Cletus H. Patterson & Sons, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 23, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 59 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

CLETUS H. PATTERSON & SONS, INC. 59
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 2, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Recommended Order what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith'°
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that so much of the complaint in this proceeding
as alleges violations of the Act by the Respondent with respect to The Muffin Man
and Elmsford Market be dismissed.
'0 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall be modified to read "Notify said Iegional Director , in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 456, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of Skibee, Inc., or any other
person engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce, to refuse in
the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or
otherwise handle or work on any goods, materials, articles, or commodities, or
to perform any services; nor will we threaten, coerce, and restrain Skibee, Inc.,
Twin Maples Restaurant, Parkway Wines & Liquor, or any other person en-
gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce; where in any case
an object is to force or require the aforesaid employers to cease doing business
with Strauss Paper Co., Inc.
WE WILL NOT, for the period of a year from the date of this notice, use the
services of Peter Calabrese as our agent in matters relating to collective bar-
gaining with employers and employees who are located within our geographical
jurisdiction.
LOCAL 456 , INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Members may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office , Fifth Floor,
Squibb Building, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York , New York, Telephone No. Plaza
1-5500 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Cletus H. Patterson & Sons, Inc. and William C. Miller
Cletus H. Patterson & Sons, Inc. and Robert V. Harvey
Cletus H. Patterson & Sons , Inc. and Gordon A. Gillespie. Cases
Nos. 8-CA-339.4-1, 8-CA-339.1-1, and 8-CA-3393-3. October 23,
1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On .Tulle 25, 1964, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
149 NLRB No. 6.
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tarn affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Decision. There-
after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's De-
cision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,' con-
clusions, and recommendations with the following additional
comments.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the reasons offered by the
Respondent for the termination, layoffs, and failure to recall Gilles-
pie, Harvey, and Miller were pretexts to conceal its discriminatory
motivation for ridding itself of these three drivers. Although Re-
spondent may have had no animus against unions generally, nor ob-
jected to the fact that its drivers were members of the Teamsters, we
are satisfied from the evidence that it resented their individual and
concerted efforts to obtain their collective goal of gaining the wage
scale which the Teamsters had obtained in agreements with other
construction contractors. The drivers' wage demands may be consid-
ered either as in furtherance of their interests as union members or as
in furtherance of their group interest apart from union representa-
tion; in either event they constituted protected activity. However,
whether the discrimination practiced against them be regarded as a
violation of Section 8(a) (3) or solely as a violation of Section
8(a) (1), the remedy of reinstatement and backpay recommended by
the Trial Examiner would, in either event, be the same.
ORDER2
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
1 Respondent has excepted to the Trial Examiner's crediting of Harvey 's version of a
conversation lie had with Jack Patterson , president of Respondent , on the basis of which
the Trial Examiner found that Respondent had threatened to sell its trucks and lay off Its
drivers if they insisted on demanding the union wage scale It is the Board's established
policy not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions as to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard
Dry Wall Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 ( C.A. 3). Such a conclusion
is not warranted here.
2 The following paragraph is hereby added to the notice attached to the Trial Examiner's
Decision:
We winr, notify the above - named employees if presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
CLETUS H. PATTERSON & SONS, INC. 61
mended by the Trial Examiner and orders that Respondent, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding was held before Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan at a hearing
in Ashtabula , Ohio, on March 30 , 31, April 1, 2, 3, and 10, 1964, on the amended
consolidated complaint of General Counsel and the amended answer of Cletus H.
Patterson & Sons, Inc., herein called the Respondent .' The issue litigated was
whether the Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended .' The parties waived oral argument . The General
Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein , a corporation duly
organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, with its
offices and principal place of business located in Ashtabula , Ohio , where it is en-
gaged in the business of concrete and asphalt paving ; and during its fiscal year
ending April 30, 1963, in the course and conduct of its business operations, fur-
nished services , valued in excess of $50 ,000, to the New York Central Railroad,
which enterprise is engaged in transportation operations which constitute a link in
the chain of interstate commerce and from which it derives a gross annual revenue
in excess of $50 ,000. Respondent , during the calendar year ending December 31,
1963 , in the course and conduct of its business operations , derived gross revenues
in excess of $50 ,000, from said operations , which were performed for: New York
Central Railroad, which has its place of business located in Ohio, and annually
performs services valued in excess of $50,000 , outside the State of Ohio; True
Temper Corporation , which has its place of business located in Ohio, and annually
ships finished products of a value in excess of $50,000 , from its Ohio location to
points outside the State of Ohio; and the city of Ashtabula, Ohio.
Respondent is now , and has been at all times material herein , an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen anu
Helpers of America, Local No. 377, herein referred to as the Union, is now, and
has been at all times material herein , a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Violation of Section 8(a)(1)
The consolidated complaint alleged that on or about August 1, 1963, and con-
tinuing to date Jack Patterson , president of Respondent , threatened its employees
with loss of employment and other reprisals because of their union activities, sym-
pathies, membership, and affiliation and/or because of their protected concerted
activities.
1 The charges in Cases Nos . 8-CA-3393-1 and 8-CA-3393-2 were filed on January 21,
1964, and served on January 23, 1964 The charge in Case No 8-CA-3393-3 was filed
on January 30, 1964, and served on January 31 , 1964 . The complaint issued on March 2,
1964.
'At the hearing the consolidated complaint was amended by adding paragraph 5 (A) as
follows:
Respondent through its agent, Jo Ann Ilarris , from on or about July 24, 1963, to
date, interrogated ith employees concerning their union membership , activities and
desires.
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Robert V . Harvey testified that during the first week in September 1963, he met
with Jack Patterson and tried to persuade him to pay the Teamsters ' scale of
$3.09/ per hour , in view of the fact that the employees who belonged to the other
two unions were paid the union scale by the Respondent . Patterson replied that if
the truckdrivers accepted the $2 . 50 per hour wage scale, they would have steady
work but if they insisted on the union scale he would sell the trucks and lay them
off. In his testimony Patterson denied generally that he had ever threatened his
employees with loss of employment and reprisals for discriminatory reasons.
On the testimony of Robert V. Harvey which I credit I find Patterson 's statement
to Harvey that if the huckdrivers insisted on the union scale he would sell the
trucks and lay off the truckdrivers to be interference , restraint, and coercion vio-
lative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The consolidated complaint as amended at the hearing alleged in paragraph 5A
that the Respondent through its agent Jo Ann Harris , from on or about July 24,
1963, to date, interrogated its employees concerning their union membership, ac-
tivities , and desires.
The General Counsel called as a witness Mrs. Jo Ann Harris who testified that
she was formerly employed by the Respondent to do general office work and her
last period of employment was from April 1963 to February 28, 1964. She testi-
fied that Jack Patterson had asked her to interview prospective employees and to
obtain information consisting of names, addresses , telephone numbers, type of work
done, and whether they were union or nonunion . She testified that she made
memos of these interviews on paper, but did not always communicate the informa-
tion to Patterson since it was left to her to decide whether she thought he might
be interested in an applicant. When she did communicate the information to
Patterson it was on paper which she placed on his desk. The memos of other
applicants she placed in the files. She testified that she asked about 35 prospective
employees whether they were union or nonunion between August 1, 1963, and
approximately February 10, 1964. She also specifically testified that in the sum-
mer of 1963 she asked Gordon Gillespie if he were union or nonunion and he
replied that he was union . Later, she continued , Patterson was hired but none of
the other prospective employees was hired . Gillespie also testified that she asked
him if he belonged to a union.
On cross-examination Harris testified that she questioned about 20 applicants
from April 1963 to February 28, 1964.
Patterson denied that he had ever authorized Harris to question applicants re-
garding their union membership and had no knowledge that she was doing it until
her testimony in this hearing.
Patterson produced the personnel file which he located from Harris' testimony.
That file contained approximately 55 written memos or applications , 13 of which
were identified as being in Harris ' handwriting . Only two of Harris' memos con-
tained any reference to whether the applicant was union or nonunion . Both of
those memos were dated February 14, 1964, and referred to Robert Siler and
Willie Coleman as nonunion . Neither was hired after February 14, 1964, by the
Respondent.
On the testimony of Jack Patterson which I credit I find that he never instructed
or authorized Harris to make inquiries of applicants as to whether they were union
or nonunion . The amended complaint to that extent should be dismissed.
The Violations of Section 8(a)(3)
The consolidated complaint alleged that in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act the Respondent terminated the employment of Gordon A. Gillespie,
Robert V. Harvey, and William C. Miller on or about September 15, November 25,
and December 27, 1963, respectively; and at all times since such dates has failed
and refused to reinstate them to their former or substantially equivalent positions.
The answer denied that the employment of Gillespie and Harvey was terminated
but admits that the employment of Miller was terminated but not for the reasons
alleged in the complaint . The answer further denied that the Respondent has
failed and refused to reinstate any of said employees for the reasons alleged in the
complaint.
The Respondent is engaged in the business of concrete and asphalt paving. Be-
cause of the weather the business is seasonal and the period of operations is usually
from April to late fall or early winter.
Robert Harvey and William Miller were hired by the Respondent in August 1962,
as truckdrivers , but they also performed manual labor. Before they were employed
the Respondent had no regular truckdrivers but assigned laborers to drive the
trucks when the need arose.
CLETUS H. PATTERSON & SONS, INC. 63
Harvey and Miller were laid off because of the winter weather at the end of
1962. When the construction season began in 1963, Harvey was the first truck-
driver recalled to work and Miller was the second one recalled.
Harvey reinstated himself in Teamsters Local 377 early in May 1963. Later that
month Harvey accompanied Miller to the Teamsters hall where Miller joined the
Union. At that time they met with Carlos Jones, the union business agent, and
discussed the union wage scale of $3.091/2 per hour which the Teamsters had nego-
tiated with some other construction companies. The Respondent at no time had
contractual relations with the Teamsters but did have collective-bargaining agree-
ments with Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers' Union, Local 245, and
with International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers, Locals 18, 18-A and 18-B.
At the meeting with Jones, Harvey was appointed union steward.
In June or July 1963, Jones met with Jack Patterson president of Respondent,
William Grace of the Operating Engineers Union, and Theodore Green of the Hod
Carriers' Union and they discussed the work assignments of Respondent's employ-
ees. Jones informed Patterson that the Respondent's three truckdrivers were mem-
bers of the Teamsters. Patterson recognized the Teamsters as representing the
truckdrivers and accepted Harvey as the Union's steward.
In July or August 1963, Harvey took up with Patterson a grievance concerning
the wages paid to the truckdrivers. Patterson said he would not pay the union
scale but if the drivers went along with him they would have steady work all
winter.
About the first week in September 1963, Harvey again met with Patterson and
tried to persuade him to pay the union scale of $3.091/2 per hour, in view of the
fact that the employees who belonged to the other two unions were paid union
scale by the Respondent, Patter son replied that if the truckdrivers accepted the $2.50
per hour wage scale, they would have steady work, but if they insisted on the union
scale, he would sell the trucks and lay them off.
In September 1963, while Jones was investigating a grievance that a nonunion
employee was driving one of the Respondent's trucks, he had a conversation with
Superintendent Hoover who suggested to Jones the possibility of replacing Harvey
in order to put another man on the job. Jones rejected the suggestion.
Harvey was laid off at noon on November 25, 1963, according to his layoff slip,
which stated his employment was terminated due to lack of work. Harvey was
called back to work three times in December. The last date he worked was De-
cember 20, 1963. He has not been recalled since then.
On or about August 15, 1962, when Miller was interviewed by Patterson prior
to being hired, Patterson asked him if he belonged to any union and when Miller
replied in the negative, Patterson said "Well, that's good, because I don't believe
too much in unions."
In July 1963 Miller complained to Harvey, his union steward, because he was
not receiving the union scale and about his hospitalization.
In August 1963, Miller left a message at Respondent's office for Patterson re-
garding his wages and hospitalization. In September 1963 Miller took up those
grievances with Carlos Jones, the Union's business agent.
On September 9 or 10, 1963, Patterson assigned Miller to work at the New York
Central Railroad and told Miller that there would be work for him the year-round.
In October 1963, Miller saw Superintendent Hoover personally and complained
that Hoover's son, a nonunion driver, was driving a truck, that Miller was not re-
ceiving the union scale and hospitalization.
On Friday December 27, 1963, Miller received a slip stating he was laid off due
to lack of work. Patterson told him that Lee Hoover and Arthur Showalter would
drive his truck.
Gordon A. Gillespie was hired on or about July 16, 1963, as a dump truckdriver.
In August 1963 Gillespie reinstated himself in the Teamsters Union.
In the latter part of August 1963 Gillespie complained to Superintendent Hoover
of the failure of the Respondent to pay him the union scale and the fact that
nonunion employees were driving trucks. Hoover referred him to Patterson.
Gillespie also complained to Jones and Harvey.
In September 1963 Gillespie again informed Jones that he was not receiving the
union scale. Jones telephoned to Patterson and left a message concerning the
grievance. Later Patterson's secretary returned the call and said Patterson wanted
to know what the union scale was, and Jones told her it was $3.091/2 per hour.
The following week Gillespie's wage was increased from $2.50 to $3.091/2 per
hour and the succeeding week, on Wednesday, October 9, 1963, Gillespie's em-
ployment was terminated.
64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On or about January 1964, Jones again met with Patterson and Hoover in the
presence of Green (Hod Carriers' Union) and Grace (Operating Engineers) and
the layoffs of Harvey and Miller were discussed. Patterson stated that the reason
he let Harvey go was that he was giving customers a hard time and that Miller
was let go for dishonesty and he would not take them back.
The Respondent's defense in substance is that it did not intend to reemploy
Harvey because he had been found to use snow removal equipment belonging to
the Respondent for his own benefit, without permission, and for the further reason
that he had insulted customers of the Company; and that the Respondent's inten-
tions not to reemploy Harvey had nothing whatever to do with his union member-
ship or activities.
With respect to Miller the Respondent's defense is that he was not reemployed be-
cause he was untruthful in relating to Patterson how a company truck which he
was driving had been damaged and for the further reason that Patterson had seen
him taking away from the company property salvage material which belonged to
the Company, and that Patterson believed Miller had taken additional salvage ma-
terials without permission.
The Respondent's defense with respect to Gordon Gillespie is that he would not
be reemployed because he was undependable, irregular in reporting for work, and
had refused to drive a truck assigned to him without just cause for doing so.
Jack Patterson president of the Respondent testified that he would not rehire
Harvey because Harvey had insulted Earl Weaver, a supervisor for the New York
Central Railroad, which is one of Respondent's best customers. Patterson testified
that on the afternoon of December 20, 1963, he learned that Harvey had said to
Weaver on or about December 18 that in answer to Weaver's inquiry he had re-
turned to plow snow the night before and added if he had known there were only
two inches of snow "you bastards could have gone to hell" referring to the railroad.
Patterson testified that when he learned of this, which he said may have been after
Harvey had been laid off, he telephoned Weaver and apologized for Harvey's con-
duct. Patterson testified that in substance Weaver expressed an unhappiness at
Harvey's attitude and Patterson again apologized and said it would not happen
again . Patterson testified it was because of this that Harvey would not be rehired.
In rebuttal the General Counsel called Earl Weaver who categorically denied
that Harvey made the insulting remark as asserted by Patterson and Hoover.
Weaver also denied that he ever complained to Patterson or Hoover regarding
the conduct of Harvey and said that Harvey had always performed his work
satisfactorily.
Patteison testified that another factor he took into consideration when he de-
cided not to rehire Harvey was that he had learned that Harvey had used company
snow removal equipment for unauthorized work on his way to the railroad.
However, Harvey's testimony in this regard is uncontradicted that he obtained
permission from Foreman Showalter to use the equipment on his own property
before he did so.
Patterson testified that in May 1963, an employee threw a railroad jack into the
cab of the truck assigned to Miller and caused the bed of the truck to come down.
Patterson testified this caused damage in excess of $100 to the truck. When Patter-
son asked Miller how it happened he said he did not know. Patterson testified that
he learned Miller had not told him the truth about this accident shortly before
Miller was discharged. Patterson further testified he saw Miller taking some lum-
ber from the company yard three or four times in September 1963. He spoke to
Miller about it and thereafter had no knowledge of any lumber being removed.
Miller testified that after the railroad jack was thrown into the cab of his truck
he returned to the company yard where employees Harvey, Herpy, and Sousa were
present. Sousa was a mechanic for the Respondent. Sousa inspected the truck
and found nothing wrong with it. Miller continued to use the truck and said noth-
ing about the incident to Patterson. In June 1963 the crossmember that held the
left unit of the dump truck in place tore loose from the frame. Miller testified
there was no connection between the two incidents. Miller also categorically
denied that he ever took lumber or any other company property.
Patterson testified that Gordin Gillespie was terminated on October 9, 1963, be-
cause he reported to work irregularly and refused to drive the 1951 Ford dump
truck, saying it was unsafe. Although Gillespie said he would not drive it any
more he did continue to drive it. Virgil Runyon testified that he operated the
same truck, and that it was out of line, the U-bolts were loose, it was hard to
steer, and there was trouble with the brakes. Although Patterson and Hoover
claimed that Gillespie was frequently absent from work without excuse and re-
ported late in the mornings , Patterson could not recall any specific dates and no
CLETUS H. PATTERSON & SONS, INC. 65
company records were produced to substantiate the defense. No explanation was
forthcoming from the Respondent as to why it increased Gillespie's wages nearly
25 percent only 1 week before he was terminated if he was such an unsatisfactory
employee.
Upon consideration of all the evidence I credit the testimony of Harvey, Miller,
and Gillespie and find and conclude that the termination of Gillespie on October 9,
1963, the layoffs of Harvey on December 20, 1963, and Miller on December 27,
1963, were discriminatorily motivated in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act and the Respondent's failure to recall them was similarly motivated. I
further find that the proffered reasons for the termination, layoffs, and failure to
recall them are pretexts to cover the real discriminatory motives for such actions.
I find it unnecessary to resolve the controversial testimony contained in the
"background" evidence as to events beyond the 6 months prior to the filing of the
charges herein as there is in my opinion sufficient evidence of discriminatory mo-
tive within the statutory period to render unnecessary such consideration.
IV. THE EFFECTS OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic , and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of William C. Miller, Robert V. Harvey, and Gordon A.
Gillespie I shall recommend that the Respondent offer them immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges and make them whole for any loss
of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them,
by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally
would have earned from the dates of their terminations of employment to
the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement. Backpay will be computed
in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest as directed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case I make the following:
CONCLUSION OF LAW
1. Cletus H. Patterson & Sons. Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local No. 377 is a labor organization as defined in Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of William
C. Miller, Robert V. Harvey, and Gordon A. Gillespie the Respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By engaging in such acts the Respondent thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section
7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) thereof.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions in the entire record and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Cletus H. Patterson & Sons, Inc., its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 377, or in any other
organization of its employees by discriminating in regard to their hire, tenure, or
any other terms or conditions of employment.
770-070-65-vol. 140-6
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Threatening to sell its trucks and lay off employees before the Respondent
will pay the union scale per hour or in any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization to
form, join, or assist International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 377, or any other labor organization
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid, or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to William C. Miller, Robert V. Harvey, and Gordon A. Gillespie
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges and make
them whole in the manner set forth in the section of the Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) In the event that any of the above-named employees is presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States, notify him of his right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal
Military Training and Service Act of 1948 as amended after discharge from the
Armed Forces.'
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination and copying all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel recoids and reports and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due.
(d) Post at its plant in Ashtabula, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." ` Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 8, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the afore-
said Respondent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing, within 20 days from
the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.'
3 See Melrose Processinq Company, 146 NLRB 979, where the Board adopted the
Trial Examiner's recommendation that this language should appear as a provision of the
Order rather than as it footnote to the notice
I If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order"
shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner." If the
Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice will
be further amended by the substitution of the words "a Decree of the United States Court
of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the iNords "a Decision and Order"
' If this Recommended Order he adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read, "Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, we hereby notify employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership by our employees in the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Local No. 377 or in any other labor organization by discriminating against
them in regard to hire, tenure of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of employment because of
their membership, interest in, or activities on behalf of, the above union or
any other labor organization.
LOCAL 248, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, ETC. 67
WE WILL offer to William C. Miller, Robert V. Harvey, and Gordon A.
Gillespie immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to seniority and other rights and privi-
leges they may have previously enjoyed and make each of them whole for any
loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against them.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization to form , join, or
assist the above -named union or any other labor organization to bargain col-
lectively 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 such activities.
CLETUS H. PATTERSON & SONS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of post-
ing, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 720
Bulkley Building, 1501 Euclid Avenue , Cleveland , Ohio, Telephone No. Main
1-4465, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Local 248, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America, AFL-CIO and Allis- Chalmers
Manufacturing Company
Local 248, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America , AFL-CIO and Allis-Chalmers
Manufacturing Company
Local 401 , United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America, AFL-CIO and Allis-Chalmers
Manufacturing Company. Cases Nos. 30-CB-1 (Old Case No.
13-CB-1066), 30-CB-4 (Old Case No. 13-CB-1222), and 30-CB--5
(Old Case No. 13-CB-1408). October 23, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 31, 1964, Trial Examiner Harold X. Summers issued
his Decision in the above case, finding that the Respondents had not
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in his at-
tached Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents and the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and support-
ing briefs. At the request of the Charging Party, the Board granted
oral argument herein by notice of hearing dated June 9, 1964. The
hearing was held on July 9, 1964, and all parties participated in the
argument. In addition, counsel for the American Federation of
Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations participated in the
argument and filed a brief as amicus curiae and counsel for the Na-
tional Association of Manufacturers filed a brief as amicus curiae.
149 NLRB No. 10.