Artim Transportation System, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 27, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 226 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Artim Transportation System , Inc. and Everett W.
Batcheller . Case 13-CA-8230
January 27, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On September 20, 1968, Trial Examiner William
Seagle issued his Decision 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 Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed a brief in answer to
the Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
-three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire
record in this case,' and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.'
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Everett Wayne
Batcheller, one of his employees; and the answer of the
respondent denying the commission of any unfair labor
practice, I, William Seagle, the duly designated Trial
Examiner, heard this case at Chicago, Illinois, on August
7 and 8, 1968.
Subsequent to the hearing, counsel for the General
Counsel and for the respondent filed briefs with the Trial
Examiner.
Upon the record so made, and in view of my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I hereby
make the following findings of fact:
I THE RESPONDENT
Artim Transportation System, Inc., the respondent- in
the present proceeding, is an Indiana corporation, which
at all material times has maintained its general office at
7105 Kennedy Avenue, Hammond, Indiana, and a city
terminal at 165th and Summer Streets, Hammond,
Indiana, from which it has been engaged in the interstate
trucking and cartage business as a common carrier of
iron, steel and other general products.
During the calendar year 1967, the respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, received
gross revenues in excess of $1,000,000, of which more
than $50,000 was received as the result of its interstate
operations.
The respondent admits that at all material times it has
been an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and I so find.
IL THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 142, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, is a
labor organization which maintains contractual relations
with the respondent.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, Artim Transportation
System, Inc., Hammond, Indiana, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
'Although counsel for the Respondent alluded to a union grievance
hearing which held that Batcheller was discharged for cause , no evidence
was introduced by the Respondent , with respect to that proceeding
'In adopting the finding that employee Everett Batcheller was discharged
for his protected concerted activities , we specifically disavow that portion
of the Trial Examiner ' s reasoning that the Respondent knew that a
criminal prosecution for the alleged theft of the tarpaulin would not prove
successful
TRIAL EXAMINER ' S DECISION
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
Everett W. Batcheller , whose discharge is in issue in the
present proceeding , was one of more than a hundred
Artim truckdrivers' operating out of its City Division
located at 165th and Summer Streets, Hammond,
Indiana. ' Batcheller commenced his employment with
Artim in September 1961, and he was terminated by the
respondent as of November 30, 1967, which would be
after more than 6 years of employment . Batcheller was
not actually working, however , at the time of his
discharge . He had been hospitalized and had undergone a
hernia operation from which he was recuperating when he
received his letter of termination.
The crux of the case is the respondent ' s motive in
discharging Batcheller . The respondent advances as the
reason for his discharge the theft by him of one of the
tarpaulins which were used by the company to cover its
steel loads during transport . The General Counsel
contends, on the other hand, that the reason for his
discharge was his previous concerted activity, which
consisted of the presentation of many grievances to the
respondent , and to the union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM SEAGLE, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed
on January 23, 1968; a complaint issued on July 3, 1968
by the Acting Regional Director of Region 13, in which it
was alleged that the respondent had violated Section
'Batcheller himself testified that from 100 to 130 drivers operated out of
the City Division of Artim but John J. Harkema, the chief dispatcher of
this Division put the number at about 150
'Artim also operates another division known as the Road Division
located at Kline Avenue in Hammond , Indiana.
174 NLRB No. 40
ARTIM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
There can be no doubt about the extent to which
Batcheller was involved in the presentation of grievances.
He was, apparently, a contentious individual, and there is
no doubt that in 1967 he became the stormy petrel of the
Artim transportation system. There was a standing feud,
moreover, between him and John J. Harkema, the chief
dispatcher of the City Division, who regarded Batcheller
as a thorn in his side. This characterization is Harkema's
own, for he testified that he may have mentioned it to
Stephen J. Kanuch, the Artim terminal manager.
Although Batcheller had long harbored ill-feelings
towards Harkema, he first came into open conflict with
his superiors in the managerial hierarchy of Artim3 in
May 1967. One of Batcheller's fellow truckdrivers, whose
name is William Wayne Estes, was discharged by the
respondent on May 6, after only 5 days of employment.
Estes had previously worked for Artim but had left
voluntarily, and he had been reemployed by Artim on
May 1, 1967. As Estes had not yet completed his 30-day
probationary period, he could not file a grievance with the
union contesting his discharge. But he found a ready
champion in Batcheller who took up the cudgels in his
behalf. It seems that Estes had a speech defect which
made it difficult to understand him on the two-way radio,
and also that he had difficulty with his paperwork due to
his poor education Nevertheless, Batcheller regarded
Estes as a hard and conscientious worker who has been
able to surmount his difficulties, and he regarded it as
particularly unjust that Estes, who had another job at the
time, should have been reemployed with full knowledge on
the part of the Artim management of his limitations, and
then discharged after so short a period of employment.
When Batcheller came to work the Monday morning
following the discharge of Estes, he went to see George
Huizenga, who was in charge of labor relations, to discuss
the discharge, but he received no satisfaction from the
latter. That same night - Batcheller then worked on the
night shift - he drew up what he described as a
"petition" - it was actually a document in letter form
headed "Notice to Whom It May Concern - " in which
he protested the discharge of Estes in most emphatic
terms and demanded that he be put back to work.
Batcheller was hardly conciliatory towards those whom he
deemed to be responsible for the discharge of Estes, for he
declared: "It is also my opinion that Mr. Estes would
have been a far greater asset to the company as an
employee than the individual that caused him to be
discharged will ever be." He declared: "The party or
parties that were responsible for this man's discharge .. .
should be very proud of themselves to say the least and I
can honestly say I would never advise anyone to seek
employment with Artim especially if they were already
employed elsewhere as Mr. Estes was, because like Mr.
Estes for no good reason they would find themselves out
of a job period."
Having prepared his protest on the discharge of Estes,
Batcheller proceeded to solicit signatures to the document
from his fellow-drivers. Seventy-nine of the drivers, in
addition to Batcheller, signed it. The signatures were
obtained on the Monday and Tuesday following the
discharge of Estes. As usual, Batcheller worked on the
night shift on Monday but he came in also on Tuesday to
solicit signatures from the daytime drivers. While he was
'In addition to Kanuch, the terminal manager , and Harkema , already
mentioned, this also included George J. Huizenga, Supervisor of Safety,
Personnel and Labor Relations; Ralph R. Artim, the president of Artim;
and Ralph D. ("Bud") Artim, his son, who is vice president of Artim
227
doing so, Huizenga came into the drivers' room, and
obtaining a copy of the letter from one of the drivers, read
it. Huizenga then made a speech to the drivers who were
present defending the company's action. He attributed the
discharge of Estes to the fact that in the 4 days that he
had been working for the company, he had torn up a
dump truck, and had been barred from the premises of
several of Artim's customers. After making his speech,
Huizenga left the drivers' room, and did not interfere any
further with Batcheller's solicitations of signatures to his
protest.
Batcheller did not rest content, moreover, with the
composition of this letter of protest to which he had
obtained the signatures of 79 of the drivers. A few days
later, he also composed a letter to Ralph A. Artim, the
president of the company, and presented it to the latter in
person. This letter was somewhat calmer in tone than
Batcheller's previous letter but no more diplomatic. Ralph
Artim promised Batcheller that he would investigate the
case but Estes was never restored to the Artim payroll,
despite the fact that Batcheller had assured Artim that he
had investigated the charges of the Artim customers
against Estes and found them to be false One cannot help
but wonder at the thoughts that must have passed through
the mind of Artim as he pondered the paragraph in the
letter in which Batcheller had warned.
If by chance I have made a mistake in writing to you
on this matter and if by chance I am wrong in thinking
that you would want to see that this matter was
corrected and nothing comes out of this as far as you
are concerned, then I will take it for granted that I
have misjudged you as a fellow human being and that
you have no compassion for others or their feelings or
well being. I will also know for my own benefit at least
that Artim could care less as far as employee's moral
(sic) is concerned and that employee and employer
relationship means absolutely nothing to you.
On Monday of the following week, which would be
May 15, when Batcheller reported for work at about 4
p.m. and walked into the drivers' room, Huizenga told
him that Kanuch, the terminal manager, wished to see
him in his office. In the interview that followed, Kanuch
told Batcheller that the company was rather unhappy
about the letters that he was writing and posting on the
bulletin board, and that in the future he was not to post
anything on the bulletin board in the drivers' room unless
he first secured the approval of the company. Batcheller
asked Kanuch why he should be denied the privilege of
posting anything on the bulletin board when the other
drivers were allowed to post whatever they desired on the
bulletin board but to this question he received no answer.
Nevertheless, Batcheller told Kanuch that he would
comply with his instruction.
Batcheller only complied, however, with this instruction
.in a narrow, literal sense. That very same night he
composed a letter, which he entitled: "Subject: Rights of
Others," and in which he protested against the denial to
him of the right to post letters on the bulletin board
because of his championship of Estes. He refrained from
posting this letter on the bulletin board, but he had about
a dozen photocopies made of the letter and left them on
the table in the drivers' room where they could be seen
and read by his fellow drivers. He also had made
approximately 100 photocopies of his original letter on the
discharge of Estes, and also left these on the table in the
drivers' room. Although he did not deposit all of them
there at the same time, Batcheller gave one of these copies
to Estes himself as a memento of the controversy, and
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
someone (not Batcheller himself) posted one of the copies
of the letter on the glass-enclosed bulletin board that was
used for official announcements, as opposed to the open
bulletin board that was for the general use of the drivers.
Either late the same week or during the following week,
Huizenga noticed the letter on the bulletin board, and
took Batcheller to task for posting it but the latter denied
that he had had anything to do with it. Under date of
May 31, 1967, Estes wrote Batcheller a note of
appreciation and thanks for the latter's efforts in his
behalf. Batcheller also had photostatic copies of Estes'
note made, and left them in the drivers' room.
As a driver on the night shift Batcheller's hours began
at 4 p.m. During the last full week in May, Batcheller's
starting time was changed from 4 to 3 p.m. He discussed
the change with Huizenga and Harkema, and he accused
the latter of discrimination against him. Harkema denied
the accusation but Batcheller nevertheless demanded that
he be paid time and a half for the hour from 3 to 4 p.m.,
as required by the provisions of the union contract. When
he was refused time and a half for the earlier hour,
Batcheller called Jake Abshire, the union business agent,
who secured it for him.
Harkema denied that he was attempting to discriminate
against Batcheller by changing his starting time from 4 to
3 p.m. He explained that he made the change, so that
Batcheller might "get two loads to each customer per
day." But he admitted that he did not change the starting
time of any other driver. If it was so important that
Batcheller should service a customer twice during his shift,
why was it not equally important that the other drivers
should also do so. Clearly Harkema's motive must have
been discriminatory.
That it was so in fact is established by the testimony of
Herman Parton, who was night dispatcher at the time but
who was subsequently discharged by the respondent.
Parton testified that in May 1967, about 2 weeks after the
discharge of Estes, he was called to a meeting where he
found "Bud" Artim, Harkema, and Earl Hoover, one of
the dispatchers, and that at this meeting he was instructed
to change Batcheller's starting time from 4 to 3 p.m., and
to cut Batcheller off at 8 hours, i.e. to hold his overtime
down. Practically all the drivers on the night shift were
then averaging about 20 hours a week in overtime.
The respondent attacks Parton's credibility in view of
his discharge but I accept his testimony, notwithstanding
the fact that his discharge could conceivably have led him
to harbor resentment against the respondent. Moreover,
the respondent did not call either "Bud" Artim or Earl,
Hoover as witnesses to deny Parton's testimony, and
although Harkema was called as a witness, he was not
invited to deny the occurrence of the meeting. The
respondent did produce payroll records showing that
Batcheller had worked some overtime in the months of
July (after the night shift had been abolished), August,.
and September but this hardly proves that he worked any
considerable amount of overtime in May and June.
During the month of June there appear to have been no
storm clouds on the Artim horizon. But early in July
Batcheller took pen in hand again to protest what he
considered another outrage. On July 5, 1967, one of the
Artim drivers by the name of Alfred Campbell landed in
jail for driving a load that was overweight. According to
the testimony of Huizenga, Campbell and another Artim
driver were to pick up a piece of machinery at Verson
Allsteel in Chicago, and deliver it to a company in
Sterling, Illinois; as both loads would be overweight, the
company secured state permits covering the total gross
weight of each load; instead of picking up his scheduled
load, Campbell picked up another load, and, passing over
the state scale was arrested for overweight; he (Huizenga)
spoke to Campbell and told the latter that in view of his
negligence in not weighing his load or reading his permit,
the company would hold Campbell personally responsible
for paying the fine; Campbell was suspended and filed a
grievance with the union grievance board which ruled that
Campbell should be put back to work with backpay for
time lost but that if he were found guilty of an offense, he
should personally pay the fine; Campbell quit his job with
Artim and never paid the fine, which had to be paid by
Artim under its bond.
As soon as Batcheller heard what had happened to
Campbell, he spoke to him and his wife, and decided to
make the latter's cause his own, and that of all the other
drivers. He drew up a document "in behalf of not only
Mr. Campbell," he testified, "but all of the Artim drivers
so that they could be made aware of the position that they
were in if they continued with the habit of carrying
overweights and illegal loads, that they might
consequently be stuck to pay the fine." The document was
an essay of nearly 850 words on the subject of "Oversize
and Overweight Loads." In only the first paragraph of the
essay did Batcheller deal with Campbell's case: he related
that he had spoken to Campbell and learned that the
permit which he had been given was indecipherable, and
that, consequently, he had read the permit of the other
driver and assumed that his was the same. For the rest,
Batcheller expressed the views that a driver should not be
forced to pay a fine "even if the driver is one-hundred
percent in the wrong"; that an employer assumes
responsibility for his employees "the same as a gambler
assumes a risk"; that an employer could, of course,
discharge an erring employee but then his guilt should be
provable "beyond the shadow of a doubt." Batcheller
concluded his observations by warning his fellow-drivers
that if they did not wish to find themselves in the same
position as Campbell they make sure that [if] they were
operating legally in every respect before moving any load,
and demand two witnesses if ordered to move a load
about which they had any doubt.
Batcheller had photocopies made of his essay on
oversize and overweight loads. He gave some of the copies
to Campbell, and left the rest on the table in the drivers'
room. He also spoke personally to some of the drivers on
the subject, who in turn spoke to Huizenga about it.
Under date of July 26, he received a letter from Artim,
signed by George Huizenga, in which he was reprimanded
for intentionally falsifying his I.C.C. logs for the month of
May by entering incorrectly the number of his "on duty"
hours. Most of the other Artim City Division drivers
received similar letters of reprimand but only Batcheller
filed a grievance with the union, which was heard by the
Calumet Area Joint Grievance Committee on September
27. Huizenga, Kanuch and "Bub" Artim attended the
hearing on the grievance, and the latter accused Batcheller
of insinuating that the company would purposely break
the law, and of complaining to the Interstate Commerce
Commission, which, as a result, was investigating Artim.
Batcheller admitted that he had called the I.C.C. but only
to find out whether "the company could actually unload
the whole burden of guilt onto the drivers by writing these
letters of reprimand." Batcheller's grievance was rejected
by the union grievance committee.
The morning after the hearing before the union
grievance committee Batcheller, while he was on a run to
the Inland Steel Company in East Chicago, was informed
ARTIM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
that Ralph Artim, the president of Artim, wished
Batcheller to call him. Batcheller did so, and in the
ensuing telephone conversation, Artim told Batcheller that
the company had an application with the I.C.C. for new
operating authority, which he had endangered by filing his
grievance. Artim also stated that he was aware that
Harkema had been harassing him but assured Batcheller
that Harkema would harass him no longer if he would
agree to a 30-day cooling off period during which he
would file no grievances and write no letters. When
Batcheller agreed to this proposal, Artim mentioned that
he felt that Batcheller had been disrespectful of him in
some of the letters that he had written during the Estes
incident, but Batcheller assured Artim that he had meant
no disrespect, and that in fact he had only contacted him
in the matter because he had the highest regard for him.
At about the time of his telephone conversation with
Ralph Artim, Batcheller also found an envelope in the
rack with his timecard. The envelope contained a note
typewritten in capital letters and headed "Loyalty." The
note read as follows:
IF YOU WORK FOR A MAN, IN HEAVEN'S
NAME WORK FOR HIM, SPEAK WELL OF HIM
AND STAND BY TH (SIC) INSTITUTION HE
REPRESENTS.
REMEMBER-AN OUNCE OF LOYALTY IS
WORTH A POUND OF CLEVERNESS. IF YOU
MUST GROWL, CONDEMN AND ETERNALLY
FIND FAULT, RESIGN YOUR POSITION AND
WHEN YOU ARE ON THE OUTSIDE, DAMN TO
YOUR HEART'S CONTENT: BUT AS LONG AS
YOU ARE PART OF THE INSTITUTION, DO
NOT CONDEMN IT. IF YOU DO, THE FIRST
HIGH WIND THAT COMES ALONG WILL BLOW
YOU, AWAY, AND PROBABLY YOU WILL
NEVER KNOW WHY.
The note was unsigned and its authorship is not
established.
Naturally, Batcheller did not allow the "loyalty" note
to go unanswered. Within 2 hours he had prepared a reply
to the note, had about a dozen photocopies made of the
note, and deposited them the next morning on the table in
the drivers' room. Batcheller's reply to the loyalty note
was more than six times as long as the note itself.
However, its key paragraph was perhaps its fourth that
read as follows:
There are three forms of loyalty, false loyalty, where
just one pretends to be loyal, loyalty obtained by the
use of force and then there is true loyalty obtained by
earning it, and by doing unto others as you would like
them to do unto you. If you have the loyalty mentioned
last then in all probability you will also receive the
respect and integrity of the individual or individuals.
Having set forth the three forms of loyalty, Batcheller
proceeded to outline what an employer must do to inspire
loyalty in his employees. So far as this theme was
concerned, Batcheller declared as follows:
I will tell you what the employer is obligated to do
and that is to treat each and every employee fairly and
without prejudice regardless of race, religion, political
affiliation or for his rights to protect guaranteed under
the Constitution of the United States of America. If all
employers made a practice of treating their employees
fairly and also seeing to it that those who are put in
charge of supervising said employees did the same, then
there would be no need for protest, labor organizations,
229
labor laws to protect the employee and the Labor
Relations Board to see to it said laws were obeyed, and
the employer would find that he had the loyalty,
integrity and respect that the employee is expected to
give in return.
Early in October, 1967, Batcheller's wife, Mary
Batcheller, went to the Artim offices in Hammond,
Indiana, in connection with a garnishment of Batcheller's
wages. This was a predicament in which Batcheller not
infrequently became involved, and there were a number of
attempts to garnish his wages, much to the annoyance no
doubt of his employers. On the occasion of Mrs.
Batcheller's visit she saw Kanuch, the terminal manager,
in his private office. The Artim management had just
made an attempt to withhold Batcheller's paycheck but
had countermanded the order. Mrs. Batcheller asked
Kanuch, whether her husband could come back to work in
the morning, and the terminal manager, after making a
telephone call to someone, told her that they wished-him
to report at his regular time After a moment, Kanuch
remarked to Mrs. Batcheller that her husband was quite
talented. She asked Kanuch what he meant, and he
replied; "Well, these letters he has been writing. If he
would devote this much energy to the company, to the
betterment of the company, he would be a great asset to
the company. Could you talk to him about these letters he
has been writing. They're dust causing hard feelings." Mrs.
Batcheller agreed to talk to her husband about it. Kanuch,
in the course of his conversation with Mrs. Batcheller,
also commented that Batcheller seemed to have a thorn in
his side, and Mrs. Batcheller attributed this to the
constant harassment that he was subjected to by
Harkema. "He comes home almost every night nervous
and upset," she told Kanuch, and the latter agreed to see
what he could do to put a stop to Harkema's picking on
Batcheller.
During the month of September Batcheller had begun
to be assigned to driving an old model International
Tractor, No. 9129, which had been purchased in 1959 or
1960, and which was in 1967 in the so-called dead line list.
This consisted of trucks no longer fit for further use unless
they underwent extensive repairs. Batcheller complained
about his equipment assignments but during the months of
September, October and November, he was assigned to
drive No. 9129 twelve times. Huizenga testified that other
Artim drivers with even greater seniority drove trucks of
the same class and vintage during the 3-month period, but
he did not specify how often they drove them, nor whether
their trucks had been previously in the dead line list,
Parton testified, moreover, that he was instructed by Earl
Hoover to take No. 9129 out of the dead line list and give
it to Batcheller to drive.
Batcheller never came back to work after the attempt
to garnishee his wages. He was extremely nervous and
upset and his back was giving him trouble. On October 9
or 10, he entered the hospital, and it was while he was in
the hospital on this occasion, a stay that lasted a little less
than 2 weeks, that he had his hernia operation. While he
was convalescing from his operation, there occurred the
chain of events that led to his discharge.
It is necessary at this point to say something concerning
the nature of the Batcheller homestead. Its mailing
address was Box 88, Rural Route 1, Lowell, Indiana, and
it was located about 6 miles off Route 41 on a gravel road
in a populated but rather isolated area known as
Wildwood Shores that bordered on the Kankakee River to
the south of it. For a stranger, it would be hard to find
Batcheller's house even after a first visit. Batcheller had
230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his property posted against trespassing, moreover, and he
boasted that he had secured no less than seven convictions
for trespassing against persons who had failed to respect
his privacy. Yet now, utterly unknown to him, he had
another unwelcome visitor, apparently, and he was none
other than John T. Harkema.
According to the testimony of Harkema, he was on
vacation during the second week of November and one
day as he was engaged, with a friend, in duck-hunting, he
just happened, as he put it, to "stumble" on Batcheller's
property; he and his friend were following a flight of
ducks in their car over country roads when they came
upon Batcheller's house. Harkema noticed, he testified,
that "there was tarpaulins on the roof of his house, over a
chimmey which would be over a fireplace; a tarpaulin over
the entrance to the garage; a tarpaulin over a car that was
standing in the middle of the backyard."
The testimony of Harkema seems to be that he was
duck-hunting on November 13 when he stumbled on
Batcheller's house, but there is reason to doubt the
accuracy of this date, since Harkema also testified that he
was only on a week's vacation, which began on Monday,
November 6. If he was on a week's vacation, he would
have been due back to work on Monday, November 13,
and he would not have been engaged in duck-hunting on
that day This is not a matter of inference only, moreover,
for despite the fact that he had testified that he stumbled
on Batcheller's house on November 13, he also definitely
testified that he was back at work on November 13.
In any event, whether Harkema was actually
duck-hunting with a friend, and whether they did so on
November 13 or some other date, he also testified that on
this occasion there was nothing to indicate to him that he
had also stumbled on tarpaulins that were Artim property.
He nevertheless reported what he called the "incident" to
Kanuch, the terminal manager. Thus Harkema testified:
Q. Well, with reference to the tarpaulins that you
saw, did you sde anything that day that would lead you
to believe that they were Artim property?
A. Not at that time, no, sir.
Q. All right. After you returned from your vacation,
which was on the 13th, what did you do?
A. I reported this incident to Mr. Kanuch, the
terminal manager.
Q. What incident?
A. Of seeing the tarps on Mr. Batcheller's property,
and also how I stumbled on his property.
It seems, moreover, that Kanuch upon being told about
Harkema's visit to Batcheller's house, instructed the latter
and Huizenga to ride out there. This they did, it is clearly
established, on November 17, for all three witnesses who
testified as to this visit, Huizenga, Harkema and
Batcheller nimself, agree on the date of the visit. All three
witnesses also agree in general as to what occurred and as
to what was said during the visit with some qualifications
that are very significant, however
Harkema testified that he arrived with Huizenga at
Batcheller's house "after having trouble with finding it
again ." Leaving Huizenga in the street in their car, he went
to the back door of Batcheller's house and knocked but
received no answer . Seeing a light in the garage, he went
over there and hollered " Batcheller ," and again received
no answer. There was a tarpaulin hanging over the door,
covering the entrance over the garage, and when he looked
at it, he saw the name "Artim" on it, although it was
upside down. He went back to the car to tell Huizenga
what he had seen, and the latter took a picture of the
tarp. Huizenga then left the car and went to the door of
the house while Harkema sat in the car, and soon the
latter heard voices in the yard, and headed for the house.
He found Huizenga talking to Batcheller, who invited
them into the house. In the ensuing three-party
conversation, there were also three subjects discussed (1)
Batcheller's operation, (2) a fire that had taken place in
Batcheller's house several years ago, and (3) the relations
in the past between Batcheller and Harkema. So far as
the discussion related to Batcheller's operation, Harkema
testified that he did not know that Batcheller had had an
operation while he had been in the hospital, because when
he had telephoned to Batcheller while he was hospitalized
the latter had told him that he was in the hospital for a
nervous condition caused by him. During the discussion of
his operation, Batcheller showed him and Huizenga the
scar resulting from his operation. The discussion of the
past relations between Batcheller and Harkema occurred
as he was leaving the house with Huizenga. As Batcheller
was seeing them to the gate, he said to Harkema: "John,
let's bury the hatchet," and Harkema replied: "Batcheller,
I have no hatchet to bury." The two shook hands, and
Harkema departed with Huizenga. During the entire
conversation neither Harkema nor Huizenga mentioned
the subject of tarps, and of course, neither of them
accused Batcheller of stealing an Artim tarpaulin
The testimony of Huizenga concerning the visit of
November 17 to Batcheller's house is in substantial
agreement with that of Harkema, except for the discussion
of Batcheller's operation. As to this, Huizenga testified:
"The first thing we talked about, was his recent operation.
And after some discussion, he said, `I don't suppose you
believe that I had any surgery.' " He said, "Look, I will
show you." So he showed us his scar. We assured him
that we knew that he had been operated. [Emphasis
supplied.] This is diametrically opposed to the testimony
of Harkema that he knew nothing about Batcheller's
operation at the time of the visit.
The testimony of Batcheller concerning the November
17 visit of Harkema and Huizenga is fuller with reference
to the topics discussed and reveals how he became aware
of the presence of his visitors. He testified that at the time
of their arrival he was asleep in bed on the second floor of
the house and that the house was deserted except for
himself. He heard his dogs barking, got up and looked out
of the window. He saw Harkema and Huizenga standing
in his driveway, and went downstairs to open the door to
them. Huizenga stated that he and Harkema had been out
hunting ducks in his area, and, seeing his house had
decided to drop in to see "how `good old Batch' was
getting along." Huizenga inquired about his illness and
about when he would return to work. When he seemed to
imply that there was nothing wrong with him and that he
had never had an operation, he pulled down his pants and
showed them his scar. Then Harkema entered the
conversation and remarked to him: "Your writing these
letters to Mr. Ralph Artim about me. You're just wasting
your time." He replied: "Well, I don't know, maybe I
am," and offered the olive branch to Harkema; he said
that he would be more than happy to forego any hard
feelings he had against him if he would treat him like
another human being. But Harkema irritated him by
attempting to minimize the extent of the fire in his house,
which had involved $14,000 in damage, and he became so
"hot under the collar" that he invited Harkema to leave,
which he did.
When Huizenga reported to Kanuch about the
November 17 visit to Batcheller, the terminal manager
remarked to Huizenga• "Let me think about this for a
ARTIM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
couple of days." Kanuch then instructed Huizenga to pay
another visit to Batcheller, accompanied by officers from
the Lake County Sheriffs office at Crown Point, Indiana.
Huizenga made this visit on November 22, and the two
officers who accompanied him were Detective Bernard
Bagley and Detective Ted Nowakowski.
When Huizenga, accompanied by the two detectives
arrived at Batcheller's house, Batcheller was lying under
his son's car, on which he had been working, and which
was covered with a tarpaulin. Batcheller got out from
under the car and asked Huizenga: "Just what the hell can
I do for you today?" Huizenga informed Batcheller that
he was,there with the detectives to recover some company
property in his possession. "Just what company property
are you talking about?" asked Batcheller. Huizenga then
explained that when he and Harkema had been there
previously they had seen tarps in the garage. "What were
you doing in my garage?" asked Batcheller. "I didn't
know you was in my garage." Huizenga replied: "Well,
we didn't think you was at home." Batcheller told
Huizenga that most decent people who came to his home
knocked on the door, and left if nobody answered. When
Huizenga indicated he wanted to look around, Batcheller
asked whether his visitors had a search warrant Bagley
replied in the negative but indicated that he could obtain
one if necessary. Batcheller then told his visitors that he
had nothing to hide, and that if they wanted to look
around the property, they could do so. Huizenga after
walking around the porch of the house walked over to the
car on which Batcheller had been working, and asked the
latter to undo the ropes that held the tarpaulin on the car.
Batcheller complied with the request, and, after Huizenga
had examined the tarpaulin, he claimed that it had had
the name "ARTIM" on it but that Batcheller had
scrubbed it out. Batcheller told Huizenga that the tarp
may have had Artim's name on it because Jimmy Mills
who repaired tarps for Artim had given him "several old
raggedy tarps." He also warned Huizenga that if he
intended to retrieve the tarp he better be prepared to
prove it was Artim's tarp. Huizenga and the detectives
then left without the tarpaulin.
Huizenga's testimony concerning the November 22 visit
to Batcheller's house is substantially to the same effect as
Batcheller's but, again, there are two important
differences, although these differences are largely in
emphasis. Huizenga's testimony was that he was looking
for the tarpaulin which he and Harkema had seen hanging
over the garage doorway during their visit to the premises.
Thus Huizenga testified that when Batcheller asked him
what he wanted he replied: "Batch, we would like to
inspect the tarp that we saw yesterday4 hanging over the
doorway of your garage" (emphasis supplied). The second
difference between the testimony of Batcheller and
Huizenga concerning the November 22 visit is that while
the former merely advanced as a possibility that he may
have obtained the tarpaulin over the car from Jimmy
Mills, the latter put it in terms of a definite fact, i.e. that
he had obtained the tarp from Mills. Thus Huizenga
testified that Batcheller told him: "I will tell you where I
got that tarp. I got that tarp from Jimmy Mills."
The two detectives who accompanied Huizenga on
November 22 were called as witnesses by the respondent.
Detective Bagley testified that he was there with Detective
Nowakowski merely to see that "there was no trouble"
rather than to gather evidence for a persecution, and
'Huizenga must have misspoken when he referred to "yesterday" as the
date of the visit.
231
confirmed that they had made the visit without a search
warrant. Detective Bagley testified that the tarpaulin they
saw that day was an old tarp that was weatherbeaten and
discolored in places, looking as if it had been in contact
with oil. Detective Bagley also testified that the tarpaulin
had the painted letters "A-R-T-I-M" on it but the letters
had been scrubbed off or worn off. Although Huizenga
had testified that the tarpaulin seen by him had white
painted letters on it, Detective Bagley testified, however,
that he saw no such letters on it. As for Detective
Nowakowski, who was standing behind Detective Bagley,
the former testified that, although he could see an imprint
on the tarp, he could not make out what the letters were.
The respondent did nothing about recovering the
tarpaulin or prosecuting Batcheller for its alleged theft.
Nothing was said to Batcheller, moreover, when on
November 28, he was asked to take a physical
examination before returning to work. A company doctor
gave him the physical that same day, and he passed it
with flying colors. Everything was normal, including his
vision, which was indeed 20/20, an undoubted asset in a
truckdriver. Yet 2 days later Batcheller was discharged by
the respondent for stealing a company tarpaulin. He filed
a grievance with the union but it was rejected by the
Greater Calumet Grievance Committee.
B. Concluding Findings
Counsel for the respondent seems to assume as a
self-evident proposition that Batcheller stole one of the
Artim tarpaulins, and devotes his best efforts to
discrediting Batcheller as a witness. The attack on
Batcheller's credibility is based primarily on his
involvements in garnishment proceedings, his allegedly
"false" testimony relating to the withholding of his
paycheck, and his testimony relating to his concerted
activities. Indeed, counsel for the respondent goes so far
as to assert "The fact that Batcheller's explanation for
the discharge of Estes and Campbell differs from the
company's explanation further serves to weaken
Batcheller's credibility." All this is fallacious, if not
frivolous. The fact that Batcheller may have had trouble
in meeting his bills does not establish his mendacity.
There can be not the slightest doubt that the respondent
temporarily withheld Batcheller's paycheck on one
occasion, and this is indeed admitted by the respondent.
So far as the Estes and Campbell affairs are concerned,
both Batcheller and Huizenga could have, sincerely
entertained differing views on the merits of the
controversies, and there is in fact no occasion to decide
the merits of either controversy, for Batcheller's concerted
activities were no less protected even though his
championship of the causes of Estes and Campbell may
have been wholly wrong.' That he engaged in these
activities is firmly established by documentary evidence
which makes his credibility quite irrelevant, and, insofar
as other questions of fact are concerned, those relating to
his alleged theft of the tarp, the discrimination against
him and the interferences with his presentation of
grievances, Batcheller's own testimony either stands
wholly uncontradicted or is corroborated by the testimony
of other witnesses for the General Counsel, as well as by
witnesses for the respondent. Batcheller's testimony is lent
further credence, moreover, by the failure of the
respondent to call many witnesses who should have been
'See Mushroom Transportation Co, Inc, 142 NLRB 1150, 1158, and
earlier cases there cited.
232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called because they obviously had knowledge of the
matters in issue. The respondent failed to call as witnesses
either Ralph Artim, who had several contacts with
Batcheller or "Bud" Artim, who attended the meeting
with Parton. The respondent also failed to call Kanuch as
a witness, despite the fact that he was the key figure in the
discharge of Batcheller and made everyone of the
important decisions that led to his discharge. Most
important of all the respondent failed to call Jimmy Mills
as a witness, and attempted to overcome the lack of his
testimony by offering hearsay through the mouth of
Huizenga, who clearly showed himself to be both an
evasive and untruthful witness
The indications of Huizenga's unreliability as a witness
are many. His evasiveness was shown, for example, when
he was being examined as to whether he would regard
Batcheller as a good truckdriver. With respect to this, he
testified as follows:
Q. Was he a good truckdriver?
A. Do you mean to be able to turn on the key and to
shift, and so forth?
Q Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. The thing you hire people for.
A. Yes this part of it. You are asking me if he is, a
good truckdriver. As far as the mechanics of the truck
are concerned.
Q. Is he?
A. Yes.
Surely, as Director of Safety and Personnel, Huizenga
knew perfectly well that counsel for the General Counsel
must have been interested in far more than whether
Batcheller could turn an ignition key. Another illustration
of Huizenga's evasiveness occurred when he was asked
whether there was any other truckdriver who had filed
more grievances than Batcheller. Huizenga testified that
he found it "difficult to say." Asked whether it was not
true that Batcheller was stirring up a lot of trouble,
Huizenga replied that many of the drivers treated the
Estes and Campbell incidents as "humorous." Yet over a
majority of them had signed Batcheller's "petition," and it
is difficult to see how fines for overweight would have any
humorous aspect for truckdrivers.
There are also a considerable number of examples of
Huizenga's untruthfulness. There is his testimony that
during the visit made by him and Harkema to Batcheller
on November 17 the two of them assured the latter that
"we knew that he had been operated," although Harkema
testified that he did not know at the time that Batcheller
had had an operation. If Harkema did not know, it is
difficult to understand from what source Huizenga had
obtained this knowledge. It is even more difficult to
understand why Batcheller should have shown his visitors
his scar unless they had expressed some doubt that he had
had an operation. As to the November 22 visit to
Batcheller, Huizenga testified on direct examination that
he was instructed to call the sheriff's office and ask for
two officers to accompany him to Batcheller's home but
on cross-examination he denied that he had called the
sheriffs office or that Kanuch, who, obviously, was giving
all the instructions as to the handling of the matter, had
called the sheriffs office, and thus left himself in the
position of failing to comply with his instruction. Then,
when he was asked, why on November 22 he had not
removed the tarpaulin, which he claimed to have clearly
identified, from Batcheller's premises, Huizenga explained
that the reason was that the officers had a new car and
they told him that they had a new car and did not wish to
dirty it by putting the tarpaulin in it. But this was only
one of Huizenga's uninspired fictions. Detectives Bagley
and Nowakowski were not there to gather evidence but, as
Bagley testified, to see to it that "there was no trouble."
As a matter of fact, the sheriff's office had been told that
the tarp was stolen from the Hammond, Indiana, yard,
and the Hammond police would be the ones that would be
concerned with the actual theft. Artim had been advised
by the sheriff's office, moreover, that it would be
inadvisable to bring a prosecution against Batcheller, so
that there was no occasion to gather any evidence.
Furthermore, Bagley explicitly testified that no move was
made either by him or by Huizenga "to actually roll up
the tarp and take it."
It seems plain on the record as a whole that Batcheller
engaged in concerted activities, including the presentation
of grievances, which were fully known to the respondent's
representatives, and that they reacted to these activities
both by attempting to persuade him to abandon them, and
by various warnings and acts of discrimination,
culminating in his discharge for stealing, allegedly, an old,
battered and oil-stained tarpaulin that had little or no
value, and that in discharging him for this reason they
acted on evidence of the flimsiest character.
The respondent not only concedes that its
representatives knew all about Batcheller's activities but
also seems to assert that these activities were even more
extensive than claimed by the General Counsel, and that
throughout the history of these activities, they never lost
their patience or "cool." The respondent also seems to
contend that too long a period of time elapsed between
the Estes and Campbell incidents and the actual discharge
of Batcheller for the discharge to be related to these
activities. The record does not, however, support any of
these contentions.
It is true that back in 1964 - just before Christmas -
Batcheller composed a humorous want ad in which he
advertised for a riding saddle to present to Harkema so,
that he could ride out of town. Batcheller did not post this
want ad on the bulletin board, but after the Estes and
Campbell incidents some person unknown did so. The
want ad merely reflects the standing personal antagonism
between Batcheller and Harkema, and has no connection
with any concerted activities on the part of Batcheller or
any other truckdriver. Almost 2 years were to elapse
before Batcheller began activities of this nature.
But once these activities commenced the patience of the
respondent's representatives could not be described as
saintly. The impression' of saintliness can only be created
by disregarding all the evidence relating to the warnings
given to Batcheller, the discrimination practiced against
him, and the attempts to get him to desist from his
activities. But, even disregarding this evidence, the lapse of
time between the Estes and Campbell incident and the
discharge of Batcheller is not very great. The Campbell
incident was in early July and while Batcheller's discharge
did not occur until the last day in November 1967, it must
not be forgotten that Batcheller was not actually at work
during most of October and all of November but was
undergoing medical treatment. While he was sidelined
during these 2 months, the respondent's representatives
were evidently looking for a pretext to get rid of him, and
when they finally, after much apparent hesitation, decided
to discharge him, their timing was absolutely perfect.
They discharged Batcheller before the very day that he
was scheduled to return to work.
The hesitation of the respondent's representatives until
the very last moment is not at all surprising. They needed,
ARTIM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 233
above all, a plausible explanation of the discovery of the
battered tarpaulin, for, unless the discovery were made to
seem accidental, they would lay themselves open to the
suspicion that they were looking for a pretext to get rid of
Batcheller. This, they thought they had found, in
Harkema's duck-hunting story but the duck that he was
hunting was Batcheller. Whether Harkema actually went
duck-hunting with a friend - the friend was never
identified or produced unless he was Huizenga - or made
up the whole story, does not really matter very much. It
would serve as a pretext in either event. Yet it is difficult
to see how Harkema, even if he were duck-hunting, could
"stumble" on Batcheller's house in a remote but
populated rural area unless he had armed himself with
Batcheller's address in advance. To have "stumbled" on
Batcheller's house without this while pursuing ducks in an
automobile strains credulity. Moreover, the fact that he
returned a second time, although there was nothing except
the tarps themselves to arouse suspicion during his first
visit, indicates that the duck-hunting story was only an
extra and superfluous embellishment.
Having decided to come back and look for a stolen
Artim tarp, among the seven or eight tarps that were on
Batcheller' s premises , Huizenga and Harkema never seem
to have been able to make their minds up as to whether
he had stolen one or two, or if one, whether it was a tarp
hanging over the door of Batcheller's car, or a tarp that
was being used as a cover for the car of Batcheller's son.
Huizenga testified concerning the alleged theft of the tarp
both as a witness for the General Counsel and for the
respondent. As a witness for the General Counsel, he
constantly accused Batcheller of stealing two tarps but as
a witness for the respondent, he accused him only of
stealing one. It is evident that Huizenga and Harkema
were nonplussed when during their second visit to
Batcheller's house they could not find any tarp over the
garage door. Apparently, they did not stop to ask
themselves why, if the guilty Batcheller had made away
with the tarp over the garage door because he was afraid
that he might be accused of stealing it, he had also not
made away with the tarp covering his son's car. Indeed,
they might have gone further and asked why he had not
made away with all seven or eight of the tarps that were
on the premises, for if he were going to be accused of
stealing one or two of the tarps, he might equally well be
accused of stealing all of them. Huizenga also does not
seem to have reflected on the fact that Batcheller showed
absolutely no consciousness of guilt when he was accused
of the theft of the tarp but readily offered to show it to
the detectives, although they had no search warrant.
Huizenga also seems not to have been discouraged when
neither of the detectives could see on the tarp the big
letters in white paint that spelled "A-R-T-I-M." While
Detective Bagley could see some imprints of letters,
Detective Nowakowski could not decipher them at all, and
both, it must not be forgotten, were called as witnesses by
the respondent.
Despite the failure of positive identification, and the
possibility that the tarp, even if it were an Artim tarp,
might have been obtained legitimately from Jimmy Mills,
Huizenga did not shrink in the end from discharging
Batcheller for stealing a tarp that they could not prove he
had stolen. Perhaps the most curious aspect of the case is
that Huizenga made the visit of November 22 despite the
fact that they had been advised that a prosecution either
for stealing the tarp or for receiving it knowingly as stolen
goods would not prove successful. Thus, the respondent is
in a position of asking the Board to find Batcheller guilty
of a theft on evidence which, they were advised, no
criminal court would convict.
In conclusion, I should perhaps add that I realize full
well that Batcheller was not the sort of person with whom
it was easy to live But the right to engage in concerted
activities is not limited to those employees who would
never hurt an employer's feelings, or fail to observe to the
fullest extent the amenities of controversy. In any event,
since the respondent did not discharge Batcheller for
overstepping the bounds of decorum, I do not need to
consider whether it would have been justified in
discharging him for this reason. I decide only that he was
not discharged for the reason assigned by the respondent,
and that the real reason was his previous concerted
activity.
W. THE REMEDY
In view of the limited nature of the violation involved
in the discharge of Everett W. Batcheller, I shall
recommend only a form of cease and desist order
restraining the respondent from discharging or otherwise
discriminating against its employees because they may
engage in concerted activities or they may present
grievances to the respondent.
To remedy the discharge of Everett W. Batcheller, I
shall also recommend, by way of affirmative relief, that
the respondent offer to him immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed by him, discharging, if
necessary any new employee hired subsequent to the date
of his discharge in order to replace him. I shall also
recommend that the respondent make Everett W.
Batcheller whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of his discharge by payment to him of a sum of
money equal to the amount which he would normally have
earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date
of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during the said period. The amount of backpay is
to be determined in accordance with the formula
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
and interest is to be computed on the amount so
determined in accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., Inc, 138 NLRB 716.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Artim Transportation System, Inc.,
is an employer engaged in commerce, or in an industry
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 142, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By discharging Everett W. Batcheller on November
30, 1967, because he had persisted in engaging in
concerted activities, and in the presentation of grievances,
the respondent committed an unfair labor practice
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, I recommend that the respondent, Artim
Transportation System, Inc., its officers, agents,
234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,successors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Local 142,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, or any other
labor organization of its employees, by discharging any of
its employees, or in any other manner discriminating
against them with respect to their hire or tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of their
employment because they may engage in concerted
activities or may present grievances to the respondent.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Everett W. Batcheller immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges and make him whole for any loss of pay he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him in the manner and to the extent set forth in Section
IV of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve, and upon request make available to the
Board, or its agents , for examination and copying all
payroll records and other data necessary to give effect to
the backpay requirement.
(c) Post at its general offices at 7105 Kennedy Avenue,
and at its terminal known as the City Division at 165th
and Summer Streets, both in Hammond, Indiana, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of
said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional
Director for Region 13, shall, after having been duly
signed by respondent's representative, be posted by
respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by respondent to assure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the date of service of this Decision what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'
'In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board,
the words , "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order 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 , "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
'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 Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 142,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, or in any
other labor organization of our employees, by
discriminating with respect to the hire or tenure of their
employment or any term or conditions of their
employment, because they may engage in concerted
activities, or may present grievances to us
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer to Everett W. Batcheller immediate
and full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights,and privileges and make whole for any loss
of pay he may have suffered by reason of our
discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining members of any
labor organization, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment, as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Dated By
ARTIM TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE: We will notify the above-named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of his right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 S. Dearborn
Street, Chicago, Illinois, Telephone 353-7597.