Don Swart Trucking Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 1345 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

DON SWART TRUCKING CO., INC. 1345
Don Swart Trucking Co., Inc. and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, General Teamsters Local No. 428. Case No. 6-CA-3260-
September 10,1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 23, 1965, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding; finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and
reconimendmg that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exami-
ner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Brown and Zagoria].
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 the case, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions,3 and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.4
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
'The Respondent ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record, in-
cluding the exceptions and brief , adequately presents the issues and the positions of
the parties.
'In addition to the cogent reasons assigned by the Trial Examiner which establish
Respondent 's knowledge of Robinson ' s union activities , we further find that in a plant
like the present one, which has about 18 drivers , it is also reasonable to infer that the
information as to the dischargee's union activities came to the attention of the Respond-
ent because of the smallness of the plant . ( See Quest-Shon Mark Brassiere Co, Inc.,
80 NLRB 1149, 1150, enfd. 185 F 2d 285 (C.A. 2), cert. denied 342 U.S. 812 )
3 We find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner , that the low pressure in the tires of
the truck driven by Robinson was not a reason for Robinson 's discharge We do not
rely, however , on the Trial Examiner ' s finding that Robinson was sent to the office be-
fore the matter of the air in the tires was mentioned , which is not supported by the record
4 Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formulas and methods prescribed
by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 , and the assessment of interest
shall be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing and Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716.
154 NLRB No. 115.
2 0 6-4 4 G-G G-v o f 15 4--8 G
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner , and orders
that the Respondent , Don Swart Trucking Co., Inc., Wellsburg, West
Virginia, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner ' s Recommended Order with the
following modification :
1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b) to the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, the present paragraph 2(b) and those subse-
quent thereto being consecutively renumbered :
"(b) Notify the above -named employee , if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States, 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."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A hearing in the above-entitled proceeding was held before Trial Examiner
Thomas A. Ricci on May 19, 1965, at Wellsburg, West Virginia, on complaint of
the General Counsel against Don Swart Trucking Co., Inc., herein called the
Respondent or the Company . The principal issue is whether the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Briefs were filed by both the General Counsel and the
Respondent after the close of the hearing.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Don Swart Trucking Co., Inc., a West Virginia corporation , has its principal office
in Wellsburg, West Virginia, where it is engaged in the hauling business. During the
12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the charge, the Respondent
received in excess of $200,000 for services in connection with transporting material
across State lines, to and from the State of West Virginia. I find that the Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, General Teamsters Local No. 428, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
The sole issue in this case is whether the evidence of record supports the complaint
allegation that the Respondent discharged Richard Robinson on February 4, 1965,
because he solicited fellow employees to join the Union . The defense advances
affirmatively that he was released because he was an undesirable employee.
Robinson, a truckdriver, worked for this Company from 1957 through January
1963, when he left voluntarily. He was rehired in July 1964 and worked con-
tinuously thereafter until his dismissal the following February. During his interval
absence he was used once or twice only for a day or so to drive a truck, but not as a
regular employee.
The Wellsburg, West Virginia, terminal where Robinson worked consists of a
garage, a sand and gravel yard, and the company office. From 16 to 18 drivers
report here , all congregating each morning in or near the yard to receive their day's
assignments , to check the condition of their trucks, and to fuel their vehicles. They
DON SWART TRUCKING CO., INC. 1347
spend from 30 to 45 minutes there before leaving to deliver materials from the yard,
or to go to other locations where they work all day away from the terminal. In
addition to delivering building material of its own, the Company sends its trucks to
make pickups from and deliveries to locations elsewhere, sometimes in nearby towns,
and sometimes at steel producing properties. The company manager said that about
90 percent of the total work performed consists of hauling aggregate, and that the
drivers as a group are away from the terminal on their work duties for about 60
percent of the time. In the evening each man returns his truck to the garage, com-
pletes certain Interstate Commerce Commission reports on the basis of his trip
tickets for the day, and departs.
During the period January 1963 to July 1964, while Robinson worked elsewhere,
he was a member of another local of the Teamsters and was covered by union con-
tract; the Respondent was aware of this fact , for when he was rehired James Swart,
the terminal manager and son of the owner , suggested that he obtain a withdrawal
card from that union. On about January 21, 1965, Robinson communicated with
Anthony Zolgus, business agent of Local 428 of the Teamsters, by telephone, and
discussed the possibility of organizing the Respondent's drivers; Local 428, its offices
in nearby Steubenville, has jurisdiction over this area. The two planned to meet
and eventually did so on Saturday , January 30 , at a certain cafe in Steubenville,
where Zolgus gave Robinson a supply of applications for membership in the Union
for use in organizing the truckdrivers; Robinson signed one himself then and there.
The following Wednesday, February 4, about 5 p.m., when Robinson returned to
the yard at the end of his regular work away from the terminal, he was summarily
discharged. He went to the local's office the next morning, delivered two signed
applications he had succeeded in soliciting, and then proceeded to the Board office
in Pittsburgh to file the unfair labor practice charge upon which this complaint is
based.
Robinson spoke to a number of drivers after his telephone talk with Zolgus and
before meeting him at the cafe on the 30th. He discussed the Union with Smith in
the garage, and tried to prevail upon him to sign; Smith did not do so, although he
accepted a card at the moment. Karl Bitzer, another driver, told Robinson he
would sign "if 99 percent went union." Robinson also solicited Sonny Malson,
apparently without success. On Monday, February 1, when he had the membership
cards, Robinson spoke to driver Earl Boyd in the terminal garage, asked him to sign,
and Bovd did so. That same day, while driving his truck at the Weirton Mills, he
solicited Glen Gibson, and obtained another signature. Also before the discharge-
"a week, a week and-a-half" according to the testimony of driver Millard Williams-
Robinson solicited him "trying to get the fellows over and organize," but without
success.
There is no direct evidence that at the moment of discharge the Respondent knew
Robinson had been urging the drivers to join the Union. When Don Swart, the owner,
released him there was no mention of union or organizational activities in so many
words. To further support the inference urged by the complaint-that the Swarts
did know of Robinson's activities-there is the testimony of Gibson, still employed
by the Company at the time of the hearing. Gibson recalled that about 5 p.m. on
the last day that Robinson worked for the Company, James Swart asked him
" . if anybody ever approached me ... about the signing, about joining a union "
Gibson candidly conceded he could not be sure whether Swart had spoken to him
thusly before or after Robinson had been discharged, because, as he said, he did
not see Robinson at all that evening, or indeed ever thereafter at the Company's
premises. He was certain, however, and restated the fact several times despite very
pointed cross-examination, that on the day of the inquiry by James Swart he had
seen Robinson at the garage in the morning and departing for his regular day's
assignment.
James Swart testified before Gibson, and although he heard all the testimony, did
not thereafter offer to contradict Gibson. I credit Gibson. The manager denied
having spoken of the Union to any employees before discharging Robinson; he said
he first learned of any union activities at all by any employee when served with a
copy of the charge, certainly not before February 6, for it was filed on the 5th.
He insisted he could not recall having spoken of the Union with any employees even
after receiving notice of the charge. On the witness stand he was then shown his
earlier affidavit to a Board agent dated March 3, 1965, where he said: "I talked to
just about all of the employees after receiving the charge. I asked them what they
knew about the Union because I did not understand what the charge was about."
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Asked again did he now recall talking of the Union with any employees, he persisted
in his story that he could not recall. For this, and for the reasons that will appear
below, I do not credit James Swart.'
Against all of the foregoing, strongly suggesting that Robinson's discharge bore a
causal relationship to his solicitation of union membership among the drivers, the
Respondent offered the following evidence intended to prove that the reason for the
termination had nothing to do with the man's union activities. Variously phrased
this defense is an assertion that he was recalcitrant and personally obnoxious to
James Swart, the terminal manager.
The evidence consists almost entirely of the testimony of James, the manager, who
said it was he who eventually recommended discharge to his father, Don, the owner.
Don Swart conceded, while testifying about his conversations with his son, that all
he really knew about Robinson's worth was what the son had reported, the owner
said he spends only part of his time at this one of his several business locations,
and then mostly doing office work.
The manager testified that Robinson had long been a satisfactory workman and
that this is why he had been rehired in 1964, that his performance remained
"acceptable" "until recently," when Swart noticed "he was slipping . he wasn't
doing his job properly, . . . there seemed to be something wrong with him." In like
general terms the manager said he had on "a number of occasions" talked about
Robinson's deficiencies with his father, ". . . maybe a couple of months before.
the driver's posted assignment for that day, it seems the scheduled run was not as
desirable for Robinson as another he might have received. The manager said the
driver complained of the assignment, the driver said the manager started the talk by
asking did he like the run or prefer another However the discussion started, it is
clear the two men became angry, they talked perhaps "5 or 10 minutes" on the dock,
Maybe a month, it is hard to say for sure "
In more definitive language the manager listed a number of incidents which he
said underlay the conclusion as to the driver's overall undesirability. About 2 weeks
before the discharge-on January 21-he and Robinson had heated words about
and their raised voices were heard by others. Robinson then went to woi k in
accordance with the assignment as posted. Neither the manager nor anyone else
in the Company ever thereafter mentioned the incident to him.
Among the things that must be checked each morning by the drivers as they
examine and prepare their trucks for the day is the air pressure in the tires James
Swart testified that during the last 2 weeks of Robinson's employment-this would
be precisely between the January 21 tiff about the assignment and the February 4
discharge-he noticed "on three occasions" that the man did not check his tire pres-
sure in the morning. He said that ordinarily Robinson spent 30 to 45 minutes at
the garage each morning, that he did not "watch him all of the 45 minutes," and
that it was "not likely" Robinson could have checked his tires while the manager was
not looking. Swart also admitted he did not bring any of these asserted errors to
Robinson's attention. Another fault of the driver related by the manager was that
on one occasion, in the cold of winter, Robinson complained about hauling sand,
because it froze in the open truck body and required considerable shovel work to
dislodge it upon delivery so that the sand would flow out of the truck. James Swart
also testified vaguely that there came a time, "a couple of weeks" before the dis-
charge, when Robinson was late getting to work because of "personal problems"
at home.
When Robinson returned to the garage at the end of his day's work on February 4,
James Swart sent him into the office to see his father and to be discharged. There is
a variance in the testimony of the two men as to the precise sequence of events that
night. According to Robinson the first thing Swart did was ask him for the daily
trip reports and then immediately take them into the office; Swart then emerged from
1 There is a more startling conflict between sworn oral testimony and written affidavit
in this case. George Smith, who tore up the first card he received from Robinson but
signed another a few days after Robinson was discharged, stated, in an affidavit he
signed on March 3: "Although Robinson was still employed, Jim Swart asked me if anyone
had asked me to join a union. I believe that happened on Robinson's last day I told
him I did not know anything about it. He never mentioned the Union again "
From the witness stand at the bearing Smith denied Swart ever mentioned the Union
to him. Confronted with his affidavit, which he admitted having signed, he said either
the investigating Board agent had made a "mistake" or he, Smith, had not "read it right "
He insisted all he had said was that "many drivers had talked it over about the Union
Smith having rejected his own affidavit, I make no affirmative finding of fact based upon
his signed statement.
DON SWART TRUCKING CO., INC. 1349
the office with a tire gage and checked Robinson's tires, two of which he found
lower in pressure than required. It was at this point, after checking the tires, that,
according to Robinson, the manager told him to see his father
As James Swart recalled it, the first thing he did when Robinson arrived was to
check the tires, and when he found two of them low, he asked for the trip tickets and
went to the office. After this, he said, he returned to Robinson and sent him into
the office to his father.
The most significant question in the air during the hearing was why the Respondent
chose this particular day to discharge Robinson if in fact he had for weeks-even
months, as the manager said at one point-been unsatisfactory and insolent, going
about "with a chip on his shoulder." The manager admitted he had "no further
complaints" from the man after January 21, and there is no assertion of any other
provocation that could explain the choice of day or moment for discharge in the
middle of the workweek. If the manager indeed sent Robinson to the office after
finding the tire pressure low, the defense of discharge for cause would appear more
persuasive. If instead he took the trip tickets out of the man's hands immediately
upon his arrival-tickets which ordinarily are used each evening by the driver to
fill in reports for the day-and only checked the tires after the man had been sent
into the office for discharge, it would follow necessarily that the business of the low
toes had nothing to do with the decision to terminate the driver. In the light of
the record as a whole, James Swart's demeanor on the stand, and particularly the
evidence of what the father said to Robinson only a few minutes later, I do not
credit the manager, and I find, as Robinson testified, that he was sent to the office
before the matter of the air in the tires was mentioned at all.
When Robinson entered the office Don Swart had his check ready in an envelope;
the amount included 2 weeks' pay for the period ending the preceding Friday, plus
wages for the split week ending with and including that very day. Robinson's testi-
mony of his talk with the owner is as follows: "Well, he gave me the envelope,
and I asked him what was wrong, I didn't know at first, you know, and well, he said,
`you are just causing too much trouble,' and he says, `this company can operate better
without you, than I could without them,' and he called me a prick, so I asked him.
I says, `is that the way you want it,' and he said, `yes,' and I went on home."
Don Swart, called by the Respondent in defense, said that his son had long been
complaining of Robinson, that in his opinion a driver should be more attentive and
better behaved, and denied any knowledge of union activity until after February 4,
he did not refer to the discharge conversation at all. If, as the Respondent now
contends, Robinson's past behavior was the cause of his dismissal, with the manager's
discovery that very evening of a further incident in a long series of careless matten-
tions to tire pressure the immediate last straw to strain the Company's patience,
the owner would surely have said something about the incident, or at least about the
past failings of the man. Instead he offered the highly ambiguous phrase "causing
too much trouble," and called the man a dirty name, hardly warranted in a sub-
stantial businessman annoyed only by low pressure in a tire or two And the final
paycheck was ready before Robinson reached the office, further indication that the
discharge decision had been made before Robinson returned to the garage that
evening.
The manager's implied assertion-at the hearing -that it was the belated dis-
covery of the low pressure in two tires on February 4 that triggered the discharge is
thus clearly an afterthought and not persuasive. In like fashion the Respondent's
entire affirmative contention that Robinson's misconduct generally was the motivat-
ing cause of the dismissal is not supported by convincing proof. Although Robinson
had words with the manager about his particular assignment on January 21, he did
not disobey instructions; he worked as directed. And management never spoke to
him about the matter again. Earlier in the winter Robinson complained of having
to deliver sand instead of looser construction material, there is uncontradicted testi-
mony that other employees voiced the same complaints in cold weather, with no
one being disciplined because of the grievance. It was also shown that the manager
has often found other tires in trucks lower than normal, but no one appears to have
been discharged in consequence. It is also difficult to believe that the manager saw
Robinson "two or three times" fail to check his tires in the morning, for he admitted
he said nothing about the man's alleged neglect. Indeed the manager was not really
sure Robinson had not checked the pressure; there were 16 to 18 men and they
congregated at the garage for as long as 45 minutes. The manager added: "It would
be pretty hard for me to watch them all." Millard Williams, another driver, testified
he heard the raised voices while Robinson and James Swart were arguing over the
day's assignment, but that he did not hear what was said because "I was too busy
complaining about the ones I was on."
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
More significant than all this is James Swart's repeated statement that Robinson
had for some time acted insolently toward him. "After we had this argument .. .
I wanted to see if he was doing his job properly . I was kind of keeping an eye
on him . . . he seemed to have a chip on his shoulder . . . in a nonchalant way, he
didn't seem to care about his work." The manager even said that between January 21
and the discharge "we just avoided each other " After this general testimony by
Swart, Robinson was called in rebuttal and testified precisely, and without contradic-
tion, that some time after the incident of the work assignment the manager one day
was leaving the office for a haircut, during working hours, invited Robinson along
to keep him company, and the two of them spent some time together at the barber-
shop while the manager was being serviced. Robinson added that on another occa-
sion, still during the critical period, he needed to buy coal for emergency use at
home, asked Swart as a favor for permission to leave his work, and was permitted
to do so. If this was the relationship between the two men I cannot believe the
manager's testimony that they were not on speaking terms and that he was virtually
biding his time to get rid of the driver. Rather, what it means is that whatever failings
Robinson may have manifested were not of such aggravated character as to give rise
to serious discharge considerations until the very time the action was taken. But
the only activity by Robinson appearing during the last few days preceding the
dismissal is the union activity described above.
On the record in its entirety I find that the Respondent discharged Robinson when
it did because he urged employees toward collective bargaining and solicited them to
join the Union. There is no other logical explanation for the sudden action in the
middle of a workweek, with no advance warning or notice to the employee and with
the dismissing officer failing to voice, when asked by Robinson, any coherent or
intelligible reason for his decision. The driver had for years been a satisfactory and
desirable workman, and the reason now advanced by the Respondent to explain his
quick termination rings hollow. That the Swarts were opposed to any union is
evidenced by the manager's request to Robinson, when rehired in 1964, that he with-
draw from the local he had joined while employed elsewhere. A month or two
after Robinson's return in July 1964, Williams, who had been hired in August of
that year, explained his prior employment problems to the two Swarts; one of them
told him in that conversation that the business was not substantial enough "for the
company to pay union, or to be organized." Moreover, Gibson's credited testimony,
that on the very evening of Robinson's discharge the terminal manager asked whether
he had been approached to join the Union, shows that at the very time of the dis-
missal management was in fact concerned with contemporary union activities among
the drivers. Only Robinson was so engaged and only Robinson was discharged. In
his brief counsel for the Respondent correctly argues that a subsidiary finding of
knowledge in the employer concerning union activities is a prerequisite for any
ultimate conclusion of illegal discrimination in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act. In this instance that finding is an inference arising from the total circumstan-
tial evidence on the record as a whole.
I conclude that the Respondent discharged Robinson on February 4, 1965, because
of his activities in soliciting union membership among his fellow employees, and
thereby violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.2
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set out in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operation of the Respondent set out 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 commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has committed certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and to
take certain affirmative action designed to dissipate its effect. Richard Robinson was
still in discharge status at the time of the hearing; the Respondent must therefore be
ordered to reinstate him to his former or equivalent position, and to make him whole
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered because of the illegal discrimination
against him in his employment. Any money that is due pursuant to this Order must
be paid with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum. In view of the nature of
the unfair labor practice committed the commission of similar and other unfair
2 Wiese Plow Welding Co., Inc., 123 NLRB 616.
DON SWART TRUCKING CO., INC. 1351
labor practices reasonably may be anticipated. I shall therefore recommend that
the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon
the rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By discharging Richard Robinson on February 4, 1965, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor practice affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, I recommend that the Respondent, Don Swart Trucking Co.,
Inc,, Wellsburg, West Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees because of their
exercise of the right to self-organization, or to join labor organizations.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, General Teamsters Local No. 428, or any other labor orga-
nization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activity for the purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to retrain from
any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer Richard Robinson immediate and full reinstatement to his former or
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, with interest at the
rate of 6 percent per annum on any amount due.
(b) 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 records and reports, and all records rlecessaiy to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(c) Post at its place of business at Wellsburg, West Virginia, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 6, shall, after being duly signed by the Respond-
ent's representative, be posted by Respondent 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. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith .4
S If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and
Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner"
in the notice. 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 words "a Decision
and Order".
4 If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership by any of our employees in Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, General Teamsters Local No. 428, or in any other labor organization,
by discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment or any other term or condition of employment.
WE WILL offer Richard Robinson immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and we will make him whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or
assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or
all such activity.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining, members of any labor organization.
DON SWART TRUCKING CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States 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.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1536
Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Telephone No.
644-2977.
Tom Johnson , Inc. and Will E. Hoskins
Tom Johnson , Inc. and Painters Union Local No. 567, Brother-
hood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers of America,
AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 20-CA-2663 and 20-CA-2724-1-2. Sep-
tember 20, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 6, 1964, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his decision
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommend-
ing that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in
154 NLRB No. 109.