Braswell Motor Freight Line

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1971

189 N.L.R.B. 503 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINE 503
Braswell Motor Freight Line and David N. Jolly. Case
10-CA-8438
March 31, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On November 13, 1970, Trial Examiner Maurice S.
Bush issued his Decision in this proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision with a supporting brief, and motion to
reopen the record.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings 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 Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Braswell Motor Freight Line, Bir-
mingham, Alabama, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order. 2
I The Respondent filed a motion to reopen the record for the taking of
additional testimony on the ground that the Trial Examiner in his Decision
had erroneously struck certain testimony as hearsay However, we find that
the Trial Examiner did not err in striking the disputed testimony which, in
any event, could not affect the result and which he also found not credible
Accordingly, the motion to reopen is denied
2 In footnote 7 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for
"10" days
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAURICE S. BUSH, Trial Examiner- The principal issue
herein is whether the Respondent Company interfered with
the right of one of its pickup and delivery drivers, David N.
Jolly, to engage in protected concerted activities in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations
Act by discharging him for his refusal to cross a picket line
at the terminal of another trucking company. Respondent's
defense to this issue , as set forth in its brief, is that, "Jolly
was discharged not for his refusal or failure to cross a picket
line, but because he agreed to carry out an assignment and
then refused to do so with absolutely no extenuating
circumstances, ... thereby . . . inconveniencing his
employer."
Should the Respondent be found to be in violation of the
Act under the above issue, a secondary issue relating to
remedy arises as to whether a job reinstatement order
should be issued. This in turn revolves around the factual
question of whether the Respondent made an outright
unconditional but rejected offer of reinstatement to Jolly
subsequent to his termination so as to obviate the necessity
for a reinstatement order as well as for a backpay order
from and after the date of the reinstatement offer.
The complaint herein was issued on August 4, 1970,
pursuant to a charge and an amended charge filed June 25
and July 20, 1970, respectively, and duly served upon
Respondent.
The case was teed before the Trial Examiner on
September 22, 1970, at Birmingham, Alabama. Briefs filed
by counsel for General Counsel and Respondent have been
carefully reviewed and considered.
Upon the entire record and from his observation of the
witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, Motor Freight Line, a Texas corporation
engaged in business as a motor freight common carrier,
has its principal office and place of business at Dallas,
Texas, but operates terminals in several States, including
one at Birmingham, Alabama, the only facility involved in
this proceeding. In the course and conduct of its business,
Respondent, in the past year which is representative of all
times herein material, derived gross revenue in excess of
$50,000 from the transportation of goods from Alabama to
points outside the State of Alabama. Although the
Respondent in its answer denies that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act, the pleadings herein and the record conclusively
establish, without any evidence to the contrary, that
Respondent is and has been at all times material herein,
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Jolly worked for Respondent at its nonunion terminal
facility at Birmingham as one of its three city pickup and
delivery drivers for a period of about a year prior to his
discharge on June 24, 1970. His hours of employment were
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
At around noontime on June 24, Respondent's city
dispatcher and dock foreman, Charles Roberts, told Jolly
that a loaded Braswell trailer had arrived at the Birming-
189 NLRB No. 77
504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ham terminal of an interlining motor carrier , AAA Motor
Lines, for ultimate movement by Respondent. The Braswell
trailer had been on loan to AAA for about 2 weeks, but had
just been returned with freight for shipment by Braswell.
Roberts instructed Jolly to procede to AAA with a diesel
road tractor to pick up the trailer and to take a newly hired
over-the-road driver, Pope, along with him so that Pope
could drive the tractor-trailer combination back to the
Braswell terminal in order to give him some experience in
handling Braswell equipment (which was new to him)
before he was assigned to his first long distance hauling for
Respondent.
In making the assignment, Roberts warned Jolly that the
employees at AAA had gone on strike that very morning.
Jolly replied that under the circumstances, he "didn't care
to go over there." However, on Roberts' urging that
"arrangements have been made for you to go on in and
hook on to our trailer . . . and bring it home," Jolly agreed
but only on the express condition that, "If there is a picket
line up I am not going to cross it." Roberts' testimony
further shows that Jolly told him that, "If they try to stop
me, I am not going in." Roberts replied, "Call me and I will
come over there and take it in myself."'
At the AAA terminal Jolly found a picket line of about 10
drivers and dockworkers. Jolly inquired if they would have
any objections to his crossing the picket line to pick up the
Braswell trailer which had been dropped off before the
strike. The pickets informed him that, "We had rather that
you didn't cross." Jolly replied that he would respect their
picket line and would not cross it. Pope, Braswell's newly
hired driver, similarly refused to cross the picket line. Jolly
thereupon telephoned Roberts to tell him that the pickets
objected to his crossing the picket line and reiterated his
decision not to cross it. Roberts instructed Jolly to remain
at the AAA terminal and that he would be over in 30
minutes to drive the load across himself. Jolly chatted with
the pickets, one of whom he knew from boyhood and others
from contacts in his work, for about a half hour when he
was asked to move his tractor by an AAA representative.2
Jolly drove the tractor down the road a mile to the
terminal of Ross Neeley Express, a firm with whom
Braswell has a good deal of business and where Jolly's wife
also happens to be employed. There he telephoned Roberts
to tell him where the tractor now was but before he could
convey this information to him, Roberts put Respondent's
Terminal Manager James Pendley on the telephone to talk
to Jolly. Pendley asked what the trouble was and Jolly
replied that there was a picket line up at AAA and there
was objection to his crossing the picket line and that under
i The findings of the above paragraph are based on the combined
undisputed testimony of Jolly and Roberts
2 The findings of this paragraph are similarly based on the combined
testimony of Jolly and Roberts
3 The finding in the above sentence is based on the combined testimony
of Pendley and Jolly Pendley also testified that Mr Dove, the owner of
AAA, had told him during the noon hour of June 24 that he had checked
with the pickets and they had informed him that they had never attempted
to stop Jolly from crossing the picket line to pick up the Braswell trailer
Objections by General Counsel to this testimony by Pendley as to what
Dove had told him about his conversations with the pickets, on the ground
of hearsay was overruled Upon reconsideration, the Examiner revokes the
ruling and now sustains the objection Accordingly, the described
testimony is deemed stricken In any event the Examiner does not credit
these circumstances he would not cross the picket line.
Pendley urged Jolly to pick up the Braswell trailer, telling
him that he would have no trouble with the pickets,3 but
Jolly still declined. Pendley thereupon, according to his
own testimony, told Jolly to "either pick the trailer up or
come in the terminal and punch out." Jolly replied, "I will
come in and punch out." During the telephone conversa-
tion, Jolly told Pendley that he had driven the tractor over
to the terminal of Ross Neeley Express because he had been
asked to remove the tractor from the premises of AAA.
Pendley asked Jolly to put Pope on the telephone and he
then asked Pope to pick up the Braswell trailer, but Pope
like Jolly refused to cross the picket line.
With the refusal of both Jolly and Pope to cross the picket
line, Pendley and Roberts drove over to Ross Neeley
Express where Jolly had told Pendley he had brought the
Braswell tractor to. Jolly's explanation for leaving the
tractor there was that "when a man tells me I am fired, I am
not going to get in his equipment anymore."
At Ross Neeley, Roberts got into the tractor Jolly had left
there and drove it over to AAA while Pendley followed him
in his own car. Prior to taking off for AAA, Pendley and
Roberts had looked for Jolly at Ross Neeley, but he had
taken off in his wife's car to the Braswell terminal to see
Pendley, but not finding him there he also drove over to
AAA. There Jolly noticed that Roberts was driving the
tractor he had left at Ross Neeley and that he was about to
pull out of the AAA terminal with the Braswell trailer.
Observing Pendley standing at the side, Jolly walked over
to him and asked for his terminal pay. In this brief
encounter, Jolly told Pendley "It is mighty chicken
- - - - for you to fire me for not crossing the picket line."
Pendley replied that he and Roberts had received
permission to cross the picket line and had crossed it
without incident Upon hearing this Jolly drove back to the
picket line to confirm Pendley's assertion that he and
Roberts had received permission to cross the picket line
One picket stated that Pendley was a liar. At this point the
picket dashed over to confront Pendley just as he was
leaving the AAA driveway with the results as noted in
footnote 3 above.
The Examiner credits the testimony of Pendley and
Roberts that they drove through the picket line without
being stopped by the pickets and in fact were ignored by
them, but does not credit Pendley's testimony that after he
and Roberts had crossed the picket line, he (Pendley) spoke
to the pickets and received their permission for the pick-up
of the loaded Braswell trailer . (Reference is again made to
footnote 3.)
Pendley's testimony that Dove told him that the pickets had no objections
to Jolly crossing the picket line and picking up the Braswell trailer and that
they never stopped him from doing so This is obviously in conflict with
Pendley's own testimony that when he and Roberts went to the AAA
terminal a few minutes later to pick up the Braswell trailer he was accosted
by pickets who warned him that he had better not fire Jolly and that if he
did not put Jolly back to work, they would advise Jolly to file unfair labor
charges against Braswell and that "we will stand behind him [Jolly ] at this
point " This admitted action by the pickets is wholly inconsistent with any
claim that the pickets had informed Mr Dove that they had no objections
to Jolly crossing the picket line A further reason for discrediting the
testimony in question is that it was not corroborated by any of the pickets
themselves
BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINE 505
The Braswell trailer at the AAA which Jolly had declined
to cross the picket line to pick up contained United States
Government freight consisting of bunk racks consigned to
the nearby England Air Force Base. At the time Roberts
asked Jolly to pick up that trailer, he did not tell him it
contained Government freight. Similarly Roberts did not
tell Jolly that the pickup was urgent.
The record shows that at the time Jolly told Roberts of
his refusal to cross the picket line at AAA, Respondent had
two other city drivers and a dockworker, as well as at least
one over -the-road driver, it could have asked to make the
pickup, but did not. Respondent's city drivers work under
an extremely flexible arrangement under which they are in
more or less regular contact in person or by telephone with
the Braswell terminal for new orders to pick up and deliver
as they develop. The record further shows that it was no
hardship for Roberts himself to make the pickup in
question as he himself volunteered to do in the event Jolly
found a picket line at AAA.
The distance between the Braswell and AAA terminals is
about 6 miles and the round trip between the terminals is
only about 30 minutes.
The Braswell trailer at the AAA was one of nine trailers
permanently stationed at Respondent's Birmingham termi-
nal. At the time Jolly was sent to the AAA to pick it up, it
had been on loan to that interlining trucking company for
some 14 days during which period Respondent had no
occasion to recall it for use in its own business. The other
trailers in Respondent's permanent pool in Birmingham
had adequately handled the load. If Respondent had
needed an additional trailer on the day Jolly was
discharged and the trailer it had loaned to AAA had not
been available, it could have borrowed one of the AAA
trailers under an arrangement the two interlining motor
carriers have had for years. Roberts' testimony that
Braswell's business had improved to the extent that it
needed an additional trailer on the day Jolly was fired is not
credited.
After Jolly was terminated, Respondent had a part-time
employee take over Jolly's job.
The testimony of both Pendley and Roberts shows that
Jolly was terminated solely by reason of the events that
occurred on June 24. Their testimony shows without doubt
that he was fired that day because of his refusal to cross the
picket line of another trucking company contrary to his
instructions. There is no evidence that union hostility
played any part in Jolly's discharge. Prior to his refusal to
pick up the trailer here in question, Jolly had never refused
an assignment. Roberts regarded Jolly as a good worker.4
Giles Hallman succeeded Roberts on August 5, 1970, as
Respondent's city dispatcher and dock foreman, but he was
no longer in the employment of Respondent at the time of
the trial herein on September 22, 1970. Hallman testified as
to an alleged offer of reinstatement he made to Jolly some 2
4 At the hearing Respondent tried to show that there were contributing
factors to Jolly's discharge in addition to his refusal to cross the picket line
at AAA, such as complaints from two customers about Jolly's service and
Jolly's refusal to accept new working hours of 10 a m to 7 p in , in lieu of
the 8 a in to 5 p m, working hours he had been hired to work With
reference to the latter, the record shows that Pendley went along with
Jolly's preference to stay on his original working schedule of 8 a in to 5
p m , because of the hardship the new schedule would cause him due the
weeks before the hearing in this case while Hallman was
still city dispatcher for Braswell. The alleged offer took
place off the premises of Braswell at the dock of a company
known as Howard Hall where both Hallman and Jolly
happened to be at the time making deliveries or receiving
freight for their then respective employers. Hallman
testified that when he saw Jolly at Howard Hall he said to
him, "David, do you want to come back to Braswell? There
is an opening and James [Pendley ] will hire you back if you
will come back." Hallman further testified that Jolly replied
as follows, "No, I've got a good job and they [the company
Jolly was then working for] are going to go Union and I will
make more money." James Drake, a Braswell driver,
testified that he was present during part of the conversation
that was going on between Hallman and Jolly. His
testimony shows that the only part of the conversation he
heard was Jolly's statement to Hallman that he (Jolly)
already had a good job.
Jolly's testimony confirms that Hallman did make some
sort of inquiry of Jolly as to whether Jolly "wanted to come
back to Braswell." But Jolly's credited testimony shows,
contrary to Hallman's testimony, that Jolly did not make
an outright "No" answer to the inquiry of whether he
wanted to come back to Braswell, but instead replied that
he "would wait until" a decision was reached in the present
case and also that he did not want to work for Pendley, but
if Pendley left, he would go back. Whatever the true nature
of Hallman's offer to Jolly was, the Examiner finds and
concludes that Jolly's reply was not an outright rejection of
the "offer" but primarily a fencing for more time to
consider the offer and the desirability of once again
working under Pendley who he believed had unjustly fired
him for what Jolly considered his right to refuse to cross a
picket line.
Although Hallman's testimony that he had approached
Jolly about returning to his job at Braswell was confirmed
by Jolly, Hallman's testimony on direct examination that
Terminal Manager Pendley wanted to rehire Jolly is not
credited. This is because Hallman himself on
cross -examination admitted that prior to the time he spoke
to Jolly about his interest in coming back to Braswell he
had never had a conversation with Pendley in which Jolly
had been discussed. The Examiner therefore determines
and finds that Hallman made his alleged offer of
reinstatement to Jolly without the knowledge or consent of
Pendley.
During the course of Respondent's cross-examination of
Jolly to bring out Hallman's alleged offer to Jolly of
reemployment with Respondent, the Examiner inquired
whether Respondent was then offering Jolly reinstatement
to his former position with Braswell . Respondent's counsel
responded in the negative.
fact that his wife also worked to 5 p .m and that they had young children at
home The record further shows that the two complaints Respondent
received from customers about Jolly occurred months ago and were
isolated and not considered of serious consequence As noted Pendley's
testimony shows that he discharged Jolly solely because of his refusal to
cross the picket line at AAA The additional excuses offered for Jolly's
discharge are merely afterthoughts wholly unrelated to the real reason for
his discharge
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Discussion and Conclusions isolated, nonrepetitive event in the numerous pickups and
deliveries Respondent's three drivers perform daily. At
most Jolly's refusal to pick up the trailer was a slight
inconvenience to Respondent as it could easily have asked
one of its other drivers to take over the assignment, but
chose not to. It was such a small inconvenience that
Dispatcher Roberts himself offered to come after the trailer
if Jolly encountered a picket line at the AAA terminal.
When Jolly telephoned Roberts that there was a picket line
at AAA and reiterated his refusal to cross the picket line,
Roberts and Terminal Manager Pendley drove over to
AAA to pick up the trailer. It is not clear why Pendley went
along with Roberts, but presumably it was because he
anticipated some trouble in getting through the picket line.
At any rate the pick -up of the trailer and its return to the
Braswell terminal took no more than approximately 30
minutes. The record supports the conclusions that Pendley
fired Jolly more out of anger for his refusal to cross the
picket line as instructed than for any effect his refusal had
on the overall or efficient operation of the business. Judging
from the high rate of employee turnover Respondent has
had in the times here pertinent,5 it appears that the overall
efficiency of Respondent's operations was more adversely
affected by Jolly's discharge as a relatively long term
(I - year) employee than by his refusal to pick the trailer in
question.
In summary the Examiner finds and concludes that
Respondent is in violation of Section 8(a)(1) by reason of its
discharge of Jolly for his refusal to cross a picket line at the
terminal of another company in the performance of an
assignment.
An ancillary issue in the case is whether a standard
reinstatement and backpay order should be issued herein.
This in turn depends upon whether Respondent made an
unconditional offer of reinstatement of Jolly prior to the
trial of the case as claimed by Respondent. The "offer" was
made by Dispatcher Hallman who according to his own
testimony as found above, simply asked Jolly, "David, do
you want to come back to Braswell?" This "offer" was
made without the consent or knowledge of Terminal
Manager Pendley who had fired Jolly and the "offer" was
not renewed at the trial. The Examiner finds and concludes
that the so-called offer was not an unconditional offer of
reinstatement. Offers similar to the above have been held
not to be unconditional offers of reinstatement. Barr
Packing Company, 82 NLRB I at page 4; Leeding Sales Co.,
Inc., 155 NLRB 755 at pages 756, 757. As stated in the
Leeding case, "It is axiomatic that a discriminatee need not
make a choice of employment prior to receiving an
unconditional offer of reinstatement." As such an uncondi-
tional offer of reinstatement is lacking in this case, Jolly's
response to the inquiry, "Do you want to come back to
Braswell?" even if deemed completely negative, is
immaterial. Leeding Sales Co., supra. Jolly's response,
however, to the "offer" was, as found above, that he "would
wait until" the decision in this case and that he did not want
to work for Pendley, but if Pendley left the employment of
Braswell , he would go back. The Examiner reiterates his
took over Jolly's job when Jolly was fired on June 24 was no longer
engaged in city pickup and deliveries for Respondent at the time of trial
herein on September 22, 1970.
The Examiner finds and concludes on the basis of
Pendley's own testimony that Pendley terminated Jolly
because of his refusal to cross the picket line of the terminal
of another trucking concern . It is now well settled that such
a refusal to cross a picket line is a protected form of
concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the
Act. Rockaway News Supply Company, 95 NLRB 336, enfd.
denied on other grounds, 197 F.2d 111, affd. 345 U.S. 71.
See also Redwing Carriers, Inc., 137 NLRB 1545, particular-
ly footnote 5.
Although the Respondent recognizes the right of an
employee to refuse to cross a picket line under established
law, it seeks shelter for Jolly's discharge under a
corresponding right given employers by the Board in
Redwing Carriers, Inc., supra, namely, the right to run their
business to preserve efficient operation, subject, however,
to the condition that that right be balanced against the right
of employees to refuse to cross a picket line. To tip the scale
in the balancing of these opposing rights in favor of the
employer, the Board in the Redwing case held that the
employer must show that he "acted only to preserve
efficient operation of the business, and terminated the
services of the employees only so it could immediately or
within a short period thereafter replace them with others
willing to perform the scheduled work r k .
A later Board decision shows even more than the
Redwing that the burden of proof an employer must bear to
justify a discharge of an employee who refuses to cross a
picket line is quite stringent. Thus in Overnite Transporation
Company, 154 NLRB 1271, 1274, the Board holds, "that if
the protected right of employees is to have any meaning at all,
then the employer who would justify a discharge on the
basis of an overriding employer interest must present more
than a mere showing that someone else may have to do the
work. That fact is inherent in every situation where
employees fail to perform a portion of their assigned tasks
by respecting a picket line. To accept it alone is conclusive
proof that their services were terminated solely to preserve
efficient operation of the employer's business would be to
render illusory any finding that the employees engaged in
protected concerted activity. It would leave the refusal to
cross a picket line without any protection at all. Clearly,
what is required is the balancing of two opposing rights,
and it is only when the employer's business need to replace the
employees is such as clearly to outweigh the employees' right to
engage in protected activity that the invasion of the statutory
right is justified. "(Emphasis supplied.)
The record herein is virtually totally devoid of any
"overriding employer interest" on the part of the Respon-
dent to discharge Jolly because of his refusal to cross the
picket line. The removal of the Braswell trailer from the
AAA terminal to Respondent's terminal was a one-shot
operation. It was not something that had to be done every
day. Jolly's refusal to cross a picket line to pick up the
trailer could not in any real sense have affected the overall
efficiency of Respondent's operation as it involved a single
5 Dispatcher Roberts was displaced by Hallman who stayed with
Respondent only for a period of several weeks and was no longer
employed by Respondent at the time of trial. The part-time employee who
BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT LINE 507
finding above that this response by Jolly was not an
outright rejection of the "offer" but primarily a fencing for
more time to consider the offer and the desirability of once
again working under Pendley who he believed had unjustly
fired him for what he (Jolly) considered his legal right to
refuse to cross a picket line. Laminating Services, Inc., 167
NLRB 234, 236.
Due to the absence of an unconditional offer of
reinstatement by Respondent to Jolly, the standard order
for reinstatement and backpay will be issued in this case.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in an unfair
labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
purposes of the Act, including the offer of reinstatement of
David N. Jolly, with backpay computed in the manner set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with
interest added thereto in the manner set forth in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the record as a whole, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Braswell Motor Freight Line is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging David N. Jolly on June 24, 1970, for
engaging in protected concerted activity, the Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor
practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, the Examiner hereby issues the following recommend-
ed:
ORDER
Respondent, Braswell Motor Freight Lines, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with the rights of employees to engage in
protected concerted activity by discharging them in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer David N. Jolly immediate and full reinstatement
to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make him whole for any loss he may have suffered by
reason of his unlawful discharge in the manner set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify David N. Jolly, if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States , of his right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board and its
agents, upon request, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
relevant or necessary to the determination of backpay due
and to the reinstatement and related rights provided under
the terms of this recommended Order.
(d) Post at its Birmingham, Alabama, terminal copies of
the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix."6
Copies of said notice on forms to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 10 shall, after being signed by
Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10 in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Recommended Order
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.7
6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations, and recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted
by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all
objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interfere with the right of employees to
engage in protected concerted activity by discharging
them for refusing to cross a lawful picket line
established at the premises of another employer.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to David N. Jolly immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges,
and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may
have suffered as a result of his discharge.
WE WILL notify David N. Jolly, if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to
full reinstatement, upon application, in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
All our employees are free to engage in concerted
activities for their mutual aid and protection within the
meaning of Section 7 of the Act or to refrain from such
activities.
BRASWELL MOTOR FREIGHT
LINE
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office,
Peachtree Building, Room 701, 730 Peachtree St., N. E.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 701-526-5760.