Diesel Truck Driver Training School

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1993

311 N.L.R.B. 963 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

963
311 NLRB No. 95
DIESEL TRUCK DRIVER TRAINING SCHOOL
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings. Also, the Respondent asserts
that certain of the administrative law judge’s resolutions of credi-
bility, findings of fact, and conclusions of law are the result of bias.
After careful examination of the entire record, we are satisfied that
this allegation is without merit.
We note that the judge referred to the firm Wagner & Associates
in his decision. The correct firm name is Wegner & Associates.
Diesel Truck Driver Training School, Inc. and Driv-
ers, Salesmen, Warehousemen, Milk Proc-
essors, Cannery, Dairy Employees and Helpers
Union Local No. 695 affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO.
Cases 30–CA–11158 and 30–RC–5163
May 28, 1993
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND OVIATT
On August 31, 1992, Administrative Law Judge Hu-
bert E. Lott issued the attached decision. The Respond-
ent filed exceptions and a supporting brief; the General
Counsel filed an answering brief to the exceptions; and
the Respondent filed a reply to the answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modi-
fied.
We agree with the judge that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by its dis-
charge of Mary Crain (incorrectly identified as Mary
Crane by the judge), Anita Boedefeld, and Florence
Vick. We are satisfied that the General Counsel made
a prima facie showing sufficient to support the infer-
ence that their union activity was a motivating factor
in the Respondent’s decision to discharge them and
that the Respondent did not meet its ensuing burden to
demonstrate that they would have been discharged
even in the absence of union activity. See Wright Line,
251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.
1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
We note first that the three employees were engaged
in union activity and that the Respondent was aware
of that activity. Thus, on October 24, 1990, 2 days be-
fore the three bookkeepers’ discharge, the Union
sought recognition from the Respondent in an office
clerical unit which included the three bookkeepers. The
Respondent’s president, Robert Klabacka, testified that
he assumed the three bookkeepers were involved in the
organization effort because they were a part of the of-
fice clericals. More particularly, we note that the Re-
spondent was aware of Mary Crain’s union activity be-
cause she told her husband, a supervisor of the Re-
spondent, of her interest in the Union and he in turn
told this to an official of the Respondent who told an-
other official. Anita Boedefeld was the most active of
the three employees in her organizing efforts and the
Respondent does not deny knowledge of her union ac-
tivity, indeed seeming to concede it in its reply brief.
While there is no direct evidence regarding the Re-
spondent’s knowledge of Vick’s union activity, we
infer such knowledge based on the evidence of the Re-
spondent’s knowledge of the other two employees’
union association, the fact that Vick was fired with the
other two employees, and that she was fired for no
credible reason. See Active Transportation, 296 NLRB
431, 432 fn. 6 (1989).
The General Counsel also established the element of
timing, as the three employees were discharged only 2
days after the Union made a demand for recognition
in the office clerical unit. We also agree with the
judge’s findings that the various reasons the Respond-
ent offered for discharging the three bookkeepers ‘‘do
not stand up to scrutiny’’ and were indeed pretextual.
Given the employees’ union activities, the Respond-
ent’s knowledge of the activities, the timing of the de-
cision to terminate the three employees, and the
pretextual nature of the asserted precipitating reasons
for the terminations, we infer unlawful animus in the
Respondent’s decision to discharge the employees. See
Electromedics, 299 NLRB 928, 940 (1990). Robert
Klabacka’s testimony that he was ‘‘damn mad’’ that
the organizing had been going on and that he didn’t
learn about it until it was ‘‘too late’’; Mark Klabacka’s
statement to discharged employees Crain and
Boedefeld to ‘‘get your [expletive deleted] and get the
hell out of here’’; and Michael Klabacka’s November
1991 statement to the clerical employees that the
Union would do them no good, that it hadn’t helped
the instructors and wouldn’t help them, and that he
wanted the clericals to vote against the Union, are
statements that are consistent with union animus. Be-
cause the General Counsel established a prima facie
case here, the burden then shifted to the Respondent
to show that the same action would have taken place
notwithstanding the protected conduct. The judge
found, and we agree, that the Respondent failed to
meet its burden because each of the reasons offered
were pretextual. Thus, the Board is entitled to infer
that the Respondent’s true motive was unlawful—i.e.,
because of the employee’s union activity. Shattuck
Denn Mining Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th
Cir. 1966).
964 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 All dates are in 1990 unless otherwise indicated.
Finally, we find that our decision is consistent with
the Second Circuit’s recent refinement of its opinion in
Holo-Krome Co. v. NLRB, 947 F.2d 588 (2d Cir.
1991). On the Board’s petition for rehearing in Holo-
Krome, the court held, inter alia, that ‘‘[w]hen the
Board reviews . . . a Board decision, the reviewing
bodies should be able to examine the entire record to
determine if improper motivation has been shown.’’
954 F.2d 108, 114 (2d Cir. 1992).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Diesel
Truck Driver Training School, Inc., Sun Prairie, Wis-
consin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
Delete paragraph 2(c) of the Order and reletter suc-
ceeding paragraphs accordingly.
DIRECTION
It is directed that the Regional Director for Region
30 shall within 14 days from the date of this decision
open and count the ballots cast by Mary Crain, Anita
Boedefeld, and Florence Vick and thereafter prepare
and cause to be served on the parties a revised tally
of the ballots including therein the count of the above-
named ballots. Thereafter, the Regional Director shall
issue the appropriate certification in accordance with
the Board’s Rules and Regulations.
Gerald McKinney, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Paul Hahnn and Paul Schmidt, Esqs. (Boardman, Swhr,
Curry and Field), of Madison, Wisconsin, for the Re-
spondent.
Ruth Ann Stodola, Teamsters Business Representative, of
Madison, Wisconsin, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HUBERT E. LOTT, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was heard in Madison, Wisconsin, on October 17 and 18,
1991, on unfair labor practice charges and amended charges
filed on October 30 and November 20, 1990. Complaint
issued February 8, 1991. On November 26, 1990, an election
was conducted among the office clerical employees. The
three alleged discriminatees were challenged because their
names were not on the eligibility list. Because their ballots
are determinative, an order consolidating cases was issued on
February 8, 1991, to determine whether they were
discriminatorily discharged and whether their ballots should
be opened and counted.
Respondent’s answer to the complaint, duly filed, denies
the commission of any unfair labor practices.
The parties were afforded an opportunity to be heard, to
call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
relevant evidence. Since the close of hearing, briefs have
been received from the parties.
On the entire record, and based on my observation of the
witnesses, and in consideration of the briefs submitted, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a corporation with a place of business lo-
cated in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, where it is engaged in the
operation of an educational institution. During the calendar
year ending December 31, 1990, Respondent, in the course
and conduct of its business operations derived gross revenues
in excess of $1 million. During the same period, Respondent
purchased and received at its Sun Prairie, Wisconsin facility
products goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
from other enterprises located within the State of Wisconsin,
each of which, had received said products, goods, and mate-
rials directly from points outside the State of Wisconsin.
The Company admits, and I find, that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
In 1988, Local 695 (the Union) was certified to represent
a unit of mechanics, maintenance employees, and instructors
at Respondent’s school. The current collective-bargaining
agreement expires April 30, 1993.
On October 24, 1990,1 the same local union requested rec-
ognition to represent the office clerical employees. Respond-
ent declined to grant recognition on October 26, and dis-
charged the bookkeeping department (Mary Crane, Anita
Boedefeld, and Florence Vick) on that date. The Board con-
ducted an election on November 26, and the results were:
Seven eligible voters, three votes cast for and four votes cast
against Petitioner. The ballots of Crane, Boedefeld, and Vick
were challenged by the Board agent as NOL.
The cast of characters are as follows:
Robert Klabacka (father)—president and principal cor-
porate officer who conducts his business out of his home in
Las Vegas.
Jeff Klabacka (son)—vice president who operates Profes-
sional Dealers of America (PDSA) in Las Vegas with Boe
Allen.
John Klabacka (son)—chief operations officer, Eugene,
Oregon location.
Jerry Klabacka (son)—job training partnership director.
Assisted Mike Klabacka at Sun Prairie.
Michael Klabacka (son)—school director from January
1987 to March 1991 at Sun Prairie.
Mark Klabacka (son)—chief operating officer at Sun Prai-
rie. In 1990 vice president in charge of collections.
Dan Crane—training director at Sun Prairie and husband
of Mary Crane.
Floyd Welsch, Jr.—partner in the accounting firm of Wag-
ner & Associates, also an officer in Express Data Processing
(EDP). Supervisor of accounting department at Sun Prairie
beginning July 16.
965DIESEL TRUCK DRIVER TRAINING SCHOOL
William Tyson—manager of computer consulting in EDP.
Anthony Klochow—employed by Wagner & Associates.
Since 1988 Respondent owns and operates several
semitruck and trailer driving schools in the States of Oregon,
California, and Wisconsin in addition to a card dealing
school (PDSA) in Las Vegas, Nevada, and the Watertower
Inn located in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin.
B. The Alleged Discriminatees
There were three employees in Respondent’s bookkeeping
department at Sun Prairie. All three were discharged on Oc-
tober 26. Mary Crane worked for Respondent 21 years. In
1985 she became head bookkeeper whose duties included ac-
counts payable, accounts receivable, check registers, notes
payable and receivable, depreciation, payroll, sales journals,
monthly journal entries and tax forms other than income tax.
According to Robert Klabacka, Crane always did a good job.
When he asked her for something, he always got it. She was
loyal, hardworking, and conscientious. The other Klabackas
also praised her work. When she was discharged Michael
Klabacka gave her a very good recommendation in writing.
Crane testified that she had no indicia of supervisory author-
ity over the other employees. She further testified that she
was willing to learn computers, never refused to work with
them, but was never offered training on computers. After she
left Respondent, she worked for Prairie Home Products
where she utilizes two different computer systems. The Sol-
omon III Accounting System and the Word Perfect 5.1 Sys-
tem.
Anita Boedefeld was employed by Respondent for 3 years.
Her job duties consisted of making entries to accounts pay-
able, processing invoices, issuance of checks, and putting
ledger information on the computer. She kept personnel
records, processed workmen’s compensation and unemploy-
ment compensation claims. She handled employee health in-
surance, ordered office supplies, kept cash receipt ledgers,
and prepared daily cash reports that she sent to Robert
Klabacka at the close of each day. She sent the DCR to Rob-
ert Klabacka from 1988 until the accounting books were sent
to Las Vegas and again from March 1990 until the books
were again sent to Las Vegas. Boedefeld is a college grad-
uate from a 4-year degree program which included computer
courses. Prior to working for Respondent, she worked for an-
other employer using her computer skills. When Respondent
discharged her, Michael Klabacka gave her a good written
recommendation.
Florence Vick was hired on July 9. She is computer lit-
erate with 5 years’ accounting experience. This information
was on her job application. Her duties with Respondent con-
sisted of retrieving data for EDP from some 40 boxes of ac-
counting material returned from Las Vegas during the sum-
mer. She also did accounts payable for five of Respondent’s
companies. On October 5, she and Boedefeld were instructed
on how to put accounts payable on the computer. On Octo-
ber 20, Respondent installed a computer at her desk. She also
received a good written recommendation when she was dis-
charged.
C. The Accounting Problems of Respondent
For 10 years, Robert Klabacka retained Floyd Welsch of
Wagner & Associates to prepare an annual audit and a con-
solidated tax return. The firm also processed payroll checks
and offered advice on business matters. Welsch was also an
officer in Express Data Processing.
In 1988 Respondent’s Sun Prairie Diesel School handled
the accounting functions for all of Respondent’s business op-
erations. In April 1988 Robert Klabacka telephoned Mary
Crane and told her that he was moving the corporate offices
and the accounting functions to Las Vegas but because she
was a loyal employee, his son Michael would find work for
her. Many times in the past Robert Klabacka praised her
work.
In July and November 1988, the accounting books for the
various locations were moved to Las Vegas and no one from
the Sun Prairie accounting department was laid off. In fact,
no one at the Sun Prairie location, with the exception of the
three employees in question, were ever laid off or discharged
since 1985. In April 1989, the accounting books were sent
back to Sun Prairie because Training Enterprises, which was
established in Las Vegas to perform the accounting func-
tions, could not do the job or perform the audit.
During 1989 Training Enterprises attempted to install a
consolidated computerized system for all of Respondent’s lo-
cations. When this failed, Robert Klabacka informed Mary
Crane that he was returning the entire accounting function to
Sun Prairie and offered her a $1000-a-year raise and to put
her on salary if she would do the job. He asked Crane how
many employees she would need and she replied three or
four.
In mid-March all accounting books, computer software,
and some computers were returned to Sun Prairie. When they
arrived, they were described variously as being in bad shape,
a problem, and a disaster. During March, Robert Klabacka
contacted Wagner & Associates and asked them to assist in
straightening out the accounting information from 1989 for-
ward. Welsch testified that there were obvious errors in the
records which needed correcting and that a computer system
had to be installed to handle the entire accounting function
at Sun Prairie. However, in April Robert Klabacka decided
to send the accounting books for the Eugene, Oregon, and
Las Vegas facilities back to those facilities. Finally during
the summer of 1990, Robert Klabacka decided that all ac-
counting would be done at Sun Prairie. The Eugene, Oregon,
and Las Vegas books were being returned during the summer
and portions were still being returned at the time of the dis-
charges.
D. Events Leading to the Discharges
On July 16, Robert Klabacka sent a letter to his sons and
the Sun Prairie accounting department stating in pertinent
part that Rick Welsch was in charge of setting up new ac-
counting procedures. Welsch was made the boss of the ac-
counting department with the authority to hire and fire and
was given total authority to institute new accounting proce-
dures with the warning that anyone who did not cooperate
would be terminated.
Welsch and Anthony Klochow testified that they needed to
get the accounting records up to date so they could perform
the 1989 audit. This was a difficult job because records were
still coming from the other locations. Crane, Boedefeld, and
Vick helped in this effort and did a good job but according
to Welsch the accounting functions would not be up to date
966 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for a long time because the Oregon and Las Vegas records
had not even been touched.
Welsch testified that in August and early September, he
conducted a survey of the bookkeeping department and deter-
mined that many manual functions should be computerized.
As a result of this survey, Welsch recommended comput-
erizing accounting functions to Robert Klabacka, but he
never recommended eliminating the bookkeeping department.
During July and August, Mary Crane asked Welsch wheth-
er conversion to computers would eliminate their jobs. He
assured her that there would be enough work for them and
repeated this assurance many times after that. During this
same period, Anthony Klochow also assured the bookkeeping
employees that there would be plenty of work for them after
they converted to computers.
On Saturday, September 22, Boedefeld attended a meeting
of union stewards where she met with Ruth Ann Stodola, the
union business representative. She inquired about the clerical
employees joining a union. On September 24, Boedefeld
talked to Mary Crane at her desk about joining the Union.
She gave Crane a pamphlet and they discussed the Union.
Boedefeld had a similar discussion with Florence Vick and
other clerical employees that same day. Boedefeld set up two
union meetings for October 9 and 22. She asked the clerical
employees for the best time and dates for the meetings and
urged them to attend. On September 25, Boedefeld drafted
and distributed at work a list of benefits the Union might get
for them. On that same date, she distributed union authoriza-
tion cards to the clerical employees and collected the signed
cards at her desk. Boedefeld, Crane, and Vick, as well as
other clerical employees, signed and returned union author-
ization cards to her. Vick attended one or both union meet-
ings and discussed the Union with others in the office start-
ing in September. On September 14, Mary Crane told her
husband she was interested in the Union. On September 25,
he relayed this information to Jerry Klabacka who told his
brother Michael about the clerical’s union activity. Michael
Klabacka testified that on October 24, he had heard from
Mark Klabacka about the union meetings held by the office
clerical staff.
In September, Welsch had told Boedefeld that she would
be issuing payroll checks from her desk by the end of 1990
instead of sending the information to Wagner & Associates
and having them issue the checks.
Mary Crane testified that when the accounting books came
back from Las Vegas and Oregon, they were ‘‘buried’’ in
work to the point where additional overtime was authorized.
She further testified that the only monthly financial statement
she prepared was for Watertower Inn. The other monthly
statements were produced by Wagner & Associates. From
March to May, she had problems getting information for the
monthly statements because the financial data was buried in
some 40 boxes sent back to Sun Prairie. In May, Wagner &
Associates produced a monthly statement but when the ac-
counting materials were returned to other locations, each lo-
cation produced its own financial statement.
On October 24, Ruth Stodola had a negotiating meeting
with Michael Klabacka and Respondent’s attorney, Paul
Hahn. Sometime during that meeting, she asked Michael for
recognition of the Union to represent the office clerical em-
ployees. Respondent’s attorney, Paul Hahn, said he would
get back to her. On Friday, October 26, at 2 p.m., Hahn tele-
phoned Stodola refusing to grant voluntary recognition.
Between 4:15 and 4:30 p.m., the same day, Michael
Klabacka discharged Anita Boedefeld and Florence Vick.
When Boedefeld asked why, he would not give a reason.
Boedefeld asked him why they were not offered other jobs
and Michael Klabacka replied, ‘‘You don’t do that in this sit-
uation.’’ After that, he told her to get her things and leave,
although he did give permission to return the next day to get
her personal items. Vick asked Michael if it was because of
her work and he said no, she was doing a fine job.
Mary Crane was on vacation from October 22 to 28, so
Michael Klabacka drove out to her farm on the evening of
October 26 to tell her she was discharged. He told her Wag-
ner & Associates would be taking over all bookkeeping. She
asked him if Anita and Florence were offered jobs down-
stairs, and Michael replied that they had not been there long
enough and the Company did not owe them anything. She
told him that because she had been with the Company for
21 years, what about her. Michael said there was no account-
ing available. Crane asked about the licensing and bonding
work and Michael Klabacka said he was doing it. She asked
him how long he had known about the terminations and Mi-
chael replied that it had been discussed for 2 weeks but the
final decision was made on October 24.
The next day when Crane and Boedefeld were collecting
their personal items at the school, Mark Klabacka told them
to, ‘‘Get your shit and get the hell out of here’’ in a loud
voice.
It was stipulated and testified to by Mark Klabacka that
from the first of October, and again at the end of November,
ads were placed in newspapers for clerical employees having
bookkeeping and computer experience. He testified that since
September, the Company has hired eight clerical employees.
Robert Klabacka testified that the first time he heard they
had a union problem with the clericals was on October 24.
He further testified that he was interested in getting rid of
his bookkeeping department on July 16 because he was not
receiving the daily cash reports and he was not receiving the
financial statements on time. He was not sure he told his
sons about his intentions.
He also gave as a reason leaks coming out of the book-
keeping department regarding his gambling and how much
money he earned. He stated that he never got a DCR from
the tuition department at Sun Prairie. He later testified that
for 15 years he always received DCRs from Mary Crane, but
all of a sudden, he stopped receiving them. He talked to
Crane frequently on the telephone but he never mentioned
this to her; however, he did talk to Michael Klabacka about
it. He also testified that transferring the accounting function
to Wagner & Associates would save him money. His affi-
davit states that the bookkeepers at Sun Prairie were always
inefficient and unable to produce the work product.
Anthony Klochow testified that he received a telephone
call from Robert Klabacka on October 5, wherein Robert
Klabacka stated he would like to fire the entire bookkeeping
department because they were leaking sensitive information.
Klochow told Robert Klabacka that he had no authority to
take such action but that he would talk to Welsch when he
got back from vacation. Klochow wrote the entire conversa-
tion in a planning memorandum to Welsch. The conversation
and memo did not mention inefficiency, computerization, or
967DIESEL TRUCK DRIVER TRAINING SCHOOL
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
a transfer of the operation to Wagner & Associates. Floyd
Welsch testified when he returned from vacation on October
10, he called Robert Klabacka, who wanted him to discharge
the entire bookkeeping department and take over the oper-
ation by October 12. Welsch said that he couldn’t take over
the entire function that soon so they agreed on October 26
which was the end of the payroll period. He further testified
that he never submitted a written proposal for the job but did
give a verbal bid of 30 hours per week at $30 per hour, the
week of the discharges. Welsch testified that fourth quarter
1990 billings for the accounting job at Sun Prairie were
$25,000 and 1991 billings, not including October were
$50,000.
Jacqueline Stanek, a clerical employee for Respondent
until July 1991, testified that 2 days before the NLRB elec-
tion, Michael Klabacka held a meeting with the clerical em-
ployees. At that meeting he told the clerical employees that
the union would do them no good. That it hadn’t helped the
instructors and it wouldn’t help them. He wanted the
clericals to vote against the Union.
Analysis and Conclusions
I credit Crane, Boedefeld, and Vick because they were
very credible witnesses and their testimony is largely undis-
puted. Where there is a conflict, I credit the above witnesses
over those of Respondent because they appeared to be much
more reliable witnesses. Unlike Respondent’s witnesses, their
testimony was corroborated, consistent, and more believable.
It is my opinion that Respondent never came close to sat-
isfying its Wright Line burden. In short, the evidence con-
vinces me that these women would never have been dis-
charged had the Union not asked for recognition.
Respondent’s reasons for abolishing the accounting depart-
ment just do not stand up to scrutiny. Robert Klabacka stated
that the main reason he wanted to discharge these women
was because they were leaking sensitive information. He of-
fered nothing to substantiate this contention. In fact, the only
evidence offered was by Boedefeld who warned Michael
Klabacka not to send employee wage information by fac-
simile transmission.
He complained about not receiving DCRs but then stated
that he always got them from Crane until he suddenly did
not get them. There was no evidence offered to substantiate
this contention. Further, he never discussed the matter with
Crane or made any allowance for the fact that the accounting
materials were being sent back and forth between locations
so many times that it is wonder he ever received anything.
Mary Crane and Boedefeld testified that they completed this
report and sent it every day until it was either out of their
hands or impossible to do so because the information was
not available. Robert Klabacka also complained about the
monthly financial statements which were the responsibility of
Wagner & Associates. He also stated that he would save
money but no cost analysis was ever submitted to support
this contention.
There is ample evidence that Respondent was opposed to
the Union representing the clerical employees. The timing of
the discharges and the nature of the bid arrangements from
Wagner & Associates are compelling reasons for finding that
Respondent discharged these women because of known
union activity.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the problems at-
tributed to his bookkeeping department were pretextual and
caused by Robert Klabacka. Finally it should be noted that
when the accounting functions transferred away from Sun
Prairie, before any union activity, no one was discharged and
except for one person, the same can be said for Las Vegas.
Furthermore, none of the discharged women were offered
other employment when Respondent was in need of employ-
ees with their experience.
Accordingly, I find that Mary Crane, Florence Vick, and
Anita Boedefeld were discharged because of their union ac-
tivities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Respondent alleges that Mary Crane was a supervisor and
therefore not entitled to vote. I find no credible evidence in
the record to rebut her testimony that she possessed no indi-
cia of supervisory authority. Moreover the evidence supports
a finding that she was not a supervisor after July 16, when
Welsch was made supervisor of the accounting department.
Therefore, I recommend that the ballots of Crane, Vick,
and Boedefeld be open and counted.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Diesel Truck Driver Training School, Inc.
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Drivers, Salesmen, Warehousemen, Milk Processors,
Cannery, Dairy Employees and Helpers Union, Local 695
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. Respondent Diesel Truck violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act by discharging Mary Crane, Florence Vick,
and Anita Boedefeld.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
5. The ballots of Crane, Vick, and Boedefeld should be
opened and counted.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged em-
ployees, it must offer them reinstatement and make them
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed
on a quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of proper
offer of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus
interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended2
968 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
ORDER
The Respondent, Diesel Truck Driver Training School,
Inc., Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee for supporting Teamsters Union, Local 695, or any
other union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Mary Crane, Anita Boedefeld and Florence Vick
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result
of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth
in the remedy section of the decision.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
discharges and notify the employees in writing that this has
been done and that the discharges will not be used against
them in any way.
(c) Open and count the ballots of Crane, Vick, and
Boedefeld.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its facility at Sun Prairie, Wisconsin copies of
the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’3 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
30, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against
any of you for supporting Teamsters Local 695 or any other
union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Mary Crane, Anita Boedefeld, and Florence
Vick immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs
or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed and
WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits resulting from their discharge, less any net in-
terim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL notify each of them that we have removed from
our files any reference to their discharge and that the dis-
charge will not be used against them in any way.
DIESEL TRUCK DRIVER TRAINING SCHOOL, INC.