Baxter Bros.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 6, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1480 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of AVEDIS BAXTER AND BEN BAXTER , INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS CO-PARTNERS , D/B/A BAXTER BROS. and INTERNATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS , DISTRICT LODGE No. 87
Case No. 20-CA-207.Decided November 6, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 26, 1950, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respond-
ents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the additions and modifications
noted below.
1. The Respondents are franchised dealers of Chevrolet automo-
biles with their sole place of business at Fowler, California. As de-
tailed by the Trial Examiner in the Intermediate Report, the Re-
spondents make all sales and purchases within the State of California.
Under Respondents' franchise agreement with the Chevrolet Motor
Division, General Motors Corporation, they have the exclusive priv-
ilege of selling new Chevrolet cars and using the word "Chevrolet"
and the trade-marks thereof in Fowler, California. The franchise
also provides, in part, for certain controls as to the Respondents' place
of business, hours, service facilities, location, and signs, as well as
provision for the payment by Respondents of certain sums for local
advertising purposes to be used at the general discretion of the Chev-
rolet Motor Division. The Respondents are also restricted as to han-
dling cars of competitor companies. In the course of their business,
the Respondents purchase new cars, trucks, and parts from the Oak-
91 NLRB No. 233.
1480
BAXTER BROS. 1481
land, California,; plant of Chevrolet. The Oakland plant, in turn,
is a part of a Nation-wide organization devoted to the manufacture,
assembly, and distribution of Chevrolet products. The Respondents
contend that, because they make no purchases or sales outside the
State of California, they are not engaged in operations affecting inter-
state commerce and the Board is without jurisdiction in this case.
We do not agree and we find that the Respondents are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.'
Having recently reexamined Board policy concerning the exercise
of jurisdiction, we are of the opinion that-when an employee is an
integral part of a multistate enterprise, the Board should exercise-its
discretion in favor of taking jurisdiction .2 We consider franchised
automobile dealers, such as the Respondents, to be enterprises of this,
nature, even though, as here, the business may be locally owned. and.
make all its sales within the State. In reaching this conclusion, the
Board has considered the franchise arrangements under which the
Respondents operate and the fact that they function as an essential.
element in a Nation-wide system devoted to the manufacture and dis-
tribution of automobiles.3 Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Respondents.
2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondents
violated Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 8 (a) (3) of the amended Act,
through threats, interrogation, and the discriminatory discharge of
employees Frank and Hovsepian.
The Remedy
As neither Carl Hovsepian or Elmer L. Frank desires reinstatement,
we shall limit the affirmative action ordered taken by the Respondents
herein, to payment of back pay. We shall order the Respondents to,
make whole each of them by payment of back pay from the date of
Respondents' discriminatory action against him to the date when he
decided he did not desire reinstatement.' Since the issuance of the
Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report, however, the Board has
adopted a method of computing back pay differing from that pre-
scribed by the Trial Examiner.5 Consistent with that new policy we.
' See Kaljian Chevrolet Company, 82 NLRB 978 and cases cited therein.
2 See The Borden Company, Southern Division, 91 NLRB 628.
See Johns Brothers, Inc. et at ., 84 NLRB 294.
The Trial Examiner did not order back pay by the Respondents to Carl Hovsepian, as;
fie believed the latter 's earnings since the date of his discharge exceeds the amount he
would have earned had he remained in the Respondents ' employ. As we feel computation
of back pay is best determined in compliance proceedings, in accordance with usual
practice, we shall order back pay to Carl Hovsepian.
5 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
1482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shall order that the loss of pay be computed on the basis of each sep-
arate calendar quarter or portion thereof during the period from the
Respondents' discriminatory action to the date the discriminatees no
longer desired reinstatement.6 The quarterly periods, hereinafter
called "quarters," shall begin with the first day of January, April,
July, and October. Loss of pay shall be determined by deducting
from a sum equal to that which these employees would normally have
earned for each quarter or portion thereof, their net earnings, if any,
in other employment during that period. Earnings in one particular
quarter shall have no effect upon the back-pay liability for any other
quarter.
We shall also order the Respondents to make available to the Board,
upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of
the amount of back pay due.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Avedis Baxter and Ben Baxter, individually
and as co-partners doing business as Baxter Bros., and their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Association of
Machinists, District Lodge No. 87, or in any other labor organization,
by discriminatorily discharging employees or in any other manner
discriminating against employees in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment or any other term or condition of employment;
(b) By means of threats, warnings, interrogation, or in any other
manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza
tions, to join or assist International Association of Machinists, Dis-
trict Lodge No. 87, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection and to refrain from any or
all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
6 We agree with the Trial Examiner that back pay in the case of Elmer L . Frank should
be tolled as of January 1 , 1950. we accept the unchallenged statement of Frank at the
hearing that he decided against returning to employment at Respondents ' garage on the
indicated date , at which time his personal business had begun to show a profit . Contrary
to the contention of the Respondents , we do not regard the fact that Frank chose to
conduct a business of his own as indicating , from the very start, a decision not to return
to the Respondents if offered reinstatement.
.BAXTER BROS. 1483
as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 thereof.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Make whole Elmer L. Frank and Carl Hovsepian in the man-
ner set forth in the section herein entitled "The Remedy" for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondents':
discrimination against them;
(b) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due ;
(c) Post at its shop in Fowler, California, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked Appendix A.7 Copies of such notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by Respondents' representative, be posted by
Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof and. be maintained.
by them for sixty (60) consecutive days including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, San
Francisco, California, in writing within ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Order what steps Respondents have taken to comply
herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
IVE WILL NOT discourage membership in INTERNATIONAL
AssoCIATION Or MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE No. 87, or in
any other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging
employees or in any other manner discriminating against em-
ployees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment of any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT by means of threats to close the shop or to reduce
working hours, or by interrogation or in any other manner inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
' In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words "Decision and Order" the words "Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT
LODGE No. 87, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to re-
frain from any or all of such activities 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.
WE WILL make whole the employees named below for any loss of
pay suffered as the result of the discrimination against them:
Elmer L. Frank
Carl Hovsepian
All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from
becoming or remaining members of any labor organization. We will
not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment against any employee because of
membership in or activity on behalf of any labor organization.
BAXTER BROS.
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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Messrs. Clayton O. Rost and Rocco C. Siciliano, for the General Counsel.
Crossland d Crossland by Mr. William C. Crossland, of Fresno, Calif., for
Respondents.
Mr. A. C. McGraw of Oakland, Calif., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by International Association of Machinists, District
Lodge No. 87, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called respectively the General Counsel and
the Board, by the .Regional Director for the Twentieth Region issued a com-
plaint dated July 19, 1949, against Avedis Baxter and Ben Baxter, individually
and as co-partners d/b/a Baxter Bros., herein called Respondents, alleging
that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136. Copies of the
complaint, the charge, and notice of hearing were served upon Respondents
and the Union.
BAXTER BROS. 1485
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that
from on or about February 1, 1949, until the date of the issuance of the com-
plaint,' Respondents had vilified, disparaged, and expressed disapproval of the
Union, interrogated employees concerning their union affiliation, threatened and
warned employees in connection with assisting, becoming members of, or remain-
ing members of the Union, threatened to keep and did keep union meetings
under surveillance, and threatened to close their business unless the employees
ceased their activities on behalf of the Union. The complaint further alleged
that on or about February 7, 1949, Respondents discharged Carl Hovsepian
and Elmer L. Frank because of their union membership or other protected
concerted activity.
In their answer filed November 4, 1949, Respondents denied that they were
:subject to the Board's jurisdiction and denied the commission of unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Fresno, California, on January 17
and 18, 1950, before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel was represented by staff attorneys,
the Respondents by counsel, and the Union by an international representative.
All parties participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence perti-
nent to the issues. Upon the submission of stipulations of fact concerning
Respondents' purchases and sales, the hearing was closed on May 4, 1950. All
parties were granted to May 19, 1950, for the submission of briefs or proposed
findings and conclusions. None was received within the time allowed. Upon
the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make
the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
Respondents constitute a copartnership maintaining a place of business in
Fowler, California, where they are engaged in the buying, selling, and repairing
,of new and used automobiles and trucks under franchise from the Chevrolet
Motor Division of General Motors Corporation. During 1949, Respondents sold
new Chevrolets, which they received from the Chevrolet Motor Division, Oakland,
California, for a total of $135,469, and in addition, made sales totalling approxi-
mately $91,000, of used cars and parts. Although Respondents' franchise is
nonexclusive, they are the only Chevrolet dealer in Fowler, California.
Respondents make no purchases, so far as the record reveals, directly from
without the State of California, and make no sales to persons residing outside the
State of California.
More than 50 percent in value of the production of the Chevrolet Motor.
Division at Oakland, California, eventually reaches points outside the State of
California, and more than 50 percent in value of the materials used in such
production originates at points outside the State of California.
Contrary to the contention of Respondents, I find that they are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.'
' Over objection of Respondents , I permitted the complaint to be amended at the hearing
to allege further unlawful interrogation by Respondents on January 13, 1950.
2 Kaljian Chevrolet Company, 82 NLRB 978; M. L. Townsend, 81 NLRB 739; Midtown
Motors, et at., 80' NLRB 1679; Valley Truck and Tractor Co ., 80 NLRB 444.
1486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 87, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of Respondents.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
On January 21, 1949, Elmer L. Frank, a mechanic in Respondents' employ
since 1946, secured a number of designation cards from the Union and during the
next few days solicited other employees in the shop to sign them. All did so.
On January 25, the employees met with representatives of the Union. Seven
of the eight employees then signed applications for membership in the Union.
On Monday, February 7, Avedis Baxter, the principal manager of Respondents'
business, called the employees to his office, singly, and asked each if conditions
in the shop were satisfactory and if there was any complaint against the foreman,
John Tikijian. Some of the employees, among them Frank, were also questioned
about some candy which was missing from a customer's car. At the conclusion
of their interviews, Frank and Carl Hovsepian were discharged.
Later in the day, Respondent Ben Baxter asked employee Sarkus Najarian if
there was any union activity in the shop and inquired, if there was, why he,
Baxter, was not informed of it.3 Employee Fred Herod testified that at the end
of the working day on February 7, while a number of employees were discuss-
ing the Union in the rear of the shop, Foreman Tikijian approached them and
volunteered that Respondents could close the shop and get a new crew if they
desired. Herod also testified that on the afternoon of Tuesday, February 8,
Tikijian asked if Herod planned to attend a meeting that night. A union
meeting for Respondents' employees was planned for that evening. The next
morning, according to Herod, Tikijian asked'if Herod had attended the meeting.
Avedis Baxter admitted in his testimony that he questioned each of the em-
ployees on February 8 concerning whether they had joined the Union and
further testified that on January 13, 1950, he called all the employees together,
asked them if they had joined the Union, if they had attended meetings, if
they had paid money to the Union, and said that they could do as they liked but
that hours would be cut to 40 a week from then on.'
Foreman Tikijian admitted that he questioned each employee about whether.
they had joined the Union, was unsure whether he had asked any of them
about a union meeting, but denied that he said that the shop might close in
consequence of union organization.
Employee George Ejadian, called by the General Counsel, testified with
obvious reluctance that on February 8 Avedis Baxter remarked that if the shop
was organized by a union he would close it 3
I credit the testimony of Fred Herod and George Ejadian as against the
denials of Tikijian and Avedis Baxter. I find that on February 7, 8, and 9,
1949, and on January 13, 1950, Respondents interfered with, restrained, and
coerced their employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act by means of the interrogations and threats set forth herein and that
Respondents thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3 Ben Baxter so testified.
4 The normal working week was 52 or 53 hours.
s Ejadian explained that Avedis Baxter was "just blowing off steam." Baxter denied
that he uttered such a threat.
BAXTER BROS.
B. Discrimination
1487
Carl Hovsepian was employed by Respondent in August 1945 as a painter.
During the period that he worked in Respondent's shop he learned, to do body
work and at the time of his discharge on February 7, was receiving the highest
pay of any mechanic there. Hovsepian testified that he was called to Avedis
Baxter's office on the morning of February 7 and that Baxter first asked him
how he was getting along with the foreman. Hovsepian replied that he had
no difficulty with the foreman and that everything was "all right." Baxter
then accused F-Iovsepian of stealing gasoline which Hovsepian at first denied
and then recalling that he had put 10 gallons of gasoline in his car on February
4, explained that the matter had slipped his mind and that he had not paid
for it. Baxter, according to Hovsepian, then became greatly excited, refused
Hovsepian's offer to pay for the gasoline and said, "I don't think you and I
can do any further business." Baxter continued, according to Hovsepian, asking
what Hovsepian had to do with the men joining the Union. Hovsepian replied
that he had nothing to do with it, that all of them had joined, but not at his
instigation. Hovsepian paid for the gasoline and left the shop.
Elmer L. Frank testified that he, too, was called to Baxter's office on the
morning of February 7 and that Baxter then questioned him about some candy
which was missing from a customer's car. Frank denied knowledge of the
candy. Baxter then asked him what he did not like about the working conditions
in the shop and Frank replied that the foreman was pushing the men too much.
Baxter questioned him further about some distributor points that Frank had
put into a customer's car. Frank answered that he had followed the instruc-
tion of his foreman. Baxter then said that he was laying Frank off as the shop
was losing money. and went on to say in an angry and excited manner, "You
have been a trouble maker ever since you came down here. I should not have
listened to the fellow who recommended you to me." According to Frank, Baxter
also said that he had heard of Frank's attempts to organize a union.
Baxter denied that he mentioned the Union to any of the employees on that
morning and asserted that at the time he called the employees individually into
his office, he had no information that any of them was interested in a union.
Baxter testified credibly that on Friday, February 4, he saw Hovsepian take
10 gallons of gasoline from the pump and watched to see if Hovsepian paid for
it. On the following Monday, according to Baxter, the gasoline being neither
paid for nor charged to Hovsepian's account, he decided upon the discharge.
Baxter testified that Frank had been instructed to check the points on a cus-
tomer's car on Saturday, February 5, that he, Baxter, delivered the car to the
customer on Saturday afternoon and that the motor was not running satisfac-
torily. On Sunday, according to Baxter, he learned that Frank had put in a
new set of points and that a couple of handfuls of lollipops was missing from
the car. Reflecting, according to Baxter, that Frank was a poor workman, that
he had on two prior occasions done unsatisfactory work, he decided to discharge
him and did so the next day.
Foreman Tilujian testified that he told Frank to replace or to check the points
and also testified that Frank had done unsatisfactory work on two prior occa-
sions. Tikijian admitted, however, that on -neither of these occasions had he
voiced any criticism to Frank.
The work order of February 5, with relation to the points, was offered and
received in evidence. On one line is 'the direction "Replace distr. points" and
immediately below that in what appears to be different writing by a different
1488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pencil is the further direction "or check points." Frank testified that the only
instruction he had with respect to this car was to replace the points and that
he followed this direction. Fred Herod, another employee, testified that he
heard Tikijian so instruct Frank.
Conclusions
Hovsepian had been an employee for nearly 4 years and was the highest paid
.of the shop workers. His work had never been the subject of criticism. Of
course, his discharge was not based upon any consideration of competency.
Respondents admitted that it was the practice for the shop employees to take
gasoline or other supplies at any time that they desired to do so and either to pay
cash at the time of purchase or to submit some sort of memoranda indicating
the debt. There is no doubt but that Hovsepian was delinquent in reporting the
gasoline purchase but since there was no hard and fast rule with respect to
just how or when this should be done, I do not believe that Baxter at any time
came to a conclusion that Hovsepian was attempting a fraud.
With respect to Frank, Respondents' entire defense is, in essence, that Frank
was an incompetent workman. The evidence to the contrary is substantial and
is believed. Next to Hovsepian, Frank and Najarian were the highest paid
among the shop employees. In the fall of 1948, Frank quit his employment
with Respondent in order to work elsewhere as a truck driver. Deciding
apparently a week later that he had made a mistake, he applied for -reemploy-
ment. Avedis Baxter testified, disingenuously I find, that on the recommenda-
tion of Tikijian that "he is a poor fellow, he is nervous. Let's take him back,"
Baxter did so. I believe it unlikely that Frank was rehired because of a feeling
of sympathy on the part of Baxter. Even if it be true, as Baxter testified, that
in the fall of 1948, competent mechanics were difficult to find, it would not
explain why if Frank was not competent, he was among the highest paid of
Respondents' employees. The reason for the discharges was stated by. Baxter
to both Hovsepian and Frank when he told them that they were the instigators
of the union movement. Fred Herod, one of the employees interviewed by Baxter
on the morning of February 7, testified credibly that Baxter asked him if
Hovsepian and Frank tried to get him to join a union. Finally, the testimony
of Baxter as to the questions he asked the employees when he called them indi-
vidually to his office on February 7 is susceptible of no other reasonable con-
clusion than that he was questioning them with respect to information, which
he had in some fashion received, that they had joined or were about to join a
union. No credible reason was offered by Respondents to explain the questions
concerning their satisfaction with the foreman or with working conditions in
the shop.
I find that by discharging Carl Hovsepian and Elmer L. Frank on February
7, 1949, because of their interest or suspected interest in the Union, Respondent
discouraged membership in the Union and thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1)
and (3) of the Act.
Both Frank and Hovsepian have obtained other employment and neither
desires reinstatement. It was stated by the General Counsel at the hearing
that Hovsepian's earnings since his discharge have exceeded the amount which
he might have earned had he remained in Respondents' employ. Frank testi-
fied that he decided about January 1, 1950, that he no longer desired employment
with- Respondents.
BAXTER BROS.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
1489
The activities of Respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Respondents described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce
.among the several States and such of them as have been found to constitute
unfair labor practices, tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain afflrma-'
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The remedy of reinstatement ordinarily recommended in cases of discrimi-
natory discharge is not sought here and Carl Hovsepian has suffered no financial
loss by reason of his discharge. It will be recommended, however, that Respond-
ents make whole Elmer L. Frank for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum of money
equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date
of his discharge to January 1, 1950, less his net earnings0 during that period.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 87, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interrogating employees with respect to their disposition toward the
Union, by threatening to close the shop in the event of union organization, and
by threatening to reduce working hours in the event employees, joined the Union,
thus interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment of Carl
Hovsepian and Elmer L. Frank, Respondent has discouraged membership in
International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 87, and has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
6 Crossett Lumber Co ., 8 NLRB 440.