Charlotte Union Bus Station, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 12, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 228 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
All our employees are free to become or to refrain from becoming members of
the above Union, or any other labor organization , except as authorized in Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
-Act of 1959.
FREDERICK 0. GLASS, JOSEPH E . GLASS, MAURICE
GLASS AND ROSWELL C. GLASS, D/B/A MILLER
ROAD DAIRY, A CO-PARTNERSHIP
Employer.
Dated--------------- ---- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must not be
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Charlotte Union Bus Station , Inc., Harold E. Aldridge, Indi-
vidual , and General Services , Inc. and Amalgamated Associa-
tion of Street , Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes
of America , Local Division 1437, AFL-CIO. Case No. 11-CA-
1782. January 12, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 25, 1961, Trial Examiner John H. Dorsey issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications.
The complaint alleged, inter alia, that Respondent Charlotte Union
Bus Station, Inc., herein called Respondent Station, Respondent Gen-
eral Services, Inc., herein called Respondent Services, and Respondent
Harold E. Aldridge, herein called Respondent Aldridge, jointly and
severally violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by interrogating em-
ployees concerning their union activities. As the record contained
no evidence that Respondent Services or Respondent Aldridge en-
1 The Charging Party's request for oral argument is denied as, in our opinion, the
entire record in this case adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties
135 NLRB No. 23.
CHARLOTTE UNION BUS STATION, INC., ETC. 229
gaged in the foregoing activity, the Trial Examiner recommended dis-
missal of these allegations as to them. We adopt this recommendation.
The Trial Examiner, although finding that Respondent Station
had engaged in acts of interrogation concerning the employees' union
sympathies, found that this conduct did not constitute a violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) because they contained no threat of "reprisal or force
or promise of benefit." We do not adopt this finding.
The record establishes that, shortly after the Union filed a repre-
sentation petition in the middle of April 1961, and until May 22,
Respondent Station's general manager, A. B. McGaha, systematically
interrogated employees as to whether they knew of or had heard any-
thing of the Union, what their feelings were concerning the Union,
and whether they had been approached by the Union. According to
McGaha, he indulged in these acts of interrogation "to discover
whether the employees were dissatisfied with him." Contrary to the
Trial Examiner, we find that these systematic inquiries interfered
with, restrained, and coerced the employees in their right to engage
in or refrain from engaging in union activity. The fact that the in-
terrogation did not contain threats of reprisal or promises of benefit
did not detract from its otherwise unlawful character.
Accordingly, we find that by the foregoing conduct Respondent
Station violated Section 8 (a) (1). We shall therefore fashion an ap-
propriate order to remedy this violation 2
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent , Charlotte Union
Bus Station , Inc., its officers , agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating employees concerning union activity in a manner
constituting interference , restraint , or coercion in violation of Section
8(a) (1).
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self -organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Associa-
tion of Street , Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
America, Local Division 1437, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
2 The Trial Examiner refused to consider evidence of other acts of interrogation com-
mitted by Respondent Station on the ground that there was no showing that these acts
occurred within the period alleged in the complaint. The General Counsel and the
Charging Party have excepted thereto. As any findings based on such evidence would be
cumulative in nature , we overrule the exceptions.
230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all of such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post in its bus station at Charlotte, North Carolina, copies of
the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Eleventh
Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative
of Respondent Station, be posted by it immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Station
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, in writ-
ing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken
to comply therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that
the Respondents violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, and insofar as
it alleges that Respondent Services and Respondent Aldridge violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
3In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Manage-
ment Relations, Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning union activities
in a manner'constituting interference, restraint, or coercion with-
in the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employes of America, Local Division 1437, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of
such activities.
CHARLOTTE UNION BUS STATION, INC., ETC. 231
All of our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members in good standing of Amalgamated
Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes
of America, Local Division 1437, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
CHARLOTTE UNION BUS STATION, INC.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 00 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been filed by Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway
and Motor Coach Employes of America , Local Division 1437, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Union , complaint was issued on July 28 , 1961 , in which it is alleged that
Charlotte Union Bus Station, Inc. (herein called Respondent Station ), Harold E.
Aldridge (herein called Respondent Aldridge), and General Services , Inc. (herein
called Respondent Services ), jointly and severally, violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3)
of the Act . Each of Respondents filed an answer denying the alleged unlawful
conduct . Hearing was held before the duly designated Trial Examiner at Charlotte,
North Carolina , on September 6 and 7 , 1961 . The Trial Examiner requested the
parties to file briefs . Briefs were filed by the Union and Respondent Services.
Upon the entire record and from my observations of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESSES OF RESPONDENTS
A. Respondent Station
Respondent Station is a North Carolina corporation operating in Charlotte, North
Carolina, a bus station providing services for several bus companies which transport
for hire and in interstate commerce and which operate into and out of the said
station .' During the past year , the total revenues of Respondent Station received
in consideration for the services rendered to the bus companies exceeded $50,000.
B. Respondent Services -
Respondent Services is a North Carolina corporation which supplies janitorial,
porter, and other types of labor supply services on a contract basis. It has a current
contract , executed May 18 , 1961 , effective May 29 , with Respondent Station to
supply the necessary labor force to perform the functions of porters , janitors, and
maids required in the operation of Respondent Station in consideration of "$1.20
per hour for each hour of manual work furnished ." 2 It was stipulated that Re-
spondent Services ' gross income from the contract would be $42,000 annually.
In addition to the contract with Respondent Station , Respondent Services "supply
janitorial and that type of service " on a contract basis to, inter alia, Esso, Humble
Oil Company , $31,000 annually ; Carolina Broadcasting Company, affiliated with
the National Broadcasting Company, $9 ,480 annually ; Pure Oil Company, $6,000
annually ; International Business Machines , $4,585 annually ; Gulf Oil Company,
$4,860 annually.
1 Among the bus companies operating in and out of Respondent Station are Atlantic
Greyhound , Queen City Coach Company , Carolina Coach Company , Carolina Scenic Trail-
ways , and Carolina Scenic Stages , all of which receive revenues in excess of $100,000
annually for the transport of passengers In Interstate commerce
2 All dates herein are in the year 1961 unless otherwise indicated.
'232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Respondent Aldridge
Respondent Aldridge is general manager of Respondent Services and insofar as
'here material acted at all times as agent of Respondent Services.
D. Conclusions
From the foregoing I find that:
1. Respondent Station and Respondent Services are each engaged in "commerce"
-and in operations "affecting commerce" as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act; and
2. Respondent Aldridge is an "employer" within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
tithe Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondents stipulated and I find that the Union is a labor organization within
,the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESPONDENT STATION AND RESPONDENT SERVICES
A. The contract
In November 1960, Hansel Aldridge,3 a supervisor of Respondent Services whose
duties included solicitation of business, called upon A. B. McGaha, general manager
of Respondent Station. The purpose of the call was to solicit a contract to have
'Respondent Services perform the janitorial services at Respondent Station. The
meeting was brief. McGaha said he would consider the matter.
In March 1961, McGaha telephoned Respondent Services asking that a repre-
sentative meet with him. Thereafter there were numerous meetings between
'McGaha, representing Respondent Station, and Respondent Aldridge, representing
Respondent Services. These meetings resulted in the execution of a contract on
May 18, effective May 29. The contract, which is subject to termination by either
;party on 30 days' written notice, provides, in essence, that Respondent Services shall
supply "sufficient personnel in the opinion of [Respondent Station]" to perform the
'porter, janitor, maid, and cleaning services required in the operation of Respondent
"Station in consideration of $1.20 per hour for each hour of manual work furnished .4
B. The allegations that the contract was entered into in violation of Section 8(a) (1)
and (3) of the Act
The complaint alleges:
(a) Respondents "constituting a single employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act."
(b) Respondents entered into the contract "in order to interfere with employees'
'union organizational rights in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act."
(c) "Respondent Station, in effectuation of the contract . terminated the
employment of its porters, janitors, and maids on May 28 , 1961
. .
in violation
-of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act."
(d) "Respondent Services, in effectuation of the contract . . . employed the
janitors, porters, and maids whose employment was terminated" by Respondent
Station, on May 28, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The uncontradicted testimony is, and I find, that Respondent Station first learned
of the Union's organizational activities when it received notice on April 12 or 13
that the Union had filed a representation petition (Case No. 11-RC-1469). There
is no evidence that the filing of the representation petition was a factor which
motivated the negotiators to consummate the contract. Consequently, I find that
the negotiations between Respondent Station and Respondent Services, which began
in March and culminated in the execution of a contract on May 18, were not
motivated by antiunion animus.
On May 28, Respondent Station, represented by its general manager, McGaha,
called together its porters, janitors, and maids and told them of the contract with
Respondent Services and that their employment by the Respondent Station was being
terminated that day. Respondent Aldridge, who attended the meeting, told the
affected employees that Respondent Services would employ them if they chose to
work for it-if not, he had other personnel available.5 The record indicates that all
the affected employees went to work for Respondent Services. Thereafter the evi-
3 Most times named as Hassell Aldridge in the transcript
' The contract has numerous provisions concerning the rights and liabilities of each
party
s Respondent Services was not obligated by the contract to hire any of these persons
and there is no evidence of any other agreement between the parties.
CHARLOTTE UNION BUS STATION, INC., ETC. 233
dence confirms that dominating supervision and exclusive disciplinary authority of
these employees was vested in and exercised by Respondent Services.
Because of the nature of Respondent Station 's operations it did , as occasions arose
and of necessity , tell Respondent Services ' employees what buses were to be loaded
and their ramp locations . It also told them other jobs it wanted done which came
within the purview of the contract . The Union , in its brief, contends that such
action by Respondent Station proves that Respondent Station retained control of
the employees and supports the inference that the contract was sham . I find the
contention to be without merit since directions of such nature by a contracting party
to the employees of an independent contractor are indigenous . This finding is
further supported by the fact that when Respondent Station was dissatisfied with
the performance of the contract by Respondent Services ' employees it complained
directly to the management of Respondent Services .6
Other contentions of the Union , which it argues prove that Respondent Station
continued control of the porters , janitors, and maids after the effective date of the
contract and reveal the contract as sham , are provisions of the contract which provide
that: ( 1) General Services agreed to withdraw from the terminal premises any and
all employees deemed by Respondent Station to be "unsatisfactory or objectionable";
(2) Respondent Station agreed to furnish "all equipment facilities and supplies for
the loading and unloading of baggage and express" and to supply all cleaning sup-
plies; and ( 3) Respondent Station agreed to "furnish all training instructions and
supervision necessary for the proper loading and unloading of baggage and express."
In view of the nature of the business of each Respondent I hold the foregoing agree-
ments to be practicable , and they do not prove the contentions of control and sham .7
C. Respondent Services ' lack of knowledge of union activities
The first knowledge that Respondent Services had of union activities on the part
of Respondent Station's employees was on May 18, when after the signing of the
contract Respondent Station 's General Manager McGaha told Respondent Services'
General Manager Aldridge that there was some "hearsay" of union activities among
the employees of Respondent Station.
The record contains no evidence that Respondent Services had, was motivated by,
or conspired concerning , antiunion animus in the solicitation and negotiations which,
culminated in the contract with Respondent Station.
D. Conclusions
From the foregoing I conclude that the General Counsel has failed to prove that
Respondent Station , Respondent Services , and Respondent Aldridge are a single
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Also, I find that the contract was not entered into in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and
(3) of the Act . A fortiori , the janitors , porters, and maids employed by Respondent
Station on May 28 were not discharged by Respondent Station on May 28 or hired
by Respondent Services on May 29 , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the
Act. New Jersey Guards Union ( Otis Elevator Company ), 124 NLRB 1097.
IV. ALLEGATIONS OF INTERROGATION OF EMPLOYEES IN VIOLATION OF
SECTION 8 ( a)(1) OF THE ACT
The complaint alleges that Respondents , jointly and severally, interrogated em-
ployees in violation of Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act
The record contains no evidence that Respondent Services or Respondent Aldridge
ever interrogated employees , at any time , concerning their union activities . There-
fore, I recommend dismissal of such allegations as to Respondent Services and
Respondent Aldridge.
Respondent Station 's General Manager McGaha admitted that he did interrogate
some of the employees concerning union 'activities .8 The period in which such inter-
8 For Instance , during the first week of the term of the contract Respondent Station
twice complained to Respondent Services about the work of the porters.
7 Respondent Services , since May 29, has carried workmen's compensation insurance,
paid payroll taxes, social security , etc, and carried public liability insurance covering Its
employees assigned to work on the premises of Respondent Station All of the expenses
attendant to these Items plus premium payments for overtime hours are liabilities of
Respondent Services . Respondent Services ' hope of gain and risk of loss from the con-
tract derive from the flat contract rate of $120 per manual hour charged Respondent
Station and actual costs.
8 McGaha was called as a witness by the General Counsel and examined under rule-
43(b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . He could not remember the dates.
`234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rogation took place, as alleged in the complaint , is from the middle of April to
May 22. Therefore , testimony of witnesses concerning interrogation which was not
fixed as occurring within the alleged period is irrelevant.9
About April 20, General Manager McGaha asked Douglas Horn , employed as an
express agent , "if I had heard anything or if I knew anything about the union, and
I told him no "; and "if I had been approached , and I said no." About a week or
two later McGaha again asked Horn " if I had been approached , and I said no."
About the middle of May, McGaha called Express Agent John Williams into his
office and asked him about group insurance .10 As Williams was about to leave
McGaha asked him "if I knew anything about the union , and I said yes, sir, I had
been approached about it , and he asked me what did I think about it, and I told him
that I had worked where there was a union and where there wasn 't a union." When
McGaha asked Williams what he thought about a union , he replied , "I haven't
thought too much about it just yet."
In April , Horace Blunt, Jr., a full-time employee of the U .S. Post Office, applied
-to McGaha for a part-time job as a porter. During the course of the interview
McGaha said , "I hear that there is talk of a union going around.. . Do you know
anything about it?" Blunt replied , "No, sir." Further, McGaha asked him how he
felt about a union, to which Blunt replied, "Well, I belong to sort of a union at the
-post office ." Then McGaha hired Blunt.ll
The foregoing interrogations by Respondent Station, and others of like substance,
contain no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit . They do not prove
interference , restraint , or coercion by Respondent Station in the exercise of the
-rights of its employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act . I shall , therefore , recom-
mend dismissal of the complaint insofar as it alleges that Respondent Station inter-
rogated its employees and solicited them to report on union activities in violation of
Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.12
V. THE DISCHARGES ALLEGED TO BE VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 8(a)(3) AND (1)
OF THE ACT
The complaint alleges that Respondents discharged three employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act . At the time of the discharges one of the dis-
chargees ( B. P. Brown ) was employed by Respondent Station as a ticket agent; the
other two (Clifton Ezell and William Staten ) were employed by Respondent Serv-
ices as porters. Since I have found , supra, that Respondents are not a single
-employer, each discharge is considered with regard only to the established employer-
, employee relationship.
A. The discharge of B. P . Brown by Respondent Station
B. P. Brown , as a ticket agent, had been steadily employed by Respondent Station
:for approximately 8 years prior to his discharge on June 16. His duties consisted of
9 For example:
Oscar Ray Roach, who was employed by Respondent Station as an express agent , testi-
fied as to being questioned by Respondent Station's General Manager McGaha on numer-
ous occasions . The first conversation he had occurred around the first of April which Is
-prior to the earliest date alleged in the complaint . Further, he testified that he had talked
to McGaha about the Union 12 or 15 times before the election The election was held on
-July 14 ( Case No. 11-RC-1469 )-almost 2 months after May 22
Larry Michael Threat, a baggage agent , testified that McGaha talked to him about the
'Union and employees ' union activities He was unable to fix the dates.
Jack Parker, a ticket agent , testified that McGaha talked to him "during the summer
months " Further , he could not remember what was said
The above testimony has no probative value since it Is Impossible to determine whether
the interrogations occurred within the period alleged in the complaint
10 McGaha testified that during this time Respondent Station was conducting a drive
,to interest its employees In group insurance during which he called a number of employees
Into his office to discuss the subject . McGaha admitted that during these meetings he
asked a number of employees about union activities . He testified that his objective was to
discover whether the employees were dissatisfied with him.
"Later, Blunt became a full -time employee of Respondent Services.
12 See and compare , Blue Flash Express , Inc, 109 NLRB 591 ; Burke Golf Equipment
Corporation, 127 NLRB 241; Joy Silk Mills, 85 NLRB 1263; Lindsay Newspapers. Inc,
130 NLRB 680 ; and Frank Sullivan and Company , 133 NLRB 726 , in which the Board
rejects the doctrine that interrogation Is per se unlawful.
CHARLOTTE UNION BUS STATION, INC., ETC . 235
giving information at the ticket window and over the telephone , selling tickets, and
calling buses . He worked from 11 p.m . to 7 a.m . and was the only ticket agent on
duty during these hours.
Brown testified that he contacted a representative of the Union to initiate organiz-
ing the employees of Respondent Station and thereafter he signed up other employees.
The record contains no evidence that Respondent Station had any knowledge of such
actions by Brown.
Brown attended the representation hearing in Case No. I1-RC-1469 , which was
also attended by Respondent Station's general manager and traffic manager . During
.this hearing , which was held on May 3, 1961 , Brown and another employee, Ray
Roach , sat and conferred with the Union 's representatives . After the hearing, at
the suggestion of Roach and in his company, Brown went to the office of Respond-
ent Station 's General Manager McGaha to discuss group insurance.13 Because of
his participation in the representation hearing as observed by Respondent Station's
supervisory personnel , I find that Respondent Station had knowledge that Brown
was engaged in union activities.
In the period from April 18 to 22, Respondent Station employed agents to observe
and report on the performance of the ticket agent on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m . shift.
These reports were to the effect that the ticket agent on duty was not answering
the telephone promptly and on occasions left the ticket booth unattended.
In the latter part of April , Respondent Station having received complaints,
General Manager McGaha called together the ticket agents and the information
clerk working in the ticket office. At this meeting McGaha told the assembled
employees that there were complaints that the employees in the ticket office were
not promptly answering the telephone and at times would leave the ticket office un-
attended ; and he had specific complaints about the 11 p in. to 7 a.m. shift. Brown
spoke up and said he had no one to relieve him for a lunch period or visits to the
restroom . McGaha told him that he was not to leave the ticket booth and tele-
phones unattended during his lunch period or visits to the restroom ; 14 and that
at such times he was to call a baggage agent or express agent into the ticket office to
relieve him.is
About June 9 or 10 , McGaha called Brown , alone, into his office . 16 McGaha
told Brown that he was continuing to receive complaints about Brown's shift-the
telephone not being answered promptly and the ticket office being left unattended.
Brown replied that it was a hard job since he had three or four things to do.
McGaha told Brown that he knew it would be hard but he was to follow the
specific instructions as to how he was to perform his job. After this meeting
McGaha received further reports that Brown was leaving the ticket booth unattended
and was not promptly answering the telephone . 17 On June 15, McGaha decided that
be would have "to take some action ." On June 16, he told Brown that "in view of
the way he had been performing his job . . I couldn't use him anymore."
There is no material conflict in the record as to the above facts.
The General Counsel did not rebut the evidence adduced by Respondent Station
that Brown had left the ticket window unattended and did not promptly answer the
telephone contrary to instructions from his employer.
Inasmuch as the only knowledge that Respondent Station had of union activities
by Brown is his attendance at the representation bearing during which he sat and
consulted with the Union 's representatives , it is significant that his fellow employee,
Roach , who did likewise , continues to be employed by Respondent Station . Trans-
port Clearings , Inc., 133 NLRB 607.
I find that the General Counsel did not prove by a preponderance of the testi-
mony that Brown was discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the
Act as alleged in the complaint . I recommend dismissal of the allegations.
13It is to he noted that Respondent Station had not requested such a meeting The
testimony indicates that Roach and Brown participated in this meeting as individuals and
that the parties made no reference to the'Union . The record does not reveal what was
said during the course of this meeting
cL
14 Brown had no set lunch period He was paid for all time from 11 p m. to 7 a m
15 Other complaints concerning reissuing of tickets and selling tickets were also discussed.
10 Brown said the date of this meeting was about May 1 , and the meeting attended by
all the ticket agents and information clerk was held about 2 weeks before
17 On 15 occasions from April 18 to June 13, outside agents observed and made reports
on the performance of duties by the ticket agent on the 11 p m. to 7 am shift All of
these reports were with reference to Brown except one covering a relief man . General
Manager McGaha testified , without challenge , that such investigations are a common
practice in the industry and go on "fairly continuously."
236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. The discharge of Clifton Ezell and William Staten by Respondent Services
Immediately preceding the effective date of the contract between Respondent
Station and Respondent Services there were 17 or 19 persons employed by Respond-
ent Station as porters, janitors, and maids. All of them went to work for Respond-
ent Services on May 29. Included in this group were two porters, Clifton Ezell
and William Staten.
Ezell and Staten had joined the Union. They testified they were no more active
in the Union and its activities than the other employees.
Respondent Services discharged Ezell and Staten on June 6.
The record contains no evidence that Respondent Services had any knowledge of
Ezell's and Staten's union membership or activities.
The record contains no evidence of antiunion animus on the part of Respondent
Services.
It is significant that of the 17 or 19 former employees of Respondent Station who
became employees of Respondent Services on May 29, who Ezell and Staten admit
were members of the Union and as active in it as they were, the only two who were
discharged were Ezell and Staten. Transport Clearings, Inc., supra.
I find that the General Counsel has not met the burden of proof required to
sustain the alleged discriminatory discharges of Ezell and Staten.
VI. THE ALLEGATIONS THAT RESPONDENT STATION ANNOUNCED AND GAVE A WAGE
INCREASE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(a)(1) AND (3) OF THE ACT
The complaint alleges that Respondent Station announced a wage increase on or
about June 5 to be effective June 11 and that this rate was given for the purpose
of interfering with the employees' organizational rights in violation of Section
8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
Respondent Station's General Manager McGaha admitted the announcement and
the pay raise which was a 10-cent increase to most of the employees.18 Further, he
testified that as broad a raise was given to the employees in the previous year.
Other than testimony by some of General Counsel's witnesses that they had
received the raise, the foregoing is all the evidence that was adduced concerning the
allegations. I find that the evidence does not prove that the raise was announced
and given in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged in the
complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Station and Respondent Services are engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Aldridge is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of
the Act.
3. Respondent Station, Respondent Services, and Respondent Aldridge do not
constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. Respondent Station, Respondent Services, and Respondent Aldridge have not
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
' Persons recently employed were not given a raise. In this group, there were "2 or 3
or 4" employees.
Dobbs Houses Company, Inc. and Local 63, Restaurant , Cafeteria,
and Tavern Workers , affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO.
Case No. 23-CA-1220. January 12, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 17, 1961, Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls issued her
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that
135 NLRB No. 29.