Cleveland Express, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 20, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 471 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

CLEVELAND EXPRESS, INC.
Cleveland Express, Inc. and William Franklin Wilson.
Case 10-CA-11187
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. INTRODUCTION
January 20, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On September 26, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed a
brief in answer to the General Counsel's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed in its entirety.
DECISION
FRANK H. ITKIN, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard before me on July 22, 1975, in Knoxville, Ten-
nessee. The unfair labor practice charge was filed on
March 31 and was amended on May 13, 1975. The com-
plaint was issued on June 4, 1975. The principal issue pre-
sented is whether Respondent Company violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by
discharging employees William Franklin Wilson and
Henry Edward Lane on March 24, 1975, because of their
activities on behalf of Teamsters Local Union No. 519,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. General Counsel
also alleges that the Company's unfair labor practices war-
rant the entry of an order requiring the Company to recog-
nize and bargain with the Union in the appropriate unfit.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
counsel, I make the following findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law:
471
Respondent Company, a Tennessee corporation, is en-
gaged in the interstate transportation of freight by truck,
with facilities located at Cleveland, Knoxville, and Chatta-
nooga, Tennessee. During the past calendar year, Respon-
dent Company received gross revenues in excess of $50,000
from the interstate transportation of freight by truck. I find
and conclude, as stipulated, that Respondent Company is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. And, as further stipulated,
I find and conclude that Teamsters Local Union No. 519 is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. THE TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEES WILSON AND LANE
Wilson first started working for Respondent in Knox-
ville during April 1974. Wilson recalled that he "had heard
rumors that Cleveland Express was going to move into
Knoxville." Consequently, Wilson went to Respondent's
facility in Cleveland where he spoke with Company Presi-
dent S. I. Bryant. During their discussion, Bryant told Wil-
son that the Company had been "running to Knoxville for
a short time"; that "he was bringing up a little bit of
freight"; and that "most of the time [the Company truck]
was running back empty." Wilson stated that he "knew a
lot of companies in Knoxville" and "could get some
freight." Wilson was given a road test and was further in-
terviewed by Mrs. Bryant, wife of S. I. Bryant. During the
interview, according to the testimony of Wilson, Company
President Bryant stated:
We are a union company. I'd appreciate it if y'all
didn't join the union for a while, but any time you
want to, feel free to do so. The $19.50 or $17.00.. .
that I pay to the health and welfare, I'll give to you
guys up to the date you want to join the union.
Wilson was hired later that day.
Shortly thereafter, Wilson "started delivery freight" for
Respondent Company at Knoxville. Wilson explained that
the Employer's facility at Knoxville then consisted of a
"cleared and graveled" lot on Paper Mill Road. The
Company's "road" driver would haul freight from the
Cleveland terminal to the lot on Paper Mill Road in Knox-
ville "and drop it." Wilson "would take the freight and
peddle it over town." And, after delivering the freight, Wil-
son would solicit business from various local companies in
an effort "to get backhauls" for the Employer. Wilson testi-
fied that,
at the end of the second week with the Company I had
more freight than I could handle. At that point, I
called Mr. Bryant and told him I had to have some
help.
As a result, Bryant hired Lane who started work about
April 22, 1974.
Wilson recalled that "when I first started, I only had one
tractor and one trailer" on the Paper Mill Road lot; how-
222 NLRB No. 63
472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ever, "when Mr. Lane started, we got a little straight
truck." Wilson explained:
After Mr. Lane started, we'd rotate on the tractor
trailer and the small truck . . . Then, both of us, when
we were out picking up freight ..., would stop along
the way and talk to customers and tell them how our
operation operated, and we passed out routes; we had
a list of different routes that we ran in the State of
Tennessee. . . . Well, we kept getting more and more
business, new customers kept calling, so we had to add
another tractor trailer. Then we added an extra trailer.
We just kept adding equipment right on up to the time
we got laid off or fired.
According to Wilson, "after we'd been there quite a bit of
time," Wilson told Bryant that "we needed an office."
Bryant thereupon installed a trailer on the lot. As Wilson
testified, "they fixed this old trailer up; they put a partition
in it with a desk in the front . . . then we had a phone put
in." Bryant also acquired a flatbed trailer to be used as a
dock at the Paper Mill Road facility.
Wilson testified that on March 3, 1975, both he and
Lane signed "Membership Application and Check Off Au-
thorization" cards for Teamsters Local Union No. 519
(G.C. Exh. 3). Wilson recalled that his union card "laid on
the desk at the office over there approximately one week
before we got a chance to take it over to the Union" and
that both he and Lane then took their signed cards to
Union Representative Ernest Tate.
On March 24, 1975, employees Wilson and Lane were
terminated. Company President Bryant, accompanied by a
mechanic and dock foreman from the Cleveland terminal,
drove onto the Paper Mill Road facility. There, Bryant told
the employees: "Boys, I got bad news, I'm shutting her
down up here." Bryant gave Wilson an envelope contain-
ing a check for his "birthday pay," "vacation check," and
"a check for two weeks work." Bryant gave Wilson, as well
as Lane, "a layoff slip." I Wilson asked Bryant, "what
about all these customers we got up here?" Bryant re-
sponded: "I'm going to get Knox Maryville to handle .. .
the deliveries." Knox Maryville is a local trucking compa-
ny. Bryant added: "we're going to run it up [from Cleve-
land] and they are going to peddle it, peddle the freight for
us." Respondent Company had no other Knoxville based
employees at the time.
Wilson testified that during his employment with the
Company, Bryant had discussed "the building of a termi-
nal" in Knoxville. Wilson recalled:
Mr. Bryant had told me [and] we had even seen a blue
print of this terminal. I [Wilson] was under the impres-
sion and was told that they had signed a contract to
have the terminal built; [Bryant] bought door plates
for the terminal.
Wilson recalled that Bryant had discussed with him the
"material that was going to be used" in constructing the
terminal and the steps taken to acquire air conditioning
t G.C. Exh 2 is the document which Bryant gave to Wilson on March 24
It is a "separation notice" which states the "reason" for separation as "lack
of work." Lane received a similar document (G.C. Exh 4)
units. And, according to Wilson, preliminary construction
work on the new terminal had started. A contractor had
"started clearing off the property" and was drilling rock.
Further, "pipe for the driveways" had been delivered and
installed. Wilson testified that Bryant had never indicated
"that he wasn't going to go ahead with his plan to build a
terminal." According to Wilson, Bryant had stated to the
employees that "it was going to be a six-door terminal."
Further, business at the Knoxville facility "had increased
constantly" up to the date of the employees' termination
on March 24, 1975. Wilson recalled: "we had so many
deliveries that we couldn't do them"; "we got so far behind
that two men came up out [from] Cleveland to help us get
caught up." Wilson also testified that the Company is still
continuing to pick up and deliver in Knoxville and the
surrounding area?
Employee Lane testified that he started working for the
Company at Knoxville on April 22, 1974. He, too, went to
Cleveland where he spoke with Company President
Bryant. Lane recalled that, during his interview, Bryant
said, "it was like a big happy family, that everybody was
well satisfied and they did belong to a union." Bryant then
asked Lane, "how [he] felt about the union." Lane an-
swered that "at the present time [he] wasn't interested in
it." Lane added: "in a year or so, two years, I might be
interested in joining, they've got good retirement and good
insurance." Bryant responded: "well, if you're hired like
Mr. Wilson, I'm paying him the money that would normal-
ly go into the health and welfare that I pay the union, .. .
I'm giving it to him on his check as a bonus. I'd rather that
the [men] didn't join; I've had a little trouble going here in
Cleveland." 3 Lane was later hired.
Lane's testimony concerning his duties and work at
Knoxville generally corroborated Wilson's testimony, as
recited above. Lane identified the union card (G.C. Exh. 5)
which he had signed on March 3, 1975. Lane recalled that
his card "laid on the desk in the office there . . . between
a week or two weeks." Lane was unsure whether he subse-
quently accompanied Wilson to the union hall.
Lane recalled that on March 24, 1975, Bryant, accompa-
nied by the mechanic and dock foreman from Cleveland,
drove onto the Knoxville lot and terminated both Wilson
and Lane. Lane received three checks and a "layoff slip"
(G.C. Exh. 4). Lane recalled that, during his employment
at Knoxville, he heard Bryant repeatedly "say that he was
going to build" a terminal-"they sent the plans up for the
terminal." Lane recalled that this subject was last discussed
"approximately two or three weeks before we were laid
off." "At no time" had Bryant indicated that he had
changed his mind about building a terminal. And, as Lane
further testified, the "amount of work" performed by Wil-
son and Lane increased "constantly every day." Lane ex-
plained, "they had to send us help out of Cleveland to get
us caught up." In addition, Lane testified that Cleveland
2 On cross-examination, Wilson acknowledged that Company President
Bryant initially had discussed building a " larger" terminal at Knoxville,
however, during January 1975, Bryant stated that "because of cost, they had
to reduce the plans for the terminal" to a six-door terminal. Wilson recalled
that Bryant subsequently discussed with Wilson the acquisition of air-condi-
tioning units and the purchase of the "door plates" for the new terminal.
3 On cross-examination, Lane testified that Bryant had stated- "He told
me he'd rather I didn't join the Union "
CLEVELAND EXPRESS, INC. 473
Express is still picking up and delivering freight in the
Knoxville area.
Ernest Tate, business representative and trustee for
Teamsters Local Union No. 519, testified that he received
the signed union cards from employees Wilson and Lane
about March 17 or 18, 1975. Tate thereupon attempted to
speak with Company President Bryant. Tate testified that
about March 20 or 21, 1975, "I believe I got a hold of Mr.
Bryant, and discussed the applications and read him the
names on the applications that was on my desk at the
time." Tate recalled:
he [Bryant] told me that he was maybe having a little
financial problem and he didn't want to put these peo-
ple in the union up there in Knoxville, Tennessee, but
he never did outright say he wouldn't have them in the
union.
Tate asked Bryant "to sit down and meet with us." Bryant
stated: "he just didn't feel like he could put [the two Knox-
ville employees] under a contract " Tate heard nothing fur-
ther until he was advised that the two employees had been
terminated on March 24, 1975.
Tate testified on cross-examination that during his talk
with Bryant, Bryant "might have mentioned he was going
to close down rather than put them [the two employees]
under contract...." Tate's prehearing affidavit states, in
part:
Bryant told me that he could not put these employees
under the contract. He said he had been thinking
about closing the terminal down. Fact of the matter
was, that he would close it down... .
Tate also recalled discussing' with Bryant the various
Teamsters Union contracts available or applicable to the
Company's Knoxville operation. As discussed below, the
Company was already under contract with Teamsters Lo-
cal Union No. 515 (see Resp. Exh. 3).
Company President Bryant testified that he previously
had been engaged in the interstate trucking business be-
tween Cleveland and Chattanooga; that his employees in
Cleveland and Chattanooga were covered by his contract
with Teamsters Local No. 515 (see Resp. Exh. 3); that he
subsequently expanded his intrastate operation to include
Knoxville; and that, prior to the termination of Wilson and
Lane, he also had received interstate authority to transport
freight between Cleveland, Chattanooga, and Knoxville.
Bryant admitted that he had "planned on building" a ter-
minal in Knoxville. Bryant asserted that "the energy thing
hit us and we changed our minds about a lot of things." 4
4 Bryant testified that the facility on Paper Mill Road in Knoxville is
owned by his brother-in-law, Avery Cawhorn. There is no written lease
between the Company and Cawhorn. Bryant "had the ground cleared off
. so we could park on it." Bryant claimed that the "bill" for clearing off
the land and making it suitable for parking was $1,500. Bryant asserted that
he paid'this bill for his brother-in-law and credited him $100 each month as
rent payment. Bryant testified- "We paid the thing [$1500] and we figured
we could use it for 15 months without any additional expense " Bryant
acknowledged that he "did proceed to have plans drawn for a terminal."
About October 1974, Bryant received an "estimate" for $64,000 Bryant
claimed "that we knew we couldn't afford that" and he "talked to some
people about probably building a smaller building " Bryant asserted that he
subsequently determined that he could not afford to build the "smaller"
Bryant was asked: "It was testified that you had asked Mr.
Wilson not to join the union, I believe the way he put it,
`for a while.' Would you tell us why you discussed this with
them [Wilson and Lane] and what was your object in ask-
ing them?" Bryant answered, in part, as follows:
... Yes, sir, I did. I discussed it and my object was-
this thing [the proceeding concerning his interstate au-
thority] was being drawn out in all these court pro-
ceedings and I just don't know for sure how I'd be
able to operate... .
Bryant assertedly was then concerned that he "might have
to go back to the peddle run" provision of his existing
contract with Local 515 (see Resp. Exhs. I and 2).
Bryant testified that he was unaware of the interest of
employees Wilson and Lane in Teamsters Local Union 519
prior to receiving Tate's telephone call about Friday,
March 21, 1975. Bryant asserted that he was "just losing
his shirt" at Knoxville; that he had made arrangements on
March 17, 1975, to close the Knoxville facility; and that he
planned to "deliver [his] small shipments by a local cartage
company and peddle [his] freight into Knoxville by [his]
515 drivers." Bryant asserted that such arrangements had
been made with a local cartage company, Gouffon Trans-
fer Company, on March 17, 1975. In addition, Bryant testi-
fied that he is now paying some $200 to $400 a month for
the local cartage services and that it would cost him some
$750 to $800 to deliver the shipments out of Knoxville with
his own employees and facilities. Further, it was stipulated
by the parties that "if Mr. Gouffon were called and testi-
fied, he would testify that he did write" a letter to Bryant
on March 17, 1975 (Resp. Exh. 4), which stated:
Per our conversation of March 17 we present the fol-
lowing rates for the pick-up and delivery of your
freight, truck line interchange, and moving and load-
ing trailers in the Knoxville area:
City Pick-up & Delivery---Heavy Mdse---50 cwt $5 Min.
Light Mdse--60 cwt $5 Min.
Truck line Interchange---Tractor & Driver---$12 per Hr.
Mdse Delivered to Gouffon Whse for reloading---40cwt
Moving trailers for loading---Metro area - $24 rd trip
Moving trailers for loading---Industrial Parks $30 rd trip
This company will not participate in concealed dam-
age claims.
Bryant testified, in part, as follows:
Q. Mr. Bryant . . . did Mr. Tate's call result in
your closing down that terminal or were you going to
close down that terminal regardless?
A. I was going to close it down regardless. Now he
didn't call with that in mind, he called to tell me that
these fellows had left those cards with his secretary.
He didn't call, I don't think because he didn't sound
like it on the phone, I don't think he, had any idea that
I was going to close the operation until I told him on
the 21st, that Friday, I told him I was going to have to
close it because I was losing my shirt, I just absolutely
terminal . Bryant asserted that about this time "the puce of fuel started
going up, tires and operations started going up and [business] really took a
tailspin.
474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
couldn't make it the way I was going.
Q. Have you in fact-has your company in fact
made any profit at all out of your Knoxville opera-
tion?
A. It hasn't made any profit to speak of in any of
the operations, it may be breaking even now in Knox-
ville the way we're running it, I'm not for sure. We can
break it down. I have a real good auditor and they're
the auditors for the United Bank in Chattanooga and
they're very reputable people and I've worked with
them on this thing and-about what to do about it, go
back to peddle or just what and Joe Knowles is our
auditor and he's real good, he used to be with Central
Motors as auditor years ago and he's very good and
when a man like that doesn't know either-he pointed
out that this fuel bill is going to be a lot higher and I
was going to have to do something, freight was drop-
ping off.
Q. Since you closed this facility have you hired any
employees anywhere in your system?
A. No, sir, nobody, not a soul.
Q. So you're servicing Knoxville with employees
that you had prior to the time?
A. Yes, sir, the only additional people that I have
employed is Mr. Gouffon, that's the only one.
Q That's the cartage agent in Knoxville?
A. That's right, yes, sir.
Q. And he does cartage work I assume for other
truck lines?
A. I'm sure he does, he does business for railroads
and other lines, I know he does, I see their units in
there.
The testimony of employees Wilson and Lane and
Union Representative Tate, as detailed above, is in large
part mutually corroborative and is substantiated by the tes-
timony of Company President Bryant. I am, on this record,
persuaded that the testimony of Wilson, Lane, and Tate as
stated above, is credible and trustworthy. I am also per-
suaded that Bryant's testimony to the effect that he was
"just losing his shirt" at the Knoxville facility and that he
had made arrangements to close the facility and use a local
cartage company before receiving Tate's telephone call on
Friday, March 21, 1975, is also credible. Further, I am, on
this record, persuaded that Bryant had no knowledge of
the interests of Wilson and Lane in Teamsters Local 519
prior to Tate's telephone call on March 21. Bryant credibly
testified that he then told Tate that he "was losing [his]
shirt," that he "absolutely couldn't make it the way [he]
was going," and that he was "going to close it." Bryant's
testimony in this respect is supported by the letter to him
from Gouffon Transfer, dated March 17, 1975 (Resp. Exh.
4). And, Tate acknowledged that during his discussion with
Bryant on March 21, Bryant stated that he was having a
"financial problem" and "had been thinking about" and
"would close it down." Gouffon Transfer subsequently
performed the local cartage services for Respondent. In
sum, I find and conclude that Respondent was experienc-
ing financial problems at Knoxville and, before any de-
mand for a union contract had been made, Respondent
determined to close its facility there and utilize the services
of a local cartage company.
III. DISCUSSION
General Counsel alleges that Respondent Company vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by terminating em-
ployees Wilson and Lane on-March 24, 1975. Counsel for
Respondent asserts that the two employees were terminat-
ed solely for lawful economic reasons. Under settled law,
"the Board is not compelled to accept the employer' s state-
ment" of the reason for an employee's discharge "where
there is reasonable cause for believing that the ground put
forward by the employer was not the true one, and that the
real reason was the employer's dissatisfaction with the"
employee's union or protected concerted activities. Great
Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. v. N.L.R.B., 354 F.2d 707, 709
(C.A. 5, 1966). And, the "discharge of an employee moti-
vated in part by anti-union animus is unlawful." N.L.R.B.
v. Adam Loos Boiler Works Co., 435 F.2d 707 (C.A. 6,
1970).
In the instant case, the sequence of events culminating in
the employees' discharge on March 24 strongly suggests an
inference of unlawful purpose. Thus, Company President
Bryant told Wilson in April 1974, "I'd appreciate it if y'all
didn't join the union for a while." And, Bryant told Lane
that "he'd rather" the employees "didn't join the union."
Thereafter, business increased at the Knoxville facility.
Additional equipment was acquired, a trailer was used for
an office, and a temporary dock was installed. Bryant re-
peatedly discussed plans to build a terminal in Knoxville.
Clearing of the land and preliminary construction work
had started. Initially, Bryant had planned to build a
"larger" facility in Knoxville. He subsequently reduced the
size of the proposed terminal to a six-door structure. On
March 21, 1975, Union Representative Tate apprised
Bryant that his employees had signed union cards. Tate
requested that Bryant sign a contract. Bryant declined. On
Monday, March 24, 1975, the two employees were termi-
nated.
However, on the other hand, the credible evidence of
record also shows that Company President Bryant was un-
der contract with Teamsters Union Local No. 515 at his
facilities in Cleveland and Chattanooga; that Bryant told
Wilson during his job interview, "We are a union compa-
ny" and "feel free" to join; and that Bryant similarly told
Lane during his job interview that his employees "did be-
long to a union." Bryant credibly testified that he planned
to build a terminal in Knoxville, however, the "energy
thing hit us and changed our minds about a lot of things."
Bryant credibly explained that he was "losing his shirt" at
Knoxville and that it was more economical for him to use
a local cartage company at Knoxville than to construct and
operate a new terminal. Bryant credibly testified that he
had determined to close the facility at Knoxville and use a
local cartage company before receiving any notice of
Wilson's and Lane's activities on behalf of Teamsters Lo-
cal Union No. 519. The letter from Gouffon Transfer to
Bryant dated March 17, 1975, supports Bryant's testimony.
And, when Union Representative Tate telephoned Bryant
and requested recognition on March 21, 1975, Bryant re-
vealed to Tate Respondent's financial problems and plan
CLEVELAND EXPRESS, INC. 475
to close down that facility. -
As stated above, the sequence of events in this case
strongly suggests an unlawful purpose. However, the bur-
den of proving a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act rests upon General Counsel. Suspicion of a violation is
not enough. Accordingly, on balance, I find and conclude
on this record that General Counsel has not sufficiently
established the violation as alleged.
Respondent argues in his brief that, "under the Collyer
doctrine, 192 NLRB 837, any dispute exisiting between the
employees, the Union and the Company must be deferred
to the arbitration procedure provided for in the collective
bargaining agreement which Respondent is a signatory to
with Teamsters Local 515 in Cleveland, Tennessee, and
which, under its terms, applied to Knoxville when the em-
ployees signed the authorization cards." 5 This defense was
first asserted by counsel for Respondent at the hearing.
Teamsters Local Union No. 515 was not represented at the
hearing and has not asserted that its contract with Respon-
dent is binding here and that this dispute should be defer-
red to the arbitration process in its contract. Nor does
Teamsters Local Union No. 519 make such a contention.
Further, the individual employees are the charging parties
here. And, Company President Bryant testified, as follows:
Q. -Now when Mr. Tate called you, you just heard
Section 40 of Respondent's Exhibit 3 read, did you
offer to put these two men under the contract?
A. No, I told him I was going to close it up.
Q. Had you ever applied the terms of these con-
tracts in full to these two men? -
A. Here locally?
Q. Mr. Lane and Mr. Wilson
A. No, sir.
Q. Had you ever considered that they were covered
by the contract?
A. No, sir, because I was under this contract over
in 515.
Q. So you had never applied this to them or felt
that they were under it?
A. No, sir.
In short, neither Respondent Employer nor Teamsters Lo-
cal 515 has sought to apply the provisions of their existing
contract to these employees. Consequently, I do not find
the provisions of that contract controlling here or, further,
that the Board should defer to arbitration procedures in
that contract. Cf. Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837
(1971). There is here no harmony of interest which war-
rants a deferral; the contracting party in question does not
appear willing to carry the dispute to arbitration; and it is
extremely doubtful that the two employees involved have
independent standing to pursue this arbitral process if Lo-
cal 515 declines to represent them. Cf. Seng Company, 205
NLRB 200, 201-202 (1973). Also see Pilot Freight Carriers,
208 NLRB 853, 857, fn. 12 (1974).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Teamsters Local Union No. 519 is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The General Counsel has not shown by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged in the'complaint.
ORDER6
5 Article 40 of the National Master Freight Agreement And Southern
Conference Area, Local Freight Forwarding Pickup & Delivery Supplemen-
tal Agreement, July 1, 1973, through March 31, 1976 (Resp Exh 3), pro-
vides, in part
(b) If the Employer begins operating a terminal in a city where there is
now no terminal, the Employer agrees that as soon as the Union shows
the Employer authorizations signed by the majority of the City Pickup
and Delivery and Dockmen employees, this Agreement shall automati-
cally become effective.
I recommend that the complaint herein be dismissed in
its entirety.
6In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes