence,
he acted as general manager. It therefore is clear and is found that
Belm was a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the
Act.
MEL CROAN MOTORS 605
from the floor of the shop. While helping Ferstl, Newman
said nothing to Ferstl about possible discharge or other
discipline for causing the accident. After cleaning up the
glass, Ferstl spent the next 2 hours in completing the
repairs for which the bus had been left with Respondent.
He then went to lunch.
Upon his return from lunch, Ferstl, accompanied by
Ancelot, went to the dispatcher's office to receive their
next repair assignments . While waiting there, Shop
Foreman Newman told them to go to Service Manager
Sharp's office. According to Ferstl's uncontroverted and
credited testimony, when they arrived at Sharp's office,
Newman told Ferstl and Ancelot that "he was going to
have to let us go, [that] he didn't like to fire us, but he just
had to go along with the orders that were given him...."
Ferstl asked Newman why he was being fired, and
Newman replied that "it was because of this meeting we
had had earlier, and [that Ferstl's accident] that morning
... sort of put the icing on the cake, and that Mel Croan
just said let the three of us go." 12 Shortly thereafter, while
waiting for his final paycheck, Ferstl had a conversation
with Croan. According to Ferstl's credited testimony,
which was not denied by Croan, he asked Croan, "if he
blamed me for breaking the door." Croan replied, "Yeah,
he thought it was just carelessness." Ferstl then asked
Croan if he was being fired "just for breaking the door, or
what?" Croan replied that "it was over this meeting that
he fired the three, Larry Ancelot, Jesse [Frields] and
myself, because we got too hot.... and when anybody gets
too hot for him [Croan] to handle, he has to let them go."
Groan also told Ferstl, according to the latter's
uncontroverted and credited testimony, that "we are three
of his best mechanics, and if we ever wanted a
recommendation, he would give it to us, but we just got too
hot for him to handle."
While Ferstl and Ancelot were being told by Newman
that they were being fired, Frields was having lunch with
his wife in the Respondent's conference room. Right after
lunch, Frields also was notified by Shop Foreman Newman
that he "was being fired." Frields asked, "Why?" and
according to his uncontroverted and credited testimony,
Newman replied, "Well, between the [February 23]
meeting we had and the door that had been knocked down
by Bob [Ferstl], that was the last straw and he would have
to let three or four of us [mechanics] go."13 Frields then
went to the dispatcher's office where he encountered
Groan, to whom he apologized, saying, "I was sorry the
meeting took place, but I didn't start it. . . I was just
appointed spokesman." 14 The next day, Frields asked
Groan "if he would give me [Frields] a recommendation."
According to Frields' uncontroverted and credited
testimony, Groan replied that "he would be glad to [do
so]," that Frields' "work was satisfactory," and that the
only difference between them was their "personal
disagreement, I [Frields] wanted things one way and he
[Groan] wanted them the other, and if I ever straighten
myself out I would be a good boy."
About 1-1/2 months after the discharge of Frields and
the other two mechanics, E. Dean Rider, another of the
Respondent's mechanics, had a conversation with Groan
about Frields' discharge. According to Rider's credited
testimony, he told Groan that the latter "had definitely got
rid of one man that had nothing to do with-the flare-
up-other than being named as the spokesman ... [and]
asked to speak for us [the mechanics]." Groan replied
that he realized that now, but that "too much time had
passed," and "it was too late to do much about [it] at that
time."' S
At the opening of the hearing, the Respondent asserted
that Ferstl "was discharged for negligence," and more
specifically because, on two occasions within a period of
about 2 weeks, he had "caused substantial damage to the
property of a customer and the property of Mel Groan
Motors.... and he was discharged for that reason and no
other." At the same time, Respondent also asserted that
Frields was discharged "because of his attitude and his
lack of cooperation."
In support of these contentions, Groan testified that
"immediately after" his February 23 meeting with the
mechanics, and as a consequence thereof, he became
"concerned" about low employee morale. Accordingly,
Groan testified that for the next 2 days, he talked to all of
the mechanics in the shop (individually and sometimes by
twos), and asked them, "What are your complaints?"
Groan further testified that in connection with this morale
tour, he spoke to Frields about 8 or 9 a.m. on the day of
Frields' discharge. However, when Groan was asked to
state "what the conversation was" he could not recall it.
Nevertheless, he testified to the conclusion that "Frields
repeated the complaints and gripes and his dissatisfaction
with everything in general." This, according to Groan, was
not something new, but merely a repetition of like
complaints voiced to him by Frields on many prior
occasions, namely, that:
Jesse felt like he wasn't making enough money, that
he was working too long hours, that opportunity had
been deprived him, that he had to wait too long at the
parts counter, [and] that I didn't employ a porter to
clean up after him. The whole organization didn't suit
Jesse Frields.
Groan further testified that immediately after he spoke to
Frields, he also asked Ancelot to state his complaints, and
that "Ancelot's attitude was basically the same [as
Frields']." Accordingly, Groan testified, he came to the
12 Newman , although a witness for Respondent , did not deny
that he told Ferstl and Ancelot that their termination was
motivated , at least in part , by the mechanics' meeting of
February 23 with Croan.
13 Newman , a witness for Respondent , did not deny that he
made this statement when he notified Fnelds that he was being
fired.
14 Frields could not recall Croan's reply and Croan did not
testify regarding this encounter.
IS Croan admitted that he had such a conversation with Rider
and that Rider "could have" made the comments quoted above
regarding the reasons for Frields ' discharge, but he denied that he
made the response attributed to him by Rider Croan also testified
that he made no reply to Rider's statement about the reason for
Frields' discharge because it was a subject he didn't care to
discuss with Rider However, a few moments later, when Croan
was asked whether he said nothing in response to Rider, he
admitted, "I am sure I must have said something," and, when
Croan was asked, "What did you say then2" he replied, "I don't
have any idea " In the light of the evasions and the self-
contradictions inherent in Croan's testimony regarding this
conversation , and for the reasons stated in fn 7, supra, I do not
credit Croan's denial of Rider's testimony that Croan in effect
agreed with him that Frields was fired because of his activity in
connection with the meeting of February 23. Moreover, in view of
Croan's inability to recall his response to Rider's comment about
the reason for Frields ' dismissal , Rider 's positive and unqualified
testimony concerning the nature of Croan's reply is regarded as
more reliable and is credited.
606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conclusion that Frields and Ancelot were "two people I
couldn't possibly satisfy and that this was the reason for
their discharge.16 Nevertheless, Croan did not discharge
Frields and Ancelot at the time he allegedly reached this
conclusion.
About 10 a.m. on the day that Croan allegedly
interrogated Frields and Ancelot regarding their
complaints, Ferstl had the accident previously described
which caused damage to the Respondent's rear entrance
door to the service department. According to Ferstl's frank
admissions , this was the second accident and the third
incident in which he had been involved during his
employment by Respondent. The first had occurred in
September 1965, shortly after Ferstl began to work for
Respondent. On that occasion Ferstl had neglected to
close a car door while raising it on the lift, and as a result,
the door of the car had been damaged and was later
replaced by Respondent at a cost of about $100. The
second incident, which occurred 1 month later in October
1965, involved an alleged failure by Ferstl to replace oil in
the transmission of a car in which Ferstl had installed the
motor, and as a result of which the transmission bearings
were scored and damaged and subsequently replaced.
Ferstl, based on his prior experience in other Volkswagen
repair shops, had assumed that when the transmission was
"pulled," the backing plate had been left on and the oil in
the transmission had not leaked out. Shop Foreman
Newman admitted that Ferstl so told him when the
absence of oil was discovered. In any event, Ferstl
performed the resulting repair labor without cost to
Respondent, and the latter furnished the necessary
bearings valued at from $30 to $40.
Shortly after the accident occurred on February 25,
Shop Foreman Newman called Croan, reported the
incident, and asked whether Ferstl should be required to
pay for the damage to the door. Croan testified that he
replied that he would pay for it, and that he also said,
"This is the second or third accident. Just please let him
go." According to Croan, immediately after hanging up the
telephone, he walked over to Newman's office and
instructed him also to discharge Frields and Ancelot.
Croan specifically denied that Frields was terminated
because he was the spokesman for the mechanics at the
February 23 meeting."
D. Concluding Findings in Respect to the Discharge of
Frields and Ferstl
On the foregoing record, and for the reasons hereinafter
stated, it is fairly obvious that Frields was summarily fired
by Respondent because of his leading role in connection
with the mechanics' meeting with Croan on February 23,
and not because of his gripes and complaints about his
wages, hours, and working conditions.
Notwithstanding that before the February 23 meeting,
Frields allegedly had been a chronic griper throughout his
tenure of employment by Respondent, he had never been
warned that his dissatisfaction with his working conditions
might lead to disciplinary action or discharge. The
grievances and complaints which, according to Croan's
discredited testimony, Frields expressed on the date of his
discharge, admittedly were no different than those which
he had voiced on behalf of all the mechanics at the
February 23 meeting. Concededly, Respondent badly
needed Volkswagen mechanics, such mechanics were
scarce in the area, and Frields was a competent
Volkswagen mechanic. Under the circumstances, it
stretches credulity beyond belief that the Respondent
would likely have dispensed with the services of such an
employee for a subjective reason like "his attitude," or
gripes and complaints. Furthermore, contrary to the
assertion of Respondent when the hearing opened, there
was no evidence of "lack of cooperation" by Frields. All of
the foregoing impels the conclusion which is made that the
reason asserted for Frields' peremptory dismissal without
warning is pretextual , and was advanced for the purpose of
concealing the true motivation for his termination.
The real reason for Frields' discharge is quite evident
from the record. He had called President Croan to a
meeting with his employees during working hours. Croan
was admittedly "provoked" and "put out" by the meeting,
and by the work stoppage during the meeting. Frields was
the spokesman for the employees in demanding more pay,
fewer hours, and other improvements in working
conditions. Croan was opposed to most , if not all, of these
demands, and in effect, threatened the employees with
discharge if they did not immediately return to work.
Notwithstanding Frields protestations that he was merely
the spokesman, and had not "started it," it is quite
apparent that Respondent regarded Frields as primarily
responsible for this "flare-up." Indeed, when Frields
asked why he was being fired, he was told by Shop
Foreman Newman, "Well, between the [February 23]
meeting we had and the door that had been knocked down
by Bob [Ferstl] that was the last straw and he would have
to let three or four of us [mechanics] go." Clearly and
undisputably, Frields had nothing to do with Ferstl's
accident on February 25. It is, therefore, quite obvious and
found that Frields was discharged because he had engaged
in protected, concerted activities , and that the Respondent
thereby engaged in further unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 18
Ferstl was discharged by Respondent at the same time
and on the same day as Frields and Ancelot. The
is Contrary to Croan's testimony, Frields, Ferstl, and Rider all
denied that Croan had made any inquiry of them regarding their
complaints after the February 23 meeting Since these witnesses
impressed me as frank and reliable , their denials are credited In
view of this credibility determination , and since as previously
noted, Croan's testimony is regarded as generally unreliable, his
testimony , that in connection with his tour to restore employee
morale, he questioned all the employees about their complaints
(including Frields, Ferstl, and Rider), is not credited.
11 Croan also denied that he "ever found out" that Frields and
Ancelot were the employees who had notified Service Manager
Sharp on February 23 that the mechanics wanted to meet with
him, and who had insisted that he and not Sharp attend However,
shortly after making this demal, Croan diluted it by testifying, "If
I did find out it made no impression." Since Sharp, the admitted
head of the service department, had knowledge of the identity of
the employees who had asked him to call Croan to their meeting,
the Respondent quite obviously is chargeable with such
knowledge . In any event , it is inconceivable that Croan did not
ascertain from Sharp the identity of the employees who had
insisted on his attendance at the meeting , and therefore , contrary
to Croan 's denial, it is found that he had such knowledge . Dyer v.
MacDougall, et at., 201 F 2d 265, 269 (C.A 2)
11 I am also persuaded by the record that Ancelot's discharge,
which Respondent asserted was for the same reason as Frields',
was motivated by Ancelot's role in calling Croan to the
February 23 meeting, and in insisting that Croan , and not Sharp,
attend However , since there is no allegation in the complaint that
Ancelot' s discharge violated the Act (see fn 10, supra), no finding
of violation will be made , and no remedial order will be
recommended
MEL CROAN MOTORS 607
Respondent contends that Ferstl's discharge was
motivated by his carelessness on that day which caused
damage to the rear door of its service department, and by
his two prior acts of negligence, all of which have been
described above. Obviously, the Respondent could
lawfully fire Ferstl if the accidents were the only reason for
his termination . On the other hand, if a substantial
motivating reason was also Ferstl's concerted activities in
connection with the February 23 meeting with Croan, his
termination , even though it was also motivated by his
accidents, would be unlawful under the Act.16 For the
reasons hereinafter explicated, I am persuaded that
Ferstl's concerted activity was a substantial , motivating
reason for his termination , and that, therefore his
discharge was unlawful.
(a) Accidents admittedly are not an unusual occurrence
at the Respondent's facility. According to President
Croan, the number of accidents vary, sometimes long
periods of time pass with no accidents , and then "all of a
sudden we [Respondent] will get a rash of them."
(b) Prior to Ferstl's termination , no mechanic had ever
been discharged by the Respondent for causing an
accident .20 Two mechanics who had a head-on collision
while road testing Volkswagens were not discharged * 21
Ferstl was not discharged, either when he had his first
accident which caused damage to the door of a
Volkswagen, or when he failed to put oil in the
transmission of a car in which he had installed the
engine.22
(c) Respondent needed experienced mechanics "when
Croan ordered Ferstl's discharge (and that of Frields and
Ancelot). Competent Volkswagen mechanics in the
Houston area were scarce and hard to recruit. Under the
circumstances, it is unlikely that Croan would have fired
Ferstl merely because of the door accident'23 especially
since Shop Foreman Newman had suggested only that
Ferstl be required to pay for the damage to the door.
(d) Croan exaggerated the extent of the damage to the
rear door which was caused by Ferstl's last accident. In
this regard, Croan testified that Respondent's Exhibit 1
"is the repair bill to repair the door that was damaged by
Mr. Ferstl. The amount of that bill was $142.41."24
However, on cross-examination of Croan, it developed that
this sum was charged to Respondent not only to repair the
door damaged by Ferstl, but also to convert another large
door "from standard to hi-lift," that the charges for the
work on the two doors were lumped together, and that
Croan could not state what part of the bill was attributable
to the door damaged by Ferstl.25
(e) Croan was advised about the door accident a few
minutes after it occurred but Ferstl was not fired at that
time. Instead he was terminated about 2-1/2 hours later, at
the same time that Respondent fired Frields and Ancelot.
The coincidence of these three discharges at the same
time strongly suggests that they were all motivated by the
same reasons. As found above Frields was discharged
because of his protected, concerted activities in
connection with the February 23 meeting with Croan.26 At
that same meeting, Ferstl, in the presence of Respondent's
Sales Manager Belin , had attempted to dissuade a
mechanic from removing his name from the list of
employees who had accepted Croan' s ultimatum to
terminate their employment if they were dissatisfied.
Thus, like the case of Frields and Ancelot, the Respondent
had knowledge of Ferstl's "attitude" in respect to the
concerted action of its mechanics which had "provoked"
Croan.
(f) Finally, the uncontroverted and credited testimony
of Ferstl discloses that when he was fired, he was told
separately by both Shop Foreman Newman and President
Croan that the reasons for his termination were
twofold -the meeting of February 23 and the accident that
morning which "sort of put the icing on the cake."
For all the foregoing reasons, I am persuaded and find
that Ferstl's role in the protected, concerted activities
of Respondent's mechanics on February 23, was a
substantial motivating reason, if not the only one, for his
discharge on February 25, and that by terminating Ferstl's
employment inter alia , for that reason, the Respondent
interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act, and engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.27
19 N L R.B v Whitin Machine Works, 204 F 2d 883, 885
(C A. 1), Magnolia Petroleum Company v N L R B., 200 F.2d 148,
149 (C.A 5), N L R.B. v WTVJ, Inc., 268 F .2d 346, 347-348
(C A 5), N L R B v J H . Rutter Rex Manufacturing Company,
inc., 229 F.2d 816,819 (C.A 5)
20 Respondent fired a porter for causing two similar accidents,
but, unlike Volkswagen mechanics , there is no evidence of any
shortage of porters in the Houston area
21 Croan explained that because of the rain then falling and
poor visibility , there were extenuating circumstances which
motivated his decision not to terminate these two mechanics
However the great height of the Volkswagen bus which Ferstl was
driving, and the boat fastened on top of it , could also be regarded
as an extenuating circumstance for the failure of the bus to clear
the door
22 According to Croan, it was the Respondent 's policy to
discharge employees when they had a second accident When
asked, why then Ferstl had not been discharged when he caused
damage to the transmission , Croan explained that it was because
Ferstl then was a relatively new employee , Respondent "needed
mechanics badly," and the incident was 3 weeks old when he
learned about it In view of Crown's "explanation," it is fairly
evident and found that Respondent has no fixed policy of
discharging mechanics after two accidents
23 Contrary to the assertion of Respondent 's counsel at the
opening of the hearing that Ferstl had been involved in two
accidents in the 2 weeks before his termination, Ferstl's last
"accident," the failure to put oil in the transmission , had occurred
in October 1965, 4 months earlier Moreover , it is quite evident
from the record that when Ferstl was discharged, Croan had no
recollection whatsoever of the transmission Incident In this
regard, the record shows that when Croan was questioned by
Board agents during the investigation of the charges in this case
as to his reasons for firing Ferstl, he did not mention the
transmission incident at all.
24 Croan had no knowledge when Ferstl was discharged what
the repairs would cost Since the cost of such repairs was not a
factor in Croan's decision to fire Ferstl the amount of the bill
obviously was immaterial to the issue as to what motivated
Croan's decision
25 Croan attempted to minimize the cost of the repairs to the
door which was not involved in the accident by testifying "The
other door, sir, is in another building and its a hinge , we bought
two hinges ." However, contrary to Croan's testimony, the bill in
respect to the other door shows that the repairman "converted 18'
2" x 8' 1" Model 75 wood door from standard to hi-lift "
Obviously , this repair involved more than merely buying two
hinges.
26 Ancelot apparently was also discharged for the same reason
Seefn 18,supra
21 See cases cited in fn 20, supra.
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having further found that the Respondent discriminated
against Jesse E. Frields and Robert A. Ferstl by
terminating their employment on February 25, 1966,
because they engaged in concerted activities protected by
the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent be
ordered to offer them immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges,
and to make them whole for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination by the
payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the
amount he normally would have earned as wages from the
date of his discharge to the date of his reinstatement, less
his net earnings during said period, with backpay
computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established
by the Board .211
I shall also recommend that the Respondent make
available to the Board or its agents, upon request, all
payroll and other records necessary to facilitate the
determination of the amounts due under this
recommended remedy.
In view of the nature and extent of the unfair labor
practices committed, and because discriminatory
discharges to to the very heart of the Act,29 the
commission of other unfair labor practices reasonably may
be anticipated. I shall therefore recommend that the
Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from "in any
other manner" infringing upon rights guaranteed to
employees by Section 7 of the Act, in addition to those
rights found to have been violated herein.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Mel Croan Motors, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By discriminating against Jesse E. Frields and
Robert A. Ferstl by terminating their employment because
they engaged in concerted activity protected by the Act,
and by thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate them,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
2" F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Backpay shall
include the payment of interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum
to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing &
HeattngCo , 138 NLRB 716
2" N L R B v Entwistle Mfg Co ,120 F 2d 532 (C A 4)
30 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
3. By interrogating employees regarding their protected
concerted activities, and by threatening employees with
discharge or other reprisals unless they abandon such
activities, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in further unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices enumerated above are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 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 this case,
I recommend that the Respondent Mel Croan Motors, Inc.,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment for engaging in any
activity protected by Section 7 of the Act.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees regarding their
activities protected by Section 7 of the Act.
(c) Threatening employees with discharge or other
reprisals if they continue to engage in activities protected
by the Act.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, including the right to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from engaging in such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Jesse E. Frields and Robert A. Ferstl
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them in the manner provided in "The Remedy" section of
this Decision.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents all payroll and other records as set
forth in "The Remedy" section of this Decision.
(c) Notify Jesse E. Frields and Robert A. Ferstl 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.
(d) Post at its premises in Houston, Texas, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."30 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 23, after being duly signed by Respondent, shall be
posted by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
CEMENT MASONS' LOCAL 524 609
writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this
Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.31
I also recommend that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated the Act
by conduct other than that found to be violative in this
Decision.
s' In the event that this Recommended Order 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any employee in regard to hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment
for engaging in any activity protected by Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
regarding their activities protected by Section 7 of the
Act, or threaten them with discharge or other
reprisals for continuing to engage in such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
including their right to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging
in such activities.
WE WILL offer to Jesse E. Frields and Robert A.
Ferstl immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make them whole for any loss of
earnings they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them.
WE WILL notify Jesse E. Frields and Robert A.
Ferstl 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.
MEL CROAN MOTORS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
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, 6617 Federal
Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002,
Telephone 228-0611.
Cement Masons' Local Union No. 524,
Affiliated with the Operative Plasterers' and
Cement Masons' International Association
of the United States and Canada , AFL-CIO'
and Tobasco Prestressed Concrete
Company, Division of Bethel Supply
Company2 and United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, Ohio
Valley Carpenters District Council,
AFL-CIO and The Penker Construction
Company. Case 9-CD-91.
March 28,1967
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS BROWN , JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , following
a charge filed by Tobasco Prestressed Concrete
Company , Division of Bethel Supply Company,
herein called Tobasco or the Charging Party,
alleging that Cement Masons' Local Union No. 524,
Operative Plasterers ' and Cement Masons'
International Association of the United States and
Canada , AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent or
the Masons , had violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the
Act.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Michael J. Shershin , on October 26,
27, and 28 , 1966 .3 All parties, including the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council , AFL-CIO,
herein called Carpenters , and the Penker
Construction Company , herein called Penker,
appeared and had full opportunity to be heard, to
examine witnesses , and to adduce evidence bearing
upon the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer,
made at the hearing, are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. Briefs filed , respectively,
in behalf of the Respondent and Tobasco , have been
duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board
makes the following findings:
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
The record establishes that Tobasco, an Ohio
corporation with its principal offices at Tobasco,
Ohio , is engaged in business there as a contractor
The Respondent's name appears as amended at the hearing
2 The Charging Party's name appears as amended at the
hearing.
I All dates hereinafter appearing will be in 1966 unless
otherwise indicated
163 NLRB No. 75