Bowman Transportation, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 20, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1419 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED 1419
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee in
order to discourage membership in Retail Automobile Salesmen Local No. 501,
affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, or in any
other labor organization , or in reprisal for engaging in activity protected by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or other reprisals because
of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees concerning their affiliation
with, activity in support of, or interest in the above or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right of self-organization , to form labor organi-
zations, to join or assist Retail Automobile Salesmen Local No. 501, affiliated
with Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO, 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
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
WE-WILL offer to William Ray and Cecil H. Stevenson reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges , and we will make each of them whole for any
loss or pay suffered as a result of his discharge.
All our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of Retail Automobile Salesmen Local No. 501, affiliated with
Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
MIKE PERSIA CHEVROLET CORPORATION
OF HOUSTON,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By----------- -----------------------------Re resentative ( 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.
Bowman Transportation , Incorporated and W. O. Mann , Emmett
F. Garrett, Jr., and Henry Grady Reeves, Jr. Cases Nos. 10-CA-
4462,10-CA-4462-2, and 10-CA-4462-3. December 20, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 21, 1960, Trial Examiner Henry S. Sahm issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth
in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a support-
ing brief.
Pursuant to the Provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
134 NLRB No. 146.
1420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
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 as modified hereinafter.
1. We agree that the motivating cause for employee Mann's dis-
charge by McNatt was Mann's initiating a grievance through Reeves,
the president of Local 14968, hereinafter called the Atlanta Local,
and not any deficiencies in Mann's work, as contended by Respondent.'
We further agree that the discharge of Henry G. Reeves , Jr., was be-
cause of his aggressive presentation of grievances on behalf of Mann
and Garrett, and not because of any dereliction of duties or for other
reasons asserted by the Respondent? We find it unnecessary, how-
ever, to adopt or rely on the Trial Examiner's findings that Reeves'
reason for asking overtime relief was known to Respondent and that,
assuming Reeves was at fault in the South Side incident, this would
not justify his discharge.
2. The Trial Examiner found that Garrett's discharge was moti-
vated by his circulation of the petition, over 3 months prior to the
-discharge, complaining about the failure by Local 13863, hereinafter
called the Gadsden Local, to give adequate representation to the At-
lanta employees of the Respondent, and not by any alleged derelic-
tions in the performance of his duties. He found further that the
Gadsden Local and regional officers of District 50, United Mine Work-
ers of America, expressed a desire to Respondent that Garrett be dis-
charged and that Respondent discharged Garrett to keep in good
favor with them. We disagree.
Although the Trial Examiner credited Garrett's denial that he
had committed any derelictions in his work, he did not discredit
Garrett's further testimony that he admitted to Bowman, at the time
Bowman discharged him, that he had been instructed to straighten
'The Trial Examiner appears to have overlooked testimony to the effect that Garrison
regarded Mann's work as unsatisfactory as a regular employee, further, the credited
testimony of Dudley and Dale taken together can be relied on only to establish that
Ragan, who was Mann's last supervisor , regarded Mann's work as satisfactory. This
does not, however , affect our agreement with the Trial Examiner's ultimate conclusion in
view of the credited testimony of Ragan, Reeves, and Mann that Ragan, who exercised
supervision over Mann for some 4 weeks, regarded his work as satisfactory; that McNatt
was aware of Ragan's satisfaction with Mann prior to Mann's discharge ; and that Mann
was not admonished for any of his alleged shortcomings . In finding that Mann's dis-
charge was discriminatorily motivated , we do not in any way rely on Boyd's testimony
concerning Mann's statement to Reeves , as reflected in footnote 3 of the Intermediate
Report.
2 Although Reeves' credited testimony that Bowman required him to accept a transfer
to the job vacated by Garrett's discharge was not uncontradicted , as stated by the Trial
Examiner, since Bowman testified that he only offered Reeves this job, and that Reeves
was not compelled to accept it, the Trial Examiner generally discredited Bowman and
credited Reeves . In these circumstances we also credit Reeves and discredit Bowman and
the Trial Examiner 's error does not therefore affect our conclusion as to the motive for
Reeves' discharge.
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED 1421
some gangboards, and some 2 weeks previously was asked to have some
floats greased, and had not done either. Garrett also admitted that
on this occasion he had made a statement to the effect that the Com-
pany was a bad place to work and he hated his job, whereupon Bow-
man discharged him. Further, the inference drawn by the Trial Ex-
aminer that the discharge was in compliance with a request for his
discharge by the regional office of District 50, is unsupported by any
evidence in the record. We also note that the circulation of the petition
3 months earlier was in the circumstances of this case remote in time
to Garrett's discharge. Accordingly, although the matter is not free
from doubt, we find that the credible evidence on the record as a
whole does not preponderantly establish a violation as alleged, and
we shall therefore dismiss the complaint with respect to Garrett.
3. We find no merit in the contentions of Respondent that the
activity of the employees in processing their respective grievances was
unprotected because the current collective-bargaining agreement did
not provide for handling of grievances by Reeves as president of the
Atlanta Local, which local was not named in the contract, and because
the Respondent never recognized the Atlanta Local. It is clear that
the sole reason for the discharge asserted by the Respondent at the
time of their occurrence was that they were for cause related to the
employees' work. At no time did the Respondent question the right
of the Atlanta Local to process grievances or of Reeves to process the
grievances of his fellow employees.
4. We also find no merit in Respondent's contention that Reeves
was bound by an election to take up his discharge through the con-
tractual grievance procedure and, accordingly, may not now have his
charge processed by the Board. Apart from any other considerations,
there is no evidence that he sought to pursue his grievance beyond the
first stage of the contractual procedure .3
ORDER4
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Bowman
Transportation, Incorporated, Atlanta,. Georgia, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall :
a Under the circumstances , we find that the Trial Examiner properly rejected an offer
of proof by Respondent that Edward Peyton, a representative of District 50, conducted
an investigation of the discharge of Reeves , took it up under the grievance procedure of
the collective-bargaining agreement , and came to the conclusion that the grievance did not
have merit and decided not to go to arbitration.
4 As Georgia has a right-to-work law , we shall delete from the order and notice recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner the proviso "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, as modified by the Labor-
Mfanagement Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 "
1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging concerted activity, having for its purpose the sub-
mission, presentation, and processing of grievances, complaints, and
related matters, by discharging, refusing to reinstate, or in any other
manner discriminating against any of its employees in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, or to refrain from any or all of such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which 'the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to W. O. Mann and Henry G. Reeves, Jr., immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and priv-
ileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay each may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination of the Respondent against them, as
provided in the section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social se-
curity payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due and
all other rights under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its terminal in Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken
to comply herewith.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent violated the
Act by discharging Emmett F. Garrett, Jr.
5In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing, an Order!'
V
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
1423'
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, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT discourage our employees from engaging in con-
certed activity, having for its purpose the submission, presenta-
tion, and processing of grievances, complaints, and related
matters, by discharging, refusing to reinstate, or in any other
manner discriminating against any of our employees in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist any
labor organization, to bargain collectively through representation
of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from
any or all of such activities.
WE WILL offer to W. O. Mann and Henry G. Reeves, Jr., im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay
each may have suffered by reason of the discrimination by us
against them.
All of our employees are free to become or remain or to refrain
from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization.
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED,
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
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act , against the Respondent , Bowman Trans-
portation , Incorporated , upon charges filed by W. O. Mann , Emmett F. Garrett, Jr.,
and Henry Grady Reeves, Jr., and upon complaint and answer ,' was heard, pur-
The Respondent's answer was a general denial although Section 102 20 of.the Board's.
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, provide that Respondent "shall specifically admit, deny,
or explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint, unless the Respondent is without
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
suant to due notice, on August 8, 9, and 10, 1960, before Henry S. Salim, the duly
designated Trial Examiner. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel's representa-
tives and counsel for the Respondent which have been fully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from observation of the demeanor of the
witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, an Alabama corporation, maintaining its principal office and place
of business at Gadsden, Alabama, with terminals located in Alabama, Georgia,
Tennessee, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, is
engaged in the transportation of freight by motor vehicle. Respondent, during a
12-month period ending June 30, 1960, derived gross revenue in excess of $100,000
from its interstate motor trucking transportation of freight. It is conceded and
found, therefore, that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
District 50, United Mine Workers of America (U.M.W.), is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Gadsden, Alabama, Local No.
13863, United Mine Workers of America, represented Respondent's employees at
its Atlanta, Georgia, terminal until May 19, 1960, when District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, issued a charter to Local Union 14968 which then became
the representative of those employees working for Respondent at its Atlanta, Georgia,
terminal. It is found that both of the local unions referred to above are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharge of W. O. Mann
W. O. Mann was hired by Respondent in March 1960 as an extra dockworker
which entailed loading and unloading freight to and from motor trucks at its Atlanta
terminal. On March 28, 1960, he was made a "regular" employee. Mann testified
that at the time of his promotion from an extra to a regular dockworker, he was
told by his dock foreman, W. E. Garrison, who it is stipulated is a supervisor: "You
have been doing good work and I think we will put you on regular." This was
corroborated by Garrison in his testimony and by T. L. McNatt, assistant terminal
manager, who, testified Mann was a satisfactory employee while he was working
as an extra. When he became a regular employee on or about March 28, 1960, he
worked under the supervision of William Ragan who it is stipulated is a supervisor.
Mann applied for membership in the Union during the first week of May 1960.
On May 17, Mann, the alleged discriminatee, complained to McNatt, assistant
manager of Respondent's Atlanta terminal, that a part-time dock employee had
been hired as a checker whereas he should have been offered this better paying job
first because of his seniority. McNatt informed Mann he would look into it and
advise him later.
The following day, May 18, Mann related to Henry Reeves, president of Local
Union 14968, which represented the Atlanta terminal employees, what had occurred.
Reeves advised Mann to draw up a grievance and that he, Reeves, would present it to
the Respondent. Reeves, who drafted the grievance for Mann, presented the griev-
ance to McNatt the same day. Reeves testified that he was told by McNatt that'he
had better know what he was talking about before Reeves "starts on him," and that
he should learn to distinguish between a "gripe" and a "grievance." McNatt's version
of this incident is that when Reeves handed him Mann's written grievance, he told
Reeves, "Just be sure you know what you are doing."
On May 20, 1960, McNatt called Mann into his office and told him he was fired
When Mann inquired what was the reason, McNatt, according to Mann, replied:
knowledge. . .. All allegations in the complaint, if no answer Is filed, or any allegation in
the complaint not specifically denied or explained in an answer filed . . shall be deemed
to be admitted to be true and shall be so found by the Board, unless good cause to the
contrary is shown." In view of the fact that the General Counsel has failed to object,
the answer, for purposes of this decision, shall be considered to comply with the above-
cited provision.
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION , INCORPORATED 1425
"He didn 't have to have a reason , that I was under , a probationary period, that he
was just letting me go ." 2
Mann 's testimony continues as follows:
. And then I asked him was it on account of the grievance which I had signed
earlier , and he [said ] "Yes, that it all boiled down to that ." . He said
"that it looked like I was just trying to cause trouble, he didn 't want any trouble
in the Company." . .. He handed me an envelope . .. explaining that I was
unsatisfactory.
This letter of discharge to Mann reads as follows:
Our payroll records fix a date of March 28, 1960 , as your anniversary date with
this Company . Since you have not completed your 60 day probationary period
and your services are unsatisfactory , this letter hereby terminates further duties
with Bowman Transportation, Inc. -
T. L. McNATr,
Assistant Terminal Manager.
Mann testified he had never received any complaints from Respondent that the
quality or quantity of his work was not satisfactory . Mann also testified that both
Garrison and Ragan , his foremen , had commended him and when he was transferred
to Ragan 's shift on or about the middle of April , Garrison told Ragan he was getting
a good worker in Mann.
Oliver Dale and Edward Dudley , who are presently employed by Respondent,
testified that about 2 or 3 days after Mann 's discharge , Dudley, in the presence and
hearing of Dale , asked both of Mann 's supervisors, Garrison and Ragan , "What was
the matter with [Mann 's] work" and that both of them answered his work was
satisfactory . Ragan , under whose supervision Mann worked at the time he was
fired , testified as follows in response to a question by Respondent's counsel:
Q. There has been some testimony here that you said to somebody . that
Mr. Mann 's work was all right or satisfactory or something like that . Did you
make a statement like that? ' -
A. I did make a statement to that effect for the length of time that he worked
for me.
Both Dale and Oliver , coworkers of Mann , who are presently employed by Respond-
ent, also testified that he was a competent employee.
Garrison , who was Mann 's supervisor when he began working for Respondent,
was an equivocal witness . His testimony that Mann 's work "wasn't quite satis-
factory" is not credited.
McNatt, who fired Mann , stated that he observed Mann's work "some, not an
awful lot" and that he "noticed [Mann ] stood around and talked quite a bit" and
that he "decided before his probationary period was up , to terminate him."
Conclusions
Based upon the evidence detailed above and the credited testimony of Mann,
Dale, and Dudley, who impressed the trier of these facts as truthful witnesses, as
well as the testimony of Mann 's supervisor , Ragan, whose testimony lends credence
to -Mann 's version, it is concluded and found that Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Mann for the reasons hereinafter explicated . The record does not support
Respondent 's contention that Mann had shown his unsuitability for further em-
ployment . He had not been admonished for any alleged shortcomings and had been
regarded as a satisfactory employee before his involvement as a grievant.
Moreover , the words which McNatt used to effect the discharge of Mann are in-
consistent with the assertion that , he had "decided before the probationary period to
terminate him." Had McNatt already decided to fire Mann , it- is reasonable to
assume he would normally have told him directly that he was firing him because
his services were unsatisfacory . Instead , McNatt refused to tell Mann why he, was
being fired , merely saying ; "He didn't have to have a reason."
2 Reeves testified that when , he asked McNatt the reason for Mann's discharge, McNatt
said: "I don't have to give you a reason . That man has not been here 60 days lie is
not, entitled to a grievance proceeding . You have got nothing to do with this man "
Reeves disputed this , contending Mann had been employed by Respondent for approxi-
mately 2 months and 3 weeks and that Mann was entitled to have recourse to the griev-
ance procedure provided for in the collective-bargaining agreement
630649-62-vol. 134- 91
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,McNatt never reprimanded Mann for the quality of his work but testified he
heard Garrison do so which not only is inconsistent with Garrison's testimony but
is self-contradictory in that McNatt acknowledged Mann was satisfactory while he
was working under Garrison`s supervision. Significant also, is the fact that McNatt
decided 'to discharge Mann without discussing it first with Ragan who was Mann's
immediate supervisor at the time.
it is found that the motivating cause for Mann's discharge was his initiating a
grievance through the Union against the Respondent 3 This was a protected activity.
Implicit in ,the rights guaranteed by Section 8(a)(3) is the employee's right to
utilize a union in assisting him in controversies with ,respect to his- employment .4
His discharge, therefore, constituted an interference with, restraint, and coercion of
Mann in the exercise of, his rights provided for in Section 7 of the Act and was dis-
crimination in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, in violation of ' Sec-
tion 8(a) (3) of the Act.
B. The discharge of Henry G. Reeves, Jr.
Henry G. Reeves, began working for Respondent as a truckdriver on March 13,
1959, and was discharged on May 30, 1960. In the latter part of February 1960,
his supervisor, C. W. Still,5 Respondent's city dispatcher, accused Reeves of having
written a letter to District 50 of the United Mine Workers headquarters in Washing-
ton, D.C. for the purpose of fomenting trouble. When Reeves asked Still what he
meant, the latter replied that E. E. Hollyfield, regional director of the United Mine
Workers (U.M.W.), telephoned Hoyt Watson, manager of Respondent's Atlanta
terminal, ^ and upbraided him because this letter "had gotten him [Hollyfield] in
trouble" with his superiors at the U.M.W.'s Washington headquarters. According to
Reeves, Still said Hollyfield told Watson, manager of Respondent's Atlanta ter-
minal, that `She had better get us under control or there would be some real trouble
over here." The "us" is an unmistakable reference to those employees who had
signed a petition addressed to the International Union in Washington complaining
that their Gadsden Local was not representing them properly.
Again, in March 1960, a few weeks later, McNatt called Reeves into his office.
He asked Reeves if he was satisfied with his job. Reeves replied he was, whereupon
McNatt stated that it was difficult for him to believe this in view of the fact that
Reeves was circulating a -petition against the Company. When Reeves denied this,
McNatt asked him what was his connection then .with the petition that Emmett
Garrett, an employee, was asking his coworkers to sign. Reeves answered that
Garrett, one of the alleged discriminatees herein, had requested him to compose a
petition addressed to the United Mine Workers headquarters in Washington, com-
plaining that their Union, Local 13863 at Gadsden, Alabama, was not representing
the Atlanta terminal employees properly, not-giving them any support, or even for-
warding to Respondent various grievances which were lodged by employees at the
Atlanta terminal against Respondent.
On April 30, 1960, Reeves was elected president of the newly chartered Local No.
13863, U.M.W., which represented Respondent's employees working at its Atlanta
terminal. By letter dated May 14, 1960, Respondent was notified of Reeves being
elected president of the Atlanta Local which supplanted the Gadsden Local, U.M.W.,
on May 19, 1960, 'insofar as those employees working at the Atlanta terminal were
concerned. (See General Counsel's •Exhibit'No.6.)° , '
After Reeves' election as president; there was an appreciable increase in the num-
ber of grievances which had heretofore been processed when' the Gadsden Local
represented the Atlanta terminal employees. When Reeves- became president of
the newly organized Atlanta Local, he had occasion to file written grievances on
3 D L. Boyd, an employee and a witness on behalf of Respondent, testified that on the
same day Mann was fired, he overheard Mann tell Reeves, the union president, that "he
was fired because he filed a grievance.""
4 The Laredo Daily Times, 64 NLRB 1191, 1192.
5It was stipulated that Still is a'supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act
6 The facts show that there is no validity to Respondent's contention that Local No.
13863 (Atlanta) was not the bargaining representative of Respondent's Atlanta terminal
employees Moreover, Respondent never indicated, after receiving written notice on
May 14, 1960, that it questioned the Atlanta Local's authority' to deal with grievances
or any other matters involved in the administration of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment See also the first proviso to Section 9(a) of the Act.
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED 1427
behalf of employees with both Watson and McNatt.7 On May 2, 1960, Reeves filed
a grievance with Watson on behalf of Emmett Garrett, one of the alleged dis-
criminatees in this proceeding , requesting that Garrett be reassigned to his former
job of pickup driver. An argument ensued when Watson refused Garrett's request
and Watson, according to Reeves, warned that if the employees "intend to get hard
and rough and I am to be faced with this type of thing, I will get rough, too, and I
will issue letters of warning every time you turn around." ' Reeves testified that
Watson said "he would begin to live by the contract and that while we were living by
it, it would be hard and rough." This incident was corroborated by Watson.
On May 18, 1960, Reeves filed another written grievance on behalf of W. O.
Mann with McNatt. A discussion ensued and during the course of it, McNatt asked
according to Reeves, if Reeves knew what he was talking about. The discussion with
McNatt was inconclusive so Reeves took up the grievance with Watson who stated
it would be processed.
On May 19, when Reeves went to McNatt's office in connection with another
union matter, McNatt brought up the Mann grievance. He told Reeves he must learn
to distinguish between a grievance and a "gripe" and although he felt Mann's was only
a gripe that-he would process it as a grievance.
Mann came to Reeves,on May 20 and informed him that McNatt had fired him.
Reeves, upon being told this, went to Ragan, supervisor of Mann, and asked him
what kind of a worker Mann was. Ragan's reply, according to Reeves was, "I find
him to be a very good worker." Reeves then went to McNatt's office and asked him
the reason for Mann's discharge. McNatt said, '3 don't have, to give you a reason-
That man has not been here 60 days. He is not entitled to a ,grievance proceeding.
You have got nothing to do with this man." Reeves disagreed with McNatt, where-
upon the argument came to an end and Reeves left.
On May 13, 1960, Reeves testified that he received a written warning with respect
to a delivery he had made to Sears Roebuck & Company 10 days earlier on-May 3.
This, testified Reeves, was the first inkling, written or oral, that he had of any
dissatisfaction with the quality of his work since his employment by Respondent in
March 1959.
Reeves' version of this incident is as follows • '
Irwas dispatched at approximately 9:15 of the morning of May 3rd with a
trailer load of bedroom furniture to Sears and Roebuck. . . [I got into the
truck and] I contacted Mr. Still by radio and told him to have a man avail-
able to relieve me at 'six o'clock. He said "you had better not be there at six
o'clock or you won't be here tomorrow. You have been taking entirely too long
to deliver your shipments anyhow." . . . He said "if you, don't want to work
here, to clock out and go home." I told him I had no intention [of doing so].
When I got there [to Sears] the entire lot was filled with trucks. There were
two waiting in the yard. I made the third one. I approached the receiving
clerk and showed him my bills and he said it would be approximately an hour
and a half before I can get to the dock. He designated the spot that I was to
back up to. I waited until the spot was vacant and then I backed up to it and
then he told me it would be about an hour before I could have the services of the
checker. After I secured the services, of the checker I and three other drivers
had to share the services of the porter. . . . The entire operation was extremely
slow. The man told me that the day before having been a,holiday, that they
were trying to handle two days work in one. [I completed the'unloading of the
freight at] approximately 4:30 p.m. '. . .' The checker told me'that 'I was four
pieces short. I had four pieces of freight left on the truck but it was marked
for delivery [to someone else]. He kept insisting that those four pieces were,
[for'Sears]. I called Mr. Still on the telephone.. . [Still] told me not to
deliver [the four pieces] of freight to Sears. It took until approximately a
quarter of five to straighten out the matter'with the checker. He finally signed
my bills and cleared me. I then called Mr. Still on the radio and,said I was
ready for dispatch. He ordered me to the terminal. [When I returned to .the
terminal he said] -nothing whatever.
Respondent's version of the Sears Roebuck incident as related - by its city dis=
patcher, C. W. Still, is as follows:
I come into work and [Reeves] comes in at 9 :00 o'clock and I handed him
a set of bills. There was two shipments going to Sears and Roebuck somewere
around 8000 pounds and he asked me for a helper and I told him there was
7 See article %V, page 18, Respondent 's Exhibit No 1, which sets out the grievance.
procedure.
1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
some out on the dock, to pick him up one and to take one with him and deliver
it. He looked on the dock and he said "if that's all you've got for me to take
out, I will go by myself." I said "I don't care how you -go. All I want is the
freight delivered."
He got out on the radio and comes back in and he said " I want a relief man
to relieve me around 5:30 or 6:00 o'clock to get back in time to get off . I'm not
going to make no overtime today."
He went on to Sears and I didn't hear from him until-oh, it was sometime
after five o'clock that afternoon.
* * * * * * *
He was back at the terminal with the freight delivered.
Contrary to Respondent 's assertion that Reeves "offered no reason for his un-
willingness to work overtime," the record' is clear that Still knew Reeves' father was
critically ill at the time and he died shortly thereafter. It is reasonable to infer
that Still also realized Reeves did not want to work overtime because of this and
which Reeves testified to at hearing was his reason for being anxious to leave at his
usual quitting time. The exchange of correspondence regarding this incident will
be found attached at the end of this decision as Appendixes B, C, D, E, and F.
On May 30, 1960, when Reeves was discharged, he learned for the first time that
Respondent was dissatisfied with the manner in which he had made a delivery to
the South Side Printing Company on May 20, 1960. Reeves' testimony as to this
incident (which is alleged by Respondent as one of its reasons for Reeves' discharge)
is as follows:
I was dispatched to South Side Printing Company with a trailer which had
approximately five or six thousand pounds of paper on the tail end of it. I got
over there. It was about nine thirty on Friday morning. They are located
immediately adjacent to the South Side Drive-in Bank . There is also a parking
lot behind the bank. The bank lane was completely chucked with automobiles
trying to get to the drive-in window and the parking lot was practically filled
with cars. I parked in front of the place and went back there and presented
my paper to the shipping clerk. He told me it would be some ten or fifteen
minutes before I could get back there. There was another truck unloading at
that time from S. P. Richards' Company. He stood there for a moment or two
and then he said "When you come in here, don't block this bank - lane." I
looked at the bank lane and it was chucked with cars and the parking lot and
I said "How do you get in here without blocking it?" He said "It's not too
easy. Personally, we prefer that this stuff come on a pickup." I went back out
in my truck. I was headed the wrong way to get in the parking lot to begin
with. I told him-my helper to wait there and hold traffic off of me as I
came around the block,, that I was going to get in a position to come in the
lot. In the process of circling the block, I called Mr. Still on the radio and
told him the situation.
* * * * * * *
I told him that I couldn't get into the place for a few moments. There was a
truck already in there, that the man actually preferred to have the paper come
on a pickup truck due to the fact that he didn' t want the bank lane blocked.
Still, without any questions whatever, ordered me to return to the dock with
the freight.
* * * * * * *
I pulled up across the street opposite the way I had been headed, parked, mo-
tioned my helper over to the truck and told him to go inside and get the bills
and tell the man the -freight would be delivered later on a pickup . He went and
got the bills, got in the truck, and I returned to the terminal.
When Reeves returned to the terminal , no mention was made by Loosier, dock
foreman, that he was dissatisfied with the manner in which Reeves handled the
South Side Printing Company delivery.
Loosier's verision of this delivery to the South Side Printing Company is as
follows:
Well, the morning this freight was received from Baltimore, I believe it was
consigned to the South Side Printing Company, we unloaded all of the LTL
freight off of the trailer with the exception of this one shipment. It is the
normal practice of the warehouse anytime that you can make a delivery from
a road trailer and that is one of the dock foreman's duties is to first find out
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED 1429
if you can make delivery from a trailer, and leave the merchandise, any ship-
ment of any size on there to be delivered from the road unit. Of course, in
some incidents, maybe any other warehouse foreman might leave a shipment
on there that he thought was sure could be delivered but for some reason or
other, it couldn't be. In this particular incident, this shipment was left on
the trailer. Of course, our procedure then was to mark the trailer number
that it was on and carry the bill in to the city dispatcher who was Mr. Still,
and then we are normally finished with it unless for some reason, the load
comes back.
On this particular morning, Mr. Reeves brought this bill back in front of
me and said "You will have to transfer that to a pickup truck" and I said
"Why? We have loaded all of the pickups down. These people are in a
hurry for it." He said "You can't get in there with a trailer." I said "Why
can't you? You have got plenty of room there." He said "Well, they just
don't allow you to go in there any more with a trailer."
Being my responsibility, naturally, I always follow up on those things to
see what has happened why they quit or why they couldn't.
* * * * * *
Then, I called the consignee [South Side Printing Co.] and asked them about
why or what had happened that we couldn't deliver freight from a trailer any
more.
* * * * * * *
I asked for the receiving clerk and this lady that answered the telephone said
"he's out just now. Maybe I can help you." I said "I 'm afraid not because I
want to find out about whether or not a trailer can make a delivery or still
makes delivery at your place." She said "Well, we all handle each other's
work and definitely they do. Why?" Well, I didn't explain why to her but I
asked her was she sure and she said yes.8
In the mean time, I carried the bill back into Still and gave it back to him and
I said "This can be delivered from a trailer. I just called them." And it wasn't
long then from the time he brought this shipment back until it was time for
me to get off for the day.
Being my responsibility and knowing that I would have to answer to my
superiors if that shipment was not delivered; I drove out on my way home, which
wasn't very much out of the way, I drove by the consignee's place, South Side
Printing, and I went in and talked to the receiving clerk.
* * * * * * *
I talked to him and this is exactly what he related to me. He said "the driver
brought the bill in and handed it to me and told me what he had and I believe
he said F. J. Richards' or some Richards' Company-I am not sure about the
initials-was making a delivery at the time and he said just a minute and you
can back in and unload." He said the next thing he knew was another man
came in and told him he wanted the bill, that they was going to take it around
there and put it on a pickup truck.
This man told me that he thought that they was just-that they had a pickup
truck around there and they wanted to put it on there because they might could
maneuver it a little better.
* * * * * * *
Q. Let me ask you this before you get to the next day. Had you talked with
the receiving clerk at South Side Printing Company, about whether or not it
could be delivered from a trailer?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he say about that?
A. We were standing right there in the door way and be said "Look for
yourself. Do you think you could get in there with a trailer?"
Q. Could you tell whether you could or not?
A. You most certainly could. You could back in there from either side,
either direction, -either way you went in; you could go in from this street or
from the other street and still get back in there with plenty of room.
Q. What happened the next day9
s See General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7, Loosier's affidavit, in which he contradictorily
states that the lady who answered the telephone said nothing-but referred -him to the
shipping clerk.
1430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. When I investigated about the shipment , that shipment was delivered
the following day on the same trailer that was given to Mr . Reeves to deliver .9
There is attached at the end of this Intermediate Report , as Appendixes G, H, and
J, the correspondence which passed between Reeves and the Respondent regarding
this incident.
On May 30 , 1960 , Reeves was discharged by Ralph G . Bowman , , president of
Respondent . The following is Reeves ' testimony as to what occurred:
On May 30 Mr . McNatt told me to come into his office as Mr. Bowman
wanted to talk to me . . . [Mr. Bowman] said "Mr. Reeves , I have never
met you but I understand that you have been elected President of this new
local over here and that you are going to strike Bowman Transportation out."
I told him that wasn't quite the way I had put it and he said "well, sit down
and let's talk about it." After I sat down he said "how long have you been
here at Bowman." I told him about 14 months . He asked me where I worked
before and he said "didn 't you have a lot of trouble at Benton Rapid Express
with the Union." I told him no , I didn 't think so . He said "you had a lot of
trouble ; didn't you?" I said "No, I didn 't think I had a lot of trouble." .. .
He said, "I have got a lot of complaints on here that don 't look good for an
experienced man." [McNatt then got into the conversation and referred to
the delivery to the South Side Punting Company on May 20 .] He stated that
after this particular incident had occurred , he and Mr. Loosier went out and
investigated it and determined for themselves that I was at fault. I told them
my side of the story . Mr. Bowman then told me he was going to issue me a
warning letter.
The South Side incident , Reeves testified , occurred on May 20 , and the first time
the Respondent Company mentioned it to him was on May 30 , during the meeting
with Bowman and McNatt , when he was fired , although it is company practice to
issue warning letters. On May 30, when McNatt brought up the South Side inci-
dent in the presence of Bowman and Reeves explained his version of it , Bowman then
told him he would issue him a warning letter with respect to that incident . Bowman
then told Reeves that he had just discharged Garrett ( an alleged discriminatee in this
proceeding ), who was a hostler , and that he was assigning Reeves to take his place.
Reeves testified that Bowman explained in detail what he was to do and what he was
not to do and that "I would do as I was told , I would help them in any manner that
they required me to, that I would in general , extend myself and perform my duties.
He asked me if I understood that and I told him yes, I did . He then said, `How do
you like it?' I told him I didn 't. He laughed and said , `That's just too god damn bad
because that 's the way it 's going to be whether you like it or not. . ' "
Bowman , at this meeting with Reeves on May 30, then asked McNatt if there was
anything further and NcNatt replied there was and he began to talk about the Sears
and Roebuck delivery . After McNatt had completed telling his version of it,
Reeves then told Bowman his side of it, and informed him that he had a signed letter
from the receiving department head at Sears Roebuck stating that in no way was the
delay of the delivery due to any fault of Reeves. (General Counsel 's Exhibit No
4.) This letter from the head of Sears Roebuck receiving department was sent to
Hoyt Watson on May 24, 1960.
Reeves' testimony continues:
I felt that I was being abused because all of the time I was trying to- explain my
side of the incident at Sears Roebuck, Mr. Bowman kept pointing his finger
at me across the desk and kept repeating "Don't me, don't me."
[Mr. Bowman ] then told me in the future when I wanted to discuss union
business with the Company , that I was to do it in the following manner, that
I was to send word into the office that I had something to discuss and at their
convenience they would send for me to come in. I was to enter like a gentle-
man. I was to knock on the door . I was to say yes, sir and no , sir. I was to
stand . I was to speak when spoken to and I was to speak in a normal light tone
of voice. I was to state my business , get their answer and get the hell out of
there. He wanted uie to understand this very clearly. He said if I was ever
caught within the confines of the general office without having been sent for,
that I would be discharged without question . He asked me if I understood that
and I told him , yes, I did . He then pointed to Mr . McNatt and said "if that
man ever comes through that door out there without you having sent for him
you fire his on the spot."
9 See pages 1436 and 1437 with respect to an evaluation of Loosier's testimony
Loosier's affidavit (General Counsel's Exhibit No 7, paragraph 5) is at variance with
his testimony (Tr pp. 291-293).
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED 1431
After Bowman had given Reeves his instructions as to how he was to conduct
himself in his capacity as union president, Bowman then took up Mann's discharge
which had been effectuated 10 days earlier. Bowman, according to Reeves, wanted
to know if Reeves felt Mann had just grounds for a grievance and Reeves told him
he felt that he had as the seniority rules had been disregarded in Mann's case.
Reeves also told Bowman that Mann's grievance was justified, as he believed the
seniority date asserted by Mann was,the correct one and therefore entitled Mann
to seniority over the part-time clerk who had been hired as a checker although his
seniority was lower than that of Mann. Bowman, Reeves testified, wanted to
know how Reeves could prove Mann had recourse to a grievance procedure regard-
ing his seniority inasmuch as the company records indicated Mann had begun work
on a date later than Mann claimed. Reeves answered that the social security and
withholding tax would show the true date when Mann was hired. Reeves then
testified that:
[Bowman] flew into a rage and told me if that was the way I felt about it, I
should take my time card and hit the clock and get the hell off of the property
and be damn quick about it, don't come back, and get going while I was at it.
I stood up and told him if that was what he wanted, that was what I would do.
He stated that that was what he wanted, that if I.wanted to get rough, he
would show me he could get rough too. I immediately left the office.
Contentions
It is the position of the General Counsel that Reeves, president of the Union
representing Respondent's employees at its Atlanta terminal, was fired because of
the complaints and grievances, detailed above, which he asserted on behalf of his
coworkers, all of whom were union members. These repeated formal, grievances,
asserted by Reeves on behalf of union members, contends the General Counsel,
were the immediate and motivating, reason for his discharge. Respondent denies
this and alleges Reeves was discharged because of the unsatisfactory quality of his
work as a truckdriver.
Conclusion
The issue of motive here, namely, was Reeves fired for engaging in protected
activities or for inefficiency, is a pure fact question. And such a question is seldom
capable of patent demonstration. 1e However, the courts in passing upon it have held
that consideration may be given to circumstantial evidence as well as to that which
is direct as direct evidence of a purpose to violate the statute is rarely obtainable."
Therefore, whether or not Respondent was discriminatorily motivated must be
determined from the record as a whole.
The filing and processing of grievances is a concerted activity protected by Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.12 Moreover, Section 7 of the Act, inter alia, guaran-
tees employees the right to engage in "concerted activities" for "mutual aid and pro-
tection." This right includes the right to participate in the processing of grievances
and employees may not be discriminated against because they have presented
grievances on behalf of other employees. Reeves was merely exercising a right
which concerted action of his fellow union members in the unit had gained for him
as their president.
' As to Respondent's contention that Reeves was an unsatisfactory employee, the
record does not support this defense. On the contrary, his work had never been
criticized, until 2 weeks after he became president of the Union and he began to
process grievances on behalf of his fellow employee union members. In fact, McNatt
testified on direct examination that as of March 1960 Reeves "was a capable driver";
and, on cross-examination , McNatt testified that as of the time Reeves was elected
President of the Union (April 30. 1960) "he was a good worker" Moreover, the
two incidents detailed above, the Sears Roebuck and South Side Printing deliveries,
belie the allegations of inefficiency for they show that Reeves was not at fault in either
10 N.L R.B. v. Herman Sausage Company , Inc, 275 F. 2d 229 (C A 5).
11 N.L R B. v. C. W. Radcliffe, et at, d/b/a Mancke d/b/a Homedale Tractor A Equip-
ment Company, 211 F. 2d 309 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 348 U S 833 See also N L R.B v.
Link Belt Company, 311 U.S. 584 , 602; F . W. Woolworth Company v. N.L R B , 121 F 2d
658, 660 (C.A. 2).
19H. Muehlstein .& Co, Inc., 118 NLRB 268; Gibbs Corporation, 124 NLRB 1320;
Chemical Construction Corp, 125 NLRB 593 N.L R B. v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance
Company, 167 F. 2d 983, 988 (C.A. 7), cert. denied 335 U.S 845: N L R B. v. Kennametal,
Inc, 182 F. 2d' 317, 818 "(C .A. 3)';'N:L:R.B. v The Austin Company . 165 F. 2d 592,
596. (C A. 7).
1 li, r . .. , : : , , ,
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
case. Significant also is the fact that Respondent did not reprimand, question, or
even mention these above-asserted reasons to Reeves at the time he returned to the
terminal from making these two deliveries. In fact, the Sears incident, which was
the first complaint he received since he was hired, was not brought to Reeves' atten-
tion until May 13, 10 days after he made the delivery, and not until he was dis-
charged on May 30 did he learn for the first time Respondent was dissatisfied with
the South Side Printing delivery which he made on May 20. And this in spite of
the fact that management representatives testified they went to the South Side Printing
Company premises the day following the delivery to investigate personally he cir-
cumstances of this delivery. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that the most that
can be charged to Reeves regarding the South Side Printing incident is a mistake of
judgment rather than a willful disregard of instructions. Assuming Reeves was at
fault, it was an honest but perhaps mistaken question of judgment which would not,
in view of his prior exemplary record, justify, under these circumstances, his
discharge.
With respect to the Sears Roebuck delivery, Reeves unloaded the shipment with
due dispatch under the circumstances, as the letter from Sears Roebuck's receiving
clerk, notice of which Respondent received on or about May 25, exonerates Reeves
from any blame and shows that the delay in unloading freight was due to causes
beyond Reeves' control. Nevertheless, Respondent did not contact Sears to investi-
gate this incident.13 Furthermore, little credence is ascribed to the validity of an
accusation or the sincerity of the employer where no effort is made to ascertain if
the employee is at fault. Ascribing the Sears incident as a basis for Reeves' discharge
without even investigating, when a simple inquiry would have revealed Reeves wholly
blameless, shows Respondent's determination to discharge him at the first oppor-
tunity that any cause, no matter how unjustified, arose. It does not, of course, nec-
essarily follow from the lack of investigation that Respondent discharged Reeves for
an unlawful reason but it does furnish some evidence of improper motivation.
That proscribed reasons were the basis for Respondent's motivation in firing Reeves
is indicated also by R. M. Bowman, Respondent's president, notifying Reeves on
May 30 that he was transferring him to the job formerly held by Garrett 14 (who was
fired the same day, immediately before Bowman summoned Reeves); and then during
the same conversation, when Bowman initiated discussion about Mann's discharge,
becoming incensed at Reeves for advocating the merits of Mann's grievance, and
angrily firing Reeves. This precipitate action is characteristic of a spur-of-the-
moment, angry reaction by Bowman to his irritation at Reeves' protected grievance-
filing activities rather than the calm carrying out of a predetermined decision to fire
an employee for legal cause. This shows that Bowman was not only anxious to get
rid of Reeves because of what he considered his zealousness in processing other
employees' grievances but also was intended to intimidate grievants generally and to
discourage the future filing of grievances. Furthermore, Reeves' discharge was not
due to any additional derelictions by him between the time of the Sears delivery on
May 3; the South Side delivery on May 20; and the date of his discharge on May 30,
1960. This confirms the conclusion that the increase in grievances, with the advent
of Reeves as president, motivated his discharge and Bowman, becoming enraged when
Reeves justified Mann's grievance, triggered the discharge. In short, the explanation
for Reeves' discharge "fails to stand under scrutiny" and thus strengthens the
conclusions based on the affirmative indicia stated above.15
Then too, there was a striking disparity between the scale of the punishment and
the provocation, when it is considered whether Reeves' derelictions, if any, in the
Sears Roebuck and South Side Printing Company deliveries, justified-his discharge in
view of his prior excellent work record.1s Rather, it is believed that these asserted
reasons for Reeves' discharge were pretexts seized upon to conceal proscribed
motives Consequently, the tenuous nature of Respondent's explanations lends sup-
port to the conclusion that Reeves was discriminatorily discharged.17 From the
foregoing circumstances, and because of the unconvincing nature of the reasons
which the Respondent subsequently offered for his discharge, it is concluded and
See General Counsel's Exhibit No 4.
It is Reeves' uncontradicted testimony on cross-examination that Bowman did not
first offer Reeves the job Garrett was fired from but that Bowman told Reeves, "You are
taking it whether [you] like it or not." 1
15 N.L R B. v. Thomas W. Dant, et at., d/b/a Dant d Russell, Ltd., 207 F. 2d 165,
167 (C A. 7). '
19 The South Side Printing Company incident occurred 2 'days after Reeves presented a
grievance petition to McNatt on Mann 's behalf.
27 See N L.R.B. v. Thomas W. Dent, et ai ., d/b/a Dent d Russell, Ltd., supra; N.L.R.B.
v. Bird Machine Company , 161 F . 2d 589 , 592 (C.A. 1).
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED 1433
found that Reeves, an employee with a satisfactory work record, was summarily
discharged, not because of any work deficiencies, but because he had incurred Re-
spondent's disfavor by presenting grievances, a protected activity, in his capacity as
president of the newly chartered Union on behalf of his fellow union members
employed at Respondent's Atlanta terminal. Nor is it believed Reeves was insolent
or "obnoxious" or "trying to provoke his own discharge" in processing these griev-
ances but rather firm and persistent in making his presentations on behalf of those
employees whom he represented in his capacity as president of the Union.18 More-
over, it is significant that although personnel employed less than 3 years, as was
Reeves, can be discharged by either McNatt or Watson without Bowman's approval,
that Bowman personally terminated Reeves. McNatt testified that he requested
Bowman to come to Atlanta to discuss the Reeves and Garrett matters but Bowman
contradictorily denied this, testifying he came to Atlanta "on other business" and not
for the "particular purpose" of discussing the status of Reeves and Garrett. It is
found, therefore, for the reasons stated above, that Reeves' discharge was a violation.
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
C. The discharge of Emmett F. Garrett, Jr.
Garrett entered Respondent's employ on June 16, 1955, as a truckdriver which
entailed picking up and delivering freight in metropolitan Atlanta. At the time of
his discharge on May 30, 1960 (the same date Reeves was fired), he was working
as a "hostler." The duties of this job consisted of moving trailers to and from the
dock and about the yard for loading and unloading and similar purposes.
On or about February 4, 1960, Garrett, a member of the United Mine Workers
Union since 1955, had drafted a petition addressed to the United Mine Workers'
president in Washington, D.C., complaining that the Gadsden Local, No. 13863, which
then was the collective-bargaining agent for Respondent's employees at its Atlanta
terminal, was not representing them properly or effectively, particularly in assert-
ing grievances against the Respondent Company.19 Garrett personally took this
petition around to the Respondent's Atlanta terminal employees and solicited them to
sign it. He obtained the signatures of 26 employees whereupon he mailed the peti-
tion to the union headquarters in Washington and sent a copy to the regional director
of the Union at Gadsden. Shortly thereafter, he received a reply to his petition
from the president of the United Mine Workers.
Garrett testified that soon after, C. W. Still, City dispatcher, called Garrett to his
office and asked him who had initiated this petition. Garrett replied that he had
and that it was he who had obtained the signatures of the 26 employees. Still then
told Garrett that "Mr. Watson [terminal manager] was mad about it. " When
Garrett inquired how Watson had found out about it, Still replied that Hollyfield,
the Union's regional direcor, had telephoned Watson from Gadsden and said, "You
are letting your men get out of hand." Still's denial that he told Garrett this is not
credited for the reasons hereinafter indicated.
On February 12, 1960, 8 days after he circulated the petition, Garrett was handed
a letter of reprimand by McNatt for his "attitude" and "failing to carry out instruc-
tions." (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2.) Garrett's testimony continues as follows:
I asked "I would like to read this before I leave the office so me and you can
talk this out." . . . I read the letter and he came back and I said "Tommy,
[McNatt] this is a damn lie." He said "What do you mean it's a lie?" I said
"Just what you said and I want you to prove this." I said "I am going to file a
union grievance about it" and he said "That's all I can tell you to do is file
the grievance. Mr. Loosier gave me the letter about your work."
I said "It's funny to me that nobody else has ever said anything but Mr.
Loosier." . . . There was something brought up about this letter that I had
sent to Washington, and I asked him "What did you call all the employees that
signed the letter in here and get on to them about signing it? They are not
responsible for the letter. I am the man that wrote the letter and sent it to
Washington. Don't fire them, fire me. I am the man that done it."
On May 2, 1960, Garrett filed a grievance with Respondent through Reeves, the
Atlanta local's president, requesting that he be reassigned from his present job of
"hostler" to his former position of "city pickup driver." Garrett testified that it was
necessary for him to have recourse to the grievance procedure in this particular
1B Bettcher Manufacturing Corporation; 76 NLRB 526, 527.
19Garrett testified that the Gadsden""Local would not back up the Atlanta terminal
employees when they filed grievances against the Respondent.
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
instance, because he had repeatedly requested Watson to transfer him from hostler
to pickup driver but to no avail.
Garrett was discharged on May 30, 1960, by R. M. Bowman, president of the
Respondent Company, who had come to Atlanta that day from Gadsden, Alabama,
where Respondent has its main office and where Bowman lives. Bowman called
Garrett into the dock foreman's office and asked him if he had carried out instruc-
tions given to him by his foreman to have some gangboards straightened. Garrett's
testimony continues as follows:
I said "No, sir." He wanted to know why and I told him that the boys were
using the boards right at the time on account of some high-rigged trailers that
he had brought and it was the only thing that we could get to work. Mr. Bow-
man asked me if I had been instructed by Mr. Loosier to have the floats
greased, and I said "Yes, sir." He turned and asked me how long ago, and
I said about two weeks. He turned and asked Mr. Loosier if that was right
and Mr. Loosier said "It's been better than a month." 20 ... Mr. Bowman said
"I hear you say this is a hell of a place to work and you hate your job." I said
"No, sir; not in those words. I made a similar statement." He said "I tell
you what you do, you get your time card and hit the clock and get off of this
property and I will have your check here in the morning." I hit the clock and
I left.
Respondent in its presentation of its defense, produced witnesses to show that
Garrett's work performance was unsatisfactory. Respondent's collation of Garrett's
inefficiency is detailed below. Loosier, dock foreman, testified that he had trouble
in trying to find Garrett when he wanted him. Garrett objected, Loosier testified,
to any work other than the actual moving of trailers, and was frequently not avail-
able when there were trailers to be moved. Loosier testified Garrett not only failed
to report to the dock foreman for assignment to other work but he openly asserted
to his supervisors that he was not supposed to do anything else. It was his regular
habit, Loosier testified, for Garrett to delay in starting to work and to spend much
time in talking to other employees. Garrett, Loosier testified, regularly leaned on
the checker's table or went into the drivers' room and talked with other persons
when he was supposed to be working. When he assigned a job to Garrett, Loosier
testified he had to follow up to see that he did it and Garrett did not report back
after moving equipment. Loosier testified that he warned Garrett several times
about his work and asked McNatt orally and by letter on several occasions to
remove Garrett from his shift.
W. E. Garrison, dock foreman, testified that he also had trouble finding Garrett.
He would have to send other employees to look for him, and sometimes they reported
that he was standing in a truck or was in the garage washing his personal automobile.
He also observed Garrett spending much time in talking to employees on the dock.
Garrison testified that he began complaining about Garrett's work about 3 weeks
after Garrett began hostling, and he continued to make complaints to Watson and
McNatt until Garrett was discharged. He received some complaints from Garrison
and then from Loosier. McNatt testified that he observed Garrett standing around
and talking when he was supposed to be working.
Ragan, dock foreman, testified he came to McNatt and complained about Gar-
rett's performance. He testified that he could not find Garrett when he wanted a
trailer moved. Ragan testified that he found Garrett to be a moody type of person.
He could do a job when he wanted to, but when he was in the wrong mood, Ragan
found it hard to get him to do anything. He also had to look for him when he wanted
trailers moved, sometimes as frequently as twice in one afternoon.
Watson testified that he frequently noticed Garrett during the last 60 days of his
employment standing around and talking to somebody or just leaning against one
of the desks.
Employees Butler, DeLay, and Dudley also testified as to Garrett's work
performance.
Garrett denied these charges. He did testify, however, that he had remonstrated
with Respondent because he was being assigned to do work on the dock which his
duties as "hostler" did not encompass. Considerable correspondence passed between
Garrett and the Respondent, copies of which will be found attached at the end of
this report as AppendixesK to Q, inclusive.
20 No mention of this alleged dereliction is made in Loosier 's May 20 letter to McNatt
(see. Appendix N attached hereto ). It is first mentioned . by Loosier on, May ' 25. See
Appendix O.
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED 1435
Conclusions
Contrary to Respondent's contention,'when Garrett initiated the petition addressed
to the union officials in Washington to correct an alleged grievance and had it
signed by 26 of his fellow workers, he was engaging in protected concerted activity,
as was Reeves when he processed the grievance 21 Twenty-six employees having
signed the petition shows that the grievance was not a matter of Garrett's individual
concern but was common to these other employees in the same circumstances.
However, it is equally clear that an employer may discharge an employee for
any cause or no cause as long as the discharge is not motivated by activities pro-
tected by Section 7 of or proscribed by Section 8(a)'(3) of the Act.22 The fact
that an employee is a union member affords him no protection against a discharge
for cause. Moreover, the existence or assertion of a valid reason for discharge does
not necessarily indicate that this reason constituted the real cause for discharge nor
does the existence of a valid cause provide a defense unless it is the moving cause
for the discharge 23 Nor does failure of an employer in an unfair labor practice
proceeding to show proper cause for a discharge relieve the General Counsel from
his burden of establishing that the discharge was motivated by proscribed consider-
ations. On the other hand, the unconvincing character of proffered reason for a
discharge is also a significant factor in determining whether or not the discharge was
improperly motivated.24 Although discharge of an inefficient employee is lawful, it
may become discriminatory if other circumstances reasonably indicate that protected
activities weighed more heavily in the decision to discharge than did dissatisfaction
with his work.25 Motivation is, indeed, an elusive factor. ' To find motivation, the
finder of the facts must sometimes travel a trackless labyrinth of inextricable in-
tangible imponderables that makes the search as to where the truth lies extremely
arduous. In this case, the search for where the truth lies is no less difficult but it is
believed to be the version contended for by the General'Counsel for the reasons
hereinafter explicated.
From•November 1955, when Garrett entered Respondent's employ, until he cir-
culated the petition in February 1960, a period of approximately 5 years, there had
been no complaints with respect to his work except for one unrelated and trifling
incident which occurred in July 1959.26 However, a week after he circulated this
petition among the employees which was addressed to the International's president
complaining about the Gadsden Local's apathy in processing employees' grievances
against Respondent Company, he wascharged with "failing to carry out instructions"
and his "attitude" toward the Company was criticized27 It is believed that there is
considerably more than a coincidental connection between Garrett circulating this
petition on February 4 and the letter of reprimand on February 12, which eventually
culminated in his discharge on May 30.
Garrett (the Company's second oldest Atlanta terminal employee) worked for
Respondent for over 5 years which significantly indicates he was a capable, qualified,
reliable employee with a satisfactory work record. Of course, length of service does
not conclusively prove that Garrett was efficient, but it does indicate that Respondent
had not considered his alleged inefficiency to be serious enough to merit his dis-
charge and it also hasrelevancy as to whether the Respondent sincerely acted on the
grounds alleged here and not on the ground of Garrett's protected activities in cir-
culating the petition among his fellow workers. Nevertheless, with the advent of the
local Atlanta Union (which replaced the Gadsden Local), and Garrett being the
instigator and sole mover of the petition to the International in Washington, he is
precipitately discharged under circumstances indicating illegal motives. Garrett's
21 See footnote 12, supra See particularly N.L.R.B. v. Hymie Schwartz, d/b/a Lion
Brand Manufacturing Company, 146 F 2d 773; 774 (CA. 5) ; and Tex-Toga, Inc, 231 F.
2d 310, 311 (C.A. 5).
22 Magnolia Petroleum Company v. NLRB., 200 F. 2d 148, 149 (C A 5) ; NLRB. v.
Solo Cup Company, 237 F. 2d 521 , 525-526 (C.A 8).
23 N.L R.B. v. C. & J. Camp, et at., d/b /a Kibler-Camp Phosphate Enterprise, 216 F 2d
113, 115 (CA 5); NL.R.B. v. Texas Independent Oil Company, Inc., 232 F _2d 447,
450 (C A. 9).
24 N L R.B v. L. C. Ferguson, et al ., d/b/a Shovel Supply Company, 257 F. 2d 88, 92-93
(C.A`. 5) ; NL.R.li v WTVJ, 268 F 2d 346, 348 (C.A. 5).' See Fort Worth Steel 'and
Machinery Company, 125 NLRB 371, 372, where the Board held that a multiplicity of
f6asons given for a discharge indicates they are pretextuous.
25N.L.R.B. v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F., 2d 883, 885 (C A. 1).,
9 See Respondent's Exhibit No. 5 involving Garrett, , transacting , personal business on
company time.,..
_
27 See Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 attachedat' the end of this decision as `Appendix K.
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work apparently became intolerable only after it was learned he had obtained the
signatures of 26 of his coworkers criticizing the regional union director and some
of his staff.
In -attempting to ascertain the motivation behind Garrett's discharge, consideration
-has been given to the fact that 26 employees signed his petition which indicates there
was some validity to the grievance that the Gadsden Local and U.M.W.'s District 50
.regional director displayed a singular apathy toward protecting the employees' rights
as union members vis-a-vis the Respondent Company. It is a reasonable inference
that Garrett was considered by those union officials whom he criticized in his pe-
tition to the union headquarters officials in Washington to be a fomenter of discord
and Reeves to be a rallying point for dissident members of the newly chartered At-
lanta Local, so that these regional District 50 union officials resented and desired to
get rid of these malcontents. Corroborative of this conclusion is the testimony of
Garrett, that McNatf scolded him for having gone over the heads of the Respondent
and the regional union officials to complain directly to the union headquarters in
Washington. Nor is it believed to do violence to the major and minor premises of
this syllogism to deductively reason and conclude that representations were made by
these union officials to the company officials which resulted in Garrett and Reeves
being victims of the union officials' hostility toward them in this respect 28
Correlatively, this disinclination on the part of Respondent to oppose the regional
union officials' suggestions was probably due to a painful awareness that it would
have to deal with these same union officials in the future. Moreover, Reeves' ag-
gressiveness in filing employees' grievances, and it is reasonable to infer there was a
sudden increase in the number of grievances filed upon the advent of the new union
under the presidency of Reeves, 29 as well as Garrett's petition criticizing these
regional union officials to their superiors in Washington created a situation which
undoubtedly was a growing source of irritation to the company officials and this
would tend to engender their cooperation in efforts by the regional union officials
to rid themselves of both Reeves and Garrett. Corroborative of these conclusions
is the testimony that both McNatt and Watson were admonished by Hollyfield, the
U.M.W.'s regional director that the employees at Respondent's Atlanta terminal
were getting out of hand."
Moreover, the openness of Garrett's activities in obtaining the signatures of 26
employees eliminates any doubt that the Respondent was aware of his role. This
is corroborated by McNatt, assistant terminal manager, calling Robert P. Brooks, a
truckdriver, presently employed by Respondent, into his office a few days after the
petition was circulated and interrogating him as to what was in the petition "that
Junior Garret had gotten up" and asking Brooks who had signed it. Brooks credibly
testified that McNattadvised him not to sign any petitions that.did not "apply direct
to [him]." McNatt denied this but admitted he heard about the petition from an
employee named Wallace even before he spoke to Brooks. McNatt also testified
that another employee named Davis had told him about the petition. Furthermore,
the summary manner in which Garrett, an experienced employee with 5 years'
service, was discharged, is "not natural" and gives rise to a doubt as to the good
faith of the reasons assigned, even if it is assumed, arguendo, that Garrett was
guilty of what were relatively minor offenses.30
A realistic appraisal of the facts compels the conclusion, therefore, that Garrett's
alleged derelictions of duties were afterthoughts on the part of Respondent and had
no part in the decision to discharge him but were a pretext to rid itself of him be-
cause of his protected activity in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act 31 More-
over, under the circumstances revealed in this case, it is clear that the motivating
cause of the discharge was Garrett's protected activity, namely, circulating the pe-
tition, and not any other dissatisfaction with him as an employee.32 Furthermore,
Loosier, dock foreman, and Assistant Terminal Manager McNatt's father- in-law
20 See Bowman Transportation, Inc , 112 NLRB 387, enfd 237 F 2d 585 (C.A.D C ),
Judgment vacated on other grounds, 335 U.S. 453, remand, 120 NLRB 1147, where the
Respondent was found to have rendered illegal support and assistance to District 50,
United Mine Workers of America.
20 On cross-examination , McNatt testified he had no trouble prior to the time Reeves be-
came president of the Union with respect to the filing of "written grievances" although
employees had come to him with their "problems but no written grievances."
B E. Anthony 6 Sons v. N.L.R.B., 163 F . 2d 22, 26-27 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 382
U.S. 773.
81N.L.RB. v. Solo Cup Company, 287 F . 2d 521 , 525 (C.A..8)..
=See The Plastid Molding Company , Inc., 110 NLRB 2187, 2138 ; N.L.R.B. v. Whitin
Machine Works, 204 F. 2d 883, 885 (C.A. 1). -
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED 1437
and Garrett's immediate superior, was a rambling witness whose demeanor and
manner of testifying rendered his testimony unconvincing with respect to Garrett's
alleged derelictions of duty, which circumstance bolsters the ample affirmative show-
ing that Respondent discharged Garrett for his protected activity.33 Even if the
matters which Respondent asserts for Garrett's discharge contributed to the decision
to terminate Garrett so that his circulating the petition triggered his discharge, the
termination would nevertheless violate the Act 34 It is found, therefore, that Re-
spondent's discharge of Garrett was an unfair labor practice in violation of Section
8(a)(3).
All authorities cited by Respondent have been carefuly considered and it is not
believed that holdings in those cases require a finding contrary to the conclusions
reached herein. However, the Trial Examiner finds no occasion for lengthening
this report by citing or distinguishing them, because it is believed that the controlling
reasons for this decision have been sufficiently discussed. Moreover, the Respond-
ent's contentions are based , in part ,35 on an interpretation of the facts in this pro-
ceeding which are materially different than the Trial Examiner's and since the
applicability of precedent necessarily depends on one 's view of the facts, no purpose
would be served by discussing all the cases cited by him.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with
the operations of the Company 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 commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It is therefore recommended that the Company offer to the below-named discrim-
inatees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions,36 without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges.
Furthermore, it will be recommended that the Respondent make the discriminatees
named below whole for any loss of pay incurred since their discharge, by reason of
the discrimination, by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that which they
normally would have earned as wages from the date of their discharge to the date
of the Respondent 's proper offer of reinstatement , less their net earnings during said
periods,37 the backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established
by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and approved in
N.L.R.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Company of Miami, Inc., 344 U.S. 344.
93 Preferred Homes Corporation, 127 NLRB 1350, footnote 3.
as NLRB. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, 179 F. 2d 323, 327 (C A 8p.
See also N.L.R B v. Whiten Machine Works, 204 F. 2d 883, 887 (C A. 1) ; N L.R B. v
Texas Independent Oil Co, 232 F 2d 447, 450 (C.A. 9) ; Edward C Budd Manufacturing
Co v. NLRB., 138 F. 2d 86, 90 (C.A. 3), cert. denied 321 U.S. 773; NLRB. V. Jones
Sausage Co , et at., 257 F. 2d 878, 881-882 ('C.A. 4) ; N L R B v Dixie Shirt Company,
176 F. 2d 969, 973-974 (C.A. 4) ; N.L R.B. v. Electric City Dyeing Co., 178 F. 2d 980, 983
(C.A. 3) ; N.L R.B. v. Solo Cup Co , supra.
35 Including Respondent' s contention that Reeves', Mann's, and Garretfs grievance
activities "were clearly outside the procedure established by the bargaining contract. . . .
See footnote 6, supra, which shows this to be without merit. Nor is Respondent's argu-
ment valid that since Mann had not served the required probationary period, there was no,
limitation on Its right to fire him. This disregards .the protection given employees under
the Act, and it overlooks the fact that an employee , which Mann was, cannot be dis-
charged for proscribed reasons, which it is found , motivated Respondent In terminating
Mann. Nor are Mann 's qualifications to be a checker in issue: the only question to be-
determined is whether Mann was fired for engaging in protected activities. In fact, Rey
spondent' s counsel in his brief, appears to answer this when he states: "It is true that
an employer cannot take reprisals against an employee because he refers a complaint to,
a labor organization for handling , or because he acts In concert with other employees in
the presentation of a grievance."
x The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch,
65 NLRB 827.
37 Crossett Lumber Company , 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corporation v. N.L.R.R.,
311 U.S. 7.
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is also recommended that the Company make available to the Board or its
agents, upon request , payroll and other records to facilitate the checking of the
amounts of backpay due.
Inasmuch as the discharge of employees for reasons of protected concerted ac-
tivity has been regarded by the courts , as one of the most effective methods of de-
feating the exercise by employees of the rights vouchsafed to them by the Act, the
Trial Examiner is of the belief that there is danger that the commission of unfair
labor practices generally is to be anticipated from Respondent 's unlawful conduct
in the past 38 It will be recommended , therefore , that Respondent be required to
cease and desist from in any manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On 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. The operations of Bowman Transportation , Incorporated , occur in commerce
as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and Local Unions 13863 and
14968 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in 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: By discriminating with regard to the hire and tenure of employment of W. O.
Mann, Henry G. Reeves, Jr., and Emmett F. Garrett, Jr., thereby discouraging the
exercise by workers of full freedom of association for the purpose of negotiating
and adjusting the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid
or protection,- Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The_ allegations of paragraph 6 of the complaint which allege that Terminal
Manager Watson threatenedemployees with discharge or other disciplinary action
if they filed, grievances through their union representatives have not been sustained
It is recommended that the allegations of the complaint setting forth said violation
be dismissed. , , .•
[Recommendations omitted from, publication.]
' N.L R .B. V..Entwi8tte Mfg Co, 120 F. 2d 532, 536 (CA 4)
APPENDIX B
Re: Henry Reeves, Jr., City Driver.
MAY 12, 1960.
Dictated May 10, 1960.
Mr. HOYT WATSON, Terminal Manager, .
Bowman Transportation, Inc.,
2161 Moreland Avenue, S.E.,
Atlanta 15,'Georgia.
DEAR-MR. WATSON: With reference to the above driver. On May, 3, 1960, he had
a load going to Sears Roebuck Company, weight 8,37& pounds., Mr. Reeves asked for
a helper and I told him to get one. He looked them over and said if that was all
we had he would go by himself: So I told him to go by himself.
He came in on the radio and asked me to send him a man to finish unloading
his trailer as, he was not going to get it off. He, said he was not going.,to make any
overtime, when his hours were up he was coming in whether he was unloaded or not.
It took'him•from 9.3-a.m. until 17.4 p m., to unload this 'freight. His work has
not been satisfactory, for the-past two or three days. Itold him if he did not want
to=work he could come in and clock out. He said he would come, in but would not
,hit the clock; he'would sit down.
Very truly yours,
^.C.,W,.,STILL,
City Dispatcher:
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED '
APPENDIX C
1439
MAY IT, 1"960:
Mr. HENRY G. REEVES, Jr., City Driver,
Bowman Transportation, Inc.,
2161 Moreland Avenue, S.E.,
Atlanta 15, Georgia.
DEAR MR. REEVES: On May 3, 1960 , you were given a partial load of 8,370 pounds
to deliver to Sears Roebuck & Company., You asked our city dispatcher for a helper
and was told by him to pick one of those waiting to get out. After looking them
over you told Mr. Still if those were all we had you would go by yourself, which
you did.
After you reached your tractor where a two-way radio was available, and also
where the other drivers could hear your remarks, you proceeded to tell Mr. Still,
over the radio , to send you another man to finish unloading the trailer , because
you were not going to get it off . You also told Mr. Still that you were not going to
work any overtime whether the trailer was unloaded or not. It took you from
9:18 a.m . until 5:24 p.m., to unload this small amount of freight.
This company will not tolerate your arrogant , bully-type attitude . Neither will
this company tolerate you deliberately taking much more than normal time to per-
form your duty, on the above mentioned delivery.
I have a signed, letter of complaint in my files from our city dispatcher on the
above, therefore, this is a letter of warning to you that should there be a reoccur-
rence of the above, you will be discharged from further duties with this company.
Very truly yours,
O. HOYT WATSON,
Terminal Manager.
cc: Mr. E. E. Hollyfield , Birmingham, Alabama
Mr. Edward Peyton , Gadsden , Alabama
Mr. D. C. Rice, Gadsden, Alabama
Mr. W. G. Butler, Atlanta , Georgia
APPENDIX D
2032 CEDAR GROVE RD.,
CONLEY, GEORGIA,
May 14, 1960.
LETTER OF PROTEST AND ANSWER To LETTER OF WARNING 5/13/60
Mr. HOYT WATSON,
Bowman Transportation Co.,
Atlanta, Ga.
DEAR MR . WATSON: I am in receipt of your letter and this is to inform you that
I protest it on several points,
, First., This conversation took place on May,3, 1960, and at that time , I am sure
that you were fully aware of it., Yet you have waited until this time to take exception
to it. - Is a man to be held accountable for every word that is said until such time
as you decide that the time is opportune for disciplinary action?
Second ., Had you extended me the simple courtesy of asking me for my side of
this matter ; it would have been cleared up then and there . I am prepared ' to present
letter's from Sears Roebuck showing that they were accepting the freight as fast
as possible and that the delay in unloadi 'ng'was not due to any dalliance of mine.
It would be regrettable" to have to bring them into this, ' don't you, agree?
Third., As to my' "arrogant Bully type attitude ," It is remarkable , that in all my
service at Bowman Transp .'"Co., that my, "arrogance ' and bullying attitude " did not
become objectionable to you until after 11 was 'elected '- President of ' the new local
Union.
This is manifestly an attempt on your part ,to intimidate me and to cow me 'down
so that I will not be too- pressing • on' Union matters , and I am sure that any fair
minded man'will see it for what it is.'
'Let me assure you that' l am not to •be'i'iitimidated and as you stated to me in
-your office ' on May , 2, 1960 , 1 ,am prepared and;:willing ' and eager to abide by the
contract . ; At that time you assured me that ;,"If we , wanted tq'get, rough, that you
would ,get rough .too • and that , you would give out- warning letters every, time we
turned , around." •. It appears that you meant it,and I-regret that you feel it , necessary
to demonstrate such a lack of cooperation: rr:
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I am writing this letter in my capacity of Duly selected President of the new local
now awaiting charter and again I regret that you are starting us off to such a poor
Union-Labor relationship.
Very Truly Yours,
HENRY REEVES, Jr., President, Elect.
c/c Mr. E. E. Hollyfield,
Mr. Edward Peyton
APPENDIX E
Mr. HENRY REEVES , Jr., City Driver,
Bowman Transportation, Inc.,
2161 Moreland Avenue, S.E.,
Atlanta 15, Georgia.
MAY 18, 1960.
DEAR MR. REEVES: With reference to my letter of warning of May 13th and
your protest letter of May 14th. This is to advise you that this warning letter still
stands and any future violations within the next six months will mean discharge from
further duties with this company.
I would like to point out that this 8,370 pounds which was delivered by you cost
us $18.24 just for delivery, which you can readily see that the company could not
stand very much of this type of delivery cost if it expected to stay in business.
3 feel sure with your cooperation in the future, we can work toward cutting
this type of expensive delivery cost out.
Very truly yours,
cc: Mr. E. E. Hollyfield
Birmingham 3, Alabama
Mr. Edward Peyton
Gadsden, Alabama
Mr. Dwight C. Rice
Gadsden, Alabama
Mr. W. G. Butler
Atlanta, Georgia
APPENDIX F
0. HOYT WATSON,
Terminal Manager.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
2161 MORELAND AVE., S.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Mr. HOYT WATSON , Terminal Manager,
Bowman Transportation, Inc.,
Atlanta, Georgia
MAY 24, 1960.
DEAR MR. WATSON: With reference to your warning letter of May 13, 1960, to me,
my answer thereto of May 14, and then your reply of May 18, 1960.' Please be
advised that I have secured a statement from the head of the receiving dept. of
Sears Roebuck Co. in Atlanta relative to the delivery in question as follows:
"To Whom It May Concern" This is to state that on Tuesday, May 3, our
receipts were far greater than we are set up to handle. As a result some trucks
and trailers were kept at our place longer than is normal. This increase was
caused by two things, (1) The first of each month always brings an increase, (2)
Monday preceding this particular Tuesday was observed as a holiday by most
truck lines which caused an increase of approximately 30%. We work toward
eliminating these delays and have made some progress. These delays are a big
factor in causing increase in freight rates, therefore we too are concerned with
any delays.
SEARS ROEBUCK & Co.,
1022 Jefferson Ave., Atlanta, Ga.
Jon R. KEY, Receiving Div. Head, 5/24/60.
This seems to remove from me the charge of delaying freight that you have
stressed to me in both your letters. Therefore, inasmuch as it still appears to me that
you wrote the letters with the sole purpose in mind of crippling my effectiveness as a
union representative, by placing me under a personal fear of discharge, Please be
advised that this local will not at any time countenance the intimidation of its officers
or stewards in this manner.
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED 1441
In accordance with this statement of policy be also advised that your warning
letter to me and its successor of May 13, 1960, and May 18, '60 are hereby rejected
and as far as this local is concerned, the matter is closed.
The statement of Mr. Key is in my possession and is available on request for your
inspection.
Very truly yours,
HENRY REEVES, JR.,
President,
Local Union UMW. 14968.
c/c Mr. E. E. Hollyfield,
Birmingham, Ala.
APPENDIX G
ATLANTA, GA., May/23/60.
Mr. T. L. McNAT-r, Asst. Term. Mgr.,
Bowman Transportation,
2161 Moreland Ave., S.E.,
Atlanta, Ga. -
(Subject: Hank Reeves, Vs Complaint from South Side Ptg. Co., Bakewood St.
S.E., Atlanta)
DEAR Sm: This is to advise you that on May /20/60 I left 38 Bdls of Printing
paper on Trailer to be delivered to the South Side Ptg Co. Lakewood Ave, because we
had no more Bob Trucks to load as all of the Bobs had been very heavily loaded out,
and gone for City Deliveries.
This Trailer delivery was given to Hank Reeves by Mr. Still for delivery, and I
understand he had one or more helpers, Reeves taken this Trailer to the South Side
Printing Co, and gave the Bill to the Receiving Clerk, and this man told him that
S. J. Richards would be out in about Ten Minutes then he could deliver his freight.
a few minutes later one of the Helpers or at least the Rec Clerk told me that, came
back and ask for the bill stating they were going back and put the freight on a Bob,
truck for Delivery, Reeves Brought this back to the Terminal, Gave me the Bill stating
the Man told him he could not make the Delivery from a Trailer and we would have
to transfer to a Bob, Having no Bobs I called The Consig-and ask if deliver could be
made from a Trailer and I was told it could be, I geting off at Noon Drove by the
Consignee,s place and saw for my self it could be delivered from a Trailer, then is
when I called you from my Home and informed you the Paper should be del- Mr.
Sullivan Owner informed that Bowman got this Business because a Driver with some
Compeditor Got smart about making Deliveries, and that he was in Bad need for this
shipment, in fact I believe he told me that he called the Roosevelt Paper Co tracing
this shipment, and he then called Bowman about it, This information for your
guidance and handling, as I see it we should follow up all such handlings of shipments,
to see that they are corrected , as I am sure Bowman has lost plenty of Business be-
cause of the fact the Manner in which some Drivers are handling their Deliveries,
Yours truly,
CARL LoosmR.
APPENDIX H
MAY 30, 1960.
Mr. HENRY GRADY REEVES, JR., City Driver,
2032 Cedar Grove Road,
Conley, Georgia
DEAR MR. REEVES, JR.: On May 13, 1960, you received a letter of warning from
Mr. O. H . Watson, Terminal Manager , about delays in delivering freight , also in-
cluding in this letter of warning was your arrogant, bully-type attitude. You seem
to do as you like having no regard for the best interest of this company.
On Friday, May 20th, you had a shipment to deliver on T-83, consigned to
Southside Printing Company, 1749 Lakewood Avenue, S.E.. After you reached
this establishment you called Mr. Still on the radio and told him that the man at South-
side Printing Company told you that you could not get in his place with a trailer and
that you would have to load it on a pick-up truck and bring it back. You also said
the man at Southside Printing advised you that it would be okay to deliver Monday.
The dispatcher, Mr. Still, therefore took your word and told you to return to the
terminal.
About an hour and a half later , a Mr. Sullivan from Southside Printing Company
called and wanted to know why we had not delivered his shipment . Mr. Still advised
Mr. Sullivan what you had told him about the delivery . Mr. Sullivan said he knew
630849-62-vol . 131 92
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nothing of the above and that he needed his merchandise right away. I instructed
Mr. Still to send the same trailer that you had brought back in to Southside Printing
Company. Another driver made the delivery without any trouble whatsoever and
I have personally talked to the driver that finally delivered the shipment. By having
to make two deliveries, this caused an undue delay as well as double expense.
On Saturday, May 21st, I personally contacted Mr. Sullivan of Southside Printing
Company together with Mr. Loosier, and was advised by him that when our truck
came the first time there was an S. P. Richards' truck unloading at his dock and he
advised you they would be through in approximately ten minutes . About five minutes
thereafter he said a different man came back and asked for the bill advising him his
freight would be put on the pickup truck and returned. Mr. Sullivan also stated he
did not tell you a trailer could not deliver at his place. He stated that many trailers
deliver there each month and said that he also did not state that it would be okay to
deliver the merchandise Monday because he needed the merchandise right away.
Also on Friday, May 20th, when you came in to the terminal at approximately
4:00 p.m., one or more employees heard you ask the men on the dock to go on a
sit-down strike against Bowman Transportation . This in itself is grounds for
immediate discharge.
Your work .is unsatisfactory with this company and since you have had a previous
warning letter you are hereby discharged.
Yours very truly,, ,
T. L. McNATr, •
Assistant Terminal Manager.
cc: Mr. E. E. Hollyfield
Birmingham, Alabama
Mr. Edward Peyton
Gadsden, Alabama
Mr. Dwight C Rice
Gadsden, Alabama
Mr. W. G. Butler, Union Steward
Atlanta, Georgia
APPENDIX J
2032 CEDAR GROVE RD.,
CONLEY, GEORGIA,
June 1, 1960.
Mr. T..L. MCNATT, Asst. Terminal Manager,
Bowman Transportation Inc.,
2161 Moreland Ave. S.E.,
Atlanta, Georgia.
DEAR MR. McNATr: I am receipt of your letter of May 30, 1960, Postmarked
9;30PM 5/30/60 stating the reasons' that you feel that were applicable to the dis-
charge of myself from Bowman Transportation Inc.,
I categorically deny all allegations set forth in your letter and hereby state that
I am innocent of the charges you have set forth.
Furthermore, This letter is a formal demand that the charges and allegations set
forth against me as supporting facts for my discharge be investigated, that I be
given the chance to face my accuser, and in my turn be afforded the opportunity to
prefer charges against them in any manner as shall be afforded me by Union
regulations and by-laws.
This letter is given you in accordance with the provisions of the union contract
covering investigation of Discharge or Suspension. ' ,
Very Truly Yours,
e L.
c/c Mr. Edward Peyton,
East Gadsden, Ala
Mr., EMMETT GARRETT; Jr.,
HENRY REEVES, Jr.,
President, Local Union 14968, United
Mineworkers of America District 50,
Atlanta, Ga. '
APPENDIX K
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, '
2161 Moreland Ave.,
Atlanta, Georgia. '
DEAR, MR. GARRETT: On July ,15,"at approximately 1:00 p m.,you were dispatched,
along with 2 (two) helpers, by Dispatcher Jim Crawford, to the Federal Supply
Co. with a tractor and trailer unit to be loaded for Selma, Alabama.
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED 1443
At approximately 2:00 p.m., I noticed your tractor and trailer parked near a
garage on the corner of Lakewood Avenue and Jonesboro Road. I noticed that the
helper was under the steering wheel of the tractor. As I stopped to inquire what this
unit was doing stopped at this place, the helper advised me that you were in the
garage. I asked him to bring you to the car and you were asked, "What were you
parked at this place, at this time for?" I was advised by you that you were
talking to the mechanic about getting your personal car repaired.
As you know, you were on company time, being paid by the company and not to
transact your business at our expense.
I am giving you this letter of warning , that in the future, if your tractor and
"trailer or any unit that you are driving is ever noticed parked again, except on your
lunch hour, you will be discharged as of that time.
We sincerely hope that this letter will make you realize your responsibilities as a
driver not to divert your personal business into company business in the, future.,
Your truly,
J. W. JACKSON, Terminal Manager.
Copies to:. Mr. Ralph Bowman
Mr. Ed Payton
Mr. Dwight Rice,
Mr. Hoyt Watson
APPENDIX L
FEBRUARY 9, 1960.
Mr. T. L. McNArr, Dictated February 5, 1960
Assistant Terminal Manager,
Bowman Transportation, Inc.,
2161 Moreland Avenue, S.E.,
Atlanta 15, Georgia.
Subject: Mr. Emmett Garrett,"Jr.
DEAR Sm: As per your and Mr. Watson's instructions with reference to the duties
of the above employee as hostler at the Atlanta Terminal. I have exhausted all
efforts possible and it seems to be of no effect. For an example, it is my under-
standing when a city driver or hostler or any employee in that capacity has completed
or as we commonly say "caught up" with switching of trailers that we are to work
them in the warehouse as checkers or wheelers. Of course, said employee remain-
ing at the same scale of pay.
I have given at all times the trailer numbers that were to be either placed to the
dock or moved from the dock in writing to Mr. Garrett with instructions to report
back to me as soon as he had completed such jobs. For the first week:or two when
he would report back I immediately, if I had anything else for him to do, put him to
work checking freight or helping one of the other checkers unload trailers. He
complained to me at the time I asked him to perform, this duty that he was only
supposed to move trailers as a hostler and not as a warehouse man. I have gone
along with this already too long thinking that he might improve.
On January 29th, he showed up for work and punched his time card about the
time that our regular crew goes to work which is about 2:00 a.m.. I asked him who
gave him authority and he stated that he had asked you about coming in early as he
had to be off that afternoon,' which I-'questioned no further. If you recall, I verified
his statement with you.
Since that date I have scarcely had any work at all from this employee. In other
words, I ask him to do something and I have to either follow him to see that he
does it or just let-him go as he pleases in which he always takes three or four times
longer to do the job. -
He has also made statements to fellow employees-in the warehouse that he was
not going to work on the dock. Again this morning, February 5th, he punched in at
6:30 a.m. according to his time card, however,-I have not seen him 'all morning.
I made inquiries and Mac told me he had gone to the Cocci Cola Plant. Garrett has
told me himself that he hated the company and hated his'job, and was only trying
to hang on until he could find something else.
I ask you. please to1 either get this employee in a better understanding where he
will cooperate and work as an employee or else remove„ him from my shift. I
would think an employee going around talking to other people and fellow em-
ployees about what a sorry company he was working for would, like to volunteer
to quit the job before he is discharged- ' •
May I please hear from you on this as soon as possible
Yours very truly,,,_ , . •
CARL LOOSIER,
CL:ph Dock Foreman.
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MR. EMMETT F . GARRETT, Jr.,
Bowman Transportation, Inc.
2161 Moreland Avenue, S E.
Atlanta 15, Georgia
APPENDIX M
FEBRUARY 12, 1960.
DEAR MR. GARRETT: In the past few weeks I have had oral complaints on your
failing to carry out instructions given you and also your attitude toward Bowman
Transportation, Inc.
I now have in my files a letter just received from Mr. Carl Loosier requesting that
you be removed from his shift. One reason is as follows, "I ask him to do some-
thing and I have to either follow him to see that he does it or just let him go as he
pleases, in which he always takes three or four times longer to do the job."
You, also made a statement to the writer, that you were going to do just what you
were forced to do. You also stated to Mr. Loosier that you hated the company and
hated your job and was only trying to hang on until you could find something else.
In addition to the above you continually blaspheme Bowman Transportation, Inc.,
to your fellow employees to try to lower their moral.
The above type of work and attitude is not what the company desires and this is
a warning letter to you that if you continue to fail in performing your duties and
continue to openly blaspheme the company 's name, further displinary action will
be taken.
Yours truly,
TLMcN:ph
cc: Mr. Dwight C. Rice, Personnel and Safety Director
Gadsden , Alabama
Mr. Ed Peyton
711 Ruby Street
Gadsden, Alabama
Mr. Carl Loosier, Dock Foreman
Atlanta, Georgia
Mr. Hoyt Watson , Terminal Manager
Atlanta, Georgia
Mr. W. G. Butler , Job Stewart
Atlanta, Georgia
(Subject;-Emmitt Garrett Jr.)
Mr. T. L. McNATT, Asst. Mgr.
Bowman Transportation
Atlanta, Georgia.
T. L. McNAZT,
Assistant Terminal Manger-
ATLANTA, GA., Mdy/20/60.
DEAR Snt;-Again I am requesting that some action be taken in regaras to this
man's working and his understanding as to how he is to obey instructions to do
his job as °it should be done,
For example on May/3/60 I told him and shwoed him the Dock Boards or rather
the steel runways that we use going in and out of the Trailers if you will recall
you had some made several weeks ago, and the Shop made them turned up on each
end, so on the above date I told him to take those Boards back to the Shop, and
have them straighten out one end of each board , and this is a part of Drivers duties
or any one that is classed as a Driver because they had to be loaded on a Truck to
take to the Shop , and here it is May 20 th and he still has not taken them to the
Shop.
About the same Date I told him to take a Truck and go to the Shop and to pickup
the Floats and Warehouse Trucks that were ready to come back to the Dock as
Mr. Cannon had ask me to get them out of his way, also besides we needed them
very badly on the Dock , in a day or Two Mr . Cannon was back on the Dock and
ask me when we were going to get those Floats and Whse Trucks out of his way,
I then again called to Garrett and ask him why he hadnt done as I had instructed,
his Excuse was that he didnt have a truck at the first request, so I told him to get
a Tlr if necessary and get them up here,
And also another thing any time I give him instructions to do something I have
to follow up and see that he does it , otherwise he just stands around on the dock on
the Phone or talking to any one that will talk to him,
APPENDIX N
BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED 1445
Also as you know we use him when not busy spoting Trucks and Trailers to
check Interline Freight that is broughtto Bowmans Dpck in Atlanta, and I Can
prove it by more than one that several times when he sees a Connecting line back
into our Dock he will leave go on the Yard or any place to keep from working it.
I could go on for pages telling the many things he fails to do, but all I ask you to
do is just watch and you will seethe above is correct. in Fact I am asking that he
be replaced by some one else on my shift, that I can tell to do something and it be
+h°. •''° ''^^°Done without my
Yours truly,
APPENDIX 0
CARL LoosIER.
ATLANTA, GA., May/25/60.
(Subject;-Emmitt Garrett Jr.)
Mr. T. L. McNATT, Ast T. M.,
Bowman Transportation,
2161 Moreland Ave.,
Atlanta, Ga.
DEAR SIR: This is to advise you that again Tuesday Morning 8;00 AM when
Garrett punched on for Work, at Eight am, it was 5 Minutes to Nine before I got
him started to work, it seems that he has a lot of Business to discuss with the City
Drivers, before he gets started everyday, Yesterday his most lengthy subject seemed
to be with Hank Reeves, Brooks and just any one he could get to listen to him, also
Extra Driver Ginn seems to be another favorite of his as they spend a lot of time
talking and discussing their problems with each other.
I also ask him to see that the Shop was informed to bring their Grease Truck
up along side of the Dock and grease our Floats and hand Trucks, but I see they
are not greased as yet, I havent talked to Garrett as yet to know why they were not
greased, but will attempt to find out why today and let you hear what his excuse
was for not having them serviced.
The above for your Information,
Yours truly,
APPENDIX P
CARL LOOSIER.
MAY 30, 1960.
Mr. E. F. GARRETT, Jr., City Driver,
Route #2,
Newnan, Georgia.
DEAR MR. GARRETT: On February 12, 1960, I wrote you a warning letter on your
attitude toward the company. You continually blaspheme this company to fellow
workers and have made the statement that you were going to do just as little as you
could get by with. Also, in my warning letter of February 12, 1960, you were warned
about failing to carry out instructions given you.
On May 3, 1960, Mr. Loosier, your dock foreman, instructed you to take three
gangboards that were bent on both ends to the shop and have one end straightened.
To this date you have not done this. Mr. Ralph Bowman, President of Bowman
Transportation, Inc., asked you about those instructions this a.m. Your answer to
him was "I had been instructed yesterday to take these gangboards to the shop."
Yesterday was Sunday and the writer was here most of the day. You were not on
duty yesterday nor were you on duty the day before which was Saturday.
You were also warned some two months ago by Mr. Hoyt Watson, about not roll-
ing the dollies all the way up when you moved a trailer on the yard. This a.m., Mr.
Bowman saw you pull a trailer around the building with the dollies not more than
three inches from the ground.
Mr. Loosier also instructed you on May 3, 1960, to go to the shop and have Mr.
Cannon send the grease man to the dock and grease all of the floats. I talked to
Mr. Cannon about this matter and he does not know of any time you have ever
asked for the grease man to grease our floats.
When you are given instructions, someone has to follow up behind you to see
that you carry out those instructions. On this date you loaded a load of bales on
T-43. This trailer had to be partially unloaded because it was overloaded in the
nose. When the men unloading the trailer unloaded about 8 feet off of the rear
they reported a hole in the left side of the trailer near the floor that was freshly done.
Since this hole was not there before the trailer was loaded, I can only conclude that
you punched this hole in the side of the trailer with the blade of the fork lift. • You
did not report this. It is a well established rule with the company that any damage
to equipment must be reported immediately. By not doing so, is grounds for dis-
1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charge . Now, instead of unloading part of the trailer to get the weight distributed
right, we have to completely, unload the trailer and send it to the -shop.
Your work with-this company is entirely unsatisfactory , and since you have been
warned by letter before , you are hereby discharged.
Yours very truly,
T. L. McNATT,
Assistant Terminal Manager.
cc: Mr. E. E. Hollyfield
Birmingham, Alabama
Mr. Edward Peyton
Gadsden , Alabama
Mr. W. G . Butler, Union Steward
Atlanta, Georgia
Mr. Dwight C. Rice , Personnel Director
Gadsden, Alabama
APPENDIX Q
ROUTE 2, NEWNAN, GEORGIA,
% Foy HAYES,
June 30, 1960.
Mr. T. L. MCNATT, Asst . Terminal Manager,
Bowman Transportation, Inc.,
2161 Moreland , Ave, S.E.,
Atlanta, Georgia.
DEAR SIR: This •is to inform you that I am protesting my discharge of May 30, 1960
on the grounds that all the charges you mentioned as a basis of discharge are false
and insufficient.
I am thereby making formal request for a full investigation of the facts and cir-
cumstances of my discharge , and if I be found to have been unjustly discharged, I
am making further demand for reinstatement in my employment at full seniority
and full back pay for all time lost.
Very truly Yours,
EMMETT GARRETT, Jr.
c/c Mr . Edward Peyton,
East Gadsden , Alabama
Me. E. E . Hollyfield,
Birmingham , Alabama
American Molded Products Co. and Plastic Workers' Union
Local No. 18, AFL-CIO . Cases Nos. 13-CA-4077 and 13-RC-
7549. December 20, 1961
DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
On August 21, 1961, Trial Examiner William J. Brown issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. He further found that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint, and recommended dismissal of such allega-
tions. In addition, the Trial Examiner sustained an objection, in
134 NLRB No. 140.