Goodyear Tire And Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 650 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Lonnie L.
Campbell
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers
of America, Local 831 , AFL-CIO-CLC and
Lonnie L . Campbell. Cases 5-CA-16224 and 5-
CB-4595
21 February 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND STEPHENS
On 29 November 1985 Administrative Law
Judge James T. Youngblood issued the attached
decision. The Respondent Union filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent Company,
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Danville,
Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, and the Respondent Union, United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,
Local 831, AFL-CIO-CLC, Danville, Virginia, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Order.
1 In adopting the judge's determination that the treasurer's contract ad-
ministration duties do not require his on-the-job presence during the first
shift, we note that all these duties related to dues checkoff and could be
accomplished either by telephone or by mail. Even if, however, the treas-
urer would choose to continue to perform these tasks in person, they
could be accomplished with little inconvenience before the start of the
second shift or after the completion of the third shift during the Compa-
ny's normal business hours. See Ford Motor Co., 269 NLRB 250 (1984);
Electrical Workers IUE (Spartus Corp), 271 NLRB 607 (1984)
Harvey A. Holzman, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Ronald L. Davis, of Danville, Virginia, for the Respond-
ent Employer.
Davison M. Douglas, Esq., of Greensboro, North Caroli-
na, for the Respondent Union.
Raymond R. Robrecht, Esq., of Salem, Virginia, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. YOUNGBLOOD, Administrative Law Judge.
This matter was teed before me on 7 August 1985 in
Danville, Virginia . The charges were filed by Lonnie L.
Campbell on 6 March 1984 and the complaint issued 30
November 1984 alleging that Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company (Goodyear) and United Rubber , Cork, Linole-
um and Plastic Workers of America , Local 831, AFL-
CIO, CLC (Union), have maintained , applied , and en-
forced a collective -bargaining agreement which grants
top seniority to certain union officials for shift prefer-
ence , surplus, and layoff, which discriminates against em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3), and Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, respectively . The Re-
spondents deny the commission of any unfair labor prac-
tices.
On the entire record , including my observations of the
witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, and after
due consideration of the briefs filed , I make the follow-
ing
FINDINGS OF FACT'
1. JURISDICTION
Goodyear, an Ohio corporation with an office and
place of business in Danville, Virginia, is engaged in the
manufacture and nonretail sale and distribution of tires
and related products at this Danville facility. Respond-
ents admit, and I find, that Goodyear is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Respondents admit, and I find, that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Goodyear and the Union have had a history of collec-
tive bargaining since 1968 at the Danville, Virginia facili-
ty, where some 1700 production and maintenance em-
ployees are currently represented by the Union. The
most recent contract between the parties was effective 21
April 1985 and, as this agreement was negotiated during
the pendency of this controversy, the parties left the
issue of superseniority to be resolved by this proceeding.
The parties stipulated that the prior contract effective 11
June 1982 between Goodyear and the Union which sup-
plemented a companywide agreement of 30 April 1982 to
20 April 1985 had not been changed and is still in effect
in all respects relating to the issue of superseniority. Ac-
cordingly, the 1982-1985 contract will be the only one
referred to herein.
1 The facts found herein are a compilation of the credited testimony,
the exhibits, and stipulations of fact, viewed in light of logical consisten-
cy and inherent probability. Although these findings may not contain or
refer to all the evidence, all has been weighed and considered To the
extent that any testimony or other evidence not mentioned in this deci-
sion may appear to contradict my findings of fact, I have not disregarded
that evidence but have rejected it as incredible, lacking in probative
weight, surplusage, or irrelevant Credibility resolutions have been made
on the basis of the whole record, including the inherent probabilities of
the testimony and the demeanor of the witnesses Where it may be re-
quired I will set forth specific credibility findings
278 NLRB No. 98
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. 651
That contract provides in article X-Seniority , Section
5, Shift Preference , as follows:
(b) The Local Union President, Vice President, Sec-
retary , Treasurer , Local Union Negotiating Com-
mittee, Division Chairman , Union Time Study Man,
Local Union Executive Board , and Policy Member
shall hold top seniority ratings on their classifica-
tions for their terms of office for shift preference,
surplus and layoff.
Employees removed from their preferred shifts by
the above representatives may exercise their second
preference for shift and are eligible for the first shift
vacancy on their preferred shifts, regardless of se-
niority.
After the above representatives no longer function
in their respective capacities , their job shift will be
considered a shift vacancy and filled accordingly
(unless the representative obtain such shift by
normal contractual procedures).
On 14 November 1983 newly elected Executive Board
Member 1 Thomas Hall assumed his office and at that time
exercised his right to superseniority and elected to move
from the second shift to the first shift thereby bumping
Lonnie L . Campbell, the Charging Party , from the first
shift to the second shift . Lonnie L. Campbell had more
seniority than Thomas Hall and, absent the supersenior-
ity provision , Hall could not have bumped Campbell
from the first shift.2
As I understand , the General Counsel is only attacking
this contractual grant of superseniority insofar as it ap-
plies to (1) the treasurer of the Union, and (2) the
Union's executive board members . It also appears that
the General Counsel is not attacking the grant of super-
seniority for shift preference to officials other than the
treasurer and executive board members.
In Gulton Electro- Voice, 266 NLRB 406 , 409 (1983),
the Board reconsidered certain decisions which granted
superseniority for layoff and recall to union processing
or other on-the-job contract administration responsibil-
ities. After reviewing those decisions the Board stated:
We will find unlawful those grants of superseniority
extending beyond those employees responsible for
grievance processing and on-the-job contract ad-
ministration . We will find unlawful only those su-
perseniority provisions limited to employees who,
as agents of the union , must be on the job to accom-
plish their duties directly related to administering
the collective-bargaining agreement.
The Board set forth in its rationale for this conclusion by
starting at 266 NLRB 408:
In our view, the balance struck in Dairylea was cor-
rect. In consideration of the underlying purpose of
the Act "to provide additional facilities for the me-
diation of labor disputes affecting commerce," in-
2 Newly elected secretary Mary Ann Davis also exercised her supervi-
sory seniority for first-shift preference, however , that is not being chal-
lenged in this proceeding.
suring the enforcement of the collective-bargaining
agreement by retaining on the job union representa-
tives responsible for processing grievances is a suffi-
ciently compelling reason to allow limited supersen-
iority with respect to layoff and recall to those who
perform steward-like duties . It is the immediacy of
attention that stewards can offer that place the
stewards in such a special position . Further, steward
job-retention superseniority ' necessary to the stew-
ards ' ability to carry out the primary duties of thier
union position . However, superseniority is inherent-
ly discriminatory and the stewards' need to maintain
an on-the-job presence does not generally apply to
officers; thus the justification used for stewards does
not extend to officers generally-unless the latter
perform steward-like duties . [Footnote omitted.]
A. The Executive Board Members
The International Union 's constitution sets forth the
duties of the executive board members and are contained
in article VIII, section 11 at pages 72-75.3 The duties
contained in the International 's constitution clearly relate
solely to internal union matters and do not constitute
grievance processing and/or on-the-job contract adminis-
trations . The bylaws of the Respondent Union, article
IV, section 5 on pages 7-8 set forth the duties of the ex-
ecutive board members and these duties like the Interna-
tional 's constitution clearly relate solely to internal union
matters and are not considered grievance processing
and/or on-the-job contract administration, except one
provision relating to the Union 's internal grievance
appeal process.4
The Union argues that because of this appeal process
the executive board is involved in the processing of
grievances sufficient to warrant superseniority . Thus, it
meets to consider grievances turned down by the
Union's grievance committee and makes decisions as to
whether to reverse the decision of the grievance commit-
tee and to carry grievances forward . It appears that if
the grievance committee of the Union had previously
met and decided not to process a grievance on behalf of
a particular employee that employee has 5 days to appeal
that decision to the executive board . Once appealed the
executive board considers the merits of the grievance.
The executive board can either decide to uphold the de-
cision of the grievance committee not to process the
grievance or it can reverse that decision and elect to
process the grievance . It appears that on at least six oc-
casions in the last 3 years the executive board met and
reversed decisions of the grievance committee and decid-
ed to go forward with the processing of grievances. If
the executive board decides to uphold the decision of the
grievance committee, the grievant then has the right to
appeal that decision , to the entire membership.5
3 See G C Exhs 4 and 5.
a Art IV, sec. 5(d) This section and art. V sec. 5(d), permits a griev-
ant who is dissatisfied with the disposition of his grievance by the union
grievance committee to appeal to the executive board. The executive
board can either grant or deny his appeal
5 The Union had not contended that the entire membership is entitled
to superseniority because of its appellate powers.
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record reflects that approximately 8 to 10 of these
appeals are heard by the executive board on a yearly
basis and that on occasion the appeals, are overturned
and the grievance committee is directed to take further
action apparently through arbitration. All of this action
of the executive board takes place at the Union's office
about 2-1/2 miles from the plant, and with no representa-
tives of Goodyear being present or involved. This is
strictly an internal union function so that grievants have
a right of review when a grievance is denied by the
Union's grievance committee.
Although this appellate action is certainly commenda-
ble on the part of the Union, in my view it is neither on-
the-job contract administration, nor processing griev-
ances in the sense that the executive board is processing
a grievance with the employer.
The Union further argues that on occasions when the
president and vice president of the Union are absent the
senior executive member (the one receiving the most
votes during the prior election) fills in for the president
performing all of his duties. The record reflects that
during the past 2 years the senior executive board
member filled in for the union president on at least two
occasions, and on one of these occasions he was required
to go into the plant and perform the duties of the presi-
dent in handling a discharge case. The record reflects
that on other occasions executive board members have
been required to fill in for the union president on at least
three occasions. The position of senior executive board
member does not exist under the International's constitu-
tion or the Union's bylaws, and it is not listed separately
in the collective-bargaining agreement, as a separate posi-
tion entitled to superseniority. It appears that this posi-
tion was created by the Union as a matter of conven-
ience so there would be someone to fill in for the union
president. When the senior executive board member is
called on to act in the stead of the president of the
Union, he is released from work at the plant and for the
entire period of time when he is acting union president
he reports at the Union's office located a few miles from
the plant in North Carolina. The regular union president,
when he is on duty as president, is a paid full-time union
position and he does not work at the Goodyear facility.
So as the senior executive board member would not be
replacing an employee I cannot see how this would justi-
fy granting superseniority when'he would not be at the
plant in any event. See Inmont Corp., 268 NLRB 1442
(1984).
The Union also argues that the executive board occa-
sionally meets with Goodyear concerning contractual
questions and therefore its members meet the Board's re-
quirement for the grant of superseniority. The Union
points to the fact that in June 1984 the executive board
met with the employer on company property to consider
changes in the collective-bargaining agreement that
would accommodate a 7-day operation. On one other oc-
casion the executive board met with Goodyear on com-
pany property to discuss a pending layoff. Finally, on
certain occasions members of the executive board have
gone into the plant and met with individual foremen as
part of an investigation. Although these relatively few
situations may be contractually related, they are not the
type that can be called "grievance processing and on-the-
job contract administration" that requires an on-the-job
presence of an entire executive baord.6
B. The Union Treasurer
The current union treasurer has been on the first shift
at all times from 1977 to May 1985, due to his regular
seniority, and did not in any way exercise the supersen-
iority provisions of the contract. Since May 1985, the
treasurer had been a full-time paid position of the Union,
like that of its president, and the contractual provision
relating to superseniority has no bearing on this position
at this time.
The General Counsel, however, argues that the inclu-
sion of the treasurer in the superseniority provision prior
to May 1985 was unlawful in that the treasurer 's duties
related only to internal union matters and cannot be con-
sidered grievance processing and/or on-the-job contract
administration duties, and should be excluded from the
contractual provision and the Respondents should be re-
quired to post a notice that they will not maintain and
enforce this provision any longer.
The duties of the treasurer are contained in article 8,
section 10 of the International Union's constitution, and
article IV, section 4 of the Union's bylaws.' The treasur-
er's duties contained in these documents clearly relate
solely to internal union matters and do not involve griev-
ance processing and/or on-the-job contract administra-
tion duties.
However, under the collective-bargaining agreement
the treasurer had some functions relating to the contrac-
tual dues-checkoff provisions and makes weekly visits to
the plant to pick up the dues check from Goodyear. Ad-
ditionally, the treasurer is responsible to notify the Com-
pany of those individuals that have left the Union so that
dues checkoff will be discontinued for those individuals.
Also, the treasurer informs Goodyear which employees
drawing supplemental unemployment benefits should
have union dues deducted from the supplemental unem-
ployment benefits paid by Goodyear to those employees.
Secondly, the Union argues that the treasurer is in-
volved in processing grievance because the collective-
bargaining agreement explicitly give the Union's treasur-
er the authority to enter the plant during plant working
hours for the purpose of investigation or discussions of
grievances. There was no testimony at this hearing con-
cerning the extent to which the treasurer had ever exer-
cised this contractual right. Additionally, the Union
argues that as a member of the executive board the treas-
urer is by necessity involved in the processing of griev-
ances . Because I have concluded that the executive
board members are not entitled to superseniority as mem-
bers of the executive board, I will not discuss this latter
argument any further.
The contractual provisions relating to dues checkoff
and the collection of the union dues by the treasurer on
his weekly visits to the plant to pick up the dues check
B Four members of the nine-member executive board, the Union's
president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer are separately accorded
supersemonty.
7 See G.C Exhs. 4, 5, and 6.
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.
from Goodyear, and those provisions relating to supple-
mental unemployment benefits which require Goodyear
to deduct union dues therefrom, certainly are not the
type of contractual administration functions that the
Board considers as warranting the grant of supersenior-
ity. These functions are really internal union matters re-
lating to the Union as an institution and have little or
nothing to do -with grievance processing and/or on-the-
job contract administration.
The other provision permitting the treasurer to enter
the plant during plant working hours for the purpose of
investigation or discussion of grievances merely permits
those persons involved access to the plant during work-
ing hours. This provision does not mean that they are in-
volved normally in the investigation or discussion of
grievances, it merely permits access to the plant in the
event that they become involved in the investigation or
discussion of grievances. There is no evidence in this
record that this provision has ever been invoked by the
treasurer. There was evidence that the full-time position
of benefits representative had been granted access to the
plant under this contract provision. The parties have not
by contract accorded this position the benefits of super-
seniority.
It is my conclusion that the treasurer does not perform
any functions which materially relate to the on-the-job
enforcement and administration of the collective-bargain-
ing agreement other than the pure ministerial internal
union function of collecting dues from the Employer,
and that the treasurer's functions have no official role in
the grievance process. The fact that the treasurer may
enter the plant during working hours for the purpose of
investigation or discussion of grievances does not rel-
egate the position to a steward-like position simply be-
cause the treasurer might sometime be involved in the in-
vestigation or discussion of a grievance and may need to
enter the plant for that purpose.
Like the executive board members I do not regard the
treasurer as having any responsibilities requiring on-the-
job presence to further the administration of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement and certainly the treasurer's
dues-collection function certainly does not approach the
level of responsibility to help stabilize the Employer's
labor relations. See Gulton Electro-Voice, 266 NLRB 406,
409 (1983).
The fact that this clause has no effect on the incum-
bent treasurer does not mean that it will never have such
an effect in the future. Moreover, prior to May 1985,
while the treasurer was a full-time employee of Good-
year, this clause clearly discriminated among the employ-
ees based on union-related activities and certainly is at
odds with Section 7 of the Act. At the present time, the
clause insofar as it relates to the treasurer is dormant but
it certainly is not moot.
Therefore, it is my conclusion that granting supersen-
iority to the executive board members and the treasurer
of the Union for their terms of office for shift preference,
surplus, and layoff is unlawful, and by maintaining the
superseniority clause with respect to the executive board
members and the union treasurer, the Respondent Union
has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, and
Respondent Employer has violated Section 8(a)(1) and
653
(3) of the Act. Furthermore, by according Executive
Board Member Thomas Hall superseniority under the
disputed clause with respect to shift preference on 14
November 1985 and thereby causing employee Lonnie
Campbell to be removed from the first shift and placed
on the second shift, thereby affecting his employment
status which would not have been affected if the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement had not accorded the execu-
tive board members superseniority, Respondent Union
thereby violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1) of the Act, and
Respondent Employer discriminated against its employ-
ees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.8
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices we shall order that they cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having
found that the superseniority clause in dispute is unlaw-
ful as it relates to the executive board members and the
union treasurer, I shall therefore order that Respondent
Union and the Respondent Employer cease and desist
from maintaining such clause in their collective-bargain-
ing agreement . Having found that the unlawful supersen-
iority clause was applied so as to cause discrimination
against employee Lonnie Campbell on 14 November
1983, who would not have been bumped from the first
shift to the second shift but for the illegal discrimination
depriving him of seniority, I shall order that Respondent
Employer offer to reinstate employee Lonnie Campbell
to the first shift if he so desires, and that the Respond-
ents jointly and severally make Lonnie Campbell whole
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result
of the discrimination against him . I shall also order that
Respondent Employer expunge from it files any refer-
ence to the unlawful shift change, and notify the affected
employee, Lonnie Campbell, that this has been done and
that the unlawful shift change will not be used as a basis'
for future personnel actions against him. Any backpay
shall be computed in the manner established by the
Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest, as provided in Florida Steel Corp., 231
NLRB 651 (1977). See generally Isis Plumbing Co„ 138
NLRB 716 (1962).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
8 The supersemonty clauses which were involved in the cases cited es-
sentially involved layoff and recall. The clause in dispute here covers
shift preference as well as surplus and layoff. The General Counsel does
not attack this clause because it grants superseniority for the purposes of
shift preference, to individuals other than the executive board members
and treasurer of the Union. As I have concluded that the executive board
members and the union treasurer are not of the type normally afforded
supersemonty for any reason it is not necessary to consider whether or
not the granting of superseniority for shift preference is lawful or unlaw-
ful in this matter Cf Electrical Workers IUE Local 633, 276 NLRB 1043
(1985).
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. By maintaining a seniority clause in their collective-
bargaining agreement according the Respondent Union's
executive board members and treasurer superseniority,
Respondent Employer and Respondent Union have en-
gaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3), and Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, respectively. And by
enforcing such clause by discriminating against employee
Lonnie Campbell by according Thomas Hall a member
of the Union's executive board superseniority with
regard to shift preference, thereby changing Lonnie
Campbell's shift which change would not have been af-
fected if the collective-bargaining agreement had not ac-
corded the executive board member superseniority, the
Respondents have engaged in further violations of the
foregoing sections of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed9
ORDER
A. The Respondent, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Com-
pany, Danville, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining and enforcing collective-bargaining
provisions with Respondent Union, United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, Local
831, AFL-CIO,, CLC, according the Union's executive
board members and the union treasurer superseniority.
(b) Discriminating against any employee in regard to
shift preference, surplus, or layoff, by according super-
seniority to the Union's executive board members or the
Union's treasurer, when such affected employees have a
greater seniority in terms of length of employment than
those of the aforementioned union officials.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Union make
whole Lonnie Campbell for any loss of earnings he may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against
him, such earnings to be determined in the manner set
forth in the remedy section of this decision and offer to
Lonnie Campbell reinstatement on the first shift, if he de-
sires, who would not have had a shift change but for the
unlawful assignment of superseniority to Thomas Hall,
one of the Union's executive board members.
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions , and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
(c) Expunge from its files any reference to the shift
change of Lonnie Campbell affected by the supersenior-
ity as applied to the Union's Executive Board Member
Thomas Hall on 14 November 1983 and notify Lonnie
Campbell, in writing, that this has been done and that
evidence of the unlawful shift change will not be used as
a basis for future personnel action against him.
(d) Post at its establishment in Danville, Virgina,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." A.10
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 5, after being signed by the Re-
spondent Company's representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent Company to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions as set forth above as soon as forwarded by said Re-
gional Director, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B."
(f) Mail signed copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix `A"' to the Regional Director for Region 5
for posting by Respondent-Union.
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
B. Respondent Union, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum
and Plastic Workers of America, Local 831, AFL-CIO,
CLC, Danville, Virginia, its officers, agents, and repre-
sentatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining, enforcing, or otherwise giving effect
to those clauses in its collective-bargaining agreement
with Respondent Company, Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company according the Union's executive board mem-
bers and treasurer superseniority -with respect to shift
preference, surplus, and layoff.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause Respondent Com-
pany to disciminate against employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Jointly, and severally with Respondent Company
make Lonnie Campbell whole for any loss of earnings he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him, such lost earnings to be determined in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(b) Notify Respondent Company, in writing, that it has
no objection to reinstating Lonnie Campbell to the first
shift, who but for the unlawful application of the super-
10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. 655
seniority clause would not have been afforded a shift
change.
(c) Post ai its office and meeting hail used by or fre-
quent by its members and employees it represent at Re-
spondent's Company in Danville, Virginia, facility,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."11
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 5, after being signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent' immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Post at the same places and under the same condi-
tions as set forth above, as soon as forwarded by the Re-
gional Director, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A."
(e) Mail signed copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B" to the Regional Director for Region 5 for
posting by Respondent Company.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
" If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT maintain and enforce any provisions in
our collective-bargaining agreement with United Rubber,
Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, Local
831, AFL-CIO, CLC, according the Union's executive
board members and the Union's treasurer superseniority.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against any employees in
regard to shift preference, surplus, or layoff, by accord-
ing superseniority to the Union's executive board mem-
bers or the Union's treasurer, when such affected em-
ployees have a greater seniority in terms of length of em-
ployment than those of the aforementioned union offi-
cials.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights protected by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Lonnie Campbell full and immediate
reinstatement to his former job on the first shift , if he so
desires, whose shift change would not have been affected
but for the unlawful assignment of superseniority to
Thomas Hall , one of the Union 's executive board mem-
bers.
WE WILL expunge from our files any reference to the
shift of Lonnie Campbell affected by the superseniority
as applied to the Union 's executive board member,
Thomas Hall , on 14 November 1983 and WE WILL notify
Lonnie Campbell , in writing , that this has been done and
that evidence of this unlawful shift change will not be
used as a basis for future personnel actions against him.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with the United
Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of Amer-
ica, Local 831 , AFL-CIO, CLC, make Lonnie Campbell
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him , with interest.
GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT maintain, enforce, or otherwise give
effect to any clause in our collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, accord-
ing our executive board members or our treasurer super-
seniority with respect to shift preference, surplus, and
layoff.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Goodyear
Tire and Rubber Company to discriminate against any
employee in violation of the National Labor Relations
Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of their rights protected
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
that we have no objections to their immediate reinstate-
ment of Lonnie Campbell to the first shift who, but for
the unlawful assignment of seniority to Executive Board
Member Thomas Hall would not have been discriminat-
ed against.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Goodyear Tire
and Rubber Company, make whole Lonnie Campbell for
any loss of earnings he may have, suffered as the result of
the discrimination against him, with interest.
UNITED, RUBBER, CORK, LINOLEUM AND
PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
831, AFL-CIO, CLC