C-Line Express

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1989

292 N.L.R.B. 638 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

638 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C-Line Express and Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers Local 490, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO.
Case 20-CA-19984
January 23, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER REMANDING
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
On April 20, 1988, Administrative Law Judge
George Christensen issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in
answer to the Respondent's exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions only to the extent consistent with this
Decision and Order,
We agree with the judge that the strike, which
began on October 16, 1985, was at its inception an
economic strike and that during the strike the Re-
spondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices.2
We do not, however, agree with his additional
finding that those unfair labor practices converted
the economic strike into an unfair labor practice
strike.
The Board has long held that an employer's
unfair labor practices during an economic strike do
not ipso facto convert it into an unfair labor prac-
tice strike. Rather, the General Counsel must estab-
lish that the unlawful conduct was a factor (not
necessarily the sole or predominant one) that
caused a prolongation of the work stoppage. As
the First Circuit Court of Appeals aptly observed
in Soule Glass Co. V. NLRB, this search for a causal
' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings . The Board 's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
2 The judge found, and we agree , that during the strike the Respond-
ent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act when its owners, George James and
Hank Betcher , threatened certain strikers with discharge and informed
them that it would not sign a contract with the Union, and violated Sec.
8(a)(5) and ( 1) by refusing to furnish the Union with information pertain-
ing to the Respondent's alleged sale of its trailers to, or the purported use
of those trailers by, another company, Napa Valley Trucking.
We also agree with the judge's finding, to which no exceptions were
taken, that the parties reached a valid impasse on October 3, 1985, in
their negotiations for a new contract , that the Respondent did not engage
in any unlawful conduct prior to the strike , and that the Respondent law-
fully implemented its contract proposals on October 14, 1985.
link is often problematic, leading the Board to rely
on both objective and subjective considerations:
Applying objective criteria, the Board and re-
viewing court may properly consider the prob-
able impact of the type of unfair labor practice
in question on reasonable strikers in the rele-
vant context. Applying subjective criteria, the
Board and court may give substantial weight
to the strikers' own characterization of their
motive for continuing to strike after the unfair
labor practice . . . . However, in examining
the union's characterization of the purpose of
the strike, the Board and the court must be
wary of self-serving rhetoric of sophisticated
union officials and members inconsistent with
the true factual context. [652 F.2d 1055 at 1080
(1st Cir. 1980).]
In many cases, the record will afford the Board
an opportunity to evaluate the employees' knowl-
edge of, and subjective reactions to, an employer's
unlawful conduct in order to confirm that it inter-
fered with a settlement of the strike and thus pro-
longed the work stoppage.,' However, the presence
or absence of evidence of such subjective motiva-
tions has not always been the sine qua non for de-
termining whether there has been a conversion.
Certain types of unfair labor practices by their
nature will have a reasonable tendency to prolong
the strike and therefore afford a sufficient and inde-
pendent basis for finding conversion. The most no-
table examples typically involve an unlawful with-
drawal of recognition, which may be accompanied
by a course of other unlawful conduct including
withdrawal of contract proposals, refusals to meet
and bargain, and recognition of another union.4
The common thread running through these cases is
the judgment of the Board that the employer's con-
duct is likely to have significantly interrupted or
burdened the course of the bargaining process.
Thus, when an employer has unlawfully withdrawn
recognition from the bargaining representative or
8 Compare Powell Electrical Mfg. Co., 287 NLRB 969 (1987 ) (conver-
sion found , based in part on information presented to employees prior to
strike vote), with Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 288 NLRB 69, 71 (1987)
(conversion not found in view of fact that employer's unfair labor prac-
tice was not matter that was discussed prior to a strike vote).
4 Powell Electrical Mfg. Co., supra, 287 NLRB 969, 970; Vulcan-Hart
Corp. v. NLRB, 718 F.2d 269, 276 (8th Cir. 1983) (". . . withdrawal of
recognition clearly prolonged the strike , because it put an end to contract
negotiations ."), enfg . 262 NLRB 167, 168 fn. 4 (1982 ) (because employees
had earlier indicated that they would not end strike until contract
reached, subsequent withdrawal of recognition found to be "an event
which would preclude a contract from being reached," thus prolonging
strike); Brooks & Perkins, Inc., 282 NLRB 976, and cases cited (1987)
("The Board has invariably concluded that the unlawful withdrawal of
recognition prolongs a strike" ); Walker Die Casting, 255 NLRB 212, 225
(1981), enfd . as modified 682 F.2d 592 (6th Cir . 1982), cert . denied 461
U.S. 905 ( 1983); Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service, 230 NLRB 542, 552
(1977), enf. denied in part 584 F.2d 720 (5th Cir. 1978).
292 NLRB No. 63
C LINE EXPRESS
engaged in bad-faith bargaining during an econom
is strike, and it appears from the record that such
unlawful conduct necessarily prolonged the strike,
the Board has found that the economic strike has
converted to an unfair labor practice strike See
Powell Electrical Mfg Co, and Brooks & Perkins
Inc , supra
Turning to the facts of this case, with respect to
the state of mind of the strikers we find a lack of
evidence that the strikers were motivated to pro-
long their strike by the 8(a)(1) coercive statements
of the Employer's two co-owners to several of the
employees on the picket line Nor is there any evi
dence in the record to indicate that the strikers
were even aware of the Respondent's unlawful re-
fusal to comply with the Union's request for infor-
mation concerning the alleged sale of several trail
ers to another company In fact, the record is
devoid of any evidence showing that the strike was
motivated by anything other than the parties' in-
ability to reach agreement during an admittedly
lawful impasse
Similarly, as an objective matter, we cannot say
that the unlawful conduct found here was of such
frequency or magnitude as to have prolonged the
strike At first blush, the co owners' coercive com
ments stating an intent "to go broke" and "shut the
door" before signing a contract would seem to
manifest the kind of intransigence that would nec
essarily prolong the strike But the General Coun-
sel did not argue that these statements reflected a
serious intent to refuse to bargain No bad-faith
bargaining claim was either alleged or proven
Likewise, there is no evidence that the Respond-
ent's co-owners tried to make good on their threats
to discharge certain employees during the strike,
and thus, we do not confront the problem of un
lawful discharges creating a new issue against
which to protest and delaying resolution of the
strike
Finally, while there may well be situations in
which an employer's unlawful refusal to provide
information may obstruct the progress of bargain
mg over the economic issues over which the strike
is being waged, we do not think that the informa
tion requested and refused here falls into that cate-
gory Shortly after the strike commenced, the
Union made an information request asking for the
particulars surrounding the sale of the Respond
ent's trailers and, in addition, asking for informa
tion regarding the impact of the sale on unit em-
ployment and regarding the hiring of strike re
placements It is undisputed that the request was
ignored Although this information was clearly rel-
evant to the Union in exercising its responsibilities
as the exclusive bargaining representative of unit
639
employees, and we affirm the judge's finding that
the Respondent's refusal to provide that informa-
tion was violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1), the in
formation requested was not germane to the issues
that stood in the way of the parties reaching agree
ment on a contract Thus, in the absence of any
evidence that this was known to the strikers or that
it was linked to an issue that was proving an obsta-
cle in negotiations, we decline to assume that it
prolonged the strike
In sum , we conclude that the General Counsel
did not sustain her burden of showing a causal
nexus between the Respondent's unfair labor prac
tices and the continuation of the strike The strike,
which began on October 16, 1985, remained an
economic one until it ended on January 30, 1986,
when the strikers unconditionally offered to return
to work
As the employees who unconditionally offered
to return to work on January 30, 1986, were eco-
nomic, rather than unfair labor practice strikers,
they were entitled to immediate reinstatement only
if they had not been permanently replaced by the
Respondent 5 However, as correctly found by the
judge, the record fails to establish whether the re-
placements hired by the Respondent soon after the
strike began were temporary or permanent replace
ments 6 If the replacements were temporarily
hired, then the Respondent's refusal to reinstate the
economic strikers when they unconditionally of
fered to return to work on January 30, 1986, violat
ed Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and the strik
ers would be entitled to immediate reinstatement
and backpay If the Respondent hired permanent
replacements, then no violation occurred because
the strikers would be entitled to reinstatement only
on the departure of their replacements Lacking
such evidence, we find it necessary to remand this
matter to the judge for the sole purpose of deter
mining if the economic strikers were temporarily
or permanently replaced and, if necessary, to deter
mine whether any or all of the strikers are entitled
to reinstatement and backpay The judge shall be
authorized to reopen the record, if necessary, to re
ceive evidence relevant to this issue On determin
ing whether the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) in refusing to reinstate the economic
strikers, the judge shall issue a supplemental deci-
sion and order
5 Laidlaw Corp 171 NLRB 1366 (1968) enfd 414 F 2d 99 (7th Cir
1969) cert denied 397 U S 920 (1970)
8 The record indicates only that the parties stipulated at the start of the
hearing that the Respondent hired 14 replacements during the onset of
the strike The record does not establish the status of the replacements
640 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
It is ordered that this matter is remanded to the
administrative law judge solely for the purpose of
determining if the economic strikers were tempo-
rarily or permanently replaced and whether any or
all of the economic strikers are entitled to reinstate-
ment and backpay. The administrative law judge is
authorized to reopen the record, if necessary, to re-
ceive additional evidence relevant to this issue.
Thereafter, the judge is instructed to issue a supple-
mental decision, including findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and a recommended Order, consistent
with this remand Order. Copies of such supplemen-
tal decision shall be served on all parties, after
which the provision of Section 102.46 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations shall apply.
Donald R. Randall, for the General Counsel.
Michael P. Merrill (Merrill & Thompson), of Santa Rosa,
California, for the Respondent.
Tom Williams, of Vallejo, California, for the Charging
Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Administrative Law Judge.
On November 3-5, 1987, I conducted a hearing at Val-
lejo, California, to try issues raised by a complaint issued
on January 27, 1986, as amended on April 29, 1987,
based on original and amended charges filed by Local
490 (Union) on November 6 and December 6, 1985, and
March 19, 1986.
The issues are whether, as alleged in the amended
complaint and denied in the answer, C-Line Express (C-
Line) violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act (Act) following the expiration of an
agreement between C-Line and the Union covering C-
Line's drivers and whether the strike called by the Union
following negotiations was an unfair labor practice
strike.
The General Counsel and C-Line appeared by counsel
and were afforded full opportunity to adduce evidence,
examine and cross-examine witnesses, argue, and file
briefs. Both filed briefs.
Based on my review of the entire record, observation
of the witnesses, perusal of the briefs and research, I
enter the following
FINDINGS OF FACT1
1. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleged , the answer admitted, and I find
at all pertinent times C-Line was an employer engaged in
' Although every apparent or nonapparent conflict in the evidence has
not been specifically resolved below, my findings are based on my exami-
nation of the entire record, my observation of the witnesses' demeanor
while testifying, and my evaluation of the reliability of their testimony;
therefore any testimony in the record that is inconsistent with my find-
ings is discredited.
commerce in a business affecting commerce and the
Union was a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 of the Act.
11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
C-line was and is a local cartage hauler with facilities
in Napa, California. In 1978 George James and Hank
Betcher, C-Line drivers, members of the Union and cov-
ered by a collective-bargaining agreement between C-
Line and Union, each purchased 50 percent of C-Line
stock and assumed control. The new owners2 of C-Line
agreed to observe the terms and conditions of collective-
bargaining agreements titled the "National Master
Freight Agreement Covering Over-the-Road and Local
Cartage Employees of Private, Common, Contract and
Local Cartage Carriers" and the "Joint Council No. 7
Local Pickup and Delivery Supplemental Agreement"
with respect to C-Line drivers until the March 31, 1985
expiration of those agreements, with one exception-at
the inception of those agreements, C-Line and the Union
agreed C-Line drivers would be paid $11.1.1 per hour
rather than the higher rates set out.
Following the March 31, 1985 expiration of the agree-
ments, C-Line and the Union met 10 times to negotiate a
new agreement. During that period, Richard Carroll,
Daniel Fisher, Jeffrey Frank, Denton Fry, Vernon
Hoover, Matthew Limpic, George Mattioda, David Neu,
Frank Olmsted, Robert Pieri, and Paul Stornetta were
employed by C-Line as truckdrivers.3
A number of provisions within the two agreements
specifically applied to casuals; covered employers were
authorized to employ casuals under limited circum-
stances; required to employ casuals by request addressed
to the union hiring hall; required to pay casuals the con-
tract rate for hours worked and to make payments on
behalf of casuals for each hour worked into funds estab-
lished under the agreements; and (under the current sup-
plemental agreement) to grant regular employee status to
any casual who worked 20 days or more within 3 con-
secutive months (casuals were specifically denied the se-
niority protections afforded regular employees).
C-Line's dispatcher hired both Fry and Mattioda after
they were sent by the Union's hiring hall to C-Line's
premises in response to a telephone call by the dispatcher
for two drivers.
Fry was hired during the week ending July 12, 1985,
and worked 3 days that week; 5 days during; each of the
2 The complaint alleged, the answer admitted, and I find at all perti-
nent times James was the president, Betcher was the vice president, and
both were supervisors and agents of C-Line acting on its behalf within
the meaning of Sec. 2 of the Act.
9 C-Line conceded the appropriateness for collective-bargaining pur-
poses under Sec. 9 of the Act of a unit consisting of all employees cov-
ered by the 1982-1985 agreements, excluding all other employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act; that at pertinent times C-Line rec-
ognized the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
C-Line employees within the unit ; and that Carroll, Fisher, Frank,
Hoover, Limpic, Neu, Olmsted, Pieri, and Stornetta were unit employees
covered by the agreements. C-Line contended, however, Fry and Mat-
tioda were neither within the unit nor covered by the agreements , assert-
ing they were temporary or casual employees excluded from coverage.
C LINE EXPRESS
3 subsequent weeks (ending July 19, and 26 and August
2 1985) 1 day during the week ending August 9, 1985, 4
days during each of the 2 weeks ending September 6 and
13 1985 5 days during the week ending September 20
1985 2 days during the week ending September 27 1985,
5 days during each of the 2 weeks ending October 4 and
11 1985 and 2 days immediately preceding the October
16, 1985 strike, for a total of 46 working days, including
in excess of 20 days within the 3 months following his
hire
Mattioda was hired during the week ending October 4,
1985, and worked 4 days that week, 5 days the subse
quent week, and, 2 days immediately preceding the Oc
tober 16 1985 strike
Both Fry and Mattioda at all times were members of
the Union and informed James on October 17, 1985, they
would not cross the picket line nor work nonunion, in
response to his request they report for work 4
Dispatcher Jack Cuffman and James testified Fry was
employed throughout his employment as a casual , to fill
in during vacations and during overloads (when the reg
ular complement could not handle temporary workload
increases) and Cuffman testified he informed the Union
hiring hall C Line was seekng a casual when he request
ed a driver and informed Fry that C Line was employing
him as a casual when he hired Fry James testified Mat
tioda was also employed as a casual either as a vacation
replacement or because of a workload increase (Cuffman
did not testify to the reason Mattioda was hired and
Mattioda did not testify) and that C Line paid both Fry
and Mattioda the contract driver s rate and made contri
butions on their behalf to the pension fund, but denied
either received any other benefits (paid holidays sick
leave etc) Fry conceded the dispatcher notified him in
advance when to work and what run to take (which
varied) but stated the runs of other drivers-whose
status as regular drivers was unchallenged-were also
vaned The record shows the regular drivers worked
normal 40 hour weeks including weeks in which Fry
worked less than 5 days
At the outset of negotiations C Line proposed to
eliminate coverage under the National Freight Agree
ment reduce the driver pay rate from $11 11 to $9 50
per hour substitute individual retirement accounts with
payments of $2000 per employee per year for participa
tion in and payments to the Western Conference of
Teamsters Pension Plan (WCTPP) substitute a health
plan of C Line choosing for participation in and pay
ments into the Western Conference of Teamsters Health
Plan (WCTHP) reduce paid sick leave from 11 to 5 days
per year eliminate jury service and funeral leave time
and pay reduce vacations and vacation pay to 2 weeks
at 40 hours of pay for each week after 1 year of service
and 3 weeks at 40 hours of pay for each week after 3
years of service from 2 weeks and 96 hours of pay after
1 year, 3 weeks and 135 hours of pay after 3 years 4
weeks and 180 hours pay after 10 years, and 5 weeks and
225 hours pay after 20 years reduce from 12 to 7 paid
holidays per year and grant C Line discretion to estab
lish variable starting times, all because C Line was
4 Fry also picketed C Line s premises during the strike
641
unable to maintain existing wage and benefit levels and
would be forced either into bankruptcy or out of busi
ness unless wage costs were reduced
The Union responded with proposals for continued
coverage under the two expired agreements continuation
of current wage rates, pension plan participation and
payments , health plan participation and payments sick
leave benefits, jury pay benefits funeral leave benefits
and paid holidays, a reduction in vacation pay to 40
hours for each week of paid vacation, a limitation of
starting times to a period starting at 5 a m and ending at
f p in with 8 a in as one starting time and demanded
access to C Line s financial records to determine the au
thenticity of C Line s claim of financial hardship
C Line consented to the Union s demand for access to
its financial records The Union retained a certified
public accountant , Alfred Nella to conduct an examina
tion of those records and to render a report to the Union
concerning his findings Nella contacted C Line C Line
instructed its accountant CPA Everett V Lehman to
make its financial records available to Nella, and Lehman
complied with C Line s instructions On June 25, 1985,
Nella submitted a written report to the Union stating C
Line had a profit before taxes of $20,721 for the period
April 1-December 31, 1984 a profit before taxes of
$2501 for the month of January 1985 a loss of $4208 for
February 1985, and a loss of $7532 for March 1985 C
Line requested the Union furnish C Line a copy of
Nella s report, the Union refused to do so
By the September 20 1985 negotiating session, the par
ties narrowed their differences considerably C Line ac
cepted the Union s proposed continuation of the existing
wage scale and Union accepted C Line s proposed re
ductions in paid sick leave and paid holidays the Union
accepted C Line s proposed elimination of coverage
under the National Freight Agreement elimination of
jury service and funeral leave and pay reduction in paid
sick leave to 5 days per year, and reduction in paid holi
days to 7 days per year, compromised on C Line s start
ing time proposal with an agreement to flexible starting
times between 3 and 10 am with 8 am as one of the
starting times, and compromised on their respective va
cation proposals with an agreement that vacation pay
would be paid at 40 hours for each week of vacation and
vacations of 2 weeks would be granted after 1 year s
service 3 weeks after 3 years service and 4 weeks after
10 years service The Union also accepted during nego
tiations C Line s proposed elimination of any require
ment C Line hire an additional regular driver whenever
a casual or temporary driver worked more than 20 days
within 3 consecutive months
Each, however, refused to yield on their respective
positions concerning pension coverage and payment and
the Union s demand that the health plan proposed by C
Line cover retirees C Line also agreed to consider and
provide a later answer to the Union s September 20, 1985
proposal that C Line provide the Union with quarterly
financial statements
On September 24, 1985 C Line dispatched a letter to
the Union detailing the items the parties had agreed on
(set out above) stated the two items on which they dis
642 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreed (retiree coverage under C-Line's proposed health
plan and substitution of individual retirement accounts
for coverage under the WCTPP), stated C-Line would
not agree to furnish the Union quarterly financial state-
ments but would agree to furnish quarterly reports of its
operating ratio, and stated the items agreed on and its
proposals concerning the pension, health, and quarterly
report issues constituted its final offer.
On October 3, 1985, the Union responded with a letter
confirming the accuracy of C-Line's September 24, 1985
statement of the issues resolved by agreement and the
unresolved issues.
The parties last met the day the the Union dispatched
its October 3, 1985 letter. They met under the auspices
of the Federal Mediation Service and at no time con-
ferred face to face (the mediator shuttled between sepa-
rate rooms communicating the respective parties' ques-
tions, demands, and positions). The meeting ended with
no agreements on the three unresolved issues (the Union
rejected C-Line's counterproposal of submitting quarter-
ly operating ratio reports rather than quarterly financial
statements).
On October 4 and 5, 1985, C-Line sent letters to the
Union stating C-Line believed the parties had reached a
negotiating impasse and announced on October 14, 1985,
C-Line was going to implement its wage, health, pension,
sick leave, jury service, funeral leave, vacation, holiday,
and starting time proposals, would no longer consider
itself bound by any provisions of the National Master
Freight Agreement and would comply with those provi-
sions of the current Western Conference of Teamsters
contract other than those covered by the proposals it
was implementing and the provision requiring casuals be
considered regular employees after working 20 days
within 3 consecutive months.
On October 10, 1985, the Union conducted a meeting
of C-Line drivers. Williams presented C-Line's final pro-
posal and recommended its rejection and, after discus-
sion, his recommendation was adopted.
On October 14, 1985, C-Line implemented its final
proposal.
On October 16, 1985, the Union called a strike against
C-Line and C-Line's drivers began picketing C-Line's fa-
cilities and picketing C-Line's vehicles at their stops.5
All C-Line's drivers other than Frank joined the strike
and all but Mattioda and Hoover6 engaged in picketing
activities.
Between the time the parties exchanged their initial
proposals and the time the strike began, C-Line's finan-
cial condition and C-Line's proposals were a constant
subject of discussion among C-Line's employees and be-
tween C-Line employees and the two owners. The con-
versations most often occurred between the time the em-
ployees arrived at the dispatcher's office prior to starting
work and the time they started work. During these ex-
changes, James and Betcher constantly proclaimed the
view the employees would receive more retirement
money through annual investment of $2000 in C-Line
5 C-Line hired a full complement of drivers to replace the strikers as
soon as the strike commenced.
6 Hoover left C-Line's employ in September 1985.
payments into individual retirement accounts on behalf
of each employee each year than they would receive in
pension income from the WCTPP, that the health plan
C-Line wished to institute provided equal or superior
benefits than the WCTHP at far less expense, and that C-
Line would either have to go out of business or declare
bankruptcy if C-Line was unable to reduce its labor costs
by instituting its proposed changes, citing its losses (in-
cluding an appearance at a union meeting in August,
during which James distributed to the Union and the em-
ployees copies of its proposals and its financial statement
for the period ending June 30, 1985, explained C-Line's
position, and answered employee questions).?
Prior to the October 16, 1985 strike, C-Line owned
and utilized three trailers for hauling paper, normally
parked the trailers in its yard when not in use and nor-
mally picked up paper at the paper piers for delivery to
various users. Shortly after the strike began, James drove
to C-Line's premises in his personal auto and, before en-
tering, stopped and engaged several pickets (including
Neu and Fry) in conversation. In the course of the con-
versation, James complained Stornetta's picketing at the
paper piers prevented Napa Valley Trucking (NVT)
from picking up a paper load with one of the trailers and
that was improper, since C-Line sold its paper trailers to
NVT.8 A few days later Neu went to NVT's yard and
saw one of C-Line's paper trailers parked there. He re-
ported James' statement and his observation to the
Union.
On October 18, 1985, the Union sent a telegram to C-
Line stating the Union had been informed C-Line trans-
ferred some of its equipment to NVT, asked (1) for con-
firmation; (2) the date of the transfer; (3) what equipment
was transferred; (4) whether the transferred equipment
was being utilized to service accounts serviced by C-
Line prior to the transfer; (5) what impact the transfer
had on unit employment; and (6) the dates of hire, posi-
tions, identity, and wages of unit employees hired after
the strike commenced to perform bargaining unit work.
C-Line neither acknowledged nor responded to the re-
quest.
During the October 1985 picketing, James and Betcher
frequently conversed with the union pickets as they en-
7 As typical in small shops, the two owners and the drivers were on a
first-name basis and were in constant direct communication, particularly
while imbibing coffee in the dispatcher's office prior to the drivers start-
ing their daily runs. I neither credit the testimony of the Union Steward
Hoover and several strikers ' testimony that James and Betcher always
initiated the conversations, nor dispatcher Jack Cuffman's, Frank's,
James', and Betcher's testimony the latter two only responded to driver
statements, inquiries , and questions; rather, I find at times James and
Betcher opened the discussions and at other times they responded to
driver statements, inquiries, and questions. I do not credit Hoover's testi-
mony James frequently stated he would close the doors if the drivers did
not accept C-Line's proposals; that testimony was not corroborated by
strikers who testified and James , Betcher, Cuffman, and Frank denied
James made that statement. Rather, I find James and Betcher consistently
repeated to the drivers the same statement they made to the Union
during negotiations , i.e., that due to C-Line's continuing financial losses,
C-Line either had to reduce its labor costs through the reductions it was
proposing or it would be forced either to declare bankruptcy or to go out
of business.
8 Three bills of sale from C-Line's records show the sale of the three
trailers in question to NVT on October 17, 1985.
C LINE EXPRESS
tered and left C Line s facility Though sometimes amica
ble their communications on several occasions took the
form of complaints and threats, as James complaint to
Fry and Neu over Stornetta s preventing of a paper
pickup at the piers by picketing a C Line paper trailer
hauled by NVT (after alleging C Line no longer owned
the trailer), James statements to Stornetta he did not
care how long the strikers walked the picket line, he
would go broke and shut the doors before he would sign
a union contract and that he did not want Stornetta
back James statement to Olmsted he would go broke
before he would sign a contract with the Union,
Betcher s statements to Neu that because of the Union s
success in preventing C Line s pickups and deliveries at
docks manned by union members, C Line would not sign
a contract with the Union and C Line would not reem
ploy more than three of the strikers, and Betcher s state
ment to Limpic he had better seek another job because
C Line would never sign a contract with the Union
On January 30, 1986, Union Secretary Treasurer Wil
Liam Sawyer and the Union Business Representative Wil
liams, accompanied by several strikers, contacted
Betcher at C Line s facility Williams read and presented
to Betcher a letter wherein the Union on behalf of the
strikers, made an unconditional offer to return to work
and requested their reemployment Betcher replied all of
C Line's vehicles had been dispatched and there was no
further work available that day Sawyer asked the start
ing time the following day and was informed it was 8
a in Sawyer stated the strikers would return the follow
ing day prior to that time ready to go to work and he
Williams and the strikers departed
The following day Williams and several strikers ap
peared at C Lines facility prior to 8 am, contacted
Betcher, and Williams renewed his request the strikers be
reemployed Betcher replied there was not any work
available for them and suggested the Union contact C
Line s lawyer 9
On February 3 1986 C Line sent a letter to the Union
acknowledging receipt of the January 30 1986 union
offer and request and stating C Line would reemploy the
strikers when and if vacancies occurred
B Analysis and Conclusions
1 Unit and representative status
By signing the March 1, 1982-March 31, 1985 Nation
al Master Freight Agreement, C Line recognized and ac
knowledged the Union as the exclusive collective bar
gaining representative of its employees in job classifica
tions covered by the National Freight Agreement and
the Local Pickup and Delivery Supplemental Agreement
negotiated by Teamsters Joint Council 7 on behalf of the
Union, for a term extending from April 1, 1982 through
March 31, 1985
8 Betcher testified he refused to reemploy any strikers because C Line s
vehicles were fully manned by employees hired to replace the strikers
643
These agreements clearly demonstrate the Union rep
resented and bargained on behalf of all drivers including
casual drivers 10
C Line thus recognized the Union as the exclusive col
lective bargaining representative of all its drivers, includ
ing casuals and agreed to apply the terms and conditions
of the two agreements to all its drivers, including casu
als, during their terms (except for the single wage rate
modification agreed to by the parties) C Line continued
to recognize the Union as all its drivers exclusive collec
tive bargaining representative through and after Febru
ary 6, 1986 (when C Line requested a resumption of bar
gaining) C Line continued to apply the terms and condi
tions of the two agreements through October 14, 1985,
and, since October 14 1985 has continued to observe
the provisions of the current Local Pickup and Delivery
Supplemental Agreement as modified by the wages, rates
of pay hours and working condition changes instituted
by C Line on October 14, 1985
On the basis of the foregoing, I find and conclude
since March 1, 1982, the Union has been, and has been
recognized as, the exclusive collective bargaining repre
sentative of all of C Line's employees covered by the
1982-1985 agreements set out above, including casuals,
excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act, and that at times material Fry and
Mattioda were casuals within the unit represented by the
Union and covered by the 1982-1985 agreements and
any extensions or modifications thereof
2 The alleged prestrike violations and strike
causation
The complaint alleged C Line violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act and caused employees to engage in a
strike to remedy C Line's unfair labor practices by
threatening employees with plant closure unless the
Union acceded to C Line's demands by directly dealing
with employees concerning its pension and health pro
posals, and by refusing to supply quarterly financial
statements prior to the October 16 1985 strike These
contentions lack merit
During their prestrike conversations with employees
neither James nor Betcher exceeded his free speech
rights under Section 8(c) of the Act by reiterating the
positions they enunciated during negotiations with the
Union that C Line s deteriorating financial condition re
quired securing lower labor costs in a new contract (sup
ported by documentation) or C Line either would have
to cease doing business or enter bankruptcy and that the
employees would derive equal or greater benefit under
C-Line s pension and welfare proposals than they would
by continued coverage under the Teamsters plans
With respect to C Line's refusal to supply quarterly fi
nancial reports, this clearly was understood by C Line as
a denial of a union demand for inclusion of a contract
10I find Fry and Mattioda by virtue of their payroll status and work
assignments at all pertinent times were employed as casuals and never at
tamed regular employee status (since C Line never agreed to the post
1985 supplemental agreement provision requiring the grant of regular em
ployee status to casuals on completion of 20 days of work within 3 con
secutive months)
644 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
provision in a proposed successor contract requiring sub-
mission to the Union of quarterly financial reports during
the life of the successor contract, a demand C-Line re-
jected, accompanied by a compromise offer to submit to
the Union quarterly statements of C-Line's operating
ratio (which the Union rejected).
Certainly the Union went on strike to cause C-Line to
yield to its demands for continued employee coverage
under the Teamsters pension plan, retiree coverage under
the new health plan, and submission of quarterly finan-
cial reports during the life of a successor agreement; C-
Line, however, neither violated the Act by refusing to
agree to the union demands nor by such refusal caused
the Union to call, and the employees to engage in, an
unfair labor practice strike.
As to the alleged prestrike direct dealing and threats, I
find James and Betcher neither dealt directly with em-
ployees concerning wages, etc., nor threatened them
with plant closure in violation of the Act, but merely ex-
ercised their free speech privileges under Section 8(c) of
the Act in discussing issues of mutual concern, so their
conduct neither violated the Act nor caused the Union
to call, and the employees to engage in, an unfair labor
practice strike.
I therefore shall recommend dismissal of those por-
tions of the complaint alleging by James' and Betcher's
prestrike statements to employees and refusals to agree
to the Union's prestrike demands, C-Line either violated
the Act or caused the Union to call and the employees
to engage in an unfair labor practice strike.
3. The alleged October 14, 1985 violation
Although the General Counsel does not contend the
parties were not deadlocked at the close of their last ne-
gotiating session (on October 3, 1985), he contends be-
cause C-Line violated the Act prior to its October 14,
1985 implementation of its contract proposals, no legiti-
mate impasse may be held to have occurred and there-
fore that implementation violated the Act.
I have entered findings and conclusions above that,
contrary to the complaint allegations and the General
Counsel's contentions, C-Line did not violate the Act
prior to its October 14, 1985 implementation of its con-
tract proposals.
I therefore find and conclude the parties reached a le-
gitimate bargaining impasse on October 3, 1985, C-Line
did not violate the Act by implementing its contract pro-
posals on October 14, 1985, and the Union caused and
the employees engaged in an economic strike to secure
the Union's demands on October 16, 1985.
4. The alleged poststrike violations and alleged
strike prolongation or aggravation
The complaint alleged C-Line violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act and prolonged or aggravated the
strike by James' and Betcher's poststrike statements and
C-Line's failure to respond to the Union's information re-
quest.
I have entered findings shortly after the strike com-
menced, James and Belcher complained to strikers/-
pickets over their prevention of C-Line pickups and de-
liveries, threatened them with discharge and refusals to
sign a contract with the Union, i.e., the futility of their
strike, and ignored the Union's request for information
concerning the sale or use of its paper trailers by NVT,
the impact of such use on unit employees' work opportu-
nities and the identity, classification, and wages of unit
employees hired during the strike.
Whether the sale or transfer of the paper trailers to
NVT was a sham transaction,'' it is clear prior to
making its request, the Union received information NVT
attempted to pick up paper at the paper piers with a C-
Line trailer, a C-Line trailer was parked at NVT's yard,
and James was claiming C-Line sold its paper trailers to
NVT.
As the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of C-Line's drivers, the Union had legitimate grounds for
seeking to determine if the trailers had been sold and
transferred to NVT to enable NVT to assume part of C-
Line's business operations, with a consequent loss of
work opportunities for C-Line employees within the bar-
gaining unit represented by the Union, to determine if C-
Line had enlisted NVT as an ally in its dispute with the
Union, and to ascertain whether C-Line was observing
the wages, contained in its final contract offer.
I therefore find and conclude C-Line violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by the James/Betcher threats
detailed above and by its failure to respond to the
Union's October 18, 1985 information request. I also find
and conclude by attempting to convince the
strikers/pickets of the futility of their strike activity (by
the threats and statements set out above) and by failing
to bargain in good faith (by ignoring the Union's request
for information it was entitled to receive), C-Line pro-
longed and aggravated the strike, thereby converting the
strike from an economic to an unfair labor practice
strike.' 2 As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit stated in the case of NLRB v. Windham Commu-
nity Hospital, 577 F.2d 805, 814 (1978):
It is well established that an economic strike is con-
verted into an unfair labor practice strike if it is
"prolonged or aggravated by the employer's unfair
labor practice.
To similar effect, Powell Electrical Mfg. Co., 287
NLRB 969 (1987); Brooks & Perkins, 282 NLRB 976
(1987); Vulcan Hart Co., 262 NLRB 167 (1982), affd. 718
F.2d 269 (8th Cir. 1983); Heads & Threads Co., 261
" James, Betcher and NVT's owner (George Kolbert) testified while
documents purporting to show a sale and transfer of C-Line's three paper
trailers to NVT were executed the day after the strike started, no sale or
transfer of title ever occurred, but did not deny after the strike started
NVT attempted to continue pickups of paper for delivery for C-Line's
customers by utilizing C-Line's paper trailers and that one or more of C-
Line's trailers were parked at NVT's yard after the strike started.
12 An employer statement to strikers that he will never sign a contract
with their bargaining representative implies no matter what further con-
tract give-backs they and their representative offer (and that he is not
going to make any concession), coupled with a cavalier refusal to even
dignify the representative's reasonable request for information enabling
that representative to function as their representative could not do other-
wise than convince the strikers and their representative to prolong their
strike and to aggravate the strike.
C LINE EXPRESS
NLRB 800 ( 1982), affd 724 F 2d 282 (2d Cir 1983),
International Business Systems, 258 NLRB 181 ( 1981),
affd mem 701 F 2d 158 (3d Cir 1983), Crystal Springs
Shirt Corp , 245 NLRB 882 (1979), affd 637 F 2d 399
(5th Cir 1981 ), Pacific Grinding Wheel Co, 220 NLRB
1389 (1975), affd 572 F 2d 1343 (9th Cir 1978 ) Johnson
Sheet Metal, 179 NLRB 644 (1969), affd 442 F 2d 1056
(10th Cir 1971 ), Waukesha Lime & Stone Co 145 NLRB
973 (1964) affd 343 F 2d 504 (7th Cir 1965)
5 The refusal to reinstate
It is undisputed on January 31, 1986, C Line rejected
the Unions unconditional offer on behalf of C Line s
striking employees to return to work and its accompany
mg request for their reemployment
It has frequently been held an employers refusal to re
employ unfair labor practice strikers upon their uncondi
tional offer and request therefor, constitutes a violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act,13 and entitles the
strikers to reemployment, even if such reemployment ne
cessitated the layoff of employees hired to replace
them 14
I thus find and conclude C Line violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by failing to reemploy its em
ployees represented by the Union who engaged in the
unfair labor practice strike against C Line following their
January 31, 1986 unconditional offer to return to work
and request for reemployment and that the strikers who
unconditionally offered to return to work and requested
reinstatement were entitled thereto on January 31 1986
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 At all pertinent times C Line was an employer en
gaged in commerce in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act
2 At all pertinent times the Union has been, and has
been recognized by C Line as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of C Line s employees within
the unit described in the 1982-1985 National Freight
Agreement and the Local Pickup and Delivery Agree
ment negotiated by Teamsters Joint Council 7 including
casual employees excluding all other employees guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act
3 C Line did not violate the Act by James and
Betcher s prestrike statements to unit employees
4 C Line did not violate the Act by its prestrike refus
al to supply quarterly financial statements to the Union
5 C Line and the Union reached a legitimate bargain
ing impasse on October 3 1985
6 C Line did not violate the Act by implementing its
final contract offer on October 14 1985
13 Gulf Wandes Corp 233 NLRB 772 (1977) affd 595 F 2d 1074 (5th
Cir 1979) Cast Optics Corp 184 NLRB 1 (1970) affd 458 F 2d 398 (3d
Cir 1972) Penn Glass Sand Corp 172 NLRB 514 (1968) affd sub nom
Teamsters Local 992 v NLRB 427 F 2d 582 (D C Cir 1970)
14 Mastro Plastics Corp v NLRB 350 U S 270 278 (1956) NLRB v
International Van Lines 409 U S 48 50-51 (1972) Philip Carey Mfg Co
v NLRB 331 F 2d 720 729 (6th Cir 1964) NLRB v Tom Joyce Floors
Inc 353 F 2d 768 772 (9th Cir 1965) General Drivers Local 662 v
NLRB 302 F 2d 908 911 (D C Cir 1962) cert denied 371 US 827
NLRB v Juniata Packing Co 464 F 2d 153 155 (3d Cir 1972)
645
7 At its October 16, 1985 inception the strike called
by the Union and engaged in by unit employees was an
economic and not an unfair labor practice strike
8 C Line violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by
James and Betcher s poststrike (October 16 to Late
October/early November 1985) discharge threats to unit
employees and refusal to sign a union contract threats to
unit employees (statements conveying to unit employees
the message their strike activities were futile) and violat
ed Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by its failure to re
spond to the Union s October 18, 1985 request for infor
mation
9 The aforesaid unfair labor practices prolonged and
aggravated the October 16, 1985 strike and converted
the strike from an economic to an unfair labor practice
entitling the unit employees engaged in that strike to re
instatement on their January 31, 1986 unconditional offer
to return to work and request for reemployment
10 C Line violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
by its January 31 1986 rejection of the unfair labor prac
tice strikers'/unit employees unconditional offer to
return to work and request for reemployment
11 The aforesaid unfair labor practices affected and
affect commerce as defined in the Act
THE REMEDY
With respect to the unlawful failure to reemploy unit
employees/unfair labor practice strikers, in the course of
the proceeding it was established that Olmsted, Neu,
Pieri Carroll, Stornetta and Limpic submitted formal
resignations from C Line s employment to C Line on Oc
tober 21 and December 31, 1985, and January 11 and
February 11 and 25, 1986, respectively, that unit
employee/unfair labor practice striker Fisher was offered
and accepted reemployment on February 14 1986 and
discharged for cause on February 24 1986, and that C
Line unsuccessfully sought to contact and offer reem
ployment to Limpic Fry and Mattioda and gave up fur
ther effort to contact them 15
Ordinarily a voluntary resignation extinguishes an em
ployer s obligation to reinstate and reimburse an unfair
labor practice striker denied reinstatement on his uncon
ditional offer to return to work
However the record fails to show whether the resig
nations cited above were caused by C Line s unfair labor
practices of whether they were submitted only for the
purpose of securing Teamsters pensions and their validi
ty was contradicted by the physical appearance of Neu
Piers and other unidentified employees before Betcher
on January 30 and 31 1986, to unconditionally offer to
return to work and request reemployment
The record also fails to show whether one or more of
the unit employees who engaged in the October 16 1985
strike were temporarily or permanently replaced and if
the latter whether such displacement occurred before or
after the strike was converted from an economic to an
unfair labor practice strike the possibility there were
15 I credit James testimony to such effect His testimony was neither
contradicted by Limpic and Fry (Mattioda did not testify) nor refuted by
other evidence
646 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
valid reasons for Limpic's, Fry' s, and Mattioda's nonre-
ceipt of C-Line's reemployment offers, and what employ-
ment opportunities were available to casuals Fry and
Mattioda following their unconditional offer to return to
work.
In view of these factors, I shall leave to the compli-
ance phase of this proceeding the determination of which
unit employees/unfair labor practice strikers are entitled
to reinstatement and the periods, if any, they are entitled
to reimbursement for lost wages.' e
I therefore recommend C-Line be directed to offer to
Richard Carroll, Denton Fry, Matthew Limpic, George
Mattioda, David Neu, Frank Olmsted, Robert Pied, and
Paul Stornetta reinstatement for their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent em-
ployment, with seniority and all other rights, privileges
and benefits restored, and to make whole the aforemen-
tioned employees for any losses they suffered between
January 31, 1986, and the date they are offered reinstate-
ment, unless it is determined any one or more was not
entitled to reinstatement, to reimbursement, or reimburse-
ment to an earlier date, with any amounts awarded cal-
culated in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co.,
90 NLRB 389 (1950), and interest on any sums due com-
puted in accordance with the formula set out in New Ho-
rizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), and Isis
Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), and to make whole
Daniel Fisher for any losses he suffered between January
31, 1986, and February 14, 1986, with any amount due
and interest calculated in the manner just described.
Regarding the other violations, I recommend C-Line
be directed to cease and desist therefrom, to post notices
it will so cease and desist and refrain from their future
commission, to provide the Union with the information it
requested on October 18, 1985, and to bargain with the
Union at its request following the Union's receipt of the
requested information.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed"
ORDER
The Respondent, C-Line Express, Napa, California, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening to discharge employees for engaging
in concerted activities protected by the Act, such as
striking and picketing.
(b) Threatening employees with the futility of engag-
ing in concerted activities protected by the Act by tell-
ing employees no matter how long they engage in such
activities, C-Line Express will not sign a contract with
their collective-bargaining representative, Teamsters
Local 490, and that C-Line will not reemploy them.
18 Cf. Servair Inc., 265 NLRB 181, 184 (1982), affd. 726 F.2d 1435 (9th
Cit. 1984).
11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions , and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
(c) Failing or refusing to provide Teamsters Local 490
with information that organization requests in order to
discharge its duties as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of C-Line Express employees.
(d) Failing or refusing to reinstate employees engaged
in concerted activities protected by the Act to protest C-
Line's unfair labor practices, upon their unconditional
offer to return to work and request for reemployment.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Provide Teamsters Local 490 the information it re-
quested on October 18, 1985.
(b) Following the submission of that information to
Teamsters Local 490, bargain at its request concerning
the rates of pay, wages, hours, and working conditions of
C-Line employees within the following unit:
Employees of C-Line Express within job classifica-
tions covered by the 1982-1985 National Freight
Agreement and the 1982-1985 Local Pickup and
Delivery Agreements negotiated by Teamsters Joint
Council 7, including casual employees and exclud-
ing all other employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(c) Offer to Richard Carroll, Denton Fry, Matthew
Limpic, George Mattioda, David Neu, Frank Olmsted,
Robert Pieri, and Paul Stornetta reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan-
tially equivalent jobs, with seniority and all other rights,
privileges and benefits restored, unless it is determined in
supplemental compliance proceedings any one or more
of those employees are not entitled to reinstatement due
to resignation or failure to respond to offers of reinstate-
ment.
(d) Make Richard Carroll, Denton Fry, Matthew
Limpic, George Mattioda, David Neu, Frank Olmsted,
Robert Pieri, and Paul Stornetta whole for any wage or
benefit losses they suffered between January 31, 1986,
and the date they are offered reinstatement or, in the
event it is so determined in supplemental compliance
proceedings, an earlier date when their entitlement to re-
instatement under this order expired, and make whole
Daniel Fisher for any wage or benefit losses he suffered
between January 31, 1986, and February 14, 1986, in the
manner set out in the remedy section of this decision.
(e) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(f) Post at its facilities at Napa, California, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of the
18 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
C LINE EXPRESS
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 20, after being signed by an authorized represent
ative of C Line Express and shall be posted immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall
be taken to ensure the notices are not altered defaced, or
covered by other material
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re
spondent has taken to comply
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or
dered us to post and abide by this notice
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge our employees for
engaging in activities protected by the Act, including
striking and picketing
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with the futility
of engaging in such activities by telling them no matter
how long they engage in such activities we will not sign
a contract with Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers 490, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL-CIO covering their rates of pay, wages, hours, and
working conditions nor reemploy employees who engage
in those activities
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to supply Teamsters Local
490 with information that organization requests in order
to discharge its duties as the collective bargaining repre
sentative of our employees
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to reinstate our employees
who engage in concerted activities protected by the Act
647
on their unconditional offer to return to work and re
quest for reinstatement
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL provide Teamsters Local 490 with the infor
mation it requested on October 18, 1985
WE WILL following the submission of that informa
tion, bargain with Teamsters Local 490 at its request
concerning the rates of pay, wages, hours, and working
conditions of our employees within the following unit
Employees of C Line Express within job classifica
tions covered by the 1982-1985 National Freight
agreement and the 1982-1985 Local Pickup and De
livery Agreements negotiated by Teamsters joint
Council 7, including casual employees, and exclud
ing all other employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act
WE WILL offer Richard Carroll, Denton Fry, Matthew
Limpic, George Mattioda, David Neu, Frank Olmsted,
Robert Pieri, and Paul Stornetta reinstatement to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substan
tially equivalent jobs, with seniority and all other rights,
privileges and benefits restored, unless it is determined in
supplementary compliance proceedings any one or more
of those employees are not entitled to reinstatement due
to their resignation or failure to respond to an earlier re
instatement offer
WE WILL make the above employees whole for any
wage or benefit losses they suffered between January 31,
1986, and the date they are offered reinstatement or an
earlier date (in the event it is determined in supplementa
ry proceedings their entitlement to reinstatement expired
at an earlier date), with interest on the sum or sums due
C-LINE EXPRESS