| |
| | [No title] |
 | | This letter again advised the employees that no striking employee had been or would be discharged because they ``choose to exercise their lawful right to strike,'' and went on to state that any contrary statements should be disregarded and that returning strikers would be accorded all rights provided by the Act. |
 | | The record establishes that the striking employees picketed at Respondent's facility, which is a two-story building with a parking lot in the rear, on most, if not all, days of the strike and that there was much shouting of invectives and insults between the strikers, the replacement employees, and Respondent's supervisors, especially Sandy Sanke. |
 | | Thus, several of the striking employees testified that the underlying purpose of the strike was to obtain a collective-bargaining agreement, which contained increased wages and benefits and provided for better treatment of the employees by Respondent. |
| www.nlrb.gov /nlrb/shared_files/decisions/315/315-22.txt (8331 words) |
|