Calvin Guthrie

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 25, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 367 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

CALVIN GUTH.RIE. 367
CALVIN GUTHRIE and BAKERY DRIVERS AND SALESMEN LOCAL UNION No.
567, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL
'SOUTH TACOMA MOTOR Co. and BAKERY DRIVERS AND SALESMEN LOCAL
UNION No. 567, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Cases Nos.
19-CB-159 and 19-CA-3644. July 25, 1952
Decision and Order
On December 27, 1951, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
both Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the-Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent Guthrie had not engaged in certain other alleged
unfair labor practices, and recommended dismissal of these allegations
of the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent Company filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. No excep-
tions were filed by Respondent Guthrie.
The Respondent Company's request for oral argument is denied
inasmuch as the record, including the brief and exceptions, in our
opinion, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board 1 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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations, with the following additions and modifications 2
1. We find, like the Examiner, that employee Johnson caused Re-
spondent Guthrie, business agent of the Clerks Union, to take up with
Respondent Company on April 6, 1950, a grievance concerning the
failure of management to give the salesmen the share of the proceeds
of the "house deals" which the salesmen were entitled to receive under
their contract. We find, also, that the Respondent Company believed
that either Johnson or Pevey, another salesman, was responsible for
1 Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peter-
son].
e As no party has excepted to the Trial Examiner 's findings that Respondent Guthrie
violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, but did not violate Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act,
we adopt those findings. _
100 NLRB No. 58. -
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.the filing of this grievance, which resulted in a settlement unfavorable
to management , and that, as a measure of reprisal Respondent Com-
pany after April 6, 1950, as found by the Trial Examiner, discrimi-
nated against Johnson and Pevey in the allotment of cars to fill orders
obtained by them, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 3
2. We find that Johnson was discharged because of the Company's
belief that either he or Pevey had filed with Guthrie the complaint
concerning the house deals, a protected concerted activity, and because
of Johnson's adherence to the Teamsters. We find, therefore, like
the Trial Examiner, that Johnson's discharge violated Section 8 (a)
(1) and (3) of the Act. In reaching this conclusion, we have relied
on the following considerations :
The Company conceded that Johnson was a competent salesman.
In fact, both before and during his employ by the Company he had
won various awards for his ability as a salesman.
After April 6, Sheehan, the Respondent Company's general man-
uger, on several occasions expressed to Jaques, the new-car sales
manager, the belief that the "house deals" complaint had been filed
either by Johnson or Pevey, and stated that as soon as it had been
determined who was responsible, that person "would be dealt with
accordingly." As already found, Sheehan lost no time in punishing
the two suspected salesmen by discriminating against them in the
allotment of cars. While this discrimination ceased with respect to
Pevey after he protested, it continued unabated with respect to
Johnson.
As Sheehan, despite repeated inquiries, was unable to confirm his
suspicion that Johnson had filed the complaint regarding the house
deals, no further action was taken against him until management
learned that on September 30, 1950, at the Roberts' house party, John-
son had signed a card for the Teamsters. Management's knowledge
of this fact was amply demonstrated by the conversation of October 2,
1950, between Jaques and Wallerich, vice president of the Company.
Wallerich's remarks reflected a knowledge of what had happened at
the house party and it is significant that in those remarks reference
was made by Wallerich to Johnson, both in connection with the Rob-
erts' house party and in connection with the identity of the person
who filed the house deals complaint. The record shows, as the Trial
8 The Examiner found that , in reprisal for the filing of the grievance of April 6, 1950,
the Respondent Company also required the salesmen to work every Saturday , instead of
every other Saturday , as they had done theretofore . However, we are not convinced that
the preponderance of the evidence establishes that this change in schedule was instituted
for discriminatory reasons rather than for the economic reasons alleged by the Company.
There is undisputed evidence in the record that the volume of business on Saturday was
at least as great as on other days . Moreover , as management ' s revenue from house deals
had been decreased by the April 6 settlement , the Company had less incentive to maintain
the old Saturday schedule which required management representatives to supplement the
efforts of the salesmen . Accordingly , unlike the Trial Examiner , we do not find that the
change in Saturday schedules violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act
CALVIN GUTHRIE 369
Examiner found, that the Company was opposed to the replacement
of the Clerks Union by the Teamsters as the representative of its
employees, because of the higher wage scales in Teamsters' contracts
outside Tacoma. Accordingly, on October 2, the Company had two
'reasons to be displeased with Johnson-(1) his apparent responsi-
bility for the house deals complaint, which had caused the Company
considerable financial loss, and (2) his known affiliation with the
Teamsters. Johnson was discharged the following day.
The Company contends that Johnson was discharged solely because
of the "Adler incident," which occurred on October 2, about the same
time as Jaques' talk with Wallerich. However, even accepting Shee-
han's version of this incident, we do not believe that Johnson's conduct
was so provocative that he would have been discharged on that account,
absent the other factors mentioned above.
The Adler incident arose when on October 2 a wrecked car recently
purchased by a Mr. Adler from the Respondent Company as a house
deal was towed into Respondent Company's service station. When
Sheehan deplored the damage to the car, Johnson, according to Shee-
han, said: "I don't feel bad about him [Adler] wrecking his car."
When pressed for an explanation by Sheehan, Johnson added : "He
wouldn't buy the car from me. He bought the car from you, and he
made a house deal out of it so that he could get a discount." Sheehan
thereupon remonstrated with Johnson, denying that any discounts
were given on house deals, and declaring that the Company had a right
to make house deals. After discussing the incident with Wallerich,
Sheehan determined to discharge Johnson.
Johnson's comment to Sheehan,' as quoted above, was prompted by
the fact that Adler's minor son had been a prospect of his, and Johnson
had suggested that, because of the boy's minority, the car be bought by
his father. However, the father thereafter made his purchase as a
house deal, thereby depriving Johnson of a full commission. Never-
theless, there was nothing in Johnson's remarks to imply, and Sheeha n
admittedly did not construe them as implying, that the Company knew
of Johnson's previous contact with the Adlers, and consciously circum-
vented Johnson in dealing with Adler. Johnson's resentment, as ex-
pressed in his remarks, was primarily directed against Adler rather
than against management. While there may have been implicit in his
remarks some criticism of the Company's alleged practice of paying
discounts on house deals, such criticism, even if not justified, would
seem to be no more than the voicing of a grievance against a manage-
ment practice. It is clear from the record that grievances of a similar
nature, such as protests against alleged discrimination in the allotment
of cars, or with respect to the proper distribution of commissions be-
tween salesmen who had both contacted the same prospect, were fre-
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
quently brought to the attention of management by salesmen, without
incurring reprisals.
Under all the circumstances, we find that the Adler incident was
merely utilized as a pretext for Johnson's discharge, the true reason
therefor being, as found above, his apparent responsibility for the
filing of the "house deals" complaint and his action in signing a
Teamsters' card.
We find, therefore, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that
Johnson's discharge violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that:
1. South Tacoma Motor Co., Tacoma, Washington, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
(a) Cease and desist from encouraging membership in Automobile
Salesmen Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, or discouraging
membership in Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, affiliated with American Federation of Labor,
or in any other labor organization of its employees by discharging,
refusing to reinstate, or in any other manner discriminating against,
them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of their employment.
(b) Depriving any of its salesmen of their legitimate allotment of
cars or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America,-affiliated with American Fed-
eration of Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively with representatives of their own choosing and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any and all such ac-
tivities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(c) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Offer to Tracy E. Johnson immediate and full reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority and other rights and privileges, and make him whole
for any loss of wages he may have suffered as a result of the discrimi-
nation against him, in the manner described in the Section of the In-
termediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
CALVIN GUTHRIE 371
(2) Upon request, make available to the Board for inspection and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary
to analyze the amounts of back pay due under this Order.
(3) Post on its premises in Tacoma, Washington, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix
A."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Nineteenth Region, Seattle, Washington, shall, after being
duly signed by Respondent Company's authorized representative, be
posted by the aforesaid Respondent Company immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the aforesaid Respondent Company to insure that such notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(4) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region,
Seattle, Washington, in writing, within ten (10) days from the date
of this Order what steps the Respondent Company has taken to comply
therewith.
IT Is F JRTHER ORDERED that the remaining allegations of the com-
plaint concerning violations of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act be, and
they hereby are, dismissed.
II. Calvin Guthrie, secretary-treasurer and business agent of Auto-
mobile Salesmen Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International
Association, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, shall:
(a) Cease and desist from threatening employees of South Tacoma
Motor Co., Tacoma, Washington, and members of Automobile Sales-
men Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Association,
affiliated with American Federation of Labor, with loss of employ-
ment, other reprisals, or loss of membership in Clerks Union if they
join or assist Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, affiliated with American Federation of
Labor, or any other labor organization, and from restraining or coerc-
ing said employees and said members in any like or related manner in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and
4 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words , "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof , the words , "A Decision and Order." If this
Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substi-
tuted for the aforesaid words, "A Decision and Order ," the words , "A Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order "
227260-53-vol. 100-25
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
marked "Appendix B," 5 to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Nineteenth Region, Seattle, Washington, shall, immediately upon
receipt, thereof, be duly signed by Calvin Guthrie, and shall be posted
:ind maintained by him for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places in the local business office of Automobile Sales-
men Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Association at
Tacoma, Washington, where notices to members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by him to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material.
(2) Additional copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate
Report,'and marked "Appendix B," to be furnished by the aforesaid
Regional Director, shall be signed by Calvin Guthrie and shall be
forthwith returned by him to the said Regional Director. The notices
shall then be posted, Respondent Company willing, on the bulletin
board of South Tacoma Motor Co., where notices to employees are
customarily posted, and shall remain posted for a period of sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter.
(3) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps
Respondent Guthrie has taken to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the complaint concern-
ing violations of Section 8 (b) (2) be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words , "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner " in the caption thereof, the words, "A Decision and Order." If this
Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , there shall be substi-
tuted for the aforesaid words, "A Decision and Order" the words , " A Decree of the United
States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon two separate charges duly filed by Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local
Union No. 567 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
herein called Teamsters , the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, herein respectively called the General Counsel and the Board ,, by the
Regional Director of the Nineteenth Region ( Seattle, Washington), issued his
consolidated complaint ' on September 21, 1951, against Calvin Guthrie, herein
called Respondent Guthrie, and South Tacoma Motor Co., Tacoma , Washington,
herein called Respondent Company, and collectively herein called Respondents,
alleging that the Respondent Company had engaged in , and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and
(3) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
61 Stat. 136 , herein called the Act, and that Respondent Guthrie had engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1 By order dated September 21, 1951, the aforesaid Regional Director consolidated Case
No 19-CB-159 and Case No. 19-CA-364.
CALVIN GUTHRIE 373
Copies of the consolidated complaint, charges, notice of hearing, and order of
consolidation were duly served upon each * Respondent and upon Teamsters.
With respect to the unfair labor practices of the Respondent Company, the
complaint alleged in substance that (1) since on or about April 11, 1950,' the
said Respondent engaged in certain acts and conduct and made certain state-
ments which interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; and (2) discriminatorily dis-
charged Tracy E. Johnson on October 3, and since that date has refused to
reemploy him, because (a) Johnson had engaged in concerted activities with his
coworkers for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and
protection, (b) Johnson had designated Teamsters to represent him as his col-
lective bargaining representative and encouraged other employees of the Respond-
ent Company to do likewise, and (c) Respondent Guthrie had requested Johnson's•
discharge even though Respondent Company has reasonable grounds for believing
that the discharge request was for reasons other than Johnson's failure to tender
the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of
acquiring or retaining membership in Automobile Salesmen Union Local No. 1048,
Retail Clerks International Association, affiliated with American Federation of
Labor, herein called Clerks Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices of Respondent Guthrie, the complaint
alleged in substance that he (a) on or about October 2, caused Respondent Com-
pany to discharge Johnson, and thereafter refuse him reinstatement, for reasons
other than Johnson's failure to tender his periodic dues and initiation fees
uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership in Clerks
Union; (b) on or about September 27, engaged in surveillance of the Respondent
Company's employees, and others' attendance at a Teamsters organizational
meeting; and (c) since on or about September 27, threatened Respondent Com-
pany's employees, and others, with expulsion from the Clerks Union should they
authorize Teamsters to represent them as their collective bargaining represent-
ative or should they become members of Teamsters.
Each Respondent duly filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was duly held in Tacoma, Washington, from
October 8 ,to 13, 1951, both dates inclusive, before the undersigned, the duly desig-
nated Trial Examiner. The General Counsel, each Respondent, and Teamsters
were represented by counsel. All parties participated,in the hearing and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues.
At the conclusion of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, counsel for Respondent
Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint for lack of proof. De-
cision thereo; was reserved. At the conclusion of the taking of the evidence,
counsel for each Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof.
Decision was reserved. The motions are disposed of in accordance with the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations hereinafter set forth. Oral argu-
ment, in which counsel for all parties participated, was then had. The parties
were then advised that they might file briefs with the undersigned on or before
October 31, 1951. A brief has been received from counsel for the for the Re-
spondent Company which has been carefully considered by the undersigned.
2 Unless otherwise noted, all dates refer to 1950.
8 At the request of counsel for the Respondent Company, the time was extended to
November 9. 1951.
374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL .LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE ]BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
- South Tacoma Motor Co., a Washington corporation , has-its principal offices
and place of business in Tacoma , Washington , where it is engaged in the sale
and service of new Chevrolet automobiles and trucks and in the sale of used
automobiles , trucks, automotive parts, accessories , and equipment . The Respond-
cut Company 's annual sales , particularly those of 1950 , exceed $1,000 ,000. The
said Respondent operates under, and by virture of, a franchise or sale agreement
granted to it by General Motors Corporation , Chevrolet Division . All the new
Chevrolet automobiles and trucks purchased by Respondent Company are
shipped to its premises from a General Motors Corporation plant located in
the, State of Oregon.
Upon the above undisputed facts, the undersigned finds that the Respondent
Company is , and during all times material herein was, engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act. The undersigned further finds that it will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction over the
Respondents.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Auto-
mobile Salesmen Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, each affiliated with American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations
admitting to membership employees of the Respondent Company.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background 4
'During all times material herein, the Clerks Union, of which Respondent
Guthrie has been its secretary-treasurer and business agent since January 1947,
and the Tacoma Automobile Dealers Association, Inc., herein called the Asso-
ciation, of which Respondent Company has been a member for many years, have
had a contract or contracts affecting, among other things, the wages, hours, and
working conditions of the employees of the individual members of the Asso-
ciation.
In the latter part of March or early in April 1950, Tracy E. Johnson, a sales-
Man for the Respondent Company, telephoned to Respondent Guthrie and re-
quested a copy of the current contract between the Clerks Union and the Asso-
4 Since the events detailed in this section occurred 6 months prior to the service of the
charges upon the Respondents herein they do not constitute unfair labor practices They
are material and relevant, however, to a consideration of the Respondents', especially that
qR Respondent Company's, subsequent conduct and practices and to a determination of the
issues raised by the pleadings herein regarding events which transpired within the permis-
sive period. Cf N. L. R. B. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc, 303 U. S 261;
N. L. R B. v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc, 303 U. S. 272; N. L. R. B. v. Newport News
Shipbuilding d Dry Dock Co., 308 U S. 241. The same procedure has been followed, with
judicial approval, in considering unfair labor practices of labor organizations under the
amended Act, which under the original Act were not unfair labor practices. N. L. R. B. v.
Local 74, 181 F. 2d 126 (C. A. 2) ; N. L. R. B. v. National Maritime Union of America, 175
F. 2d 686 (C. A. 2).
'CALVIN GUTHRIE '375
ciation. When Guthrie inquired the reason for the request, Johnson replied
that the Respondent Company's salesmen believed that they were not receiving
their full share of the "house deals." a Guthrie then asked if Johnson wanted
to file a formal complaint. The latter replied that he was not ready to do so, at
that time.' Guthrie then stated that be would supply Johnson with a copy of
the contract.
A few days later, Guthrie called at the Respondent Company' s premises and
informed Glenn W. Jaques, Respondent Company's then new-car sales man-
ager, that he had some papers for Johnson and since Johnson was not there,
asked whether he could leave the papers with Jaques. Jaques declined to accept
the papers and suggested that Guthrie put them in Johnson's desk. Guthrie
-then stated, according to Jaques' credited testimony, "the salesmen were wise
to the house deals, and something should be done about it"; when Jaques asked
Guthrie "to elaborate" the latter said, "Well, so you might as well go ahead and
pay off on the deals now, and then pull it back to some $15, $20, or $25, as a token
payment per month per salesman in the future" ; and after Jaques advised
Guthrie to take the matter up with General Manager Guy K. Sheehan, Guthrie
went to Johnson's desk, deposited some papers therein, and left the premises.'
Several days after he received and read the contract, and after discussing the
house deal clause with some of his coworkers, Johnson telephoned Guthrie and
told him that, in his opinion, the Respondent Company was not correctly living
up to the terms of the contract respecting the house deals and requested Guthric,
to take the necessary action with respect thereto. In reply to Guthrie's inquiry
as to whether he desired to file a formal complaint, Johnson replied in the
affirmative.
Pursuant to arrangements made by and between Guthrie and Sheehan, a meet-
ing of all the salesmen, Sheehan, and Guthrie was had on the night of April 6.
Bill Leak, a representative of the Industrial Conference Board, was present at
Sheehan's request. There, after a lengthy discussion of the contract's house deal
clause between Sheehan, Leak, and Guthrie,' it was finally agreed that the manner
in which the Respondent Company was interpreting the clause was erroneous
and that in the future it would accept the Clerks Union's interpretation with
which interpretation Leak concurred. The salesmen, after taking a vote among
'themselves outside the presence of Guthrie, Sheehan, and Leak, stated that the
agreement' was satisfactory to them.
During the course of the aforesaid meeting, Sheehan asked Guthrie, according
to credited testimony of Johnson and salesman Kenneth Hopper, what salesman
"'House deals" means automobiles and trucks sold by management . Pursuant to the
ternrs of the Association and Clerks Union contract, management was to prorate the cony
missions made on the said sales among the salesmen in the employ of the respective dealer
over and above three sales if the dealer employed three or more salesmen. Other provisions
for the division of the commissions are set forth in the contract when the dealer has lets
than three salesmen.
9 Johnson testified that he desired to read the contract before deciding whether he should
request Guthrie to take action.
' Guthrie denied that he made the above-quoted statements attributed to hint by Jaques.
The undersigned rejects Guthrie 's denials Jaques impressed the undersigned as a credible
and forthright witness. Furthermore, according to Johnson's credited testimony, Jaques
told him, during a conversation he had with Jaques about the contract , that on the day
Guthrie put the contract in his desk Guthrie remarked to Jaques, "the boys were wise to
the house deals and [management] had better divvy up on a few of them for a couple of
months, and then they might get by on $25 or $30 a month."
8 From time to time, Johnson and several other salesmen expressed their thoughts about
the matter under discussion.
9 The agreement was to pay the salesmen a pro rata share of the commissions on all
house deals over three and the payments were to be made retroactive to March 1.
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
made the complaint about the house deals but Guthrie refused to reveal that
person's identity. Sheehan also remarked that, according to Johnson's credited
testimony,10 if his interpretation of the contract was erroneous then he might
departmentalize the salesmen; that is, place two salesmen exclusively selling new
cars, two exclusively selling used cars, and the other two exclusively selling new
and used trucks."
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion by Respondent Company; Johnson's
discriminatory discharge
About a week or 10 days after the afore-mentioned meeting of April 6, Sheehan
Instructed Jaques to keep a closer check on the salesmen and to see that they did
not congregate nor engage in "bull sessions."
Jaques testified, and the undersigned finds, that during a course of several
conversations he had with Sheehan'12 Sheehan asked him who asked Guthrie for
a copy of the collective bargaining contract and "what salesman or salesmen filed
the formal complaint with Guthrie ; that he replied that he did not know ; that
Sheehan stated that his belief was that Pevey or Johnson was "the trouble-
maker"; that Sheehan stated he suspected Pevey or Johnson as the person who
questioned Sheehan's interpretation of the contract's house deals clause ; that
Sheehan also said that as soon as it was ascertained who actually made the
complaint, "they would be dealt with accordingly" ; and that Sheehan further
remarked that in the future, Sheehan exclusively would allocate the cars among
the salesmen 12
Jaques further testified that "the first thing in retaliation" Sheehan ordered
all salesmen to work at the Respondent Company's place of business every
Saturday ; 11 that Sheehan discriminated against Pevey and Johnson in the
allotment of cars;" that on many occasions Sheehan sought to elicit from him
the name of the person who was responsible for lodging the complaint with
Guthrie about the house deals ; and that Sheehan continued to believe it was
either Johnson or Pevey who had filed the complaint; and that on occasions
Sheehan would suggest that probably two other named salesmen were responsible
for filing the complaint 1e
On September 25, Sheehan and several other officials of the Respondent Com-
pany held their usual monthly meeting 14 with the salesmen. Normally, these
101n the main, salesman Dallas Pevey's version of Sheehan's remarks about depart-
mentalizing the salesmen is substantially in accord with Johnson's testimony.
11 By so doing, the salesnren's commissions would, by necessity, suffer because those selling
new cars would not be in a position to sell trucks or used cars, those selling trucks would be
prohibited from selling new or used cars, and the used-car salesmen could not sell either
trucks or new cars.
12 These talks took place over a period of a few days. The record indicates, and the
undersigned finds, that these talks started about a week or 10 days after the April 6
meeting.
13 Up to that time, Jaques and Sheehan jointly allocated the cars.
14 Prior thereto the salesmen worked "on the floor" every other Saturday, except during
the period of about a week each year when the new models were being displayed.
10 Pevey testified credibly and without contradiction that after noticing that for several
months he and Johnson were not receiving their full quota of cars, he complained to
Jaques about the matter and that thereafter he received his normal quota but Johnson
did not. Pevey further credibly testified that he advised Johnson to complain to Jaques
about not receiving his share of cars, but that Johnson refused to do so because Johnson
felt that he did not care to fight over the division of cars
10 Hopper credibly testified that a few days after the meeting of April 6, Jaques told
him the "management was out to get the man that turned in the complaint on the house
,deal "
11 Counsel referred to these meetings as "monthly meetings" although they were not
regularly held each month.
CALVIN GUTHRIE 377
meetings were confined exclusively to discussions regarding the sales end of
the Respondent Company's business. At this particular meeting, however,
a lengthy talk was given by Sheehan and another official regarding the merits
and advantages of the Respondent Company's collective bargaining contract
compared with the contracts then in force covering automobile salesmen in
other areas in the State of Washington, including the Seattle, Washington,
contract which Teamsters then had with the automobile dealers of that city 13
According to Hopper's credible testimony, Sheehan closed his remarks by stating,
"the contract we were working under was the best working agreement the auto-
mobile salesmen in Tacoma had ever enjoyed; that if [the salesmen] didn't
think along that same line, that [ the salesmen ] should not be in the automobile
business.""
On September 27 Teamsters held an organizational meeting at its Tacoma,
Washington, hall which was attended by some of the Respondent Company's
salesmen.`
On September 30 most of the Respondent Company's salesmen and their
respective wives attended a party given at the home of salesman James Roberts.
Jaques and his wife, although he was no longer in the employ of the Respondent
Company, also attended. During the course of the evening, the subject of unions
was discussed . There was also a discussion regarding the Taft-Hartley Act,
the merits of the Teamsters' Seattle contract, and the fact that Teamsters was
soliciting signatures from among the Tacoma automobile salesmen to certain
cards in order to secure a Board-conducted election. When it was revealed that
all the salesmen present, except Johnson and Henry Peterson, had previously
signed Teamsters' cards, Johnson asked for, and received from Hopper, a Team-
sters' card. Johnson thereupon signed the card and handed it to Hopper.
Peterson declined to sign.
On October 2, the first workday following the Roberts' party, Sheehan ad-
dressed the salesmen's daily sales meeting,21 and then told them, among other
things, that Clerks Union was holding a special meeting on October 4. Sheehan
also told the salesmen, according to Pevey's credible testimony, that an official of
the Clerk's Union would attend, that the salesmen should attend because "several
things" would probably be clarified at this meeting."
Jaques testified that on the day before the Roberts' party, he was at the place of
business of the Respondent Company and saw Vice President C. W. Wallerich;
that during his conversation with Wallerich, he told Wallerich, among other
things, that since leaving the employ of the Respondent Company," he had been
employed only for approximately 5 weeks ; that Wallerich responded, "Well, per-
is At the time of this meeting , Teamsters was attempting to organize the Tacoma,
Washington, automobile salesmen. In his remarks, Sheehan did not specifically allude to
the Seattle contract . The other official, however , did so. The record reveals , and the
undersigned finds, that the Seattle contract was more advantageous , from the salesmen's
point of view , than the Respondent Company's.
19 Pevey ' s account of Sheehan ' s closing remarks are in substantial accord with Hopper's
version thereof.
20 This meeting is discussed more fully below.
21 These meetings are usually conducted by the new -car sales manager. Only occasionally
does Sheehan attend.
22 Hopper credibly testified that at the October 2 sales meeting Sheehan also said that in
case a vote was taken at the October 4 Clerks Union meeting the salesmen should vote
according to their desires "so that nothing would be put over" on them. Johnson, Pevey,
and Hopper each testified , and the undersigned finds, that he did not know that the Clerks
Union had called a meeting for October 4, until he was so informed by Sheehan on
October 2
23 Jaques voluntarily quit the Respondent Company's employ about July 1, 1950.
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
haps you could use your bonus," . . . I will get the records together, and if
you come on back tomorrow we will see if we can get together" ; that he returned
the next day ; that Wallerich was engaged at the moment ; that Wallerich re-
quested that he wait until he was free ; that he told Wallerich he would return
"the first of the week" ; and that when he saw Wallerich shortly before noon on
Monday, October 2, the following ensued : ,
The opening statement by Mr. Wallerich was that in checking he found
business was not as good as he had anticipated. This left a little lull, and
the general conversation followed, which turned into a practical discussion
of a change of heart regarding the bonus. And Mr. Wallerich then stated
emphatically that he had heard things that he could not attribute to me, lead-
ing into a conversation regarding the house party at Jim Roberts' house. He
seemed to be very well informed as to the conversations that had transpired,
and we again got into a discussion of the Taft-Hartley Act, which we had
discussed prior to my employment, and the sum and substance of the meeting
was that time would tell whether I was to receive a bonus or not 26
* * * * *
Naturally in the conversation in regard to the house party various names
were mentioned, and more prominently that of Tracy Johnson, and I assured
Mr. Wallerich to the best of my knowledge that due to the fact that I did
not know who had requested the copy of the contract, that I did not believe
that Tracy Johnson had ; and we talked about that for some period of time.
He seemed to have more information than I did, so naturally we talked in
generalities.
* * * * s
I told Mr. Wallerich that I had been contacted by [Teamsters to help
organize the Tacoma automobile salesmen] and had refused.
* * * *
He said he had been informed that I was' the one behind all of the . . .
union activities . . . but that he could not believe it.. . .
Wallerich's testimony regarding Jaques consists mainly of a complete denial
of Jaques' testimony. Specifically, he denied knowing of the Roberts' party of
September 30, until Sheehan told him about it sometime in November ; that he
did not discuss with Jaques on or before October 2, the invitation extended to
Jaques by Teamsters to aid its organizational drive ; 2' that Jaques never made
any reference to, or mention of, attending the Roberts' September 30 party in
any conversation he had with Jaques; and that he never told Jaques that he
knew "all about [the Roberts'] party."
As found above, Jaques was a credible and honest witness. It was evident
to the undersigned that Wallerich, while he was on the witness stand, was with-
holding the true facts regarding this case. Under the circumstances, the under-
signed finds Jaques' versions of what transpired in his talks with Wallerich
on September 29, 30, and October 2 Y to be substantially in accord with the facts.
14 Jaques had an agreement with the Respondent Company whereby he was to receive
a year-end bonus as new-car sales manager ; that he received such compensation in
January 1950, based upon the amount of business done in 1949. According to his testi-
mony, it was his understanding that he would receive a bonus based upon the amount
of business done during the first 6 months of 1950.
26 At the time of the hearing, Jaques had not received the 1950 bonus.
26 Wallerich testified that he discussed this matter with Jaques sometime in the spring
of 1951.
27 Wallerich did not deny that he conversed with Jaques on the above-mentioned dates
CALVIN GUTHRIE 379
About 10 or 10: 30 on the morning of October 2, Sheehan and Johnson became
involved in an argument about a car owned by a man named Adler. The car had
been wrecked and that morning it had been towed into the Respondent Company's
service station. It seems that Johnson had attempted, sometime previous to
October 2, to sell a car to young Adler, but could not do so because the young
man was under the age of 21. At the time Johnson spoke to young Adler about
the purchase of a car, Johnson suggested that the car be purchased by the young
man's father. The father did purchase the car but did so through Wallerich. By
§o purchasing the car, Johnson received no commission on the deal. This per-
turbed Johnson, but he made no mention of his feelings to anyone connected with
the Respondent Company until the day the car was brought into the service
station badly wrecked. The record is clear that Johnson and Sheehan engaged
in a very heated argument over the car, that Sheehan resented Johnson's insinua-
tions that the Respondent Company cheated Johnson out of the deal and had sold
the car to Adler at a discount.
Early in the afternoon of the same day, October 2, Sheehan informed Wallerich
of his argument with Johnson and advised Wallerich that he "had made up" his
mind to discharge Johnson. Wallerich, according to Sheehan, replied, "You are
the manager of the place. Do what you wish to do." 28
After discussing the Johnson matter with Wallerich, Sheehan telephoned
Guthrie, told him about Johnson's remarks of that morning, and then advised
Guthrie that he had decided to discharge Johnson. Sheehan testified that
Guthrie neither approved nor disapproved of the contemplated action2B Guthrie,
on the other hand , testified that after Sheehan told him about Johnson 's remarks
and the decision to discharge Johnson, he replied, "Okay, Mr. Sheehan. Remem-
ber, I will see Tracy, there are two sides to every story. And I hung up."
Johnson credibly testified that on the morning of October 3, he was alone in
the office of the new-car sales manager ; that he overhead a conversation between
Sheehan and Wallerich ; that he heard either Sheehan or Wallerich mention his
name and Hopper's name ; that he heard Wallerich ask Sheehan whether Guthrie
or Guthrie's union had been notified ; and that apparently Sheehan answered in
the affirmative for Wallerich then said, "Well, go ahead and let Johnson go, and
we will see what happens, or we will see what comes about." Johnson further
credibly testified that upon leaving the office of the' new-car sales manager, he
told Fred Hoiland, the used-car manager, that he overheard Sheehan and Wal-
lerich discuss his probable discharge; that Holland said, "Well, maybe I can find
out something about it"; and that Holland departed, remained away about 10
minutes, and when he returned he merely shook his head without making any
comment. That afternoon, October 3, Sheehan discharged Johnson.
On the night of October 4, Johnson attended the special meeting of the Clerks
Union, which, as found above, Sheehan suggested that the Respondent Company's
salesmen attend. There, Johnson informed International Representative Paul
Hanson, who presided at the meeting, of his discharge. Hanson referred him to
28 Sheehan testified that this conversation with Wallerich lasted about 15 or 30 minutes.
Wallerich testified, "Mr Sheehan came into my office and told me what he had planned
on doing I suppose more or less to see whether I had any objection to it, and I told him
that I saw no reason why he shouldn't go ahead with what he said he wanted to do;
and that was the end of it. As I [testified] the other day, I was very involved in other
transactions , and I didn't want to be bothered with this , putting it in a blunt way."
Wallerich further testified, "I didn't talk to [Sheehan] very long about it."
2e Sheehan testified that he called Guthrie before he actually discharged Johnson in
order to obtain Guthrie's "clearance" although he knew that clearance was not necessary
since the contract with Guthrie's union permitted discharges without consultation with,
or approval of, the said union.
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR .RELATIONS BOARD
Guthrie. Johnson then told Guthrie that he had been discharged and asked
Guthrie if he could help him. Guthrie replied , "Well, I don't know as there is
anything I can do, but what is your story ." Johnson then told Guthrie, in the
presence of two officers of the Clerks Union, his version of what transpired
between him . arid Sheehan on October 2. Guthrie then stated , to quote Johnson,
"he did not know what he could do about it ; that Mr . Sheehan had told him that
I had made some kind of remark . . . about that I wished a man had got
killed."
On October 5 or 6, Guthrie and Johnson again met . Johnson asked Guthrie
whether the latter "had done anything" about his discharge, to which query
Guthrie replied in the negative. Johnson then asked Guthrie if he would help
him collect $49.19 due him from the Respondent Company. Guthrie replied that
he would not, adding that Johnson should seek the aid of Teamsters. When
Johnson insisted that it was Guthrie's duty to help collect the money, and not
Teamsters, Guthrie remarked, "Don't kid me. You have already been there."
When Johnson realized that it would avail him nought to argue further with
Guthrie, he said, "Oh, skip it, I will pay my dues." Guthrie replied, "I can't
accept them. You have got to take . . . this withdrawal card." Guthrie there-
upon reached into his pocket, took out a withdrawal card bearing Johnson's name,
dated October 2, and handed it to Johnson.
Upon the entire record in the case, as epitomized above, the undersigned is
convinced, and finds, that Johnson was discharged on October 3, and thereafter
refused reinstatement , because he had filed the house deals complaint with
Guthrio and because he had signified on September 30, by signing a 'teamsters
card, that he preferred to have Teamsters represent him rather than the Clerks
Union. The credible evidence clearly shows , as summarized above, Sheehan's
hostility toward Teamsters and his unmistakable preference for Clerks Union.
Sheehan's feelings with respect to these two unions was brought about, no doubt,
by the realization that if the salesmen repudiated Clerks Union and affiliated
themselves with Teamsters, the Respondent Company would be faced with the
demand for a collective bargaining contract similar in terms to the contract
Teamsters had with the Seattle, Washington, automobile dealers. Sheehan did
not want to be faced with such a demand, and with the ensuing possibility of hav-
ing to execute such a contract, and therefore attempted to nip in the bud the sales-
men's campaign to change affiliation by discharging Johnson, a known Teamsters
advocate , so as to demonstrate to Johnson 's coworkers that adherence to Team-
sters might lead to their discharges . The undersigned also finds that Johnson's
remarks to Sheehan on October 2 , although reprehensive in nature , was not the
motivating reason for Johnson's discharge, but they were merely seized upon by
the Respondent Company as a pretext. Accordingly the undersigned finds by
that discharging Tracy Johnson on October 3, 1950, the Respondent Company
violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act, thereby interfering with, restrain-
ing, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 thereof.
The undersigned further finds that, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act, the Respondent Company (1) compelled all its salesmen to work on its
premises on Saturdays because the said salesmen engaged in protected concerted
activities by having the Clerks Union require Respondent Company to comply
with the terms of its collective bargaining contract with respect to house deals,
and (2) discriminated for a period of time against Johnson and Pevey in allotting
cars to them because the Respondent Company suspected Johnson or Pevey, or
both, of filing the house deals complaint with Guthrie's union.
CALVIN GUTHRIE
C. Restraint and coercion by Guthrie
381
Dick Sifford, a member of Clerks Union and a salesman employed by a Tacoma
automobile dealer. other than the Respondent Company, credibly testified that
(,n or about, September 20, another automobile salesman, named Beachwood,
circulated a petition30 among some Tacoma automobile salesmen "requesting
the Teamsters Union to become [the Tacoma salesmen's] future representa-
tive" ; that about an hour after Beachwood had requested him and several others
to sign the petition, Guthrie approached him and "several of the boys" e. and
said, among other things, to quote Sifford, "It is too bad that the circulation [of
the petition] was made by [Beachwood] ... anybody , . . found out that had
signed those things, might as well look for a new job in the future, because they,
would be out of [the] union."
On September 27, Teamsters held an organizational meeting at the Teamsters
Hall in Tacoma, Washington. As soon as Guthrie became aware that such a
meeting was to be held, he admittedly attempted to communicate with the
various members of the executive board and the trustees of the Clerks Union
in order to inform them of the scheduled meetings'
Boucher credibly testified that Guthrie telephoned him on September 27, told
hint of the Teamsters meeting and then asked him "to go down and see who was:
going to this meeting" ; that he informed Guthrie that he could not accompany
Guthrie because of prior engagements ; and that on September 28 or 29, Guthrie:
came into the place where he then was working and told him that anyone"
who signed the Teamsters' petition, which was then being circulated among the
Tacoma automobile salesmen, would "automatically [be] discharged out of
their [en.ployment] and out of the union."
Pevey credibly testified that he attended the September 27 Teamsters meeting;,
that when he arrived at the Teamsters Hall, he saw Guthrie and Hyde "driving'
up and down in front of the place" ; and that "at the end of the meeting [Guthrie]
was parked opposite my automobile, which was sitting down a block away."
Guthrie testified, and the undersigned finds, that he asked Hyde "to go with
[him] clown there" ; that he and Hyde sat across the street from the Teamsters'
Hall where "some of the cars were parked" ; that they recognized some of the
persons who entered the Teamsters Hall ; and that he and Hyde remained in
the vicinity of the Teamsters Hall until about 10: 30 that night.
At the special October 4 Clerks Union meeting, which Sheehan advised Re-
spondent Company's salesmen to attend and over which Hanson presided, a mem-
ber complained from the floor that Guthrie had been threatening members with
loss of their jobs if they supported the Teamsters organizational campaign.
Hanson replied that no one would lose his job nor be expelled from Clerks Union
for "signing a petition" for Teamsters. Even though Guthrie attended the,
meeting, and presumably heard Hanson's statement that no one would lose his
job nor be expelled from Clerks Union for aiding the Teamsters' campaign,
Guthrie, nonetheless, about 2 or 3 weeks after the aforesaid meeting, stated to
Hopper, according to the latter's credible testimony, "anyone that was known to
have signed a [Teamster] petition could not be working in the City of Tacoma."
The above recital of the credible evidence, coupled with Guthrie's above-sum-'
marized admissions, leads to the inescapable conclusion that by Guthrie' s state-
ment to Sifford on or about September 20, by his statements to Boucher on Sep-
tember 28 or 29, by his statement to Hopper sometime in the latter part of
Sifford described the petition as being a " little square piece of paper."
si Two of the "several" were members of Clerks Union -
ss Guthrie was able only to contact President Clarence Hyde and Trustee Joseph A.
Boucher.
83 Presumably meaning any member of Clerks Union.
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
October, and by keeping under surveillance the September 27 Teamster meeting,"
Guthrie infringed upon the Respondent Company's employees' rights as guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that by the
above-referred-to statements and conduct Guthrie violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A)
of the Act.
The undersigned further finds, contrary to the General Counsel's contention,
that Guthrie did not "cause or attempt to cause" Johnson's discharge. The
record is clear, and the undersigned finds, that Sheehan had definitely decided
to discharge Johnson before Sheehan spoke to Guthrie on October 2. Therefore,
the undersigned will recommend that the allegations of the complaint that
Guthrie caused or attempted to cause Johnson's discharge in violation of Section
8 (b) (2) of the Act, be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Company and Respondent Guthrie, set forth
in section III, above, occurring in connection with the business operations of
the Respondent Company, set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and such of them as have been found to be unfair labor practices, tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Company and Respondent Guthrie have
engaged in unfair labor practices, the undersigned will recommend that they,
and each of them, cease and desist therefrom and take the following affirmative
action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since it has been found that Respondent Company discriminatorily discharged
Tracy E. Johnson on October 3, 1950, and thereafter refused to reinstate him,
because he had engaged in protected and concerted activities with his fellow
workers, as more fully set forth above, it will be recommended that Respondent
Company offer Tracy E. Johnson immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges and that the said Respondent Company make whole Tracy E.
Johnson for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him by payment to him of a sum of money equivalent to the amount he
normally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of his
discharge to the date of Respondent Company's offer of reinstatement, less his
net earnings during said period. Back pay shall be computed in the manner
established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company ui
The unfair labor practices found to have been engaged in by the Respondent
Company and Respondent Guthrie are of such character and scope that in order
to insure the employees here involved their full rights guaranteed by the Act,
it will be recommended that Respondent Company and Respondent Guthrie cease
and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing the
employees of Respondent Company and all members of Clerks Union "
Since it has been found that the evidence does not support the allegations of
the complaint that Respondent Guthrie caused or attempted to cause Respondent
a} Boucher credibly testified, and without contradiction, that the night of the Teamsters'
September 27 meeting, Guthrie telephoned him and asked him "to go down and see who
was going to this meeting."
85,90 NLRB 289.
86 May Department Stores, etc., 326 U. S. 376.
CALVIN GUTHRIE ' 383
Company to discharge Johnson, the undersigned will recommend that the allega-
tions of the complaint with respect to this matter be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and
Automobile Salesmen Union Local No. 1048, Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion, each affiliated with American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations
.within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Tracy
E. Johnson, thereby discouraging membership in Bakery Drivers and Salesmen
Local Union No. 567, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, affiliated with American Federation of Labor,
and encouraging membership in Automobile Salesmen Union Local No. 1048,
Retail Clerks International Association, affiliated with American Federation of
Labor, the Respondent Company has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Company has
engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. By threatening the members of Automobile Salesmen Union Local No. 1048,
Retail Clerks International Association, affiliated with American Federation of
Labor, and the employees of Respondent Company with discharge and expulsion
from the said union if they assisted, joined, or supported Bakery Drivers and
Salesmen Local Union No. 567, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, Respondent Guthrie has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) 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.
6. The Respondent Guthrie did not cause or attempt to cause the discharge of
Tracy E. Johnson and, therefore, the said Respondent Guthrie did not violate
Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT by reprisals or threats of reprisal interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization, to
form labor organizations, to join or assist BAKERY DRIVERS AND SALESMEN
LOCAL UNION No. 567, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD or TEAMSTERS , CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, affiliated with American
Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent
,384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that such right may be affected by an agreement which requires membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer to TRACY E. JOHNSON immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to any
seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by him and make
him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our discrimination
against him.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in AUTOMOBILE SALESMEN UNION
LOCAL No. 1048 , RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor, or discourage membership in BAKERY DRIVERS
AND SALESMEN LOCAL UNION No. 567, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor, by discriminatorily discharging any of our
employees or discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment
All our employees are free to become or remain or refrain from becoming or
remaining members of Bakery Drivers and Salesmen Local Union No. 567, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization, except to the extent that such right
,may be affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
SOUTH TACOMA. MOTOR CO,
Employer.
Dated --------------------- By --------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Appendix B
NOTICE
To ALL MEMBERS OF AUTOMOBILE SALESMEN UNION LOCAL NO. 1048, RETAIL CLERKS
'INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFFILIATED WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION or LABOR
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, I hereby notify you that :
I WILL NOT threaten employees of SOUTH TACOMA MOTOR CO or any mem-
ber of AUTOMOBILE SALESMEN UNION LOCAL No. 1048, RETAIL CLERKS INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, with loss of employment or other reprisals if they
join or assist BAKERY DRIVERS AND SALESMEN LOCAL UNION No. 567, INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,- WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, or any other labor organization.
I WILL NOT in any like or related manner coerce said employees or said
members in violation of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
Dated ------------------
CALVIN GUTHRIE.
------------------------------------------
(Secretary -Treasurer ) (Business Agent)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date .hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.