Eazor Express, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1705 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

EAZOR EXPRESS , INC. 1705
Eazor Express, Inc. and James Ball. Case
9-CA-4551
August 23, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
On June 6, 1968, Trial Examiner Milton Janus is-
sued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the arbitration award upholding the
discharge of James Ball by the Respondent is enti-
tled to deference and recommending that the com-
plaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 General Counsel's
exceptions and supporting brief, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby
orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is,
dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MILTON JANUS, Trial Examiner: The General
Counsel issued his complaint in this proceeding on
February 21, 1968, after a charge filed on
December 13, 1967, by the individual named in the
caption. The complaint alleges that the Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by
discharging James Ball, and thereafter refusing to
reinstate him, because of his membership in, and
172 NLRB No. 201
activities on behalf of, Local Union No. 100, Team-
sters. Respondent's answer denies that it has com-
mitted any unfair labor practice by discharging Ball
or refusing to reinstate him and affirmatively claims
that an arbitration award in its favor should be
deferred to.
I conducted a hearing in this matter at Cincin-
nati, Ohio, on April 10, 1968. Briefs have been
received from the General Counsel and the
Respondent and have been fully considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation
whose principal office is at Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania. It is engaged in the interstate transportation
of freight by truck as a common carrier. During a
recent representative 12-month period, it derived
gross income from its trucking operations in excess
of $50,000 and performed services for various non-
retail enterprises in various States, each of which in
turn annually ships and sells goods valued in excess
of $50,000 directly to points in States other than
that in which it is located. The Respondent admits,
and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local
Union No. 100, an affiliate of International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, referred to
hereafter as Local 100 or the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act, and at
all times material here, was a party to a collective-
bargaining agreement with the Respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
There are two issues in this case, but the second
would need to be reached only if the answer to the
first was unfavorable to the Respondent. The
threshold question is whether the grievance-arbitra-
tion proceeding, which ultimately found that
Respondent's discharge of Ball was justified,
satisfied the standards of fairness and regularity, an
agreement by the parties to be bound, and non-
repugnance to the policies of the Act, which the
Board requires to be met as a condition to paying
deference to an arbitration award. See Spielberg
Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080, 1082. If
these standards have not been satisfied, it would
then be necessary to decide whether Respondent
discharged Ball on August 3, 1967, because of his
militance in presenting a grievance that day, as
354-126 O-LT - 73 - pt. 2 - 36
1706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
claimed by the Genral Counsel, or because he
called and led an unauthorized work stoppage, in
violation of a no-strike contractual provision, as the
Respondent contends.
Several times during the course of the hearing
the Respondent urged me to limit the taking of
evidence solely to the first issue , or, at least, to
admit and consider the evidence relating to the two
issues separately. I refused to restrict the General
Counsel in his presentation of the case, properly I
think, since the answer to whether the Board
should defer to the arbitration panel's decision
necessarily required an evaluation of what the
panel considered the relevant issues to be, and con-
sequently whether its decision was repugnant to the
policies of the Act. I will follow the same procedure
in my Decision, presenting chronologically the
events leading up to the discharge, and the sub-
sequent grievance-arbitration proceeding, at all of
its three stages , although I ultimately conclude that
the arbitration award should be deferred to, thus
making it unnecessary to settle definitively the sub-
stantive merits of the complaint.
A. The Work Stoppage on August 3
Local 100, as an affiliate of the Teamsters Inter-
national, and the Employer, as a member of an em-
ployer's association, were parties to, and bound by,
the National Master Freight Agreement in effect
between April 1, 1967, through March 30, 1970.
The agreement is in evidence as Respondent's
Exhibit 2. Ball was the steward for Local 100
which represented the warehousemen and city
drivers at Respondent's Cincinnati terminal.
There were 12 or 13 employees in the unit, engaged
in warehouse work and local cartage. Respondent's
over-the-road drivers, who are represented by
another Teamsters local, use the terminal as a
staging point on their trips. There were also a
number of clerical and supervisory employees
employed at the Terminal.
On August 3, 1967, Ball, who worked an early
morning shift, was not on duty when a series of in-
cidents occurred which led to his discharge later
that evening. He got two telephone calls from unit
employees that afternoon complaining about
separate matters. As to the first, Ball said there was
nothing to be done about it and, as to the other,
that he would file a grievance on it the next day.
Neither apparently was of sufficient import to
require his going down to the terminal during his
off time. Then, about 7:30 p.m., he was called by
employee Bumgardner, at the request of employee
Randall Smith. Bumgardner told him that super-
visors and clerical employees were loading freight.'
Bumgardner testified in this proceeding that he had
first tried to call some union officials but had been
unable to reach them. After he got Ball on the
telephone, Ball also tried to get in touch with union
business agents but was unsuccessful. According to
Ward, the Cincinnati terminal manager, Ball then
called him at the terminal to learn what was going
on. Ward explained to him why the Company was
using nonunit employees to load freight and urged
him, when Ball said he was coming right down, not
to do so but to file a grievance on it the next day.'
Ball nevertheless came down to the terminal from
his home, reaching it about 8:15 p.m.
The broad outline of what happened during the
next few hours is clear, but on one or two signifi-
cant issues there is sharp disagreement. According
to Ball and to other employees who were then at
the terminal, Ball approached Pastors, Respon-
dent's director of operations, and asked him what
was going on. According to their testimony, Pastors
said he would not talk to Ball about it then and or-
dered him off the dock. When Ball said he wouldn't
leave until the matter was straightened out, Pastors
then fired him, at which point all the unit em-
ployees on duty walked out to protest the
discharge. However, Pastors and Ward, the ter-
minal manager, testified that when Ball approached
them he said something to the effect that their little
play was over and immediately told the employees
to punch out and leave the premises . The em-
ployees did so, thereby starting a work stoppage
that lasted until the following afternoon. At that
time, in response to the Employer's telegrams and
the urging of union officials and Ball , the em-
ployees returned to work.
Returning to the events of August 3, after the
men walked out, one of Respondent's over-the-road
drivers, Ooms, was scheduled to leave the terminal
on his run to Pittsburgh. Pastors instructed him to
drive out, but Ball and two other employees were
standing at the driveway exit. Ooms refused to
drive his truck out. Ooms did not testify in this
proceeding, so I do not know what he would have
said was his true reason for not driving away. Ball,
however, admitted that he had asked Ooms not to
take his truck out, and it is evident from a photo-
graph taken by one of the Employer's clerical em-
ployees that Ball was barring the exit of the truck.
Other witnesses testified, however, that when
Pastors told Ooms to drive out, Ooms began a care-
ful inspection of his truck and, discovering that his
dimmer switch was not working properly, gave that
as a reason for refusing to leave the terminal. Ooms
did not leave that night , although the dimmer
switch was replaced some hours later.
I All parties recognize that performance of unit work by nonunit em-
ployees, under the circumstances present here, was a violation of the bar-
gaining agreement
' The Employer claims that it used nonunrt employees to load freight for
about a half hour that night in order to meet some unforeseen demands of
its customers to get certain loads out that night and its inability to recall
certain unit employees who had already left work There is substance to
Respondent 's explanation for its violation of the agreement although I do
not presume to decide what its obligation to the Union was under these cir-
cumstances
EAZOR EXPRESS, INC.
In the meantime , O'Banion , a business agent of
Local 100, arrived on the scene , and he and Ball
spoke with Pastors about getting the dispute settled.
Pastors said he would take everyone back except
Ball. About 11:30 p.m., Respondent sent individual
telegrams to all the employees who had walked out,
except Ball, advising them that they were engaged
in an illegal work stoppage and instructing them to
report the next day at their regular starting time. To
Ball, it sent a telegram discharging him because he
had taken unauthorized strike action in violation of
the contract.
To complete my recital of the August 3 stoppage
and surrounding events , two additional points are
to be noted : ( 1) Ball's admission that he had once
before been warned that he would be discharged if
he should ever again be involved in a walkout, and
(2) that four or five dock employees filed a
grievance requesting 8 hours ' pay at regular time
because of the work they lost when nonunit em-
ployees loaded freight on August 3 and that the
grievance panel , at the local level, awarded them 2
hours ' pay at overtime rates for the work they had
been deprived of.
B. The Grievance-Arbitration Proceedings
Ball promptly filed the following grievance with
Local 100 over his discharge:
On Thursday night , August 3, 1967, I was at
home and received a call from one of the em-
ployees that there were supervisors working on
the dock at Eazor Express . I went to service a
complaint, when I walked on the dock I was
approached by Mr. Pastor , personnel manager,
and he informed me that I had no business on
Eazor's property and informed me that I was
fired and to leave the property immediately
which I did and all of the other employees fol-
lowed me off the dock. At no time did I ask
any one to walk off the dock.
I am asking to be returned to work with full
seniority and pay for all time lost.
Local 100 presented the grievance for considera-
tion by the Cincinnati Local Joint Grievance Com-
mittee at a meeting held on August 11, 1967, at
Fort Mitchell , Kentucky , which is within the Cin-
cinnati metropolitan area . The committee is a
bipartite tribunal consisting of five union and five
employer association representatives . Neither
Pastors nor Ward were among the employer
representatives.
Before reciting the deliberations and results of
this or the next two grievance-arbitration
proceedings (referred to from now on as the ar-
bitration ) certain preliminary matters can be
1707
properly disposed of now . First , all three arbitra-
tions were bipartite ; that is , no third party acted as
impartial umpire . The lack of an impartial arbiter,
however , does not in itself mean that the
proceedings are inherently unfair under the stan-
dards set by Spielberg .3 Secondly , the General
Counsel does not contend that the Union failed to
represent Ball honestly or to the best of its ability,
nor does he suggest that the Union and the Em-
ployer " ganged up " to sacrifice Ball's interests to
some opposing interest of their own.' There is
nothing in the record to suggest that the Union had
any other motive than its natural one of protecting
and defending one of its stewards who had been
discharged for prosecuting an employee grievance.
Ball was notified of the first proceeding , that on
August 11 at Fort Mitchell , and attended the ses-
sion . The panel first considered the grievance of the
Eazor employees over work lost because of the use
of nonunit employees and, as noted previously,
awarded them 2 hours' pay at overtime rates. It
then proceeded to the question of Ball 's discharge.
According to the transcribed minutes of this
proceeding , in evidence as Respondent 's Exhibit 4,
Ball's grievance statement was read . Barnes, 0'-
Banion , and Starling , all Local 100 officials, then
spoke, filling in the grievance statement with
further details . Ball then spoke, saying that he had
come onto the dock after 8.p.m. and had asked
Pastors why he was working office people and that
Pastors wouldn 't answer him . Cletus Smith, a dock
employee who had walked out with the others, then
said that when Ball had come on the dock there
were quite a few words said back and forth but that
Ball had not told them to walk off their jobs.
Pastors then explained that he had been unable
to get any unit employees to come in when he had
some extra trailers to load , that was why he had put
nonunit employees to do it , but that he had taken
them off that work when Cletus Smith spoke to him
about it . Pastors went on to say that when Ball
came to the dock, the nonunit employees were no
longer working the trailer , but that Ball had told the
dock employees to leave; that Cletus Smith told
Ball that the Company had agreed to talk about the
contract violation later but that Ball ordered Smith
not to talk back to him and to get the hell off the
dock . Pastors' statement continued with a recital of
Ball's blocking the driveway and the arrival of the
police. He concluded by saying that when O'Banion
got there and spoke to the men , he admitted to
Pastors that they were wrong and that there had
been a misunderstanding . O'Banion had then asked
Pastors to put them all back to work, but Pastors
refused to take Ball back.
The minutes then show the following questions
and answers, comments, and disposition:
' Denver-Chu ago Truexcng Company , Inc , 132 NLRB 1416, and Modern
Motor Exprev +, Inc , 149 NLRB 1507
' Cf Roada ay Erpremv , Inc , 145 NLRB 513
1708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. How many men were working when Ball
came on the dock?
A. Four.
Q. Did everyone leave the dock when Ball
left?
A. Yes, they all left.
Q. Mr. Ball, what did you tell the men when
you came on the dock?
A. Nothing.
Q. Did you tell the men that they might get
in trouble by walking off?
A. No.
Q. Are you aware of the contract provisions
regarding this?
A. Yes.
BARNES: On Friday Ball was telling the men
to go back to work.
MOTION: Claim of the Union be upheld.
DEADLOCKED: Referred to Ohio Joint State
Committee.
The Ohio Joint State Committee met on August
16, 1967, at Columbus, Ohio. The Employer was
represented by two of its officials and Crowley, one
of its office employees was also there. The Union
was represented by Barnes and O' Banion. Ball was
not present at the Columbus proceeding because he
had been told by Barnes and Starling, president of
Local 100, that the hearing was to be held on
Thursday, August 17, instead of the date it had ac-
tually been scheduled for, August 16. No evidence
was presented which would even tend to show that
the mixup in dates was deliberate or that it was
done to keep Ball from attending the proceeding. It
was, for all that appears, an inadvertent error, but it
did cause Ball to miss the session which he would
otherwise have attended.
The minutes of this Committee's deliberations
are in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 5. The
Union's statement sets out the background and the
admitted use of nonunit employees on the dock on
August 3 and then states its position on the merits
of Ball's discharge as follows:
J. Ball, the Steward, came to the terminal in
response to a phone call. He asked to discuss
the matter of the supervisors working, but Mr.
Pastors refused to discuss the matter, then
discharged Ball. The other men then walked
out at 8:36 p.m. The men returned to work the
following day at 2:30 p.m. which is less than 24
hours. During this period Ball asked the other
employees to return to work but they would
not return without Ball .... We ask that Ball
be returned to work with full seniority and paid
for all time lost.
A statement of the Employer follows, setting out
its version of the incident, to the effect that as soon
5 The article , in pertinent part, states that stewards have no authority to
take strike action or to interrupt the Employer 's business , except as
authorized by official action of the local union The Employer is permitted
to discipline , including discharge . stewards who have taken unauthorized
as Ball came on the dock he had announced that he
was closing the dock down and had told the em-
ployees to leave. Later, the Employer made the fol-
lowing points: that no supervisor was working in the
trailers when Ball arrived, that the dispute should
have been handled through the grievance
procedure specified in the contract, and that Ball
was discharged under the provisions of article 4 of
the agreement.5
The committee voted, a deadlock resulted, and
the matter was then referred to the Central States
Joint Area Committee. That Committee met in
Chicago, Illinois , between September 19 and 21,
1967. O'Banion of the Union got in touch with Ball
and gave him the correct date and place for the
meeting . Ball, however, was then working only part
time and told O'Banion that he did not have the
money or any way to get to Chicago. According to
Ball, O'Banion then said that the Union had all the
facts and that it really wouldn't be necessary for
Ball to be there.
The minutes of the Chicago meeting are in
evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 6. The discharge
is stated to be in violation of article 44,8 There were
an equal number of union and employer association
representatives present. The Union's statement
reiterated its claim that Ball had asked Pastors to
discuss the loading of freight by nonunit employees
as soon as he got to the terminal and that Pastors
had refused to do so and had then discharged him.
The Employer's statement repeated its claim that
when Ball arrived he had said he was closing the
terminal down and had told the other employees to
leave. Barnes and Pastors then spoke, repeating in
large measure what their written statements con-
tained. Pastors also read into the record a telegram
it had received from the Union, apparently on Au-
gust 4, stating that the work stoppage at the Cincin-
nati terminal was not authorized by Local 100 or
the International and disavowing any responsibility
for the stoppage.
The Employer then presented Ward and
Crowley, nonunit employees who had been on the
dock when Ball got there on August 3, as witnesses.
Both stated that Ball had refused to heed Cletus
Smith who was trying to tell him that Pastors had
already agreed to discuss the grievance later and
that Ball had ordered Smith to leave the dock area
immediately.
Barnes, for the Union, then offered some
evidence as to when unit employees had quit work
that day in an attempt to show that it was the Com-
pany's fault that there were not enough unit em-
ployees on hand when the others were ordered to
load freight in violation of the agreement. The
panel chairman then asked Barnes what he had to
strike action or engaged in an unauthorized slowdown or work stoppage
' The article, in pertinent part , prohibits the discharge or suspension of
employees without dust cause and requires at least one warning notice be-
fore such action is taken
EAZOR EXPRESS , INC. 1709
say about Ball's action , and Barnes responded that
he would say what Ball had said in his grievance
statement-he had not called the employees out,
but, when Pastors told him he was fired, the men
followed him off the dock. A few minutes later,
Barnes repeated his argument that the Company
had brought the walkout on itself by its violation of
the agreement in using nonunit employees, instead
of holding over unit employees who had been per-
mitted to leave before 7 p.m. A panel member then
asked Barnes , rhetorically it seems , whether there
was a grievance procedure. Barnes agreed that
there was but that Ball had not called a wildcat
strike.
The panel then went into executive session, and,
when the parties were recalled, the panel an-
nounced its decision. It was to deny the Union's
claim and to uphold the discharge.
C. Concluding Findings
It is by now so well established as to make the
citation of cases superfluous that the Board is not
precluded from adjudicating unfair labor practice
charges even though they might have been the sub-
ject of an arbitration proceeding and award. It is
equally well established that the Board has con-
siderable discretion to respect an arbitration award
and to decline the exercise of its authority over al-
leged unfair labor practices, since in doing so it en-
courages parties to resort to collective bargaining,
and to the settlement of their disputes under
procedures which they have specifically designed to
that end. Thus, the Board voluntarily withholds its
authority to adjudicate alleged unfair labor prac-
tices involving the same subject matter unless the
arbitration proceedings are shown to have been
tainted by fraud, collusion, unfairness, or serious
procedural irregularities, or unless the award is
clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of
the Act.
The General Counsel contends in this case that
the Board should not defer to the award of the Cen-
tral States Joint Area Committee, which held that
Ball's discharge was justified under the contract.
The reason given for nondeference is that the ar-
bitration proceedings were not fair or regular
because Ball was not present at the Columbus or
Chicago hearings, and because of other procedural
irregularities alleged to have taken place at the
Chicago hearing.
My summaries of the three separate hearings in-
dicate that there was one paramount issue, and that
the answer to that issue was to be dispositive of the
arbitration. The issue was whether Ball had caused
the walkout of the other employees, in defiance of
his obligation as steward to refrain from
unauthorized stoppages, or whether the walkout
was a spontaneous reaction to Pastors' alleged
discharge of Ball. The employer and union state-
ments of facts and position return again and again
to this point. At the first hearing, when Ball was
present, he was asked what he had told the men
when he came on the dock, and he repeated what
his grievance statement said, that he had not asked
the men to walk off. I think it is fair to assume that
if Ball had attended the Columbus or Chicago
hearings, he would have given that answer to the
same key question. At the first two hearings, the
union representatives chose to believe, and the em-
ployer representatives chose not to believe, his
story. At the final arbitration hearing, the one of
last resort, no one chose to believe him, in full
knowledge of the prior proceedings. It does not
seem likely to me, in such circumstances, that Ball's
presence, either at Columbus or Chicago, would
have produced any different results or that an oral
answer to an oral question would have swayed the
panel.
But as I understand the General Counsel's argu-
ment, it is not only that the grievant's presence or
absence may affect the hearing, it is , more basi-
cally, that unless a grievant is present at every stage
of the arbitration proceedings, the entire procedure
is thereby rendered unfair and irregular. I think
neither principle nor precedent supports so far-
sweeping a claim . It is true that when grievants
have been present at an arbitration hearing, the
Board has mentioned that fact as buttressing a find-
ing of fairness and regularity. When the grievant
has not been present, however, the more basic
question has had to be answered, that is, whether
the grievant was honestly and adequately
represented by someone purporting to speak for
him.7 Here, Ball was represented by his Union
which urged on the various panels his claim that he
had not called a walkout. Ball did not seek to be
represented by independent counsel, and never
complained that the Union's representation was un-
fair or inadequate.
I find, based on the foregoing, that the award of
the Chicago panel was not invalidated by the fact
that Ball had not been present. As for the Colum-
bus panel, it seems clear from the fact that the
panel was deadlocked, that Ball's absence had not
foreclosed his claim.
The other alleged procedural irregularities relate
to the Chicago hearing, at which the Employer
called witnesses who confirmed orally what the Em-
ployer already claimed-that Ball had called the
dock employees out when Pastors refused to
discuss the grievance with him immediately. The
'Compare Spielberg Manufacturing Company. 112 NLRB 1080, where
three of the four grievants appeared in person, and the Board found the
proceeding fair and regular , with International Harvester Company, 138
NLRB 923, affd sub nom Ramsey v N L R B, 327 F 2d 784 (C A 7),
where the Board also found the proceeding fair and regular even though
the grievant had not been present The cases are easily reconciled , since in
both cases the grievant 's interests had been adequately and honestly
represented by his own counsels or by one of the parties Where he is not so
represented , the grievant 's presence at the hearing does not automatically
stamp the proceeding as fair and regular Star Espancton Induur,e.+ Cor-
poration , 164 NLRB 563
1710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer was also permitted to read into the
record the statement of an unidentified witness who
claimed to have overheard the conversation
between Ball and Cletus Smith , which was merely
cumulative to the statements the Employer had
been offering at all three hearings . The General
Counsel notes that the Union did not call any wit-
nesses at the Chicago hearing , arguing therefrom
that the proceeding was not fair and regular since it
was not based on testimonial evidence from all the
parties.
I find no merit in these additional allegations of
procedural irregularities. An arbitration hearing is
neither a judicial nor a quasi -judicial hearing, sub-
ject to testimonial rules and restrictions which are
in many cases designed to narrow and focus the is-
sues to what is germane , relevant , and material. It
is, as here , often expedited , summary , and strange
sounding to lawyers' ears . But that is not to say that
the procedure here was in any way offensive to a
basic sense of fair play or that the result reached
was untrustworthy simply because it was an-
nounced without explanation or rationale . Exper-
tise takes many forms , and men familiar with the
trucking industry may be as well qualified to judge
whether the dock employees walked out without
Ball first giving them the nod , even without looking
Ball in the eye , as I who had the benefit of observ-
ing his demeanor.
I find that the arbitration proceedings in Ball's
case were fair and regular , and that there is no
reason why the Board should not defer to the deci-
sion of the Chicago committee. It is thus unnecessa-
ry to decide the substantive merits of the com-
plaint ," and I therefore recommend that the com-
plaint be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Eazor Express , Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce and in activities affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Helpers Local
Union No. 100 , an affiliate of International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , is a labor
orgainzation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. The arbitration award upholding the discharge
of James Ball by the Respondent is entitled to
deference.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is hereby recommended that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety.
"Denver-Chicago TruAacg Compam . Inc , 132 NLRB 1416, Inlerna-
nonal Harvester Company , 138 NLRB 923, and Modern Motor Lrprecc,
Inc, 149 NLRB 1507