Husky Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 430 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Husky Oil Company andlnternational Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Local Union 307. Case 27-CA-4164
April 18, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On December 10, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
David G. Heilbrun issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and General
Counsel filed exceptions 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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, except as
modified below,' and to adopt his recommended Or-
der as, modified.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge, for the
reasons stated by him, that Respondent's discharge of
Roberts on June 14, 1974, violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act. However, we disagree with his dismissal
of the complaint's separate 8(a)(1) allegations. Thus,
we find that Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by Supervisor Sauer's interrogation of em-
ployee Pulatie on June 13 as to whether the employee
meeting which Pulatie had attended earlier that day
was to discuss the Union. Whether or not the em-
ployees discussed the Union at their meeting was of no
legitimate concern to Respondent and, as such, the
inquiry was inherently coercive. The fact that Sauer
quickly assured Pulatie that Respondent was uncon-
cerned with whether the employees unionized, since
such unionization in any event seemed inevitable to
Sauer, does not militate against a finding that the in-
i We find without merit Respondent' s allegations of bias and prejudice
There is no basis for finding that bias or prejudice existed merely because
the Administrative Law Judge credited only the General Counsel's wit-
nesses . As the Supreme Court has stated: ". total rejection of an opposed
view cannot of itself impugn the integrity or competence of a trier of fact "
N.L.R.B. v Pittsburgh S.S. Company, 337 U.S. 656, 659 (1949) As to
Respondent's additional argument that the Administrative Law Judge failed
to give proper weight to the testimony of witness Edens, we note that he
was not a totally disinterested witness because of his business relationship
with the Respondent. In any event, his testimony was not materially in
conflict with that of General Counsel's witnesses Furthermore, it is the
Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's
resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all
of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362
(C A 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for
reversing his credibility findings.
quiry itself violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Cf.
Rochester Cadet Cleaners, Inc., 205 NLRB 773 (1973).
Similarly, we find, in disagreement with the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge , that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by Sauer's threat of June 14 to
discharge Roberts because of his union activities. The
mere fact that Respondent promptly made good its
threat by discharging Roberts does not make Sauer's
utterance any less coercive or unlawful under the Act.
We find that the fact that the Administrative Law
Judge declined to rule on an alleged unfair labor prac-
tice simply because General Counsel has failed to brief
the issue to him is irrelevant . Jefferson Stores, Inc., 201
NLRB 672 (1973). Accordingly , we shall modify the -
Administrative Law Judge 's recommended Order to
provide a remedy for the additional violations found.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Respondent, Husky Oil Com-
pany, Cheyenne, Wyoming, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Making threats that it will discharge employees
because of their union activities.
(b) Interrogating its employees with respect to their
union membership, interests, or activities or those of
their fellow employees.
(c) Discouraging membership in International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local Union 307, or any
other labor organization, by discriminatorily discharg-
ing or otherwise discriminating against employees in
any manner with regard to their hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act: -
(a) Offer George W. Roberts immediate and full
reinstatement to his former position or, if that position
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings
he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's dis-
crimination against him, such loss of earnings to be
computed in the manner set forth in the section of the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, and all other records necessary to ana-
217 NLRB No. 76
-HUSKY OIL COMPANY
lyze and determine the amount of backpay, if any, due
employee Roberts under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at Respondent's facility in Cheyenne, Wyo-
ming, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." Copies of said notice on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 27, after being
duly signed byRespondent's authorized representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that
such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge
because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees
concerning their union membership, interests, or
activities or those of their fellow employees.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
Union 307, or any other labor organization, by
discriminatorily discharging or otherwise dis-
criminating against employees in any manner with
regard to their hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL offer George W. Roberts immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, 'to a substantially equivalent
position, and pay him for losses suffered as a result
of being discharged, with 6-percent interest.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by the National Labor Re-
lations Act.
HUSKY OIL COMPANY
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
431
DAVID G. HEILBRUN, Administrative Law Judge: This case
was heard at Cheyenne, Wyoming, on October 1 and 2,
1974,' based on a charge filed and amended June 18 and
July 2, respectively, and complaint issued July 26 alleging
that Husky Oil Company, called Respondent, violated Sec
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by interrogating employees in
regard to signing authorization cards for International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, Local Union 307, called the Union, by threat-
ening to discharge the employee known as responsible for
organizing with the Union and by discharging George W.
Roberts because of his membership in and activities on behalf
of the Union.
Upon the entire record in this case, including my observa-
tion of the witnesses, and upon consideration of briefs filed
by General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
INVOLVED
Respondent, a corporation with facilities located in
Cheyenne, Wyoming, engages in refining crude oil. It annu-
ally sells and ships products valued in excess of $50,000 from
its Cheyenne, Wyoming, facility directly to customers located
outside the State of Wyoming. I find, as Respondent admits,
that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Facts and Discussion
In August 1973 Respondent commenced hauling crude oil
by truck from producing wells of the vicinity, including those
near Walden, Colorado. An organizational change affecting
the hauling operation was instituted April 1 with the result
that former Supervisor George W. Roberts became a driver.
After brief interim arrangements John Sauer was hired April
23 as supervisor of Crude Oil Trucking. By June, the opera-
tion utilized three tractor-trailer units driven out of a
Cheyenne terminal on a nearly continuous basis by two-man
teams. One unit was identified as E-2 with Roberts and Rob-
ert Brown as its driving team. Brown had been hired by
Respondent in May. Additional hauling capacity was pro-
vided by employment of at least one part-time driver and a
standing arrangement for supplemental service by contract
hauler Ruan Transport.
Repairs were performed on E-2 May 3, June 3, and June
11. In each instance the work order was signed by Roberts
below phraseology authorizing repair. The two earlier repair
jobs were expressly authorized by Sauer. The third was per-
formed after emergency permission given Roberts telephoni-
I All dates and named months hereafter are in 1974, unless indicated
otherwise.
432 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cally by a person of authority in Respondent's Denver,
Colorado, office. On the prior day Roberts and Brown had
determined not to drive E-2 again because of defective tie rod
ends. Further, Roberts had been experiencing headaches for
about 2 weeks believed to be caused by an exhaust leak in
E-2 (notwithstanding ostensible exhaust system repair on
both May 3 and June 3). Brown's driver's daily logs for June
9 and 10 contained daily vehicle inspection report remarks of
"steering axle shake, popping noise" and "front end need
work," respectively.
After the third of these repairs Brown hauled a load of
crude during daytime on June 12 and Roberts made an eve-
ning haul which he completed at approximately 1:30 a.m. on
June 13. Both drivers considered the left torsion bar weak at
the time and Roberts detected continuing exhaust leakage.
Brown's inspection report for June 12 contained no remarks
and Roberts' is not in evidence. At the time Brown consid-
ered E-2 safe to drive a "few more days" while Roberts
termed it "inoperable."
Roberts and Brown each testified that on June 11 they were
jointly instructed by Sauer to take E-2 to Colorado Ken-
worth, located in Greeley, Colorado, on June 13 for further
necessary repairs. Brown recalls Sauer stating the unit should
be into Greeley about 8 or 9 a.m. After being so instructed,
Roberts and Brown figured their immediately planned runs
and anticipated Brown would actually drive the E-2 tractor
into Greeley the morning of June 13.
At 8:30 a.m. on June 13 Brown telephoned Roberts at
home to state he was leaving for Greeley with E-2 and
wanted to be met there to be driven back. At the time both
drivers were aware that unit G-8 was then at Colorado Ken-
worth for repairs. Brown arrived about 9:30 a.m. and spoke
with Acting Shop Foreman George Edens in Roberts' pres-
ence concerning the mechanical condition of E-2 and defects
in its lights. Repair to G-8 had been completed and the
drivers unsuccessfully attempted to reach Sauer by telephone
for permission to drive G-8 back to Cheyenne. Failing in this,
they returned in Roberts' personal vehicle to Cheyenne. That
afternoon they went to the union hall and along with other
drivers signed authorization cards.
R. D. Pulatie testified that he signed an authorization card
in the presence of four-other drivers on June 13 and then
proceeded to the terminal. Pulatie reached the terminal as
other drivers also arrived to pick up their cars. Pulatie re-
called entering the terminal office where Sauer soon arrived,
asking why Pulatie was late to begin his run. Pulatie answered
that the drivers had had a meeting. Sauer inquired if this was
to "talk union" and Pulatie affirmed. Sauer then remarked,
"[T]hat is no problem because the company doesn't mind,
because eventually the refinery will force the drivers to go
union anyway." Ward Lake testified that he signed an au-
thorization card at the union hall on the afternoon of June 13
immediately after coming off a trip. He returned to the termi-
nal office to complete his paper work and found Pulatie and
Sauer inside. Lake recalled that as Sauer was undistractedly
present and within 10 feet of the exchange, Pulatie made a
gesturing remark inquiring whether Lake had signed a card
to which the latter replied he certainly had. Nothing more
occurred at the time, however Lake recalled remarking to
Sauer the next day that he could work with or without a
union, feeling it was a matter on which he would support the
desire of the other men.
Sauer testified that on June 11 he advised Roberts (but not
Brown) that E-2 was scheduled into Colorado Kentworth for
necessary repair on June 17. Sauer had arranged this after
ascertaining that G-8, at the time in more urgent need of
repair, could be taken first on June 12. Sauer selected Roberts
for this advice since he was "first man" for E-2 as having
longer employment with Respondent than Brown. Sauer, a
resident of Greeley, went to Colorado Kenworth at 8 a.m. on
June 13 and was informed G-8 would be ready that day. He
then proceeded into Denver for business there at Respon-
dent's office. Upon completion of this he returned to
Colorado Kenworth about 1 p.m. and found E-2 in the shop
with preparatory mechanical dismantling already performed.
Sauer spoke with Edens to particularize desired repair work,
concerned mainly at the time with steering and torsion bar
assembly. He then "departed for Cheyenne to transport a
driver back to G-8 and return the unit to service. While
traveling, he used his mobile telephone to attempt contact
with Roberts and Brown. Sauer testified that Roberts could
not be reached at his home throughout the day but Brown
answered an early afternoon call and stated E-2 was in Gree-
ley because Roberts had said, "[T]he truck was suppose[d] to
be in the shop today."2 Upon reaching Cheyenne, Sauer at-
tempted without success to obtain a substitute unit from
Ruan Transport and eventually learned of a well "shut-in"
traceable to insufficient hauling capacity on June 13. While
present in the terminal office that afternoon, Sauer recalled
asking Pulatie why he was late and hearing him answer that
"the boys had had a meeting." He denied asking Pulatie what
the meeting was about, assuming it covered the dissatisfac-
tion of drivers with Sauer's intention to adjust fuel pumps in
each truck to reduce excess fuel oil consumption, although at
the expense of engine power.
Roberts recalled that at 9:30 a.m. on June 14, he went to
the terminal office in response to Sauer's telephone message.
Upon arrival, he found only Sauer present. Roberts testified
that Sauer said he understood that "[Y]ou fellows have went
down and signed for the Union," which Roberts affirmed
adding he thought 100 percent had so signed. Roberts testi-
fied further that Sauer continued by saying "[M]y theory is
either you or Jim Tylle is ring-leader on this and I am going
to get rid of you this morning." Drivers Tylle and Gary Carey
arrived, and in their presence Sauer terminated Roberts for
stated reasons of taking E-2 to Greeley and telling the oil
lease pumper at Walden that Sauer was often difficult to
reach because he farmed on the side.
Sauer's version of June 14 is that Roberts hung the tele-
phone up on him to end an 8 a:m. call so he telephoned the
home again at 9:30 a.m., leaving word that Roberts should
come into the terminal office. Sauer testified that soon Rob-
erts arrived, together with Tylle and Carney. He recalled
asking Roberts why E-2 was taken into Greeley early and
that Roberts answered the unit was unsafe to drive. Sauer
added that he didn't like "the rumors or the stories" 'about
the Walden pumper being told by Roberts that Sauer was
2 Brown denied receiving such a call, testifying instead that Sauer spoke
to him in the terminal office the afternoon of June 13 and exhibited disheart-
enment when Brown explained the absence of E-2 was according to Sauer's
own instructions
HUSKY OIL COMPANY
often absent from the office to work on'his farm. Sauer testi-
fied that he terminated Roberts then for "taking E-2 to Gree-
ley to the shop on the wrong day" and for telling "that I was
out on my farm working when actually I was away on com-
pany business."
Sauer had maintained a system of personnel notations con-
cerning drivers under his supervision. On two occasions in
May he recorded contracts from Walden in which the
pumper associated difficulty in reaching Sauer with state-
ments of Roberts that Sauer farmed. On May 9 Sauer warned
Roberts not to open his truck's tachometer clock. In early
May concerning E-2's repair at the time, Sauer told Roberts
the equipment showed too much speed and abuse. On May
15 Sauer spoke critically to Roberts about reported driving
violations and his general conduct on the road. Shortly after
May 15 Sauer instituted a change in oil sampling procedure
which he observed seemed to upset Roberts. In late May
Sauer spoke to Roberts saying his tachometer charts should
agree with his driver logs.
While Respondent contends Roberts, was discharged for
continuing rule violations, Sauer actually confined his stated
reasons for discharge to the events of June 13 and standing
innuendo concerning his farm. It is apparent that simultane-
ous removal from service of two units would prejudice Re-
spondent's hauling operations. It is also clear that disinter-
ested witness Edens registered surprise over the drop of
E-2 on June 13. The implications of these facts are far less
significant, however, than testimony which I credit to the
effect that Roberts and Brown were simultaneously in-
structed by Sauer to present E-2 for repair on June 13. The
job of these team members was to maintain a hauling cycle
and to complete required reports. Awareness of G-8 being
under repair gave rise to no duty for the driving team to
reconfirm Sauer's order. Several variables were present such
as oil field production, availability of Ruan equipment, refin-
ery capacity, risk of truck damage without immediate repair,
and configuration of open shop time in available repair facili-
ties. These were matters solely within Sauer's responsibility.
To saddle Roberts with higher personal responsibility than
Brown on a seniority-like basis was unwarranted. As to actual
movement of E-2 on June 13, no effort was made to stage a
confrontation between Roberts and Brown as to what, if
anything, was said between them on the point. The essential
question is whether Sauer uttered the identifiable and unmis-
takable date of Thursday, June 13, to Roberts and Brown as
the morning on which E-2 should reach Colorado Kenworth.
I am satisfied he did and that related events must be viewed
from that standpoint.
As between chief antagonists Roberts and Sauer, I credit
the former on the two crucial issues of fact. These relate to
the time of E-2 repair and whether Sauer uttered a plain
threat to discharge Roberts for union activities. Roberts was
uncertain of the day on which repair instructions were given
and showed other imperfections of memory. His perception
of the operating condition of E-2 did not coincide with
Brown's and he absorbed little of the Brown-Edens conversa-
tion occurring close to him on June 13. 1 do not believe these
inadequacies impaired his recollection of the factual conflict
areas noted or that he otherwise sought to distort the truth.
Sauer was also contradicted by Brown as to E-2 repair and
how contact occurred between them on June 13, by Pulatie
433
as to inquiry of the union meeting's purpose and by William
Harrell who corroborates Brown . It is not this 'numerical
imbalance but the essential implausibility of Sauer's tes-
timony that causes me to disbelieve him. Claimed continuing
derelictions were not timely brought to Roberts' attention,
other than as problems common to other drivers or regarding
minor, explained error. Sauer may have diaried his supervi-
sory activities for convenience, reassurance, or from habit.
Nevertheless such notations did not serve as traditional per-
sonnel recordings and treated on and immediately prior to
June 14 as a serious accumulation of job deficiencies. Sauer
testified that he even wrote in his "file" concerning the June
11th repair instructions for E-2, but such notation was not
produced in support of Sauer's factual contentions.
At every salient juncture Respondent's reasons for ter- -
minating Roberts appear contrived and pretextual. Respond-
ent argues that context and probabilities should compel an
opposite conclusion. Each assertion in this regard is too shal-
low or speculative to be influential. Assuming Edens regis-
tered mild surprise on the arrival of E-2, this reaction would
deal only with the nature of his prior communications with
Sauer and, without more, does not seriously affect the direct
testimony of what instructions Sauer gave the E-2 team. That
Edens was guided in the scope of repairs by Sauer's directives
and that neither driver signed a work order on June 13 is
explainable both in terms of the preexisting Sauer-Edens con-
tact and the earlier appearance of Sauer on June 13 coupled
with expectation of his later return that day relative to an-
ticipated completion of G-8 repairs.3 Respondent argues
that "more repairs" were improbable as soon as June 13, an
assertion that overlooks long awaited availability of the new
bell crank component for the truck's suspension . Respondent
argues further that Brown's credibility is flawed by failure to
"identify" his claimed conversation with Sauer during direct
examination. This assertion is simply erroneous on the rec-
ord. Finally, Respondent postulates that drivers rigged
events to permit total group presence at the union hall on
June 13. The convenience of such a turnout is conceded; the
presence of an underlying scheme, however, remains sheer
conjecture.
General Counsel has established a prima facie case through
credited facts showing a stated intent to discharge Roberts for
a classic form of protected activity. Respondent argues it is
"absurd" to believe such an utterance occurred. I reflected on
the oddity of it and can only observe that tonal factors in this
case offer some explanation. Testiness existed between Rob-
erts and Sauer. The former seemed still affected by chagrin
over discord associated with the organizational change on
April 1, while the latter maneuvered to secure his supervisory
authority over a headstrong group of drivers. The neutraliz-
ing effect of Sauer's remark to Pulatie concerning spillover of
unionization from the refinery work force is also noted. The
composite persuasion of these several factors is that Sauer
acted out the natural meaning of his words.
3 The showing of Roberts having signed earlier work orders and Brown
not having signed Colorado Kenworth's is without significance. Earlier re-
pairs were performed in Cheyenne by Diesel engine specialty shops having
probable familiarity with Roberts based on his former position. The repair
authorization policy of Colorado Kenworth is not known and Edens, hold-
ing only an acting capacity at the time, had predictably cautious reason to
await Sauer's return for the formality of signing a work order.
434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respecting paragraph V(a) of the complaint, the evidence
supportive of alleged interrogation is found in Pulatie's tes-
timony. While crediting his version of the discussion with
Sauer, I find it was uncoercive in nature. Sauer probed for
why employees met, but his immediately following remark
stripped any threatening aspect from the dialogue. This
blurted questioning of an employee coupled with bland reas-
surance leaves the episode without the elemental characteris-
tics of prohibited Section 8(a)(1) conduct 4
Respecting paragraph V(b) of the complaint, the credited
utterance referred to in this allegation merged into the effec-
tuated termination of Roberts only moments later. General
Counsel's brief does not address the subject as an issue and
I consider it unnecessary to make a separate finding. The
discriminatory discharge constitutes a derivative Section
8(a)(1) violation and is so expressed as a conclusion of law.
In summary, no independent 8(a)(1) violations are found;
however, the credited evidence as a whole provides ample
persuasion to conclude Respondent's discharge was moti-
vated by Sauer's belief that Roberts was instrumental in other
drivers signing cards for the Union. Justification does not
exist to fault Roberts for the taking of E-2 to Colorado
Kenworth on June 13. Furthermore, the claimed hauling
bind that arose would have been complicated by Pulatie's
4 I attach no significance to a conversation immediately following be-
tween Pulatie and Lake, as Sauer's mere presence during the exchange of
remarks cannot constitute constructive interrogation. General Counsel ap-
pears to contend this facet of testimony establishes or buttresses a showing
of unlawful interrogation but no rationale to so conclude is advanced.
5 The transcript's index is corrected to list Sauer as a recalled witness
commencing p 252
2-1/2-hour lateness, yet no hint of criticism was raised not-
withstanding Sauer being, "in trouble [Thursday
afternoon] with just one unit of my own [to move crude]."
Remarks concerning his-private farming could not reasona-
bly constitute a true basis for discharge . At most they were
meddlesome, but if Sauer was as available by mobile radio- as
he claimed, the Walden lease pumper would have had no
practical difficulty with contact.'
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, by discharging George W. Roberts because
of his membership in or activities on behalf of the Union, has
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Respondent has not violated the Act in any respect other
than as specifically found.
REMEDY
I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist from
its unfair labor practices, that it reinstate George W. Roberts
with backpay as provided in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962), and post an appropriate notice.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]