A & D Davenport Transportation, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 463 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

A & D DAVENPORT TRANSPORTATION. INC. 463
A & D Davenport Transportation, Inc. and Sun-Fair
Special Service Transportation, a Division of A
& D Davenport Transportation, Inc. and Rich-
ard Warfield. Case 13-CA-18713
June 10, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 13, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Harold Bernard, Jr., issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief. The General Coun-
sel filed an answering brief.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, t and conclusions2 of the Administrative Law
i Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
We clarify, however, the chronology of events as reported by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge by finding, based on the credited testimony, thlt
Davenport's order to the drivers to "get the hell off the premises" oc-
curred after Montgomery had passed around the "questionnaire" and had
responded to drivers' questions about it.
We also note, as a matter of clarification, that, in referring to G.C.
Exh. 4-the letter sent by Respondent to the dischargees in July the
Administrative Law Judge clearly intended to also refer to G.C. Exh 5,
the actual "apology" statement that Montgomery required those wishing
to return to sign.
2 In addition to the reasons set forth by the Administrative Law Judge
for finding the July letter and apology to be violative of Sec 8(a)(l), we
note that G.C. Exh. 5 (the "apology" statement) included an admission
that the dischargee had in fact resigned, thus leaving the impression that
he was waiving any right to contend that he had been discharged for en-
gaging in protected concerted activity when, in fact, such activity was
the reason for his termination. Requiring such an admission as a prerequi-
site to employment is an interference with employee rights guaranteed by
Sec. 7. We shall amend the recommended Order accordingly.
We further observe that the unlawful character of Respondent's behav-
ior in passing around the April 3 questionnaire is highlighted by the fact
that, when one of the drivers asked if signing it would affect their jobs,
Montgomery answered that he did not know, leaving the drivers in
doubt as to whether they would be fired or otherwise adversely affected
if they formally expressed their dissatisfaction with current terms and
conditions of employment.
We reject Respondent's contention, made for the first time in its brief
in its brief in support of exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision, that it is a health care institution and that therefore the drivers
forfeited the protection of the Act by engaging in concerted refusal to
work without giving 10 days' notice pursuant to Sec. 8(g) of the Act
The strictures of Sec. 8(g) apply only to labor organizations as defined in
Sec. 2(5). Here, the group (unaffiliated with any existing labor organiza-
tion) was totally unstructured and was doing nothing more than present-
ing grievances; such a group is not a statutorily defined labor organiza-
tion. N.L.R.B. v. Long Beach Youth Center Inc., 591 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir
1979); Walker Methodist Residence and Health Care Cnter, Inc . 227
NLRB 1630, 1631 (1977). Further, the record here does not reveal a con-
certed refusal to work. While the drivers were apparently called in by
employee Warfield, Montgomery made no effort to counltermand War-
field's order, and did not order the assembled drivers ito return to work
Consequently, the drivers could assume that Montgomery had no objec-
tion to discussing the grievances then and there It being unnecessary to
the disposition of the case, we express no opinion as to whether Respond-
ent is a health care institution as defined in the Act
256 NLRB No. 79
Judge, as modified herein, and to adopt his recom-
mended Order, as modified.3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as niodi-
fied, and hereby orders that the Respondent, A &
D Davenport Transportation, Inc. and Sun-Fair
Special Service Transportation, a Division of A &
D Davenport Transportation, Inc., Chicago, Illi-
nois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in said recommended
Order, as modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph (b):
"(b) Requiring any employee, by signing a docu-
ment, letter or otherwise, to admit that he resigned
his job when in fact he or she had been discharged
for engaging in protected concerted activities and
requiring any employee to apologize for engaging
in concerted activities seeking better working con-
ditions, or to agree not to engage in such activities
as a condition of employment."
2. Add the following to paragraph 2:
"(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
:' Ihe Adrhinltlrttirit I asl Judge Inadvertently omitted from his rec
omnilnlded Order the requirementt (I;it Rctpodelnt no,ri) the Regional
l)irectoil -s tIo slhlt steps it has takent It, coinpl silh the ()rder We
shall iltild the recotmmendeld Order to include such a proi itoni
Menmher Jnkins would compute the interest due ,ion hackpia i ac
cordlance with his partial dissent in Olvmpic M,'edicl (rprratt, 2s5()
NlRIB 145 (1q0))
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice
and to carry out its provisions.
WE WILL. NOT require any employee, by
signing a document or other means, to choose
between engaging in concerted activities seek-
ing better working conditions and discharge.
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT require any employee, by
signing a document, letter or otherwise, to
admit that he resigned his job when he or she
in fact had been discharged for protected con-
certed activities, and we will not require em-
ployees to apologize for engaging in concerted
activities seeking better working conditions or
to agree not to engage in such activities as a
condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee be-
cause he engaged in concerted activities seek-
ing better working conditions.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of
your rights under Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer Richard Warfield, William
Butler, Louis Larkin, Bobby Bracy, Wardell
Madison, Henry Davis, and Michael Taylor
immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent jobs, without loss of
seniority or other rights and privileges, and
WE WILL make each of them whole, with in-
terest, for any loss of earnings suffered by
reason of our unlawful discrimination against
them.
A & D DAVENPORT TRANSPORTA-
TION INC. AND SUN-FAIR SPECIAL
SERVICE TRANSPORTATION, A DIVI-
SION OF A & D DAVENPORT TRANS-
PORTATION, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HAROLD BERNARD, JR., Administrative Law Judge: A
hearing was held on November 6, 7, 8, and 9, 1979, in
Chicago, Illinois, on the complaint allegations that Re-
spondent terminated employees because they engaged in
protected concerted activities thereby violating Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent's answer denied any vio-
lation of the Act and asserts that the employees voluntar-
ily quit their employment.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the witnesses, and a consideration of the parties' briefs, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. URISDICTION
Respondent admits, the record shows, and I find that
Respondent, an Illinois corporation engaged, inter alia, in
the transportation of handicapped, ambulatory, or medi-
cally infirmed persons to and from treatment centers and
their residences, is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act. President Dorothy Dav-
enport and Roy Montgomery, general manager, are ad-
mittedly agents of Respondent.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The credited testimony' shows as follows:
The April 3 Meeting
On April 3, Respondent's 11 medi-car drivers returned
to base around noon in response to a call over their
radios to ". . . return to base"; an unusual call given its
timing in midday when the record shows that there were
many deliveries or transporting of patients yet to be
completed. It is in serious dispute who gave the com-
mand, but I find it very unlikely that Respondent's gen-
eral manager, Roy Montgomery, or its dispatcher Rich-
ard Jones would make such a call and thereby willingly
risk a severe disruption in essential medical-patient serv-
ices, especially since the record is devoid of any emer-
gency warranting such a move. Moreover, as will be fur-
ther evident, there is no indication that Montgomery
made such a call as part of any plan to retaliate against
the drivers because of an earlier talk that morning with
driver Richard Warfield, wherein Warfield had regis-
tered requests with Montgomery for improved pay, hos-
pitalization, and other benefits on behalf of the drivers.
In fact, the record shows numerous prior contacts be-
tween the drivers and Montgomery between November
1978 and April 1979 (and among the drivers themselves)
without a trace of resentment or objection to such dis-
cussions on the part of Montgomery or any other Re-
spondent representative. I note also that driver Nixon
Goldsby testified, without denial by Warfield, that War-
field had telephoned him the night before with a message
that Warfield might call the men to base next day if he
were unsuccessful in efforts to secure improved benefits
from Montgomery. The fact that Warfield also had a
meeting that same evening he called Goldsby with four
other drivers on the same subject of his proposed efforts
the next day with Montgomery is consistent with the
view that the drivers were responding to a not unexpect-
ed directive by Warfield.
As the drivers pulled into base, parked, and then en-
tered the lounge, it is alleged that their vehicle keys
were taken from them, a further disputed occurrence,
and one wherein, for essentially the same reasons as
noted above, there is little reasonable basis on which to
make such a finding. Suffice it to say that such an allega-
tion flies in the face of earlier events, which show no re-
sentment, anger, animus, or displeasure by Respondent
towards the drivers' action, to that point in events at
least, as would in any way explain such a move. Were
Respondent bent on retaliating for the return to base
conduct alone, it is inescapable in my view that it would
have taken the simple step earlier of countermanding
Warfield's order, admittedly heard by Montgomery,
Jones, and a secretary in the office who recognized War-
' All testimony has been weighed carefully. The following is a com-
posite based on both credibility and, where conflicts arose which are not
resolvable on the basis of testimonial demeanor, the inherent likelihoods
or certainties as shown by admitted or known events.
A & D DAVENPORT TRANSPORTATION. INC. 465
field's voice when the order was given. No such coun-
termanding effort was made. Furthermore, the fact that
Montgomery, in an introduction-like gesture told the
then-assembled drivers that "Mr. Warfield is your
spokesman. I guess he wants to say something," suggests
the view that Respondent did not angrily take the driv-
ers' keys as they entered the meeting, but in fact, as-
sumed a wait-and-see, not inhospitable attitude towards
unfolding events.
This posture towards the employees' obvious inten-
tions to secure better pay, insurance benefits, and the like
changed drastically during the course of the meeting,
which lasted about an hour or so. Warfield, who had in-
formed Montgomery earlier that morning privately that
he was spokesman for the drivers and that they wanted
better pay, repeated the request. Montgomery, also in a
repeat of earlier comments to Warfield explained that
Respondent had no money available for such purpose but
that if Public Aid, an Illinois public service department,
gave Respondent an increase that employees would then
get a raise. During the meeting, Montgomery also stated
that he had insurance forms on his desk but could not
start such benefit until Respondent received more
money.
As discussion on the employees' requests and Montgo-
mery's responses ensued, Respondent's president, Doro-
thy Davenport, moved from her office next door, where
she could overhear the conversation closer to the lounge
and where she could then see events firsthand. She re-
calls Warfield saying that maybe the whole company
should march downtown, that such might benefit the
whole company, a reference to the idea that Public Aid
might thereby be pressured into increasing payments for
Respondent's services with a resultant increase in money
available for wage increases. Concurrent with the talk
going on, Montgomery was receiving calls from agency
clientele asking about his intentions with regard to
scheduled pickups and deliveries of patients, and-as dis-
cussion reached greater stages of intensity-Montgomery
sketched out a petition-like questionnaire directing all
employees who "want to work under the present work-
ing conditions" to sign in one place [below] and "All
those who do not agree with the above statement," [to
sign at another place.] (G.C. Exh. 2) Before this was
passed around, Montgomery testified further that he told
employees that Respondent was operating "in the red,"
to which Warfield responded that "If we could not get it
then we will have to go, see?" At that point, Davenport
came into the lounge further and said "no." When War-
field continued that no one would drive a car out, she
said she would do so, and told the drivers to "get the
hell off the premises." Montgomery further testified that
about this time during a call from a client, he was asked
about the "strike business" and told the caller he would
get back to him later. During a second telephone call
about an 11:30 pickup that had not been made, Mont-
gomery told the caller, from a neighborhood Public Aid
office, that he had a "labor dispute" and returned to the
meeting. At this point, Montgomery's own testimony is
that, "There seemed to be a split thing there but it
looked like there were some who wanted to strike and
some who did not want to strike." (Emphasis supplied.)
Alleging as a reason for doing so that he did not know
who wanted to work and who did not, he handed the
petition-questionnaire (G.C. Exh. 2) to Montgomery to
be passed around for signing. Driver Wardell Madison
questioned Montgomery whether signing the form would
affect his employment, whether he would be fired, to
which Montgomery merely replied he would have to
think about it. Driver Willie Williams testified he heard
Warfield say that they were doing "this" to show
Springfield that they meant business and not to hurt him,
and that Montgomery said he did not condone or agree
with a strike. Williams added that during the meeting, he
heard Warfield say that "they (Respondent) could not
hire anyone to take their places." According to driver
Wardell Madison, after the Petition-questionaire (G.C.
Exh. 2) was signed, Montgomery told the drivers, "you
can all leave now." When Madison stated that he had a
patient, Davenport came in, took his keys and others,
and told him not to worry about it. The seven drivers
who had signed the petition questionnaire in the section
provided for those who did not agree with the statement
contained thereon (that they wanted to work under pres-
ent conditions) left the premises. The others, Williams,
Armstrong, Goldsby, and King, remained and performed
driving duties that afternoon to complete uncancelled de-
liveries.
At that point in time, alleging that the seven drivers
had "voluntarily" walked outside, and were not dis-
charged, Montgomery testified nevertheless he consid-
ered that the seven had lost their jobs by quitting, be-
cause "They physically walked out," and pulled their ti-
mecards the next morning, April 4. For their part, the
seven drivers, after first assembling in a parking lot and
then visiting a police station to see how they could get
their jobs back, met at driver Butler's home and decided
they were not "up to a strike." The following morning,
at 5:30, April 4, all seven showed up at Respondent's
office doorway in uniform and ready for work. They
learned that their timecards had been pulled and that
"There was no work for them." I credit the Charging
Party's version that the men asked for their jobs back,2
and the record shows that, notwithstanding that request,
the men were told by Davenport who arrived shortly
afterward with the police, in response to a request by
driver Bracy for his job, that "You do not work here
anymore." Montgomery admitted that during this en-
counter Warfield stated that it was Montgomery who
told the men to strike in order to exert pressure from
Public Aid for an increase, and that Montgomery said he
could not condone a strike, but could not stop it either.
Montgomery also testified in response to my question
why he did not consider that the men had returned to
work on April 4 that it was because they had only come
as far "as his doorway." In response to a further ques-
tion, he admitted hiring two new employees for work
the following week or so, although, except for drivers
2 I agree with the General Counsel's position that the list of "griev-
ances" shown to Montgomery by the men, who had prepared it at the
suggestion of local police, did in no way amount to a precondition
behind the offer to return to work It was not suggested to be such by
them and does not outweigh their obvious desire for employment.
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Butler and Davis, he did not rehire the remaining em-
ployees among the seven because, "by walking off, they
had quit their jobs, and it was my privilege to hire or
rehire who I wanted to do the job for me."
On April 10, the drivers again appeared at Respond-
ent's office in uniform and were told by Montgomery
that if they wanted their paychecks they would have to
turn in their uniforms, and the drivers did so. The record
shows that the men were paid their entire pay through
Tuesday, April 3.
Analysis
It is fundamental that employees are protected from
employer reprisals for engaging in concerted activity
which seeks to improve their working conditions. The
fact that on April 3, the seven drivers were so engaged
in this case is beyond question. For Respondent, through
Montgomery, to view the drivers' concerted conduct on
April 3 as tantamount to a voluntary mass quitting is un-
reasonable in the extreme, and Respondent's reasons for
doing so can spring from only one source, hostility to-
wards the seven drivers because of their concerted activ-
ity. The record, as indicated, is barren of any suggestion
that the seven drivers were quitting on April 3; certainly
the petition-questionnaire does not admit of such an in-
terpretation in this context of events. In the first place,
nowhere does it appear on the petition-questionaire
(G.C. Exh. 2) that the signers were evidencing anything
more than what they "want[ed]" and clearly it does not
state that if they did not "want" present conditions that
they were intent on quitting. In the second place, Mont-
gomery himself, considered that the seven drivers, far
from abandoning their jobs voluntarily, i.e., quitting,
were withholding their services from Respondent in
order to secure improvements in their working condi-
tions in the form of better wages, i.e., that they were en-
gaging in a strike-the classic kind of protected concert-
ed conduct under the Act. The term "strike" in refer-
ence to the drivers' plans was frequently used during
these events. That Respondent chose to effect the termi-
nation of the seven drivers by characterizing them as
having quit does not alter the fact that the employees
were given the clear impression by both Davenport-
who ordered the men off the premises after they had
signed the petition-questionaire (G.C. Exh. 2), and had
indicated an intention to walk off-by the fact that their
keys were taken in the course of the meeting, and by
Montgomery, who also told the men to leave, that they
had been discharged.
The General Counsel's observation that at no time did
Respondent simply request the men to return to work is
also relevant in this regard, as is the fact that driver
Wardell Madison's statement that there was a patient
waiting to be delivered-a statement akin to asking
whether he should complete the delivery-and certainly
showing a willingness to work-was met with a response
indicating no interest in his or any of the seven employ-
ees doing the driving. It is clear from these circum-
stances that Respondent's efforts to characterize the con-
duct of the seven drivers who signed (G.C. Exh. 7) in
the space afforded those "who do not want to work
under the present working condition" as having quit
manifested an intent to retaliate against them for their in-
dicated lack of satisfaction with present working condi-
tions coupled this time with the anticipation by Respond-
ent that, as its own witnesses' testimony establishes, a
strike could possibly occur unless it moved to improve
employees' pay. There is no other basis in the record for
explaining Respondent's actions towards the seven em-
ployees than this, and I find the seven employees, Rich-
ard Warfield, William Butler, Louis Larkin, Bobby
Bracy, Wardell Madison, Henry Davis, and Michael
Taylor, were unlawfully discharged because of such pro-
tected concerted activity at the conclusion of the April 3
meeting in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
Ridgeway Trucking Company, 243 NLRB 1048 (1979);
Bolsa Drainage, Inc., 242 NLRB 728 (1979); and Cone
Brothers Contracting Company, 135 NLRB 108 (1962).
That the termination occurred prior to the departure of
the seven from Respondent's premises is proven by Dav-
enport's ordering them off the property during the meet-
ing; Montgomery's directive that they leave; the drivers'
keys to their assigned vehicles being taken from them;
the absence of any request by Respondent that employ-
ees continue working until day's end when the circum-
stances did not require an interpretation that a strike then
and there was underway-as contrasted with only an an-
ticipated possible walkout; and finally, Respondent's fur-
ther relieving the drivers of their duties by rejecting Ma-
dison's offer to complete delivery of a patient waiting in
Respondent's vehicle in the yard. For Respondent to
force matters even to the point where it incurred numer-
ous trip cancellations without trying to either suggest a
further meeting at the close of business, or another way
to negotiate the situation away from the showdown con-
text it created, strongly suggests further that Respond-
ent's conduct was motivated by animus towards the em-
ployees compelling a decision to sever them from em-
ployment regardless of cost. The events following April
3, described fully above, substantiate the finding that the
employees were discharged as of that date and need no
further elaboration.
The General Counsel alleges further that the petition-
questionaire (G.C. Exh. 2), and a later "rehirement"
letter (G.C. Exh. 4) containing an apology for employees
to sign, together with an assurance to obey Respondent's
instructions-mailed to employees in July 1979 as part of
an alleged offer of reinstatement, amount to violations of
Section 8(a)(l) because employees are, in effect, made to
choose between exercising their rights under Section 7 of
the Act or facing termination (or a denial of reemploy-
ment). It is clear that the document (G.C. Exh. 2) was
used as a tool to bring to light those employees who in-
tended to adhere to efforts to seek improvements in their
working conditions or this certainly was the impression
created, and that those employees were discharged. Re-
spondent thereby created the impression that in order to
continue employment employees must forgo engaging in
protected concerted activities else their employment
would be in serious jeopardy. Regarding the "rehire-
ment" letter, it is axiomatic that employees may not be
required to either apologize for exercising Section 7
rights or in effect agree to refrain from such activities as
A & D DAVENPORT TRANSPORTATION, INC. 467
a price for their continued employment, and this docu-
ment plainly seeks such a surrender of rights. In addition,
the rehirement letter (G.C. Exh. 4) contains impermissi-
ble preconditions for reemployment and therefore, does
not constitute a valid offer of reinstatement such as
would toll backpay. For these reasons, I find that by
using these documents (G.C. Exhs. 2 and 4) Respondent
has further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, Bell Bur-
glar Alarms, Inc., 245 NLRB 990 (1979); 726 Seventeenth
Inc., t/a Sans Souci Restaurant, 235 NLRB 604, 606
(1978); and Don Pizzolato, Inc., 249 NLRB 953 (1980),
and cases cited therein.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent A & D Davenport Transportation, Inc.
and Sun-Fair Special Service Transportation, a Division
of A & D Davenport Transportation, Inc., is an employ-
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By requiring employees, as a condition of continued
employment or reemployment, to sign documents where-
in employees forgo the right to engage in walkouts or
other protected concerted activities seeking to improve
working conditions, and employees apologize for doing
so in the past, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By discharging employees Richard Warfield, Wil-
liam Butler, Louis Larkin, Bobby Bracy, Wardell Madi-
son, Henry Davis, and Michael Taylor on April 3, 1979,
because of their protected concerted activities, Respond-
ent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, Respondent shall be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom, and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged
Richard Warfield, William Butler, Louis Larkin, Bobby
Bracy, Wardell Madison, Henry Davis, and Michael
Taylor, the Order will provide that Respondent offer to
each of them immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if such positions no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
rights and privileges, and to make each of them whole
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them by payment to
them of a sum equal to that which each normally would
have earned, absent the discrimination, from the dates of
their discharges to the dates of Respondent's offers of re-
instatement, with backpay and interest computed in ac-
cordance with the Board's established standards set forth
in F. W. Woolworth Company,3 and Florida Steel Corpora-
tion.4
s 90 NLRB 289 19>0)
231 NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally, sis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716 (1962)
As Respondent's conduct found unlawful herein dem-
onstrates "a general disregard for the employees' funda-
mental statutory rights," a broad remedy is warranted. 5
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 6
The Respondent, A & D Davenport Transportation,
Inc. and Sun-Fair Special Service Transportation, a Divi-
sion of A & D Davenport Transportation, Inc., Chicago,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Requiring any employee, by signing a document or
other means, to choose between engaging in concerted
activities seeking better working conditions and dis-
charge.
(b) Requiring any employee, by signing a document,
letter, or otherwise, to apologize for engaging in concert-
ed activities seeking better working conditions and to
agree not to engage in such activities as a condition of
employment.
(c) Discharging employees because they engaged in
concerted activities seeking better working conditions.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Richard Warfield, William Butler, Louis
Larkin, Bobby Bracy, Wardell Madison, Henry Davis,
and Michael Taylor immediate and full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions of employment, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make each whole for any loss of earnings with inter-
est thereon to be computed according to the formula de-
scribed above in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Chicago, Illinois, location, copies of the
attached notice marked, "Appendix." 7 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediate-
ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
l Hiicmort Fods. Inc, 242 NlRH 1357 (1979)
e In the eent no exceptions are filed as provided hby Sec 1)2 4 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Lahor Relations Board, the find-
ings., conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec 102 48 (of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted hy the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed aived for all purposes
7 In the ecint that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National L.abor Relations Hoard" shall read Posted P'ursu-
ant to a Judgment of the Unllted Stale, Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order f the National I.abor Relations oard "
468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.