Airlines Transportation Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 8, 1985

277 N.L.R.B. 288 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Airlines Transportation Company and Paul Conway.
Case 6-CA-15129
8 November 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
On 15 March 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions for the reasons set forth below and to
adopt the recommended Order.
As more fully set forth in the attached decision,
the judge found, and we agree, that the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging Paul L.
Conway from his job as airport limousine driver
for engaging in protected concerted activity. The
judge found that on 6 November 19812 Conway in-
sisted on taking his full lunchbreak in order to
make the point to management that drivers were
doing the work of four men who had been laid off
during the air traffic controllers' strike. The judge
concluded that this protest was related to group
action in the interest of all the drivers and that, in
discharging Conway, management recognized it as
such. The judge held that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) by discharging Conway for engag-
ing in concerted activity for the purpose of mutual
aid or protection. We find a more compelling ra-
tionale for the judge's conclusion grounded in the
Board's Interboro3 doctrine, approved by the Su-
preme Court in NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, 465
U.S. 822 (1984).
In City Disposal, which issued after the judge's
decision in this case, the Court held that an em-
ployee's "honest and reasonable invocation" of a
collectively bargained right is concerted activity.
In so holding, the Court recognized that, although
the processing of a grievance is the principal means
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
a All dates are in 1981.
Interboro Contractors, 157 NLRB 1295 (1966), enfd. 388 F 2d 495 (2d
Cir. 1967).
for invoking rights conferred through collective
bargaining,
In practice . . . there is unlikely to be a
bright-line distinction between an incipient
grievance, a complaint to an employer, and
perhaps even an employee's initial refusal to
perform a certain job that he believes he has
no duty to perform. It is reasonable to expect
that an employee's first response to a situation
that he believes violates his collective-bargain-
ing agreement will be a protest to his employ-
er. [Id. 465 U.S. 822]
Article IV of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment covering the Respondent's limousine drivers
provides, inter alia, that "employees will have a
non-paid one-half (1/2) hour lunch period to be
taken between the fourth and sixth hours of work."
(Emphasis added.) Describing his arrival at the air-
port at 6:55 p.m., his sixth hour of work, Conway
credibly testified about his conversation with dis-
patcher John Koehler as follows:
As I approached the phone John came around
the corner and I told him I had one passenger.
And then John said he wanted me to make the
seven o'clock pull back to Mt. Lebanon, back
to Sheraton South and I asked John I said,
"No, I'd like my lunch hour." and Koehler
says, "I have some people over there, I'll have
to cab them." And I said, "Do what you want
with them, cab them or helicopter or what-
ever, I'd like my lunch hour, I'm due for
lunch." The contract says that I'm due for
lunch between the fourth and sixth hours, and
it was getting near the end of my sixth hour
and I hadn't even started lunch. [Emphasis
added.]
Conway proceeded to relate to Koehler his dis-
pleasure that he and other drivers were being pres-
sured to work overtime during a period of employ-
ee layoffs. Conway explained that, had he waived
his lunch period as the dispatcher had urged, his
final trip of the day would have entailed overtime,
which the Respondent concedes was not mandato-
ry for drivers.
Supervisory Dispatcher John Colosimo ap-
proached Conway about halfway through his lunch
period and again requested that he resume driving.
Conway testified that his response was "that I
didn't feel that I should do this with men laid off
because I wanted my lunch hour because the contract
says that it's due between four and six hours." (Em-
phasis added.) During an investigative interview 6
days later, Conway was asked what point he was
trying to make by insisting on lunch. When he re-
277 NLRB No. 37
AIRLINES TRANSPORTATION CO. 289
sponded, "I don't feel we should have to work
overtime when men are laid off," Company Presi-
dent Jones Sinnott told him, "You've proved your
point. You no longer work for this Company."
Tearnsters Local 128 President William Carson,
present at the meeting , reminded Sinnott of Con-
way's contractual entitlement to his lunchbreak.
Sinnott resolved, however, to proceed with the dis-
charge. Subsequently, in a letter to Carson, the Re-
spondent specifically referred to Conway' s insist-
ence on his lunch hour in stating the grounds for
discharge.
To establish concertedness under City Disposal, it
is sufficient that an employee complaint -communi-
cate a reasonably perceived violation of a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement . Where, as here, the em-
ployee makes explicit reference to the contractual
provision supporting his claim, there can be little
question but that the employee is actively pursuing
enforcement of that provision. In view of the pro-
tected character of this activity,4 and in further
view of the judge's findings , which we adopt, that
this activity was the motivating factor in Conway's
discharge, we find that the Respondent's action
violated Section 8(a)(1).5
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Airline
Transportation Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order.
4 See Bunney Bros. Construction Co., 139 NLRB 1516, 1519 (1962);
General Motors Corp, 261 NLRB 516 (1982)
8 Consistent with the judge's decision, we find it unnecessary, in light
of the 8(a)(1) finding, to pass on the related 8(a)(3) allegations of the
complaint
Michael Poprik, Esq ., for the General Counsel.
Timothy E. Finnerty, Esq., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge. This
ease was tried at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 10,
1982. The charge was filed by Paul Conway December
2, 1981,1 and the complaint was issued January 28, 1982.
Conway and other airport limousine drivers were com-
plaining about working overtime and through their con-
tractual 30-minute lunch period while four drivers were
laid off during the air traffic controllers strike. To make
this point, Conway insisted on taking his lunchbreak,
causing him to miss a trip . The primary issues are wheth-
1 All dates are in 1981 unless otherwise indicated.
er he was engaged in protected concerted activity and
whether the Company, the Respondent, unlawfully dis-
charged him in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, transports
passengers intrastate between the airport and various lo-
cations in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where it annually de-
rives' gross revenue exceeding $500,000 and receives
goods valued over $2000 directly from outside the State.
The Company admits and I find that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
A. Background
Limousine driver Paul Conway had been employed
15-1/2 years and had a spotless record.
Because of reduced business during the air traffic con-
trollers strike, which began in August, the Company had
its first layoff in 36 years, laying off 4 of its 36 drivers
(Tr. 181), In general discussions among , all the limousine
drivers, Conway and others stated they did not feel they
should be required to work overtime or through their
lunch period on the "skeleton crew" while the men were
laid off (Tr. 31-32, 76) and that "it was unfair, it wasn't
right to be working overtime while there were men laid
off' (Tr. 90-91). They complained to their driver repre-
sentative that they were doing the work of the laid-off
men, sacrificing their lunch periods and working over-
time (Tr. 126-127). It is undisputed that management was
aware of this complaining, from employee complaints at
the dispatcher level (Tr. 91-92).
The collective-bargaining agreement provides for
overtime at time and a half after 8 hours a day, and also,
provides that employees "will have" a nonpaid one-half-
hour lunch period "to be taken between the fourth and
sixth hours of work" (G.C. Exh. 2, art. IV,A).
The Company admitted at the trial that overtime is not
mandatory (Tr. 180), and admitted at page 8 of its brief
that "If a driver does not wish to waive his lunch period,
he will be permitted to go to lunch without receiving
warning, reprimand or discipline."
B. Conway 's Discharge
1. Insisting on lunch period
On Friday, November 6, Conway went to work at
1:15 p.m. and was due his 30-minute lunch period by 7:15
p.m.
On his third trip from the airport, lie arrived at the
Sheraton South (19 miles away) about 5:45 p.m. At 6:05
he reported to his dispatcher that the 6 o'clock passenger
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was a no-show, and the dispatcher instructed him to
return empty to the airport. Upon approaching his lim-
ousine, however, Conway saw the tardy passenger, who
had already placed his luggage in the limousine (Tr. 13).
The passenger asked Conway to wait a few minutes
while he finished his dinner (Tr. 15-16). Conway agreed
to wait and, while doing so, placed a telephone call (to
Supervisor John Colosimo's brother about flight instruc-
tion (Tr. 16)). Conway then drove the passenger to the
airport, arriving about 6:55, and took his lunchbreak
from 7 to 7:30 p.m.
Not being informed of the delay at the Sheraton
South, Dispatcher John Koehler had planned to assign
Conway to take the 7 o'clock trip back to the hotel.
Both Koehler and Supervisor Colosimo attempted to
persuade Conway to take only a 15-minute lunchbreak
and then take the five waiting passengers, but he refused.
He insisted on taking his full 30-minute lunch period,
stating that he wanted to make the point that "we should
not work overtime while we had men laid off." (Tr. 17-
19, 36, 41, 46-47, 143-144, 155-156, 161, 164, 169-171,
173.)
Because of the Company's policy of not having pas-
sengers wait as long as 30 minutes (Tr. 146, 171), Dis-
patcher Koehler ordered a taxicab for the five passengers
sometime between 7:15 and 7:20 p.m. (At the limousine
rate of $5.65, the passengers paid a total of $28.25 for the
taxi ride. By a bookkeeping entry, the related taxicab
company charged the Company the taxi fare of $24.)
There were no waiting passengers at 7:30 p.m. when
Conway finished his 30-minute lunchbreak. Shortly after
7:30 he was shifted to the Sheraton South to make the 8
p.m. return trip.
2. His discharge
On Monday, November 9, Chief Dispatcher Roy
Dietz notified Conway by telephone that President
James Sinnott had ordered him held off work for refus-
ing a trip. Conway denied refusing a trip, stating, "I just
insisted on my lunch hour, because I was due for lunch
according to the contract." Dietz then said that a meet-
ing with Sinnott was set for Thursday, November 12.
(Tr. 20.)
On November 12, Teamsters Local 128 President Wil-
liam Carson, Steward Paul Dinert, and Conway met
with Company President Sinnott and Claims Manager
Robert Napolitan. Sinnott opened the meeting by giving
them statements by Dispatcher Koehler and Supervisor
Colosimo to read (G.C. Exhs. 3 and 4). Both statements
reported that Conway had refused to make the 7 o'clock
trip to make or prove a point. Sinnott asked Conway for
his reply. Conway recounted what happened and admit-
ted insisting on taking his lunch period to make a point
(Tr. 24-28, 58-61). (As credibly testified by Conway,
who appeared to be an honest, forthright witness, he told
Sinnott in the meeting (Tr. 27) that he made the tele-
phone call while waiting for the passenger, not before
the passenger appeared as claimed in Koehler's statement
and as claimed by both Koehler (Tr. 143, 149) and Napo-
litan (Tr. 200, 202) at the trial. Koehler and Napolitan, as
well as Colosimo, impressed me by their demeanor on
the stand as being willing to give any testimony that
would help the Company' s cause.)
President Sinnott asked, "What's the point you're
trying to make?" (as recalled by Conway (Tr. 28), or
"What are you trying to prove?" as recalled (Tr. 61) by
Local President Carson). After Conway explained, "I
don't feel we [emphasis supplied] should have to work
overtime when men are laid off" (Tr. 28), Sinnott stated,
"Well you proved your point, you no longer work for
this Company" (Tr. 61), "You're discharged for insubor-
dination" (Tr. 25). Steward Dinert protested that
Conway had been a driver for 15 years and this was
pretty severe punishment for a one-time offense. Local
President Carson pointed out that it was the driver's pre-
rogative under the contract to take his lunch period be-
tween the fourth and sixth hours of work. Speaking to
Conway, Sinnott responded that 16 years of service
"does not give you the right to tell me how to run the
Company." (Tr. 25-26, 61-63.) Sinnott thus converted
the November 6 suspension into a discharge.
On November 13, Claims Manager Napolitan prepared
a letter to the Union for President Sinnott's signature
(Tr. 206), stating that Conway was dismissed for just
cause and that Conway "due to delaying tactics . . . did
not arrive until 6:55 p.m. and insisted that he be given
his lunch break even though he was needed to make a
trip and informed his supervisor that he could cab pas-
sengers to their destination ." In his January 28 , 1982 pre-
trial affidavit (G.C. Exh. 6), Napolitan explained the dis-
charge by stating that Sinnott informed Conway at the
November 12 meeting "that he was being discharged for
refusal to work, that refusal to take a trip was insubordi-
nation." In its answer (G.C. Exh. 1(e)), filed February 5,
1982 (over 6 months before trial), the Company asserted
that its action in dismissing Conway "was due to the
action of the Employee in failing to take a direct order
from his supervisor and causing the Respondent to pro-
vide alternate means of transportation for its customers."
The General Counsel contends that Conway was dis-
charged for making the point and bringing to the Com-
pany's attention, by insisting on his contractual lunch
period, "the group complaint of Respondent's drivers
that it was unfair of Respondent to expect them to work
overtime while their fellow drivers were laid off."
C. Shifting Defense
By the time of trial, the Company had fabricated the
defense that it had discharged Conway, not for refusing
to take the 7 o'clock passengers during his 30-minute
break but for refusing to take them at 7:30 p.m., after the
lunchbreak.
Thus, Claims Manager Napolitan falsely testified that
"There was no problem about [Conway's] taking his
lunch between the fourth and sixth hours. The problem
was he refused to take the passengers after lunch" (Tr.
208); "What he was discharged for was the refusal to
take the passengers after seven thirty. That's what Mr.
Sinnott was upset about." (Tr. 204.) Napolitan falsely
denied that Conway stated at the November 12 meeting
that he refused to take the passengers because he wanted
to take his lunch (Tr. 212), despite Napolitan 's admission
AIRLINES TRANSPORTATION CO. 291
in his pretrial affidavit, "Conway stated that he refused
to take the passengers because he wanted to take his
lunch."
Supervisor Colosimo also gave false testimony to sup-
port this fabrication , although at one point he deviated
from the defense . When questioned about his conversa-
tion with Conway (about 7 : 10 p.m. when Dispatcher
Koehler sent Colosimo over to persuade Conway to take
only a 15-minute lunchbreak), Colosimo admitted that
Conway responded , "I want to have my lunch then I'll
go" (Tr. 169). Appearing to realize that this answer
would undercut the Company's defense, Colosimo quick-
ly changed his testimony and later claimed , "He led me
to believe he wasn't going to take" the passengers (Tr.
173). He further claimed on cross-examination:
Q. Mr. Conway told you that he did not desire to
take the people at seven thirty?
A. Yes.
Q. He did not say he would not take the people
at seven thirty?
A. He said he didn 't care how we got the people
there.
Q. That he didn't care how you got the people
there, that he was taking his lunch until seven
thirty?
A. Yes. Tr, 174.
(I note that in his pretrial affidavit (G.C. Exh. 4), Colo-
simo stated that Koehler asked him to talk to Conway
about making the trip "after he was off lunch ," but that
Conway "said he didn 't want any overtime"-obviously
referring to Conway 's refusal to accept overtime pay for
the last 15 minutes of an abbreviated lunch period and to
take the passengers at 7:15 p.m. Colosimo admitted at the
trial (Tr. 164) that he was asking Conway at 7:10 p.m. to
take the passengers then instead of waiting until 7 :30, and
Koehler admitted (Tr. 161) that Conway was refusing to
take the passengers at 7:15.)
Also in support of the Company 's belated defense, Dis-
patcher Koehler claimed that he would not have sent the
passengers by taxicab but would have waited 30 minutes
until after Conway's lunch period if Conway had said he
would take the passengers then (Tr. 148), and that the
only reason he did not wait was his belief that Conway
would refuse at 7:30 p .m. to carry them (Tr. 159-160). I
discredit this testimony as an obvious fabrication. The
Company had a policy against having passengers wait 30
minutes. Supervisor Colosimo admitted : "We don't really
make it a point to make people wait a half hour .. . .
Five or ten minutes people don't mind, but . . . a half
hour. We would lose the business , people would get cabs
or rent a car or something" (Tr. 171). Furthermore,
Koehler was working under the supervision of Chief
Dispatcher Dietz, who candidly admitted at the trial that
he would expect the dispatcher to call a cab rather than
wait for the driver to take his (30 -minute) lunchbreak
(Tr. 195-196).
I discredit the testimony that Conway refused to carry
the passengers after his 30-minute lunchbreak, and credit
his denial (Tr. 46) and his testimony that of course he
would have taken the passengers at 7:30p.m. if they were
still waiting "because I was making the trip anyhow"
(Tr. 19).
I therefore find without merit the Company's conten-
tions, at pages 15 and 16 of its brief, that Conway "was
discharged for his refusal to take the passengers at 7:30
p.m.," and that "management reasonably believed that
Conway blatantly refused to take the passengers even
after a half-hour lunch period."
D. Other Defenses
The Company concedes in its brief that "Arguably the
Complainant [Conway] did show empathy among the
drivers on the matter of layoffs," that "Conway testified
that during the three months preceding his termination
he and other employees discussed their dissatisfaction
with the ramifications of the layoff," and that "the Com-
plainant may have had conversations relating to the em-
ployees' interests" (R. Br. 6, 9, 14). Yet the Company
argues : "It is clear from the testimony presented that the
Complainant's activity was solely for his own benefit"
(R. Br. 8). Neither the brief nor the evidence, however,
reveals any personal interest or motivation that Conway
may have had for insisting on his lunch break other than
his making common cause with other limousine drivers
who were complaining about working shorthanded and
doing the work of the laid-off employees by working
overtime and through their lunch period'.
The Company contends that "the Complainant failed
to elicit testimony showing that he had united with other
employees or acted individually in an attempt to change
the terms and conditions of [employment at] the Re-
spondent," and "The facts and testimony do not substan-
tiate any argument that he was dismissed because he at-
tempted to enforce any contractual provision" (R. Br. 5,
11-12). To the contrary, the evidence is clear that he
was discharged for "insubordination" when he exercised
his admitted contractual right to take the 30-minute
lunchbreak for an obvious purpose of inducing the Com-
pany to reinstate one or more of the laid-off drivers. As
found, President Sinnott told Conway at the time of the
discharge that he did not have "the right to tell [Sinnott]
how to run the Company."
The Company argues that its dismissal of Conway
"was based upon its mastery of its own business affairs"
and "It is not in the Respondent 's interest to retain em-
ployees who choose to `make a point' only to vindicate
personal motives" (R. Br. 14, 19). To the contrary, when
asked "What's the point you're trying to make?"
Conway told President Sinnott, "I don't feel we the lim-
ousine drivers should have to work overtime when men
are laid off." It is evident that Sinnott was concerned
with Conway's effort to induce him to reinstate laid-off
employees.
Finally, the Company argues, "That there was no pro-
tected concerted activity which precipitated the dismis-
sal," that "It was Complainant's insubordination rather
than any alleged concerted activities that led to his ter-
mination ," and "That any alleged protected conduct was
not causally related to the Respondent's action" (R. Br.
5, 20).
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E. Concluding Findings
The Company admits that before the unprecedented
layoff of four limousine drivers, the drivers had been
permitted to take their full 30-minute lunch periods
"without receiving warning, reprimand or discipline."
On this occasion, however, drivers were complaining
among themselves and to management that it was unfair
for them to be working overtime while men were laid
off, and limousine driver Conway insisted on taking his
full lunchbreak, causing him to miss a trip. When he ex-,
plained to President Sinnott that he did so to "make a
point" that he did not feel the drivers should have to
work overtime when men were laid off, Sinnott dis-
charged him for insubordination, telling him he did not
have "the right to tell Sinnott how to run the Compa-
„ny.
After considering all the evidence and circumstances, I
find that the Company was aware that Conway's con-
duct was related to group action in the interest of the
employees, Mushroom Transportation Co. v. NLRB, 330
F.2d 683, 685 (3d Cir. 1964), and that the Company dis-
charged him for engaging in activity for the purpose of
mutual aid or protection. Limousine drivers were laid off
for the first time in 36 years. The Company was aware,
from employee complaints at the dispatcher level, that
drivers were protesting the layoffs and were opposed to
working overtime while fellow drivers were still laid off.
The drivers had the admitted contractual right to insist
on taking their full 30-minute break, even if no one else
was available to take a trip, but Conway was the first
driver to exercise that right during the layoffs to "make
a point" that the drivers should not have to do the work
of laid-off employees by working overtime.
It was under these circumstances that the Company
fabricated the defense that it discharged Conway for re-
fusing to take the passengers after his 30-minute break,
rather than for missing a trip by insisting on his contrac-
tual right to take his lunchbreak. I infer that the Compa-
ny shifted its defense at the trial to conceal its determina-
tion to rid the Company of Conway (despite his senior
status and his spotless record) to prevent other drivers
from following his lead in the protected concerted activi-
ty.
Accordingly I find that the clear preponderance of the
evidence shows that limousine driver Conway's partici-
pation in concerted activity protected under Section 7 of
the Act was the sole reason that the Company dis-
charged him for "insubordination," and that he would
not have been discharged in the absence of this protected
concerted activity. I therefore find that the November 12
discharge, effective November 9, violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act. In view of this finding, I do not deem it nec-
essary to rule on the allegation that the discharge also
violated Section 8(a)(3).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By discharging Paul Conway November 9, 1981, for
engaging in protected concerted activity, the Company
engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in an
unfair labor practice, I find it necessary to order it to
cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having, unlawfully discharged an em-
ployee, it must offer him reinstatement and make him
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, com-
puted on a quarterly basis from date of discharge to date
of proper offer of reinstatement, less any net interim
earnings , as prescribed in F W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed2
ORDER
The Respondent, Airlines Transportation Company,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging any employee for engaging in protect-
ed concerted activity.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Paul Conway immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of his discharge, in
the manner set forth in the remedy section of the deci-
sion.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
discharge and notify the employee in writing that this
has been done and that the discharge will not be used
against him in any way.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its facilities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
copies of theattached notice marked "Appendix."3
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
8 If 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 Nation-
al Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
AIRLINES TRANSPORTATION CO.
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the R egional
Director for Region 6, after being signed by the Re-
spondent 's authorized representative , shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as italleges violations of the Act not spe-
cifically found.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
293
WE WILL NOT discharge any of you for engaging in
protected concerted activity.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Paul Conway immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or , if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position , without prej-
udice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed and WE WILL make him whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his
discharge , less any net interim earnings , plus interest.
WE WILL notify him that we have removed from our
files any reference to his discharge and that the dis-
charge will not be used against him in any way.
AIRLINES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.