Woody Pontiac Sales, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 3, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 218 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

218 DECISIONS
OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Woody Pontiac Sales , Inc. and Lawrence V. Kulak.
Case 7-CA-6237
April 3, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On December 4, 1968, Trial Examiner Gordon J.
Myatt 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.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's 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.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, except as modified below.
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, as
modified herein, and hereby orders that Respondent,
Woody Pontiac Sales, Inc., Hamtramck, Michigan,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as so modified:
(1) Add the following as paragraph 2(b) and
reletter the following paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Notify the above-named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces."
(2) Delete from the notice the last indented
paragraph and substitute therefor the following:
'There exists some doubt as to the correctness of the Trial Examiner's
finding that at the time of Kulak's dismissal there were at least five other
mechanics employed by Respondent who were not terminated and who
were junior to employee Kulak in terms of tenure . We would, nevertheless,
affirm the Trial Examiner ' s ultimate conclusions , since the record as a
whole persuades us that Respondent 's selection of Kulak for discharge was
motivated by discriminatory considerations.
WE WILL offer Lawrence Kulak immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges previously
enjoyed by him, and make him whole for any loss
of pay suffered by reason of his discriminatory
discharge.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GORDON J. MYATT, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed August 28, 1967,' by Lawrence V. Kulak, an
individual, a complaint and notice of hearing was issued
on October 31, 1967, against Woody Pontiac Sales, Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as the Respondent). The complaint
alleges that the Respondent, through its agents and
supervisors, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
unlawfully interrogating employees concerning their union
activities, by threatening employees with discharge for
engaging in union activities, and by attempting to induce
employees to engage in surveillance of the union activities
of fellow employees. The complaint further alleges that
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by
discharging Kulak on August 22, 1967, and by failing and
refusing to reinstate him since that date. The
Respondent's answer admits certain allegations of the
complaint, denies others and specifically denies the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
This case was tried before me on December 18 and 19,
1967, and on March 27 and August 6, 1968.2 All counsel
and representatives were afforded full opportunity to be
heard and to introduce relevant and material evidence.
Briefs were submitted by the General Counsel and the
Respondent, and they have been fully considered by me in
arriving at my decision herein.
Upon the entire record in this case, including my
evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, based on my
observation of their demeanor and on the relevant
evidence, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The Respondent is a Michigan corporation engaged in
the business of selling and servicing new and used motor
vehicles , and maintains its office and place of business in
the city of Hamtramck, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.
During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, a
representative period, the Respondent sold and distributed
at its dealership in Hamtramck, motor vehicles and
automotive products valued in excess of $500,000; of
which amount products valued in excess of $100,000, were
shipped to the Respondent's place of business directly
from points located outside the State of Michigan. During
this same period, the Respondent purchased products in
excess of $50,000 from suppliers located outside the State
of Michigan and caused said products to be shipped
' Unless otherwise indicated , all dates herein refer to 1967.
'Although the issues involved in this case are neither novel nor complex,
the proceedings were interrupted by two lengthy delays . First, at the behest
of the General Counsel in order to allow him to seek enforcement of
subpoenas issued for certain witnesses , and secondly, to allow the
Respondent to appeal my ruling revoking a subpoena requesting that the
Regional Director produce a certain document.
175 NLRB No. 41
WOODY PONTIAC SALES, INC.
directly to its dealership in Hamtramck, Michigan.
On the basis of the above, I find that the Respondent
is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
Ii. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No 376, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Ind. (hereinafter called the Union), is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act
Ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts
The Respondent's dealership consists of three separate
buildings. The main building contains the general offices,
new car showroom, and the parts and service departments
Approximately 200 feet away from the main building is
another building containing the "bump" shop where
automobiles that have been involved in collisions are
repaired. A third building,' located several blocks away, is
used for the purpose of receiving, storing and preparing
new cars for showing and sale. In addition to the new car
preparation, all front-end work is performed in this
building.
Lawrence Kulak, the alleged discrimmatee, worked in
the service department in the main building. At the time
that his employment was terminated, Kulak was classified
as a light repair mechanic.' Kulak's work area was located
in the rear of the service department and consisted of two
stalls,' one of which contained a hydraulic lift. An aisle
approximately twice the width of an automobile ran the
length of the service area and a service writeup desk was
located near this aisle, approximately 50 feet away from
Kulak's stalls. This desk was used by the service
department manager and the service writeup men who
prepared the job tickets on the customers' automobiles.
B. The Events Surrounding Kulak's Termination
Some time during the morning of August 21,' Edward
Petroff, Jr., business representative of the Union, came
into the service department and asked for employee
Kulak. Petroff was informed that Kulak was out
road-testing an automobile and he waited in the vicinity of
Kulak's stalls. When Kulak returned, he and Petroff
engaged in a discussion concerning organizing the
Respondent's service personnel. This conversation lasted
for approximately 25 minutes and Petroff gave Kulak
blank authorization cards to be distributed to the
'This building is called the Connell -Cadillac building as it was formerly
a Cadillac dealership
'Kulak was initially classified as a lubrication man when he first started
to work for the Respondent in June 1966 Some time during October 1966,
he took a leave of absence in order to have an operation on his wrist and
did not return to work until April of the following year Upon his return,
Kulak was classified as a light repair mechanic His duties involved motor
tuneups, electrical work, carburation work and brake repairs
'Although the areas where the mechanics worked were described as
stalls, they were in fact open spaces on each side of the service department
slightly more than the width of an automobile and delineated by painted
lines on the surface of the floor Generally each mechanic was assigned to
two stalls adjacent to each other, and one of these usually contained a
hydraulic lift
219
employees. Petroff left by the rear door of the service
department and Kulak placed the cards inside his work
shirt.
Kulak testified that as Petroff was leaving, Wozniak,
the service department manager, came over to him and
inquired about Petroff's identity. According to Kulak, he
told Wozniak that Petroff was an insurance salesman '
Kulak further testified that he took the union cards from
inside his shirt and placed them in a drawer in his toolbox.
During his lunch hour and in the afternoon, Kulak spoke
with a number of mechanics and service department
employees and succeeded in getting several of them to sign
cards for the Union. Kulak stated that he kept the signed
cards in the drawer of his toolbox along with the blank
cards
The following morning Kulak took an automobile out
to road-test it, and when he returned he noticed that the
drawer of his toolbox wasopened and that the cards were in
a different position than he recalled having left them
According to Kulak, he was informed by another
mechanic that Wozniak had a blank card in his shirt
pocket Kulak stated that on several occasions he went up
to Wozniak to discuss repair jobs and he noticed the top
of a union card sticking out of Wozniak's pocket. Kulak
stated that the blank side of the card was facing outward,
but that he was able to determine that it was a union card
from the printing on the section of the card which
extended beyond the top of Wozniak's pocket.
At approximately 4.45 p.m., according to Kulak,
Wozniak came to his stall and informed him that he was
being let go because the Respondent was consolidating
various units of its service operations and intended moving
the new car preparation section into Kulak's work area
Kulak stated that he protested that he was senior to at
least five other mechanics, but was told that his hydraulic
hoist was needed for undercoating new cars Kulak
testified that Wozniak also told him that he (Kulak) had
some friction with two of the service writeup men. After
his conversation with Wozniak, Kulak went to the front
office and asked to see Woody, the Respondent's
president He was accompanied into Woody's office by
Leo George, the manager of the used car department
Kulak stated that Woody informed him that he was a
good mechanic and that he should not have any difficulty
getting a job elsewhere. Woody also indicated that he
would give Kulak a good reference.
At the end of the workday, Kulak went to a nearby bar
where the Respondent's employees usually gathered after
work and sat around discussing his plight with the other
employees While there, according to Kulak, the assistant
service manager, Randall,' came in and informed him and
the other employees that he (Randall) would no longer be
working for the Respondent after Friday. Kulak testified
that Randall said that he "did not get it from the horse's
mouth" but he thought that Kulak was "let go because of
union activitiy "
'Petroff recalled the date as being August 18, however, the testimony of
Kulak and former employee Johnigan indicates that this was an error and
that the correct date was August 21 1 consider this discrepancy to be
nothing more than the result of a faulty memory which in no way reflects
on Petroff's credibility
' it was not unusual for customers or salesmen to visit the employees in
the service department during the workday
'The Respondent contended at the trial that Randall was not a
supervisory employee under Section 2(l l) of the Act, and that statements
made by him were not admissible or binding on the Respondent However,
paragraph 6 of the complaint alleged that Randall was the assistant service
manager and a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The following day Kulak returned to Respondent's
service department to make arrangements concerning his
toolbox. He testified that while there Wozniak again
mentioned that there had been friction between Kulak and
the service writeup men. Kulak stated that he
subsequently questioned the writeup men and they denied
that any such friction existed.
Walter Johnigan, formerly employed as a porter by the
Respondent,' testified that he was told by Wozniak that a
union man was in the shop on the day that Petroff visited
Kulak. According to Johnigan, Wozniak asked him to
report anything that he heard or saw concerning a union
in the shop. Johnigan also testified that he overheard
Wozniak ask Kulak about Petroff's identity after the
latter left the shop.
Johnigan stated that the day after Kulak was
terminated, he commented to Randall that it was "a
damn shame that Larry [Kulak] got canned . .11
Johnigan mentioned that there were several mechanics still
working who were junior to Kulak in terms of service with
the Respondent. According to Johnigan, Randall replied,
"[h]ey, buddy, I don't think it was for lack of work, it
was that union deal."
When questioned about the use of the Cadillac building
for new car preparation, Johnigan testified that he and the
other porters moved the new cars from that building to
various lots adjacent to the main showroom after August
22. Johnigan also testified that after August 22, he never
observed any new cars being serviced in the Cadillac
building.
Another former employee, Arthur Orcutt, testified that
2 days after Kulak was discharged, he (Orcutt) went to a
nearby bar after work with several other mechanics from
the Respondent's shop. He stated that he remained there
until approximately 9 p.m., when he then returned to the
body shop in order to ride home with a fellow employee
who was working late. On his way into the building,
Orcutt met the used car sales manager, Leo George.
According to Orcutt, George asked if he was over in the
bar with the union fellows organizing? Orcutt replied,
"No, I wasn' t going to get involved in any such doings at
my age, I couldn't afford to " Orcutt testified that George
then asked if he were aware that Kulak had been let go
for union activities. Orcutt testified that he did not take
George's statement seriously as he was under the
The Respondent ' s answer admitted this particular allegation In addition,
Wozniak ' s testimony clearly shows that Randall was in charge of the
service department in his absence and that he and Randall would
alternately stay late to manage the department several nights each week
when it was open for business Wozniak testified that Randall had no
authority to hire or fire employees and that he did not attend management
staff meetings . There is testimony in the record , however, that Randall had
authority to grant employees time off in Wozniak 's absence Moreover,
Orcutt, formerly employed as a mechanic , credibly testified that he knew
Randall to be a supervisor , and that he had observed a notice on the
bulletin board in the service department designating Randall as the
assistant service supervisor while the other employees working at the
service desk were listed as "wnteup men "
On the basis of the above,I find that Randall possessed the indicia of
supervisory authority and that he regularly exercised this authority in
Wozniak's absence , even though he did not have authority to hire or fire
employees Accordingly , I find him to be a supervisor within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act Research Designing Service, Inc , 141 NLRB
211, 213, Remington Rand Corporation , 141 NLRB 1052 , 1054 Cf John
P Krystymak d/b/a Red & White Supermarkets, 172 NLRB No 210
'Johnigan worked for the Respondent as a porter from January to
September 1967 While employed by the Respondent he also held a
full-time job in the evenings at a stamping plant of Chrysler Corporation
Johnigan voluntarily left the Respondent 's employ on September I
impression that George was only kidding him
Orcutt also testified that he had observed union
authorization cards in Kulak's toolbox prior to his
discharge. Orcutt stated that he had occasion to come into
the main service department and that he needed a tool As
it was not uncommon for mechanics to borrow tools from
each other, he went to Kulak's toolbox while Kulak was
away from his stall and he noticed Teamster cards lying in
the top of the tray of the toolbox
Respondent's president, Woodrow W. Woody, testified
that he was concerned about the losses which the
Respondent had sustained over a 3-month period prior to
August 22. Woody stated that business was normally slow
during the latter part of the summer immediately
preceding a model changeover, but that the losses which
the Respondent sustained were greater than usual. He
attributed this to the model changeover and also to the
uncertainty caused by the possibility of a strike by the
United Automobile Workers' Union (U.A.W.) against the
automotive industry." Woody testified that because of
these factors, he called a meetiflg of the managers of all of
the departments to discuss ways of retrenching in order to
minimize losses. Woody stated that the meeting resulted
in the decision to reduce costs by consolidating the
operations. The foremost way in which this was to be
accomplished was to move the new car preparation section
from the Cadillac building to the main service department.
Woody further testified that while there was no mention
of the name of any specific employee during the course of
the meeting, he did authorize the department managers to
make any reduction in personnel they felt necessary.
Woody denied that Kulak was discharged because of
union activities, and in fact stated in a letter to the
Board 's Regional Office that the Respondent was unaware
of any such activity on his part. Woody stated that the
Respondent considered Kulak to be a good employee and
indicated a willingness in the letter to rehire him when
new cars were received in sufficient volume to warrant
utilizing the new car prep building."
Wozniak testified that he and the other department
managers attended the meeting with Woody in the
afternoon of August 22, and that the meeting lasted for
more than an hour. According to Wozniak, he left the
meeting and returned to the service department during
what he described as "the panic hour"; the time when
anxious customers were in the shop or calling on the
telephone about the status of their automobiles. Wozniak
testified that he spoke to Kulak at approximately 5.45
p.m. after the evening rush had subsided. He stated that
he informed Kulak of the Respondent's plans to
consolidate its operations and that Kulak' s stalls were the
logical ones to be used for the new car preparation. He
informed Kulak that because of these plans the
Respondent would have to let him go, but was willing to
give him a good recommendation for future employment.
He also stated to Kulak that he could draw
unemployment compensation until he secured another job.
Wozniak admitted that Kulak was the only mechanic
terminated in order to effectuate the Respondent 's plans
for consolidation. He stated, however, that during the
several weeks immediately following Kulak's discharge,
several other mechanics and porters voluntarily quit
"It was not known at this time whether there would be a stnke or, in
the event of a strike, which of the automobile manufacturers would be
struck It is a matter of general knowledge that a strike was subsequently
called and that the Ford Motor Company was selected as the prime target
"Woody's letter to this effect is in evidence as Resp Exh 4.
WOODY PONTIAC SALES, INC. 221
because work was slow." Wozniak also admitted that the
Respondent retained several mechanics who were junior to
Kulak in point of service, but stated that in his judgment
they were superior in ability He acknowledged, however,
that he had never informed Kulak that his work was
unsatisfactory or that the Respondent did not consider
him to be a good mechanic.
Wozniak denied taking a union authorization card from
Kulak's toolbox or having a blank card in his shirt pocket
on August 22.
Concluding Findings
The Respondent argues that Kulak's discharge was
necessitated by the decision to consolidate the operations
and was not in any way related to his activities on behalf
of the Union In fact, the Respondent vigorously disclaims
any knowledge of Kulak's efforts to organize the service
department employees The record, however, does not
support these contentions.
It is manifestly clear that the Respondent was
experiencing severe business losses at the time that
Kulak's employment was terminated and further, that the
decision to consolidate the operations was based solely on
economic factors. But this does not address itself to the
critical question of whether Kulak was selected for
discharge during the economy program because of his
involvement with the Union. On the basis of the credible
evidence contained in the record, I find that this question
must be answered in the affirmative
First, the evidence does not support the Respondent's
claim that it had no knowledge of Kulak' s union activities.
The unrefuted testimony of Johnigan discloses that on the
day that the union representative visited Kulak in the
service department, Wozniak told him a union man was in
the shop and asked him to report anything he heard or
saw in this regard . The following day, Kulak noticed that
the union cards in his toolbox had been disturbed and that
Wozniak had such a card in his shirt pocket, in front of a
plastic pocket protector containing several pencils.
Although Wozniak denied having the card, I do not credit
him During the course of the trial, counsel for the
Respondent placed a card in Wozniak's pocket, with the
blank side facing outward, in an attempt to demonstrate
that it would be impossible to identify the card even if it
had been there. I observed that more than an inch of the
card protruded above the top of the pocket. Thus it was
evident that a person standing directly in front of
Wozniak could determine that it was a union card,
provided he was familiar with it, as in the case of Kulak,
and provided he had so positioned himself for the express
purpose of making such a determination.
Accordingly, I find it reasonable to infer from the
above that Wozniak was not only aware of the union
representative's presence in the service department on
August 21, but that he was also aware of Kulak' s role in
the organizing effort.
There is ample evidence in the record to warrant the
conclusion that Wozniak's knowledge of Kulak' s union
activity was a decisive factor in the decision to terminate
him Kulak was the only mechanic terminated, even
though there were at least five others junior to him in
terms of tenure. Wozniak's explanation that he felt that
the others possessed more ability than Kulak rings hollow
"The mechanics were paid at a flat rate of 50 percent of the cost of
every job performed . Consequently , if there was no work for a mechanic to
do, he received no pay
in the face of his admission that he had never advised
Kulak that his work was unsatisfactory, and also in light
of the characterization of Kulak as a "good man" by the
Respondent's president in his letter to the Regional Office.
More important to this conclusion, however, are the
statements made by other supervisors to employees
concerning the reason for Kulak's discharge. Randall's
statements to Kulak the evening of his discharge and to
Johnigan several days later clearly indicates that Kulak's
involvement with the Union was the dominant reason for
his dishcarge. Similarly, George's comment to employee
Orcutt, while made in jest, brings to light the underlying
discriminatory motive for the discharge.
Accordingly, it is within these circumstances that I find
that Kulak was discharged because of his activities on
behalf of the Union and not for the economic reasons
asserted by the Respondent. I further find that the
discharge of this employee was for discriminatory reasons
with the express purpose of discouraging membership in
and activities on behalf of the Union in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Battle Creek Steel
Fabricating Co., 169 NLRB No. 125; cf. Materials
Transportation Co, 170 NLRB No. 102.
The complaint also alleges that the Respondent
committed an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act when Wozniak asked employee Johnigan to report
back to him anything that he heard or saw in the shop
concerning the Union's effort to organize the employees.
Johnigan's testimony in this regard is unrefuted in the
record. I find, therefore, on the basis of the
above-described conduct by Wozniak, the Respondent has
committed a separate violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Elder-Beerman Stores Corp., 173 NLRB No. 68;
Jackson Packing Company, 170 NLRB No. 155.
There are two other allegations in the complaint which
only warrant summary consideration. One relates to
alleged coercive interrogation of employees by Wozniak,
and the other to interrogation and threats by George,
manager of the used car department. In my judgment
there is not a scintilla of evidence in the record to support
the first allegation. With respect to the second, the record
discloses that George, in a kidding manner, asked
employee Orcutt if he were over in a bar with the union
organizers and mentioned the fact that Kulak was let go
because of his involvement with the Union It is evident
from Orcutt's testimony that George's statements were
made in a jocular vein and understood by Orcutt to be
nothing more than that. George honestly testified that he
did not recall the conversation but acknowledged that it
might have taken place. In my judgement, George's
statements were not meant or construed as threats, nor
should they be taken out of context to establish additional
violations on the part of the Respondent. Accordingly, I
am of the view that the evidence is not sufficient to
support the finding of a violation based on these two
allegations of the complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Woody Pontiac Sales, Inc., is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Local No. 376, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Ind., is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent , by the conduct of its supervisor,
Wozniak, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attempting to induce an employee to act as an informant
in order to ascertain information about the union activities
of other employees.
4. Respondent, by the conduct of its supervisor,
Wozniak, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
discriminatorily discharging employee Lawrence Kulak for
the reason that he was engaged in activities on behalf of
the above-named Union
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent had engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend the
issuance of an order that it cease and desist therefrom,
and that it take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act I shall further
recommend that the Respondent offer to employee
Lawrence Kulak immediate reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him
whole for any losses of earnings he may have suffered by
payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount
he would have earned from the date of his unlawful
discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less
any net earnings during said period. Backpay shall be
computed on a quarterly basis in a manner consistent with
the Board policy set forth in F W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, and interest thereon shall be computed in
the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, Woody Pontiac Sales, Inc , its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Attempting to induce employees to act as informers
concerning the union activites of their fellow employees.
(b) Discharging employees because they engaged in
activities on behalf of Local No 376, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Ind., or any other union, in
order to discourage employee membership in a union.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Lawrence Kulak immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed by him, and make him
whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of his
discriminatory discharge in the manner set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its Hamtramck, Michigan, service
department, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix "" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly
signed by the official representative of the Respondent,
shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and
shall be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
service department 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 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
"if 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 If the Board ' s Order is enforced
by a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall be
further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" 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 7, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the 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:
This notice is posted pursuant to a Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner issued after a trial in which
both sides had the opportunity to present evidence. The
Trial Examiner found that we violated the National Labor
Relations Act and has ordered us to inform our employees
of their rights.
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join , or help unions
To bargain as a group through a representative of
their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any and all of these things
We assure all of our employees that
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these
rights.
WE WILL NOT attempt to get employees to inform on
the union activities of their fellow employees.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees because they have
engaged in activities on behalf of Local No. 376,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., or any
other union.
WE WILL make whole Lawrence Kulak for any loss
of earnings he may have suffered by reason of his
discriminatorily discharge.
Dated By
WOODY PONTIAC SALES,
INC
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
Note- We will notify the above employee if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his
right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
WOODY PONTIAC SALES, INC. 223
defaced, or covered by any other material directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
If employees have any question concerning this notice Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate 48226, Telephone 226-3244.