Broadway Motors Ford

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 945 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

BROADWAY MOTORS FORD
Broadway Motors, Inc., d/b/a Broadway
Motors Ford and United Auto Workers
(U.A.W.), AFL-CIO. Case 17-CA-3009.
June 23,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
On April 24, 1967, Trial Examiner William W.
Kapell issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had.
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions 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 of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, as modified herein.
Immediately after August 25, 1966, Respondent
received a letter from the Motor Car Dealers
Association of Greater Kansas City, inter alia,
requesting any information concerning a union
organizational meeting to be held on August 28.
Thereafter, on August 29, Respondent learned of car
salesman Baker's attendance at this meeting and his
union sympathies by interrogating him on two
occasions in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The following day Baker was discharged. Like the
Trial Examiner, we find that Baker's discharge
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The Respondent asserts that (1) Baker was
discharged because he complained constantly about
certain working conditions, was uncooperative,
particularly in performing cleaning chores which
salesmen were handling during a strike, and used
profanity frequently on two occasions when he might
have been overheard by customers; and (2) Baker
would have been discharged in July except that
Sales Manager Keith was new on the job, Baker had
car sales pending completion, and a replacement
had to be found. As to (1), however, the record
indicates that other salesmen also complained about'
working conditions, that Baker did participate in
mopping and other cleaning chores, that other
945
salesmen as well as Keith himself used profanity at
work, and that Baker was never reprimanded or
threatened with discharge for his alleged offenses.
As to (2), the record shows that Keith had authority
in July to discharge Baker, that Baker had car sales
pending in August as well as in July, that
Respondent had 10 salesmen in July but only 8 when
Baker was discharged in August, and that the new
salesman allegedly hired as a replacement for Baker
is not named in sales records submitted by
Respondent for June through August.
Based on the record as a whole, and particularly in
view of the timing of Baker's discharge the day after
Respondent learned through unlawful interrogation
of Baker's attendance at a union organizational
meeting, we, like the Trial Examiner, are convinced
that the reasons for discharge asserted by the
Respondent are pretexts, and that the real reasons
for his discharge were his union sympathies and
activities. We conclude, therefore, that the
Respondent discharged Baker on August 30, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
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 , Broadway
Motors, Inc., d /b/a Broadway Motors Ford, Kansas
City, Missouri , its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner 's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE'
WILLIAM W. KAPELL, Trial Examiner: This matter, a
proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, was
heard at Kansas City, Missouri, on December 15, 1966,2
with all parties except the Union participating pursuant to
due notice upon a complaint issued by the General
Counsel on October 27,3 alleging violations of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by Broadway Motors, Inc., d/b/a
Broadway Motors Ford, hereafter referred to as
Respondent.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that Respondent
interrogated its employees concerning the Union, and
discharged E. Charles Baker and has failed and refused to
reinstate him because of his activities on behalf of the
Union. In its answer Respondent admitted certain
allegations of the complaint but denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the
hearing
' All dates hereafter refer to the year 1966 unless otherwise
noted
3 Based upon a charge filed on August 31 by United Auto
Workers (U A.W.), AFL-CIO, hereafter called the Union.
165 NLRB No. 106
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and
to file briefs. The General Counsel and Respondent filed
briefs which have been duly considered. Upon the entire
record in the case,4 and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. COMMERCE
At all times material herein, the Respondent, a Missouri
corporation, has maintained its principal place of business
at Kansas City, Missouri, where it has been engaged in the
retail sale of new and used automobiles and related
products, and in the performance of related services. In
the course and conduct of its business operations,
Respondent's annual sales and performance of services
exceed $500,000 and it annually receives products and
materials valued in excess of $500,000 directly from
sources outside the State of Missouri. The Respondent
admits, and I find, at all times material herein, that it has
been an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times material
herein the Union has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
1. Whether Respondent unlawfully interrogated
employees about the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
2. Whether Respondent discharged Baker because of
his union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(3).
B. The Facts
It is undisputed that Baker began his employment with
Respondent as a new -car salesman with slight experience
on June 15, under the immediate supervision of Robert
Keith , the new -car sales manager. During the week of
August 22, Baker in conversation with some of his fellow
salesmen found that several of them were interested in
having a union . A few days later Respondent 's president,
R. G. Bentrup , received a letter from the Motor Car
Dealers Association of Greater Kansas City addressed to
all dealers, advising them as to the status of bargaining
negotiations with the Machinists, who were then out on
strike, and also informing them that the United Auto
Workers was holding a meeting for automobile salesmen
the coming Sunday afternoon at 2 p . m. in the U.A . W. hall
in Leeds, and requesting that any information pertaining
to this meeting should be telephoned to its secretary.5 On
Sunday, August 28, Baker attended the union meeting
" Subsequent to the hearing the parties filed a joint motion to
correct the transcript The motion is hereby granted and the
transcript is corrected as requested
5 Respondent's president admitted receiving this letter and
conceded knowledge of the union meeting
8 Vice president and general manager
r According to Nye's testimony, the salesmen were discussing
the Union when he joined them and he asked only what kind of an
where he was advised that the employees would have to
sign union authorization cards in order to be represented,
and he agreed to distribute such cards and to solicit union
members. Upon reporting to work the following morning
Baker joined a few fellow salesmen having coffee on the
showroom floor as was their usual practice. Larry Nye6
then joined them and in the ensuing discussion he asked
whether anyone had attended that ( union) meeting. Baker
replied that he had and proceeded to relate what had
happened there, stating that not many attended, and that
the salesmen had been requested to hand out
authorization cards.7 During the morning Baker discussed
the Union with the other salesmen and distributed
authorization cards. One of the salesmen , Lyman Bence,
to whom Baker had handed a card, returned it shortly after
receiving it, disclaiming any interest in the Union.
Thereafter, Baker noticed an unfriendly coolness towards
him by Keith, Nye, and Jim Dixon, also a management
official. Late that morning or early that afternoon, Keith
engaged Baker in a conversation about the Union in which
he inquired what the Union could do for him. Baker
replied that he did not know whether a union was needed,
but that the salesmen were in need of some organization in
order to obtain shorter working hours and a guaranteed
income.8 Baker left the showroom about 2:30 p.m.,
contrary to his usual custom of remaining until about
5 p.m., because the chilled attitude of management
personnel toward him made him feel uncomfortable.
Baker reported for work around 8 o'clock the following
morning, Tuesday, August 30. Shortly thereafter, he
attended the usual daily salesmen 's meeting , following
which he was summoned to Keith's office. Keith advised
him that he was going to be let go because of his attitude,
and that without his influence over the other salesmen,
they could be regrouped and their morale revitalized to do
a better job. Keith then requested his resignation and upon
Baker's refusal discharged him.9
The record also shows that for the month of August
Baker completed six sales, and that seven more sales,
which were then pending, were consummated after his
discharge. His sales record for that month compares
favorably with that of the other salesmen . Although
Respondent asserts, infra, that Baker's attitude adversely
affected his work, no claim was made that he was remiss
in his official duties nor was any evidence produced
tending to show that he was incompetent in his work.
Respondent contends Baker was discharged because
his attitude was negative and defeatist, he had a
demoralizing influence over the other salesmen, he failed
to get along with his fellow salesmen, he constantly
complained and criticized the Company' s part in
promoting sales, he used profane language in a loud and
disconcerting manner in the presence of women
employees and customers, and he was generally an
unsatisfactory employee. In support of these contentions,
Keith testified that Baker belittled the value of the daily
salesmen ' s meetings and made snide remarks at these
meetings , which interfered with their purpose and
orderliness, that he griped about the low evaluations
attendance there was, and Baker stated that he had attended the
meeting and that only seven or eight salesmen were present,
which was disappointing. Baker's testimony as related above and
corroborated, in part, by Nye is oredited
8 These findings are based on the unrefuted testimony of
Baker
8 These findings are based upon the unrefuted testimony of
Baker
BROADWAY MOTORS FORD
placed on car trade-ins, that he was remiss in not exerting
himself to persuade customers to buy cars in stock rather
than special accessory cars, and that he constantly
complained about everything, including the bank's failure
to approve the credit standing of prospective customers,
shagging (driving cars from Respondent's storage lot to be
serviced at the shop while the teamsters and mechanics
were on strike), being assigned a Mustang car for
demonstration purposes in lieu of the Galaxie model he
was driving (it being desirable to dispose of the Galaxie as
a demonstrator because of its high mileage), and refusing
to perform certain housecleaning chores, which the
salesmen were requested to do because the employees
who ordinarily performed these chores were on strike.
Leah Murphy, Respondent's billing clerk, corroborated
Keith's testimony, in part, to the effect that Baker made a
vile and obscene remark to her which was overheard by a
woman customer. Baker admitted making the remark but
claimed he was provoked by her threat to withhold his pay
until he had a mortgage signed by a customer.
James L. Monk, the only salesman called to testify on
behalf of Respondent, also corroborated Keith's
testimony, in part, especially about Baker's obscene
language and his behavior at salesmen's meetings. He,
however, admitted that the other salesmen also
complained and used obscene language, but claimed that
Baker was a greater offender in these respects. Also, his
testimony does not sustain Keith's contention that Baker
failed to get along with his fellow salesmen and, in fact, he
admitted that Baker helped him out on one occasion.
Roy Cawby, the senior vice president of the Traders
National Bank, which serviced credit arrangements for
Respondent, testified that on August 17, when he visited
Respondent's showroom in connection with a bank loan on
the purchase of a foreign car, Baker loudly remarked to an
unidentified person in the vicinity and within the hearing
of Cawby, "if you want to borrow money, don't go to the
chicken s- bank at 12th and Grant at Traders." Baker not
only denied making the remark but claimed that Cawby
insulted him by commenting upon his meanness . Cawby's
forthright testimony is credited.
Keith also testified that he spoke to Baker on a few
occasions about his poor attitude, and decided to
discharge him several weeks prior to the end of August but
refrained from doing so because he (Keith) was new on the
job and he wished to wait until Baker wrapped up a few
loose ends in connection with his sales, and he was able to
obtain a replacement for him.
The day following Baker's discharge, Keith told the
salesmen at their daily meeting that Baker was discharged
because of his poor attitude and inability to get along with
the other salesmen and not because of his union activities.
C. Conclusions
1. The alleged discriminatory discharge
In order for General Counsel to prevail, he must
establish that Respondent was aware of Baker's union
sentiments or activity, and that it was motivated, at least in
part, to discharge him because of it. It appears, and I find,
that Respondent was given advance notice by the Motor
Car Dealers Association of the Union's meeting of
August 28, and was requested to report any information
pertaining to the meeting. It appears further, and I find,
that Nye inquired of a small group of employees whether
any of them had attended the meeting, and that Baker
responded that he had, that the attendance of other
947
salesmen was poor, and that the salesmen were asked to
distribute authorization cards and to solicit members.
Keith by his own admission also found out that
authorization cards had been distributed to salesmen. It
accordingly follows, and I conclude, that Respondent not
only had knowledge of the Union' s organizational
campaign , but also of Baker's participation.
The issue involving Respondent' s motivation in
discharging Baker must be resolved in the context of 'the
entire record, including his behavior and work during his
employment. Respondent contends, as related above, that
Baker was discharged because of his negative attitude, his
constant and excessive carping, his inability to get along
with his fellow salesmen , his obscene language in the
presence of women employees and customers, and his
refusal to cooperate with management with respect to
doing certain chores which were ordinarily performed by
employees who were then out on strike. The
uncontradicted evidence, however, shows that when
discharged, Baker was told only that it was because of his
attitude and the influence he wielded over his fellow
salesmen . The following morning, Keith also told the
salesmen at their regular sales meeting that Baker was
discharged because of poor attitude and inability to get
along with the other salesmen and not because he
attended the union meeting. No mention or reference was
made by Keith on either of these two occasions to Baker's
use of obscene language or other offensive behavior.
James L. Monk was the only salesman called to support
Respondent's contention that Baker was unable to get
along with his fellow salesmen . Yet, his testimony not only
fails to establish that contention, but actually indicates
that on one occasion Baker helped him with a sale. I find it
incongruous for Respondent to complain of Baker's
inability to get along with the other salesmen , which would
indicate a lack of influence over them, and at the same
time to contend that Baker was fired in order to remove his
influence. He, apparently, did exert influence over the
other salesmen , and it would not be unreasonable to infer
that Respondent believed the influence of a union-minded
or interested employee would work to its disadvantage.
The incidents related above regarding Baker's conduct
toward Murphy and Cawby are not to be treated lightly or
condoned, and I am not unmindful of the irritant Baker
may have been. Yet, Respondent took no disciplinary
action when notified of these incidents. Baker was spoken
to, but was not even warned of possible drastic retribution.
Apparently, Respondent endured Baker's attitude and
behavior until it learned of his attendance at the union
meeting. In fact, on that very day Respondent made the
final decision to fire him. It was also on that day that Baker,
told Keith there was a need to do something about shorter
working hours and a guaranteed wage for salesmen.
As for Baker's alleged chronic carping, his use of
obscene language, criticism of management personnel,
and excessive sitting at his desk, it appears that other
salesmen were not adverse to indulging in these vices, but
it was claimed that Baker offended more frequently and to
a greater degree. Even assuming that a lawful cause for
discharge was available to Respondent, it is no defense
where the employer is motivated, in part , by reason of the
employee's union proclivities. Thus, the Board with court
approval has held "the mere existence of valid grounds for
a discharge is no defense to a charge that the discharge
was unlawful, unless the discharge was predicated solely
on those grounds." N.L.R.B. v. Symons Manufacturing
Co., 328 F.2d 835, 837 (C.A. 7). See also N.L.R.B. v. Ace
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Comb Co., 342 F.2d 841 (C.A. 8), where this doctrine was
approved.
Other circumstances attending Baker's discharge are
also revealing. Thus, the timing of his discharge is
important in ascertaining the true motive for dismissal and
assessing its legality. Texas Industries, 156 NLRB 423,
425. Nothing untoward had happened on the morning of
his discharge or the previous afternoon which could have
precipitated his discharge about mid-morning following his
attendance at a salesmen's meeting. The only significant
event around the time of his discharge was the discovery
of the preceding day that he had become interested in the
Union.10 Moreover, at no time had Baker ever been
warned that he was vulnerable to discharge because of his
attitude or behavior.
I find no merit in Respondent's assertions that the
decision to fire Baker was made several weeks earlier and
was not implemented until August 30 because they were
short of help and wished to obtain a replacement before
laying him off, and there were several outstanding pending
sales of Baker which had to be consummated. The record
shows that Baker made only one sale in June and two in
July, while he completed seven sales in August, and had
six pending which were not consummated until after he
left. Surely, it would have been less troublesome or
complicated to have discharged him during the month he
did little business rather than in August when his sales
were greatest. It is also significant to note that Baker's
competency in his work was not impugned despite his
alleged negative or defeatist attitude. Viewing the entire
record, I am convinced that Respondent was influenced
and motivated to some extent to discharge Baker because
of his union interest, and not solely by reason of the
grounds asserted by it.
D. The Alleged Violative Interrogation
The complaint herein also alleges that Respondent, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1), interrogated its employees
concerning the Union. The only evidence concerning
possible violative interrogation consists, as related above,
of Nye's conversation with Baker on the morning of
August 29 relating to whether any of the employees
attended the union meeting and whether there was a good
turnout, and Keith's conversation with Baker also on
August 29, in which he asked what good the Union could
do for him. Nye's interrogation not only revealed Baker's
interest in the Union, but also provided information
concerning the Union's organizing progress, which, no
doubt, would be of interest to the Motor Car Dealers
Association, as indicated in its letter to Respondent. It is
also significant to note that the purpose of Nye's
interrogation was neither explained nor was any assurance
given against retaliation. Under these circumstances it
was much more likely to have a coercive effect. Martin
Sprocket & Gear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 329 F.2d 417 (C.A. 5).
Furthermore, from the nature of the information sought,
especially in the light of the subsequent discharge of
Baker, it appears that the interrogator was seeking
information on which to base action against individual
employees. Also, in determining the violative character of
the interrogation, it is significant to consider the position
of the interrogator in the Company's hierarchy. See
Bonnie Bourne d/b/a Bourne Co. v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 47,
10 Keith's testimony also acknowledged that on that day he
became aware of the fact that authorization cards had been
48 (C.A. 2). As vice president and general manager, Nye
clearly held a top spot in Respondent 's hierarchy.
Moreover , even assuming that but one incident of
interrogation occurred it would not affect a finding of
violation . The courts have held that even a single question
put to a single employee may be a violation if there is a
background of union hostility , and that the significance of
a particular act of interrogation is to be determined in the
light of the entire record in the case . N.L.R.B. v. Lexington
Chair Co., 361 F.2d 283, 290 (C.A. 4); N.L.R.B. v. Griggs
Equipment , Inc., 307 F.2d 275 (C.A. 5). Accordingly, I
conclude on the record in its entirety that Respondent
unlawfully interrogated Baker within the meaning of
Section 8 (a)(1).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with 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.
Upon the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all times material herein the Union has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2. At all times material herein, Respondent has been
engaged in commerce as an employer within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminatorily discharging Edmund C. Baker
and refusing to reinstate him, thereby discouraging
membership in the above Union, Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
including the posting of appropriate notices, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Edmund C. Baker was
discriminatorily discharged, I shall recommend that he be
offered full and immediate reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges. I shall also
recommend that Respondent make him whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of his
discrimination in accordance with the formula set forth in
distributed because one of the salesmen had placed his card in
the Company's mailbox for delivery to the Union.
BROADWAY MOTORS FORD
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices
engaged in by Respondent , I shall also recommend that it
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, I
recommend that Broadway Motors. Inc., d/b/a Broadway
Motors Ford, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their statutory rights by
interrogating them within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to
join , form, or assist United Auto Workers (U.A.W.),
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any and all such activities.
(c) Discouraging membership in United Auto Workers
(U.A.W.), AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discharging employees and refusing to reinstate them
because of their union activities, or in any other manner
discriminating against them with respect to their hire or
tenure of employment or any other term or condition of
employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Edmund C. Baker full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights or privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of pay in the manner
described in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Notify Edmund C. Baker 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.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its showroom in Kansas City, Missouri,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.""
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in
949
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.12
"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 "
12 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 interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act by interrogating them about their
union sympathies or interest within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the right to self-organization to form, join, or assist
United Auto Workers (UAW), AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in
any other concerted activity for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all of such
activities.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership of our
employees in United Auto Workers (UAW),
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by
discharging and refusing to reinstate employees
because of their union activities, or in any other
manner discriminating against them in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment, or any term or
condition of employment.
WE WILL offer Edmund C. Baker immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make him whole for wages lost as a result of the
discriminatory termination of his employment and
refusal to reinstate hiim.
All our emplemployees are free to become, or refrain
from becoming, members of the above-named organization
or any other labor organization.
BROADWAY MOTORS, INC.,
D/B/A BROADWAY MOTORS
FORD
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
299-352 0-70-61
950 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Note: We will notify Edmund C . Baker 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 , 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, 610 Federal
Building , 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri
64106 , Telephone 374-5181.