Almeida Bus Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 26, 1962

140 N.L.R.B. 280 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Almeida Bus Lines, Inc . and Amalgamated Association of Street,
Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America,
AFL-CIO and Gilbert Jesus . Ca.se$ Nos. 1-CA-3691 and 1-C, A-
3757. December 26, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 27, 1962, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter-
mediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel,
and the Charging Parties filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the 'et. the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brow-n].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report and the entire
record in this case, including the exceptions and briefs, and hereby
adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner except as modified herein.
The Trial Examiner found that since October 28, 1961, the Re-
spondent discriminatorily refused to give Gilbert Jesus "regular"
work as a busdriver in order to discourage union membership and
activity. Accordingly, the Trial Examiner recommended that the
Respondent offer Jesus immediate employment as a "full-time"
driver, without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privileges
he would have enjoyed absent the refusal to hire him in that position
in the fall of 1961. The Trial Examiner also recommended that
Jesus be made whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered
because of the discrimination against him from the date the Re-
spondent hired certain new drivers after October 27, 1961, to the
date the Respondent offers Jesus employment as a full-time driver.
We agree that the Respondent discriminated against Gilbert Jesus
in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act by failing to
assign bus or charter runs to him on and after October 28, 1961.
1 We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Joseph Olivera was discharged by the
Respondent to discourage union membership and activity in violation of Section 8(a) (1)
and (3 ) of the Act In reaching this conclusion , however, unlike the Trial Examiner,
we do not rely on the absence of evidence in the record showing that Olivera was at fault
in any accident in which he may have been involved prior to December 12, 1961. It is
clear that the evidence otherwise presented fully supports the finding that Respondent
discriminatorily discharged Olivera.
140 NLRB No. 21.
ALl3EIDA BUS LINES, IN c. 281
However, we do not agree with Trial Examiner's proposed remedy
with regard to Jesus.
The pertinent facts regarding Jesus' status as a driver and the
date the Respondent first deprived him of employment as a busdriver
are as follows: Jesus was employed as a "spare" busdriver by the
Respondent in September 1961, when Joseph Florio, one of the Re-
spondent's dispatchers, asked him if he wanted to drive the Re-
spondent's dograce run. Thereafter, Jesus was one of several "spare"
drivers who drove the dogtrack run which was operated for about
2 months starting in September 1961. He drove that run whenever
Florio called him to do so. Jesus was also assigned three or four
other charter driving jobs in September and October 1961. In sum,
the record shows that prior to Respondent's discrimination against
him, Jesus was regularly called to work as a "spare" driver several
days each week. However, since on or about October 28, 1961, with
two exceptions,' the Respondent has not offered Jesus any bus-driving
assignments although spare driving assignments are customarily ro-
tated among the Respondent's spare drivers
In addition to the foregoing, the record also shows that the Re-
spondent hired two busdrivers in December 1961, and eight addi-
tional drivers thereafter. Some of these newly hired drivers are
currently assigned regularly scheduled routes on a full-time basis.
However, all the newly hired bus-drivers were initially employed as
spare drivers. On the other hand, the record does not specifically
demonstrate the requisites of promotion from "spare" driver status
to that of a "full-time" driver, nor does it show whether Jesus, but
for the discrimination against him, would be currently employed
as a "full-time" driver.
In view of the foregoing, we are unable to determine, as did the
Trial Examiner, whether Jesus is entitled to reinstatement as a "full-
time" driver or is entitled to backpay as a full-time driver for the
period from the date the Respondent hired its first new driver after
October 27, 1961 (i.e., December 1961), to the date it offers him re-
instatement as a full-time driver. Instead, we shall order the Re-
spondent to offer Jesus immediate reinstatement in the driving job
to which he would have been assigned but for the discrimination
against him, and we shall award him backpay for the driving work
he would have done after October 27, 1961, to the date the Respondent
offers him reinstatement in the appropriate driving job. As it is
possible that Jesus might not be entitled to immediate reinstatement
as a full-time driver, we shall also order the Respondent, in that
2 On November 11, 1961, Jesus drove a charter run to Connecticut at the Respondent's
request, but only after Jesus had recommended the Respondent's services to the charterer.
Jesus was not called again until a few weeks prior to the hearing herein, when the
Respondent offered him an assignment to drive a bus to Indiana.
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
event, not to discriminate in considering him for promotion to full-
time driver status.
Furthermore, in accordance with the policy recently adopted by
the Board, we shall include an allowance for interest on the backpay
obligations of the Respondent with respect to each discriminatee.
Such interest shall be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumb-
ing ct Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 .1
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the
Trial Examiner with the following amendments :
(1) Paragraph 2(a) thereof shall be deleted and the paragraph
below shall be substituted therefor :
(a) Offer employee Joseph Olivera immediate and full re-
instatement to his former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges,
and offer Gilbert Jesus immediate employment in the driving
job to which he would have been assigned but for the discrimina-
tion against him without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges, and without discriminating against him
in considering him as a full-time driver if he is not entitled to
immediate reinstatement to such position, and make both em-
ployees whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them : as to Joseph Olivera,
in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy,"
but adding interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum,
to be computed in the manner set forth above; and as to Gilbert
Jesus, by paying him a sum of money equal to that which he
would normally have earned as wages after October 27, 1961,
in the driving job in which he would have been employed to the
date the Respondent offers him reinstatement in the driving job
to which he is entitled, but adding interest thereon at the rate
of 6 percent per annum, to be computed in the manner set
forth above.
(2) The phrase "full-time" shall be deleted from that paragraph
of the notice concerning the Respondent's offering Gilbert Jesus
employment.
3 For the reasons set forth in his dissent in Isms, Member Rodgers would not grant
interest on backpay , and does not approve such an award here.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
An original charge in Case No. 1-CA-3691 was filed by the Amalgamated Asso-
ciation of Street , Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, AFL-
ALMEIDA BUS LINES, INC. 283
CIO, on January 18 , 1962. An original complaint in said case was issued and
served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on March 2,
1962. On March 16 and April 23, 1962, the Amalgamated filed amended charges
in the same case. On March 22, 1962, an original charge in Case No. 1-CA-3757
was filed by Jesus, an individual . On April 26 , 1962, the General Counsel issued
an order consolidating the cases , an amended complaint , and a notice of hearing
thereon. An answer to the original complaint was duly filed by the above-named
Respondent . General Counsel alleges and the Respondent denies I that the Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended . Pursuant to
notice, a hearing was held in New Bedford , Massachusetts , on May 15 and 16, 1962,
before Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore.
At the hearing all parties were represented , and were afforded full opportunity
to present evidence pertinent to the issues , to argue orally , and to file briefs. Briefs
have been received from General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the record thus made, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Almeida Bus Lines, Inc., is a Massachusets corporation, with principal office and
terminal in New Bedford, Massachusetts. It is engaged in providing transportation
by bus to the public on runs set up by the Massachusetts Department of Public
Utilities. Its annual gross revenue exceeds $250,000. During the year from April
1961 through March 1962, Almeida purchased from Tidewater Company gasoline
valued at more than $25,000 which was shipped directly to its New Bedford terminal
from the State of Rhode Island. During the same period it purchased and had
shipped to its terminal from Rhode Island grease and motor oil valued at more than
$7,000. And during the same period it purchased for its General Motors Corpora-
tion buses, from the General Motors Truck and Coach Company of Newton,
Massachusetts, parts valued at more than $7,000.
For its runs into and out of Boston, Massachusetts, Almeida uses the Trailways
terminal, where it picks up passengers from interstate lines.
Almeida does not hold an I.C.C. license for interstate travel. Such license, how-
ever, is held by Southern Massachusetts Bus Lines, Inc., a corporation which, together
with Almeida, General Counsel contends as constituting a single employer within the
meaning of the Act. The following facts sustain his position: (1) Almeida and
Southern both have an office at the same address; (2) Southern performs all "charter"
and out-of-State runs for the two corporations; (3) Southern uses Almeida's bus-
drivers to operate its charter runs; (4) all stock of both corporations is owned by
John Almeida, Jr.; (5) the officers and directors of both corporations are the same;
and (6) top operating management of both companies is in the hands of Cecilia
Almeida, wife of John Almeida, Jr., and his son, John Almeida III.
During the same period noted above, Southern ran 68 interstate charter runs,
from which it received revenue exceeding $10,000.
The Respondent Almeida is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Em-
ployees of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Setting and major issues
The two chief issues of this case-alleged unlawful discrimination against em-
ployees Joseph Olivera and Gilbert Jesus-arose shortly after organization of the
Respondent's employees by the above-named Union culminated in a Board-conducted
election held October 27, 1961. Independent violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act are also alleged in the complaint and denied by the Respondent.
'An oral denial by the Respondent to the amended complaint was accepted at the
hearing
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The alleged discrimination
1. Joseph Olivera
At the time of his discharge in mid-December, Ohvera had worked con-
tinuously for the Respondent since 19559 as a busdriver.
It is undisputed that management was aware of his union leadership and activity.
In August and September he had openly aided the organization, distributing applica-
tion cards among his fellow employees. He was the union observer at the election
in October, and was elected president of the Local in November.
In September Mrs. Almeida (identified above as the operating manager of both
Almeida and Southern) told him she had thought he had "started" the Union, but
had found out this was not so. Just before the election Almeida III, the general
manager and a director of the corporation, told Olivera, "You are trying to get the
union here." Olivera admitted the fact. Almeida asked what he thought the chances
were. Olivera replied, "Well, your father's always beaten it before " Almeida
then said, "Well, 1 hope for your sake, Joe, and the sake of the rest of the men,
that the union doesn't get in." 2
On December 12 Olivera's bus was involved in an accident. His account of it
is uncontradicted. In substance his description is as follows. To avoid striking
a passenger car which suddenly cut across his course from left to right, and because
his smooth tires did not hold on the wet pavement, he turned his vehicle into a drive-
way leading off the street. And to avoid hitting trucks parked in the driveway
he guided the bus between a telephone pole and its guywire. The bus failed to
clear the guywire and was damaged. None of the passengers aboard was injured,
however, nor was damage caused to any other car. He made his report to the com-
pany "appraiser" or inspector, and no management representative accused him of
being at fault, or reprimanded him for the accident. He drove his regular run for
the next 3 days.
On Saturday, December 16, he was called into the office by Mrs. Almeida, given
a paycheck, and told not to go to work until he had seen her the next Monday.
On Monday he reported at the office, waited until noon in vain for her appearance,
and then called her at her home. He asked if he was to go back to work. She said
"No," and he asked if she was "firing" him. She said she was sorry but would
have to let him go. He asked why. She said, "Well, you've had too many accidents."
He commented, "Come, Mrs. Almeida, you know that you're firing me because I'm
president of the Union." She replied, "Well, you fellows want it that way, .
that's the way it's going to be; you want to live by your rules, and I've got rules
of my own to live by."
Olivera has not been reinstated.
His account of the accident and his discharge is not disputed. Mrs. Almeida was
not called as a witness. Thus there is no testimony in the record from any manage-
ment official as to why he or she fired Olivera. Although on cross-examination
Olivera admitted that during the 6 years of his driving a bus for the Respondent
he had filed a few accident reports, there is no evidence that he was at fault in any
of them, and it is undisputed that he had never been warned about any of them.
Almeida III as a witness admitted that he had nothing to do with Olivera's discharge,
and that many busdrivers were still operating who had filed many accident reports
in the past.
Under the circumstances the Trial Examiner cannot find that counsel for the Re-
spondent adduced any competent evidence to support his oral claim that this driver
was discharged because of his accident record.
The undisputed fact that when Olivera chided her for using an accident as a
pretext, while the real reason was his union leadership, Mrs. Almeida not only did
not deny his contention but in effect admitted it by saying, "You want to live by
your rules, and I've got rules of my own to live by," in the opinion of the Trial
Examiner supports the conclusion, here made, that Olivera was actually dismissed
to discourage union membership and activity, as alleged in the complaint. Such
unlawful discrimination interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Gilbert Jesus
Jesus was a regular busdriver for the Respondent from 1952 until 1954, when he
left voluntarily. He returned in the fall of 1960 as a full-time garage employee
2 The quotations are from Olivera's uncontradicted testimony.
ALAZEIDA BUS LI QES, INC. 285
and as an "extra" driver. He quit again in May 1961, because no job as a "regular"
driver opened up for him and he was dissatisfied with garage work.
In September 1961, he was called by Florio, the dispatcher, and asked if he would
take the "dog race run" several nights a week. He agreed and until the Board elec-
tion drove buses on this run and also some charter runs to which Florio assigned him.
During this period he declined work in the garage.
On October 26, the day before the election, Jesus was called to the home of
Almeida III and asked to go for a ride with him. During the ride Almeida referred
to the election the next day and said, "If you fellows go along with the union you're
not going to get no more work, but if you go along with the company and help us
out, well, I'll give you all I can." 3
The day after the election Jesus went to the radio room, where the dispatching sheet
was posted, to see if he was scheduled for a run the next day. His name was not on
the list. Dispatcher Florio (who is also an assistant shop foreman and a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act) asked him if he was going to the union meeting that
night, when initiation fees were to be paid. Jesus told him that he "might as well,"
before dues went up. As he left the radio room he asked Florio how it happened
he was not getting work while others were listed Florio replied, "Well, Johnny
(Almeida III) told me to tell you right now there's nothing doing."
Jesus continued to go to the terminal in the mornings seeking work as a full-time
driver. Some 2 weeks later John Almeida, Jr., told Jesus to get off the premises. Jesus
protested. He said he came down to see if there was work for him. Almeida told
him there was "nothing doing" and declared that he did not want him "hanging
around."
Since the Board election Jesus has been assigned but a single run-a charter run
for a local church.
A month or so before the hearing he went to the office again. Mrs. Almeida and
Almeida III declined to talk to him. He asked Florio "how come" he was not
getting any work, although new regular men had been hired. Florio told him, "Johnny
told me not to give you no more work because of this union baloney." 4
At the hearing counsel for the Respondent conceded that at least two new drivers
were hired in December 1961 for regular runs, and Florio admitted that several new
drivers were hired in the fall of that year.
It is the Respondent's apparent contention that because Jesus has declined work
in the garage it had no responsibility to hire him as a driver. Florio's claim that no
job as a driver has been open for him is discredited by his own admission, noted
above, that since the election new drivers have been employed
Except for the discredited claim of "no opportunity" the Respondent offered no
reason for failing to assign Jesus, a driver of many years' experience, a regular run
after the Board election. The Trial Examiner is convinced by the preponderance of
credible evidence and finds that since October 28, 1961, and except for the single
charter run on November 11, 1961, the Respondent has discriminatorily refused to
give regular work as a bus driver to Gilbert Jesus, in order to discourage union mem-
bership and activity. Such discrimination constitutes unlawful interference, restraint.
and coercion.
C. Other interference, restraint, and coercion
In addition to the above-found threat by Almeida to Jesus just before the election
to the effect that if he voted for the Union he would get no more work, and Florio's
interroeation of the same employee as to whether he was joining the Union, the
Trial Examiner finds that the following conduct also is proscribed by the Act as un-
lawful interference, restraint, and coercion of employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act:
(1) A week before the election Almeida III told employee DeMello that if the
Union won his father would "take over," and it would be a "miserable place" to
work.
(2) In January 1962, Almeida III told employee Rousseau that if ever again he
talked to a certain union representative he would be fired.
3 The quotations are from the employee's undisputed testimony. The record does not
reveal what reply, if any, Jesus made.
4 The quotations are from Jesus' credible testimony. The Trial Examiner does not credit
Florio's denial that he had ever told Jesus that he had been instructed not to give Jesus
any more work . He admitted that he had told the employee , when he inquired about
work, " I take orders."
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(3) In December Almeida, Junior, told employee DeMello that all the law re-
quired was that he "bargain" with the union, and he "would not sign a contract." 5
(4) Shortly before employees went on strike in April 1962, Almeida, Junior,
warned employee La.Flamme that if he went on strike he had "better look for another
job."
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices the Trial
Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As the Respondent's continued unlawful activities indicate a purpose to defeat
self-organizational rights of its employees, the Trial Examiner is convinced that they
are potentially related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act and that
the danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated from the Respond-
ent's conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted un-
less the remedy is coextensive with the threat. Accordingly, in order to effectuate
the policies of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist
from in any manner infringing upon the rights of employees guaranteed by Section 7
of the Act.
It will be recommended that the Respondent offer Joseph Olivera immediate and
full reinstatement, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges,
to his former or substantially equivalent position, and offer Gilbert Jesus immediate
employment as a full-time driver, without prejudice to seniority and other rights and
privileges he would have enjoyed absent the refusal to hire him in such position in
the fall of 1961. It will be recommended that both Olivera and Jesus be made whole
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which
he would normally have earned as wages from the date of discrimination (in the
case of Olivera the date of his discharge, and in the case of Jesus the date when the
first new driver was hired on or after October 27, 1961) to the date of the offer of re-
instatement or, in the case of Jesus, offer of hire as a full-time driver. The backpay
provided for herein shall be computed in accordance with the Board's formula
set out in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.6
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Em-
ployees of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating against Joseph Olivera and Gilbert Jesus, to discourage mem-
bership in the above-named labor organization, the Respondent 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 employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5In view of other unlawful acts, as to which the evidence is undisputed, the Trial
Examiner cannot accept as true Almeida's denial that he ever told any employee he would
not sign a contract
6In his brief General Counsel urges that interest be added to the backpay award The
Trial Examiner is In agreement with the merit of his argument However, for reasons
the same Trial Examiner set out in Raytheon Company, 140 NLRB 883, he does not
consider it within his province to include, in a recommended order, a provision which
would he contrary to Board policy as it presently exists
ALMEIDA BUS LINES , INC. 287
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, it is recommended that Almeida Bus Lines , Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric
Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America , AFL-CIO, or in any other labor
organization , by discharging, laying off, refusing to hire, or in any other manner dis-
criminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of employees, or any
term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees regarding their union adherence in a manner violative
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
(c) Threatening employees with economic reprisals to discourage membership in
any labor organization.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join
or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choice , and to engage in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all such activities , 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 by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Offer employee Joseph Olivera immediate and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority and other
rights and privileges , and offer employee Gilbert Jesus immediate employment as a
full-time driver , and make both employees whole for any loss of pay they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them , in the manner set forth in the
section above 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 records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts
of backpay due and the right of reinstatement under these recommendations.
(c) Post at its terminal in New Bedford , Massachusetts , copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix ." 7 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the First Region, shall , after being duly signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted, and maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region , in writing, within 20 days
from the date of the service of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.8
7In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board 's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
8 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
As recommended by a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and
in order to conduct our labor relations in compliance with the National Labor Re-
lations Act, we notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discourage our employees from being members of
Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach Em-
ployees of America, AFL-CIO, or any other union.
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT threaten you with reprisals because you join any union.
WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights you have under the National Labor
Relations Act to join a union of your own choice or not to engage in any union
activities.
WE WILL offer Joseph Olivera reinstatement to his former job, and offer
Gilbert Jesus employment as a full-time driver , and will give them both back-
pay due them.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the union named
above, or any other -union, and they are also free to refrain from joining any union
unless in the future we should enter into a valid union -shop contract with a union
that represents our employees.
ALMEIDA Bus LINES , INC.,
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.
. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 24 School
Street, Boston , Massachusetts , Telephone No. Lafayette 3-8100 , if they have any
question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Tidelands Marine Service, Inc. and Seafarers ' International
Union of North America , Atlantic and Gulf Districts, AFL-
CIO. Cases Not. 15-CA-922, 15-CA-951, and 15-CA-962. De-
cember 26, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 15, 1959, Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action. He also found that the Respond-
ent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
At the original hearing in this proceeding, the Trial Examiner,
relying on the A cC P case,' denied the Respondent's demands for the
production of the pretrial statements made by certain of the General
Counsel's witnesses. Thereafter, while this proceeding was still pend-
ing before the Trial Examiner, the Board issued its decision in Ra-Rich
Manufacturing Corporation,2 overruling the A & P case. The Trial
Examiner thereupon reopened the hearing and directed the production
by the General Counsel of all the pretrial statements requested by the
Respondent. The Trial Examiner, however, limited cross-examination
thereon to questions seeking an explanation of inconsistencies between
the testimony of each witness and his pretrial statement.
1 The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, National Bakery Division, 118 NLRB 1280.
a 121 NLRB 700.
140 NLRB No. 28.