Central Freight Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 1343 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

FREI(
Nasdor
af'firm
1 q c )
' The findings
Law
administrative
Slandard
Pmducrs, Inc.. (1950), F.2d
examined find basis re-
vening findings.
BRUCE NASDOR,
8(a)(l)
8(a)(l)
12
$50,000
2(2), (6),
11.
2(5 )
111. UNFAIR
Ollin
1979.'
31.
Inc.,
(1980),
terminala2
a
CENTRAL 3HT LINES, INC. 1343
Central Freight Lines, Inc. and International Associ-
ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO. Case 23-CA-7608
March 11, 1981
DECISION A N D O R D E R
O n November 7, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Bruce C. issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, counsel for the
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and Respondent filed an answering brief.
T h e Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of exceptions and briefs
and has decided to the rulings, findings,'
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and t o adopt his recommended Order.
O R D E R
Pursuant t o Section of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order o f the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby
is, dismissed in its entirety.
General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility
made by the Administrative Judge. It is the Board's established
policy not to overrule an law judge's resolutions with re-
spect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant
evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Dry
Wall 91 NLRB 544 enfd. 188 362 (3d Cir.
1951). We have carefully the record and no for
his
DECISION
C. Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Houston and Beaumont, Texas, on De-
cember 6, 1979, February 26, and March 25 and 26,
1980. The charge and amended charge were filed on
July 16 and August 22, 1979. The complaint and notice
of hearing, alleging violations of Section and (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein
referred to as the Act), issued on September 4, 1979. The
sole issue litigated was whether Respondent suspended
and thereafter discharged its truckdriver, Ollin B.
Crumpler, in violation of Section and (3) of the
Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of all witnesses, and after due considera-
tion of briefs, I make the following:
I. JURISDICTION
It is admitted, and I find, that during the past
months, a representative period, Respondent, distributed
at its Beaumont, Texas, facility freight originating inside
254 N L R B No. 180
the State of Texas, and interlined freight in Texas, which
had its origin outside the State of Texas, and has other-
wise functioned as an essential link in the transportation
of freight and commodities in interstate commerce.
During the same period of time, Respondent received
in excess of for transportation interlining, as an
essential link with other common carriers, general
freight, and cargo movers in interstate commerce to and
from points outside the State of Texas.
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section and (7) of the Act.
THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO (herein referred to as the Union), is
now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor
organization within the meaning of Section of the
Act.
THE ALLEGED LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent is a Texas corporation with its principal
office located in Waco, Texas, and with terminals locat-
ed in various cities in Texas, including Beaumont, the
sole facility involved herein. What follows are the ger-
mane facts adduced in this proceeding from all the wit-
nesses. Where there are discrepancies in testimony they
will be addressed.
B. Crumpler was hired by Respondent on June
13, 1971, as a dock worker. Crumpler was promoted to a
pickup and delivery driver 3-1/2 months later. He re-
mained a pickup and delivery driver until his discharge
on July 11,
In late summer or early fall of 1978, the Union com-
menced to organize the employees at Respondent's Beau-
mont terminal. Crumpler signed a union authorization
card and dated it October 1978. He testified initially
that he signed the card for the Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union, but later remembered that
he in fact signed the card for the International Associ-
ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Crumpler
attended 6 union meetings, and at the second or third
meeting he obtained approximately 12 union authoriza-
tion cards which he distributed among his coworkers, so-
liciting their signatures. Crumpler testified that he solicit-
ed those signatures in and around the vicinity of the
Beaumont terminal, and he further testified that to his
knowledge no supervisor ever observed him doing so.
Respondent's terminal manager, Ronnie Domino, ad-
mitted that he was present during the course of an unfair
labor practice hearing in Central Freight Lines, 250
NLRB 435 where Crumpler's name, along with
the names of seven other individuals, were mentioned as
members of the union organizing committee at the Beau-
mont Domino testified that he was present in
the courtroom throughout the previous unfair labor prac-
tice hearing and, when asked by counsel for the General
Counsel whether or not he knew Crumpler was interest-
' All dares are 1979 unless otherwise indicated.
That case was heard on May 30 and 31, 1979.
8(a)(l)
1qb)
mind.3
drive-
way.4
d~scussed
highIy
Central?'Domino
'
c ~ d i f i e d . ~
infra.
2:30
oftice
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ed in acting on behalf of the Union, Domino replied that
from what counsel for the General Counsel had told him
about those facts being in the transcript, and his attend-
ance at the hearing, "I would have to say I had knowl-
edge of it. I just don't recall it."
The following version of Crumpler's visit to Domino's
home is not alleged as an independent violation of Sec-
tion by the General Counsel. In any event, if the
version were true, it would be time-barred by Section
of the Act. About 3 weeks to a month after the
Union's organizational campaign commenced Crumpler
visited Domino at Domino's home. During this visit
Domino allegedly mentioned the Union to Crumpler and
interrogated him as to his feelings about the Union.
Domino told Crumpler during the meeting that he did
not see how the Union could help Respondent and that,
if the Union were to come into Respondent's operations,
Respondent could not operate and would have to close
its doors. Crumpler testified that during this conversation
he admitted to Domino that he had already attended a
couple of union meetings and that as far as he was con-
cerned Respondent and the Union were on trial, that he
was going to listen to both sides of the case after which
he would make up his
Domino testified specifically that he was visited by
Crumpler on July 17, 1978. He was able to pinpoint the
date as a result of having received a quarterly salary
check which he was using to purchase dirt for his
According to Domino, when Crumpler came to
his house from a "beer joint" the dirt was
during the course of the conversation. Domino testified
that Crumpler had been drinking. Crumpler related to
Domino that several employees told him that he had
been fired because he had stolen freight from a customer.
Domino testified that he and Crumpler discussed the
matter in Domino's garage and he assured Crumpler he
had not been fired and advised him that he should
inform the men at the terminal that he had not been
fired. Domino denied Crumpler's version of the conver-
sation and testified that, when Crumpler arrived at his
home, it was evident that he had been drinking, and was
in a emotional state to the point that he started
crying. He attempted to convince Crumpler that he did
not believe that he was a thief and Crumpler brought up
the subject of the Union by stating, "You know that
there is some union talk out there at
stated he was not aware of any activity at the terminal
and Crumpler asked him what the Company was going
to do about the Union. Domino responded that as far as
he knew the Company would6 fight the Union to the
best of its ability. Crumpler then said he wanted to hear
both sides of the situation, and Domino replied, "I don't
have any problem with that, that's your right as an indi-
vidual." Crumpler then said that he felt like both the
Union and the Company were on trial and that he was
the judge. Domino told him that was fine and asked
Crumpler what his father (who was retired under a
Teamsters pension plan) had told him about unions.
Crumpler allegedly replied, "My daddy told me if we
Crumpler's affidavit was utilized to refresh his memory.
The dirt had been delivered the previous weekend.
The word "isn't" appearing in the transcript is an error.
could stay away from it, we were better off." Domino
said Crumpler should do what he thought was best and
he did not have any problem with anyone looking at
both sides of the situation.
According to Domino the subject of the dirt in his
driveway was then discussed and the conversation ended
with Domino telling Crumpler to be careful about driv-
ing home because he, Domino, was concerned about
Crumpler ending up in a ditch or in jail because he had
been drinking. Domino denied that there was any discus-
sion with respect to the terminal being shut down.
It is undisputed that Respondent has a rule requiring
all accidents to be immediately reported. The controver-
sy herein is the consistency with which the rule has been
applied. Respondent contends that a driver who deviates
is subject to immediate discharge.
Domino told Crumpler that, in his opinion, Crumpler
failed to report an accident that he, Crumpler, was aware
of. Accordingly, Domino was going to make a thorough
investigation during which time Crumpler would be sus-
pended.
Prior to Crumpler's accident, the rule and point
system for evaluating accidents was This point
system, including the rule, was implemented systemwide
and all terminal managers including Domino were in-
structed to hold a meeting of all drivers and explain the
system to them. Domino held a meeting on March 24, in
which he read the document describing the point system
to the drivers. Crumpler testified that he was in attend-
ance at this meeting, and was told along with the other
drivers that failure to report an accident would result in
a driver's termination, without regard to his number of
accumulated points. This is provided for in the point
system booklet as rule 7-j. Another question involved is
whether losing driving status allows a driver t o be de-
moted to a lesser position, for example on the dock, or
whether losing driving status results in immediate termi-
nation. This is discussed
The Accident
On July 5 Crumpler was to pick up a trailer at Sabine
Industries in Orange, Texas. When he arrived at Sabine
Industries, Crumpler found that the trailer was not com-
pletely unloaded and that the customer wanted the re-
maining freight to be delivered to St. Elizabeth's Hospi-
tal at Beaumont, Texas. When Crumpler arrived at St.
Elizabeth's he was advised to remain with the trailer
until it was unloaded. At St. Elizabeth's at approximately
2 p.m., Crumpler discovered damage to the trailer and
called his dispatcher, Ed Hudson, advised Hudson of the
damage to the trailer, and told him he was unaware of
how it had occurred. Between and 3 p.m., John
Chapman of Sabine Industries telephoned Hudson and
told him that one of Respondent's drivers had hit a
fence. Chapman told Hudson he knew it was one of the
Company's trailers because the safety placard, the type
utilized by Respondent, was hanging on the fence.
Hudson went to Domino's and reported the tele-
phone call. He also told Domino that Crumpler had
This occurred on April I .
3:30
"I
fr~ends
Callan,
Callan
Callan
Callan *
Callan,
Callan
Callan,
CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES. INC. 1345
called him at approximately 2 p.m. and stated that, after
leaving Sabine Industries, he had discovered a hole in the
side of the trailer he had picked up there. Domino told
Hudson and Assistant Terminal Manager Delton Parker
to go to the warehouse where the trailer was located at
that time and examine it. They did so and returned at ap-
proximately p.m. Parker told Domino it was obvi-
ous that the trailer had struck something because the
safety placard was missing, there was a large hole in the
trailer, and the structural rib of the trailer was torn.
Based upon this, Domino decided that he and Parker
should go to Sabine Industries to inspect the fence and
they left at approximately 4 p.m.
At Sabine Industries Domino and Parker examined the
fence and assured Taylor of Sabine Industries that, if an
investigation showed that a company driver had hit the
Fence, Respondent would repair it. Taylor then showed a
safety placard from the trailer and said that "it's apparent
to me whose trailer hit this gate because it ripped the
placard off it and left it hanging." Domino admitted that
the placard was from Respondent's trailer and that Re-
spondent would pay for the damage to the gate.
When Domino returned to the terminal he left word
with the dispatcher to have Crumpler come to his office
at 8 o'clock the next morning, July 6, before proceeding
to work.
The next morning, when Crumpler reported to
Domino, he was asked for a report as to how the hole
got in the trailer. Crumpler advised Domino that he had
no idea, all he knew was that after he made his delivery
from Sabine to the hospital he discovered a hole in the
side of the trailer. He said he had not checked all sides
of the trailer prior to leaving Sabine Industries. Domino
told Crumpler that this was a requirement, to make a
complete inspection of any trailer that a driver picked
up. Crumpler admitted he knew that but "just didn't d o
it." Domino asked him if he had made the required in-
spection did he, Crumpler, feel like he would have found
the hole at that time. Crumpler responded, probably
would have because I didn't hit anything." Domino
asked him if he were certain of this and Crumpler replied
he did not hit anything.
Domino then asked Crumpler whether he had hit the
fence at Sabine Industries and Crumpler replied in the
negative. Crumpler added that if he had hit the fence he
would have known it because he would have felt it.
After asking Crumpler the route he used in leaving
Sabine Industries, Domino again asked Crumpler if he
had hit the gate, and Crumpler insisted that he had not
hit the gate, that he would have known it if he had done
SO.
Domino instructed Parker, who was present during
the conversation, to bring in the safety placard that had
been hanging on Sabine Industries' fence. Parker did so
and, when Crumpler saw the placard, he commented,
"Well. I must have hit something because that's the plac-
ard that came off the trailer." Domino stated, "Buddy,
you hit the gate." Crumpler claimed that if he had in fact
hit the gate he did not know it and that his tractor was
not in line with the trailer when he was leaving the gate,
so that he could not see the gate out of his rear view
mirrors. Further conversation ensued wherein Domino
gave his opinions as to why it would have been physical-
ly impossible for Crumpler to have done the damage
which he had done, without being in a position to see it.
He further explained what the physical damage was to
the trailer and the manner in which the tractor and trail-
er would have been aligned, so that Crumpler should
have seen it through his rear view mirror. Domino asked
Crumpler whether he felt anything when the fence hit
the rib of the trailer. Crumpler then admitted that he felt
something, but he thought it was because his tires had
gone into a ditch on the other side of the gate.
Domino told Crumpler that it appeared to him that
Crumpler had failed to report an accident that he was
aware of and that he, Domino, was going to have to
make a thorough investigation. Domino reminded
Crumpler of the point system and asked him if he knew
the penalty for failure to report an accident, to which
Crumpler acknowledged that he did. Domino advised
Crumpler that he was going to have to suspend him until
he could complete his investigation and give his recom-
mendation to the executive committee. He told Crumpler
it would take at least until Wednesday, July I I, to com-
plete the investigation. Crumpler replied that they had
been for a long time and that he understood that
Domino had his job to do. Domino replied that he was
not in a position where he could do anything else.
Crumpler told Domino and Parker he needed a couple of
days off anyway, to go fishing.
Thereafter, Domino called W. W. Jr., presi-
dent of the Company, and a member of the Company's
executive committee, who makes the final determination
in discharge situations, and reported Crumpler's failure
to adhere to company policy and Crumpler's suspension.
Domino advised that he intended to make a fur-
ther investigation and requested that Domino
send him photographs of the damaged fence and trailer
and keep him advised.
Domino sent and Henry Lewis, safety director,
a summary of the accident and his discussion with
Crumpler. Domino again went to Sabine Industries and
took pictures of the fence and gate. He sent these pic-
tures to Lewis, and M. A. Taylor, director of
personnel, on July 9. There are variances in the testimo-
ny of Chapman and Taylor of Sabine Industries and the
testimony of Domino. Taylor and Chapman are not clear
when Domino visited the premises, o r when he may
have left his card and other minor variances. I d o not
consider these critical because in any event it is clear
from the testimony of Sabine's J. V. Taylor that Domino
did come to Sabine Industries, into Taylor's office, intro-
duced himself, looked at the gate, and took pictures. It is
also clear from the testimony of Taylor that Domino vis-
ited the premises of Sabine Industries on at least two oc-
casions for purposes of investigating the accident.
After completing his investigation Domino spoke with
on Tuesday, July 10, and recommended that
Crumpler be terminated, because in Domino's opinion
Crumpler was aware of the accident at the time that it
occurred. who had reviewed the information
Domino had sent him, agreed with the recommendation,
and Crumpler was terminated on July I I. According to
it.8
'
investigat
yean.
1(c)
becake
offices
Callan, Callan
Callan.
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the testimony of Crumpler, Domino told him that he was
a good "hand" and he hated to have to fire him, but
under the company point system he had no alternative.
At the hearing Domino testified with great specificity
using a model truck to graphically illustrate how in his
opinion the accident occurred.' Domino testified that the
factors which led him to conclude that Crumpler was
aware of the accident at the time of impact were as fol-
lows:
But once I saw the extent of damage to the fence
and to the gate post and how far it was moved and
the angle and the clearance that was involved
through 17 years of experience in the trucking busi-
ness and investigating accidents I felt reasonably
sure at that time, that whoever or whatever had hit
that gate and that fence knew
Domino testified that in his opinion Crumpler could have
seen the accident through his exterior rear view mirrors,
and felt the accident as well. There was damage done to
the structural rib of the trailer and Domino testified that,
whenever damage is done to a structural rib, the driver
would certainly feel the impact because of the strength
of the rib. Furthermore, according to Domino, the
scrape on the trailer got deeper and deeper at the point
where the rib was hit and became more shallow from the
rib towards the back of the trailer, which indicated to
Domino that when Crumpler hit the rib he realized what
had happened and made a short turn to the right.
Disparate o r Like Treatment of Other Employees
Respondent introduced evidence reflecting that, in the
year preceding the discharge of Crumpler, six drivers in-
cluding Crumpler failed to report accidents and all six
were terminated. M. A. Taylor, director of personnel for
the past 3-1/2 years, testified that he knew of no instance
in which a driver who failed to report an accident,
where the investigation demonstrated that driver was
aware of the accident at the time of its occurrence, was
not terminated.
Counsel for the General Counsel produced Joseph
Guidrey, a pickup and delivery driver, who testified that
he was accused of having had an accident in March
1977, which he did not report. When Guidrey was inter-
rogated on direct examination by counsel for the General
Counsel he was asked if he in fact had an accident in
March 1977, at LaMar University warehouse. Guidrey
testified that he was accused of that accident but to his
knowledge it never occurred. Again on cross-examina-
tion Guidrey denied that he had the accident he was ac-
cused of at LaMar University. Guidrey also testified that,
after Domino completed his investigation of the accident,
Domino told Guidrey that as far as he, Domino, could
determine, Guidrey could have had the accident and not
have known it. During the course of the hearing in this
case, Domino explained in detail the differences between
the accidents of Crumpler and Guidrey.
Domino has been in the freight business for approximately 17 years
and according to his testimony has had extensive experience in
ing accidents. Moreover, he drove a tractor-trailer for approximately 6
The gate post war moved almost 3 feet.
Darrell Wayne Polly testified that he had an accident
in 1975, before Domino was terminal manager, which he
failed to report. Polly backed into a metal building creat-
ing some minor damage. According to Polly's testimony
he and two employees decided that the damage was so
minor that there was no need to report the accident.
These two individuals were employed by the owner of
the building. Polly claimed that, when the owner of the
building reported the accident, Darwyn Andrapoint, Do-
mino's predecessor, took no action against him.
Polly's testimony was refuted by company records,
Andrapoint; and the owner of the building, Gerald
Wilson. Wilson was telephoned for the first time on the
day of the hearing and appeared to testify. He had no
idea what the issues in the case involved, and he testified
that he witnessed Polly backing into his building. Wilson
further testified that, after he and Polly examined the
damage and realized it was minor, Wilson said he still
wanted it fixed. According to Wilson he and Polly
walked into the office and they reported the accident.
Respondent's Exhibit 4, which is a supervisor's report of
vehicle accident and investigation, shows that in the sec-
tion entitled "was proper procedure followed by our
driver at the scene of the accident?" the word "yes" ap-
pears. Compared to the form relative to Crumpler the
word "no" appears on this exhibit, and it reflects further
that Crumpler did not report the accident.
Domino testified as Respondent's witness and as a
61 witness that, in 1977, he removed Ralph Price
from driving, and put him on the dock, Price
had been involved in three accidents. Domino was dis-
satisfied with the manner in which Price handled the
third accident, that is, he handled it at the scene and did
not properly report it at that time. According to the tes-
timony he attempted to handle it in a personal manner,
and not get the information and turn it in to the supervi-
sor at the time of the accident. Rather, he waited until
he completed his shift. There was a 2-hour delay be-
tween the time of Price's accident and the time he re-
ported it. Moreover, this accident was not reported by
any third party. Domino testified further that the action
he took with respect to Price was contrary to company
policy, a factor he was not aware of at that time. In Oc-
tober 1978, while M. A. Taylor was present at the Beau-
mont terminal, he learned that Price was complaining be-
cause he had been removed from driving status and
placed on the dock. Taylor questioned Domino concern-
ing whether he was aware that company policy pre-
cluded demotion, and Domino stated that he was not
aware of this. When Taylor returned to Respondent's
general in Waco, Texas, he discussed the matter
with W. W. Jr., and instructed Taylor to
inform Domino the practice would not be permitted.
Joint Exhibit 16 reflects a memo from M. A. Taylor to
Domino with a copy to dated 10-19-78. The sub-
ject is "Accident Records." Taylor's message is as fol-
lows:
Central has begun enforcing its policy that employ-
ees cannot be moved into a lesser position than they
now hold when for some reason their performance
becomes unsatisfactory. In particular, this would
8(a)(l) Act.I0
8(a)(3)
Penello i
tion 8(a)(3).
8(a)(l)
2(6)
2(5)
8(a)(l)
- -
' 0 Frerght Inc., (1979), the
CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES. INC. 1347
apply to cases where a driver's accident record
makes him unacceptable to continue as a driver and
will prevent moving him back to the dock. Al-
though this has been done in the past, this is not to
be allowed in the future.
Domino testified that the last union activity he was
aware of at the Beaumont terminal was an incident
around January or shortly thereafter when an employee
who had been terminated for excessive accidents was
passing out literature at the entrance to the employees'
parking lot. According to Domino no union activity was
taking place at the time Crumpler was terminated.
Conclusions and Analysis
Crumpler acknowledges having had the accident and
further admits that he was aware that failure to report
same is grounds for discharge. He denies that he was
aware of the accident at the time it occurred.
I view this case as involving two key issues. The first
is whether Respondent could reasonably and in good
faith have concluded that Crumpler was aware of the ac-
cident at the time it occurred. Secondly, whether or not
he was treated in a disparate manner because of his union
activities.
It is hard for me to believe that Crumpler could have
knocked a galvanized metal fence post 3 feet, bent the
fence to a 45-degree angle, ripped a metal placard off the
truck, and left a gaping hole in the side of the trailer
without being aware that he had been involved in the ac-
cident. I frankly believe that Crumpler knew he had the
accident. Moreover, in my opinion, Respondent in good
faith believed that Crumpler was aware of the accident
at the time it occurred.
The condition of the trailer and the fence is depicted
in the photographs which were received in evidence, and
there is very detailed testimony as to the extent of dam-
ages and the basis for Respondent's conclusion.
Counsel for the General Counsel argues that Respond-
ent deviated from established investigative procedures
when it failed to investigate Crumpler's accident, as it
had investigated accidents of other drivers in the past.
Specifically counsel for the General Counsel contends
that, in the past, on each occasion each of the drivers
were directed to return to the scene of the accident. This
variation, if it is a variation, in my opinion is minor.
There really was no necessity in having Crumpler return
to the scene of the accident when he admitted his in-
volvement in the accident after being shown the placard
from the trailer. Moreover, Respondent's managerial per-
sonnel went to Sabine Industries and did in fact investi-
gate, talking to Sabine personnel, and photographing the
fence and the gate post. What more of an investigation
could Respondent have engaged in?
Domino, whom I consider to have been an honest, re-
liable, and forthright witness, admitted being present at
the unfair labor practice hearing on May 30 and 31,
1979, where Crumpler was identified by a witness as a
member of the Union's organizing committee. Crumpler
was one of eight individuals named. When questioned by
counsel for the General Counsel, Domino testified:
"From what you tell me about being in the transcript
and I was in attendance, I would have to say. I had
knowledge of it. I just don't recall it."
What Domino did recall was the statement made by
Crumpler almost a year before his termination that he
would weigh what the Company had to say and what
the Union had to say before making up his mind on the
union question. Therefore, the record does establish that
Respondent was aware that Crumpler did have some
union involvement. I fully credit and accept Domino's
version of the conversation he had with Crumpler, when
Crumpler visited his home. I was unimpressed with
Crumpler's veracity on the witness stand, with respect to
this conversation, and his testimony in general regarding
his lack of knowledge of the accident at the time it oc-
curred. I discredit Crumpler.
I fully accept Domino's explanations with respect to
the treatment accorded Guidrey, Price, and Polly. I find
his explanations to be reasonable, logical, and inherently
credible. It was apparent to me that Polly, when relating
the details of his 1975 accident, was testifying in an
effort and in a manner to bolster Crumpler's case. On
cross-examination his memory faltered and I would
credit the testimony of Wilson, a completely disinterest-
ed witness who came in on the day of the hearing, com-
pletely unprepared to testify and ignorant of the issues in
the case. He had never met counsel for Respondent.
Crumpler admitted that to his knowledge none of Re-
spondent's supervisors ever witnessed him passing out
cards nor did they ever discuss the Union with him, with
the exception of his visit to Domino's home where the
Union was discussed. The only evidence of any union
animus on the part of this Respondent at the Beaumont,
Texas, terminal appears in the case of Central Freight
Lines, Inc., 250 NLRB 435, where the administrative law
judge, with Board approval, found that Respondent com-
mitted violations of Section and (3) of the
With respect to the violation there was a dissent
by Member who would not have found a viola-
of Section I can only conclude, based on the
record before me, that Respondent apparently has
learned the error of its ways, because there is absolutely
no evidence of union animus or any independent allega-
tions of Section in this record.
On the state of the record I am also constrained to
agree with counsel for Respondent that at the time of
Crumpler's discharge the Union was "a dead issue."
Accordingly, I recommend that this complaint be dis-
missed.
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section of the Act.
3. The allegations of the complaint that Respondent
has engaged in conduct violative of Section and
(3) of the Act have not been supported by substantial
evidence.
Central Lines, 246 NLRB 71 involves
Dallas. Texas, terminal.
'
10(c)
Sec. m d
' ' Sec. lindings,
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of ORDER'
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
of the Act, I hereby issue the following: It is recommended that the complaint herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in 102.48 of the Rules Regulations, he adopted by the Board and
In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by 102.46 of become its conclusions. and Order. and all objections thereto
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the shall he deemed waived for all purposes.