Floyd & Beasley Transfer Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 13, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 410 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Floyd & Beasley Transfer Company, Inc. and Truck
Drivers and Helpers Local Union Number 728, Af-
filiated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of
America . Case 10-CA-6817
September 13, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On June 12, 1967, Trial Examiner Arthur M.
Goldberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He
further found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint and recommended dismissal of those al-
legations of the complaint. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Decision and supporting briefs.
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 exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner. I
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 or-
ders that the Respondent, Floyd & Beasley
Transfer Company, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, its of-
ficer, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.2
I While not in total agreement with the Trial Examiner's reasoning, we
are persuaded, as he was, that the Respondent utilized Helton's un-
willingness to volunteer for overtime work as a pretext to discharge him
because of his union activities In reaching this conclusion, we rely on the
following The relative inoffensiveness of Helton's conduct, considering
its nature and extent, the Respondent's union-directed animosity, its un-
lawful conduct found herein which violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and
the fact that part of such unlawful conduct was directed specifically
toward Helton, who was known to the Respondent as the leader of its em-
ployees' union activities
z Delete from paragraph 2(d) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order that part thereof which reads "to be furnished" and substitute
therefor "on forms provided "
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR M. GOLDBERG, Trial Examiner: Upon an
amended charge filed on February 10, 1967, by Truck
Drivers and Helpers Local Union Number 728, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (herein
called the Union or the Teamsters), complaint issued on
February 21, 1967, alleging that Floyd & Beasley
Transfer Company, Inc. (herein called the Company or
the Respondent), had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein
called the Act). The alleged 8(a)(1) conduct consisted of
various threats to the employees if the Union's organiza-
tional campaign succeeded, interrogation of the em-
ployees concerning their involvement with the Union,
and solicitation of employee disavowal of the Teamsters.
Respondent was also alleged to have discharged Howard
Helton and Robert Stephens in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Respondent admitted the discharges of Helton and
Stephens and its refusal to reinstate them and that its ter-
minal manager had prepared and made available to the
employees for their signature a written statement stating
in substance that the employee signing did not wish union
representation or to engage in union activities. Otherwise
Respondent denied all the material allegations of the com-
plaint.
All parties participated in the hearing at Atlanta, Geor-
gia, on April 5 and 6, 1967, and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to introduce evidence, and to examine
and cross-examine witnesses. All parties waived oral ar-
gument and the filing of briefs.
Based upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDING OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleged, the answer did not controvert,
and I find that Floyd & Beasley Transfer Company, Inc.,
is, and has been at all times material herein, an Alabama
corporation with its principal office at Sycamore,
Alabama, and terminal facilities at Sycamore, Bir-
mingham, and Lanett, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; and
Greenville, South Carolina; and is engaged as a common
carrier by motor vehicle in the interstate transportation of
freight. Only Respondent's operation in Atlanta, Georgia,
is involved in this proceeding.
During a representative 12-month period Respondent
received in excess of $50,000 from the interstate trans-
portation of freight.
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and meets the
Board's standards for asserting jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union Number 728,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
167 NLRB No. 54
FLOYD & BEASLEY TRANSFER CO., INC. 411
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Union Organizes and Petitions for Election:
Interrogation and Threats
On September 6, 1966, when James Pate returned to
Respondent's employ as manager of the Atlanta terminal
after an absence of more than 2 years, the employees at
the terminal were not represented by a labor organization.
In December 1965, the employees had held a union meet-
ing. However, after Jules Beasley, then Respondent's
vice president, came to Atlanta in response to a letter
from the men and satisfied certain of their demands, in-
cluding the elimination of compulsory Saturday overtime,
there was no further union activity until the events herein.
After Pate became terminal manager he took steps to
get more work done during regularly scheduled working
hours and to have the men work less overtime.
During September, rumors of union activity among the
employees at Respondent 's Birmingham terminal
reached the Atlanta installation. Howard Helton, one
of Respondent's city pickup drivers, arranged a meeting
at the union hall on September 15, 1966, for the Atlanta
terminal employees. Thereafter the Union filed with the
Board's Regional Office a petition for election upon
which a hearing was held on October 10, 1966.
Between September 15 and October 10, Terminal
Manager Pate interrogated various employees about their
own union sympathy and activity and that of other empl-
oyees.' During the same period Pate threatened Helton,
Ellis, and Holloway that Respondent would close the At-
lanta terminal if the Union's organizational campaign
were successful.2 I find that by these acts Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.3
As noted, the hearing on the Union's petition for
representation election was held on October 10, 1966.
Howard Helton testified for the Union at that hearing.
Helton received his subpena to testify on October 7 at
which time he showed the document to Pate. Pate com-
mented that he wished the employee had forgotten the
"damned thing" but it appeared that they had not.4
B. Employees Refuse to Make the Caterpiller Run
Each night Respondent picks up rush freight in Atlanta
from the Caterpiller Tractor Co. and the International
Harvester Co. for delivery to dealers for those companies
in Birmingham , Alabama. This special run, which takes
about 2 or 3 hours to complete, is made after regular
working hours. The freight, which consists of repair parts,
is picked up from Respondent's Birmingham terminal by
the consignees before regular working hours. This after-
hours pickup in Atlanta was known as the Caterpiller run.
On October 19, 1966, the employee regularly assigned
to make the Caterpiller run quit his job with Respondent
That day Pate asked a group of seven employees for a
volunteer to make the run. Included in the group were
Helton, Stephens, Holloway, Richard Ellis, and McIn-
tyre. Those named refused the assignment which was
taken that night by Milton Warren.
The foregoing account of the October 19 incident is
based on the credited testimony of Helton and Stephens.
Pate's version was that on October 19 he had asked in
turn each employee present to make the run and had
warned that Respondent would not tolerate another
refusal to work overtime. The employees denied that Pate
had issued that warning. I credit their testimony. In any
event Pate did not claim to have told the men that a future
refusal to work overtime would result in discharge.
C. Pate Polls the Employees
During working hours on November 11, 1966, all em-
ployees in the bargaining unit at Respondent's Atlanta
terminal were called to Pate's office. There, with rate
clerk James Denny present, Pate handed each employee
a prepared form to read and sign if he agreed with the fol-
lowing statements which appeared thereon:
I, DO NOT WISH TO HAVE ANY PART IN UNIONIZING
THE ATLANTA OPERATIONS OF FLOYD & BEASLEY
TRF COMPANY INC., AND DO NOT WISH TO BE A
MEMBER OF ANY LOCAL UNION WHICH MIGHT TRY
TO FORM IN THE ATLANTA TERMINAL.
SIGNED . . . . .
DATE ......
All but two of the employees, Carithers and Eidson,
refused to sign. Ellis refused, saying he had to go along
with the rest of the boys. Pate asked how Ellis knew the
way the rest were going, to which Ellis gave an evasive
answer. The other employees who testified stated they
merely refused to sign when asked to do so by Pate. Dur-
ing each employee's interview Denny indicated the em-
ployee's visit to the office on a list he maintained at Pate's
requeSt.5
Viewed as interrogation, I find that Pate's conduct was
unlawful. Prior to November 11 Pate had made known to
the employees his opposition to the Union; the informa-
tion sought identified with certainty the union sympathy
of each of the employees; Pate, the interrogator, was
chief supervisor at the Atlanta terminal, a person whose
authority to speak for management the employees had no
reason to doubt; the interrogation took place in Pate's
private office, was widespread covering all employees in
the unit, with the employees required to openly state their
support for the Union; and , with all but two of the em-
ployees refusing to sign the statement, clearly the replies
were truthful as the subsequent vote in the Board-con-
ducted election yielded only one vote against the Union.
On the basis of all the evidence and the considerations
stated, it is found that on November 11, Respondent un-
lawfully interrogated its employees about their union
This finding is based on the creditied testimony of Robert Stephens,
Noah Jackson Eidson, Howard Helton, Jerry McIntyre, Joel Lamar
Jackson, and Bobby Joe Holloway
2 This finding is based on the credited testimony of the employees
named
3 The complaint alleged that Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the
Act by threats of discharge for engaging in union activity In the absence
of evidence supporting this contention I shall recommend dismissal of that
allegation of the complaint
This finding is based on Helton's credited testimony Pate testified
that his only comment when shown Helton 's subpena was, "Well,
Howard, it looks like you got a subpoena to appear " I do not credit Pate's
version of this conversation , nor do I credit Pate 's claim that he had not
discussed the Union with anyone, including his superiors in Sycamore,
Alabama , at any time , including the period before the representation hear-
ing, other than on the occasion discussed infra when all employees were
called to his office
5 All employees came in alone except Lamar Jackson and Henry Seal,
dock employees, who came to the office together
412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership and sympathies , in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act . Bryant Chucking Grinder Company,
160 NLRB 1526 ; Bourne v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 47, 48
(C. A. 2).
Further , the statement which Terminal Manager Pate
prepared and offered to each employee for signature con-
stituted a disavowal of union affiliation . It is well
established that an employer violates Section 8 (a)(1) of
the Act by preparing and soliciting employee revocation
of union affiliation . Normandy Square Food Basket, Inc.,
163 NLRB 369; N.L.R.B. v . Yale Mfg. Co., 356 F.2d
69,72-73 (C.A. 1).
In the Board -conducted representation election on
November 30, 1966 , 14 votes were cast for the Union, 1
vote was registered against representation , and there was
1 challenged ballot . Howard Helton who had been the
Union 's only witness at the representation hearing served
as well as its only observer at the election . Certification
of the Union as bargaining representative of the Atlanta
employees issued on December 8, 1966.
D. The Discharges
1. The events of January 5, 1967
Bobby Joe Holloway was scheduled to start work at
9:30 a.m. On the morning of January 56 Holloway went
to Dispatcher Charles E. Puckett's office to ask if he
could make the Caterpiller run that night. Holloway had
earned that Nichols, the part-time employee assigned to
the Caterpiller and International Harvester pickups,
,would not be able to report for work that day. With
Puckett in the dispatcher's office was Allen Carithers,
Respondent's oldest employee in length of service. Hol-
loway asked Puckett to put his request for the Caterpiller
run to Pate. When Puckett replied he could not ask Pate
at that time, Holloway said to forget the matter because
he had to know then so as to be able to inform his wife of
the overtime work. At the time Carithers, pointing to his
timecard in its first position in the rack, commented that
if anyone was to get the overtime on the Caterpiller run it
would be he.
During the course of the morning' Stephens asked Pate
if he could make the Caterpiller run that evening as he
would be staying late at the terminal to pick up his
paycheck.8 Pate told Stephens he was awaiting a call from
Nichols as to whether the latter would be in to work that
day. Pate promised to get word to Stephens if he could
make the run.
Shortly before their regular quitting time of 7 p.m. a
group of employees went to the dispatcher's office where
Puckett was asked who was making the Caterpiller run
that night. Puckett told the men that Terminal Manager
Pate would make the pickup.9 Puckett then left.
Shortly thereafter Puckett returned to the area where
the drivers were assembled and asked for a volunteer to
make the Caterpiller run. In the absence of a volunteer,
Puckett then called upon each of the men present by
name to undertake the pickup. First Puckett asked
Robert Stephens. Stephens replied that he had asked for
the run in the morning but had told Puckett he wanted to
know before quitting time if the assignment would be his.
Since he had not been so informed, Stephens said he had
made other plans.
Puckett then asked Holloway to make the pickups.
Holloway also pointed out that he had asked for the as-
signment that morning and that as early as half-hour be-
fore Puckett had said someone else would make the run.
Richard Ellis refused to make the run and William Lee
told Puckett he rode to work with Helton and if he stayed
to make the pickup would have no way of getting home.
Helton in turn informed Puckett he could not make the
run because if he did his rider would be without transpor-
tation. In any event, Helton said, he had other plans for
the evening. Puckett then asked Helton if he was refusing
to make the run. This question had not been put to the
other employees. Helton repeated his reasons for turning
down the overtime.
It was now 7 p.m. Puckett approached Noah Jackson
Eidson who was scheduled to work until 8 p.m. and asked
Eidson to take the Caterpiller run. Eidson refused saying
he could not complete the pickups within the 1 hour
remaining in his workday. Puckett then called Pate at
home and reported to him on the status of the Caterpiller
run. Pate asked to speak to Eidson and asked that Eidson
make at least one of the pickups before leaving work. Eid-
son refused to do so. Thereafter in another conversation
Pate told Puckett he had done all he could. The Cater-
piller and International Harvester pickups were not made
that night.
2. The discharges
The following morning, January 6 , as Helton,
Stephens , and Eidson reported to work they were in-
dividually called to Pate's office where Pate asked each
in turn why he had refused to make the Caterpiller run.
Helton and Stephens repeated their reasons as stated to
Puckett the night before . At the conclusion of each inter-
view Pate discharged each employee in turn.
3. Findings and conclusions
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by the discharges of
Stephens and Helton. The original charge filed had al-
leged that Eidson's discharge had also been in violation of
the Act. However, an amended charge, on which the
complaint herein was based, dropped Eidson as an al-
leged discriminatee. I can see no distinction between
Stephens' and Eidson's situations.
The limit of Stephens' union activity had been the ex-
ecution of a Teamsters authorization card and attendance
at union meetings. This was true as well of many if not
most of the other employees. Equally significant is the
6 Unless otherwise noted all dates hereafter were in 1967
7 Stephens stated the conversation took place between 9 and 9.30 a in
Pate and Puckett placed the time about noon. Since the time of the meet-
ing has no bearing on the issues herein , I make no determination of this
minor point.
8 Friday was payday. The payroll was made up at the Sycamore office
and delivered by truck to the Atlanta terminal about midnight on
Thursday
9 Employees Helton, Holloway, and Richard Ellis testified that Puckett
had said Pate would make the run Puckett denied making such a remark
I credit the employees Based on his demeanor while testifying, I would
have expected Puckett to give such a flip reply to the employees Among
other things, Puckett referred to these unfair labor practice proceedings as
"monkey business " Puckett also claimed that during the day on January
5 he had insisted to Helton and Stephens that they make the Caterpiller
run I do not credit Puckett when his account of the events conflicts with
that of Helton and Stephens.
FLOYD & BEASLEY TRANSFER CO., INC. 413
fact that by his actions on January 5 Stephens had given
Respondent cause to believe it could rely on him to make
the Caterpiller run. Stephens had asked for the run and at
the time had said he would be at the terminal that night to
await the arrival of the payroll from Sycamore. Unlike
Holloway who had said he needed an answer to his
request for the overtime work at the time he spoke to
Puckett, Stephens had put no time limit on when the work
could be assigned. Thus, based on my finding that
Respondent's stated reason for Stephens' discharge rings
true and in the absence of any union activity on his part to
warrant a finding that he had been singled out for reprisal,
I shall recommend dismissal of the allegation of the com-
plaint based on Stephens' discharge.
As to Helton I find that the facts compel a finding of
violation. Helton was the leader of the union movement.
It was Helton who arranged for the first Teamsters meet-
ing which led to the demand for recognition and the peti-
tion for election. Helton as well appeared for the Union
as its witness at the representation hearing and was the
Union's observer at the election. Thus, Helton's union
activity was outstanding. Moreover, unlike Stephens who
had asked for the run and Eidson who could have taken
care of part of the Caterpiller run during his regular
schedule of hours, Helton had in no way given Respond-
ent reason to rely on him to make the run on January 5.
Helton was asked only once to make the pickups and this
at a time when other employees as well turned down
Puckett's plea for a volunteer. Among the factors I have
considered in reaching my conclusion herein was
Puckett's statement that he could not ask Lee to make the
run because Lee was dependent on his ride to get to his
home that night. However, it was with Helton that Lee
was to reach his home and Puckett was not loathe to de-
mand that Helton make the run. The pretext is clear
because it was for Helton's refusal under circumstances
to work overtime and thus leave Lee stranded that the
union leader was discharged . I find that Respondent
seized upon its need for an employee to make the Cater-
piller run on January 5 to make Helton's refusal to un-
dertake the assignment the pretext upon which to end his
employment.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section
III, above , occurring in connection with Respondent's in-
terstate operations described in section 1, above, have a
close , intimate , and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged
Howard Helton, I shall recommend that Respondent be
ordered to reinstate him to his former or a substantially
equivalent position of employment, without prejudice to
his seniority and other rights and privileges, and to make
him whole for any loss of earnings suffered ( including
fringe benefits and insurance protection) as a result of
Respondent's unlawful conduct. Backpay shall be com-
puted in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289, with interest added thereto in the
manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Floyd & Beasley Transfer Company, Inc., is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union Number
728, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. By engaging in certain described conduct referred
to hereinabove, in section III, A and C, hereof, Respond-
ent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
4. By engaging in the conduct described in section III,
D, above, Respondent discriminated against Howard
Helton in regard to his tenure of employment, in order to
discourage activities protected by Section 7 of the Act,
and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
6. The Respondent has not committed other unfair
labor practices as alleged in the complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, Floyd & Beasley Transfer Company,
Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees about their union sym-
pathy and activity and that of fellow employees; threaten-
ing employees that Respondent would close its Atlanta
terminal rather than deal with the Union; polling the em-
ployees about their union affiliation; soliciting employees
disavowal of their union affiliation; or in any other
manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
(b) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any
other labor organization, by discharging or in any other
manner discriminating against employees in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Howard Helton immediate and full rein-
statement to his former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights
and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of
earnings he may have suffered (including fringe benefits
and insurance protection) by reason of Respondent's dis-
crimination against him as set forth in the section of this
Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(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 accord-
ance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal
Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after
discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its terminal in Atlanta, Georgia, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."10 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' 1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices not
found herein.
10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order"
II In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of-the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT question employees about their
union activity' and sympathy or the union activity and
sympathy of other employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the Atlanta ter-
minal rather than deal with the Union. -
WE WILL NOT ask our employees to abandon the
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of their right to engage in, or to refrain from en-
gaging in, any or all of the activities specified in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Howard Helton immediate and full
reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to any rights
or privileges previously enjoyed and make him whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination against him.
Dated By
FLOYD & BEASLEY
TRANSFER COMPANY, INC.
(Employer)
(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, 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, 730 Peachtree
Street, N.E., Room 701, Atlanta, Georgia 30308,
Telephone 526-5760.