Jasper Pool Car Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 15, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 1025 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

JASPER POOL CAR SERVICE, INC.
Jasper Pool Car Service , Inc. and Chauffeurs,
Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 215, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case 25-CA-3180
May 15, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND ZAGORIA
On February 7, 1969, Trial Examiner David S.
Davidson issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent Jasper Pool
Car Service, Inc., had engaged 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. The Trial Examiner also found that
Respondent Jasper Pool Car Service, Inc. had not
engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor
practices. Thereafter, Respondent and the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National 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, the briefs, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that Respondent, Jasper Pool Car Service,
Inc., Jasper, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those portions of the
complaint as to which no violations have been found
are hereby dismissed.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID S . DAVIDSON , Trial Examiner : In Case
25-CA-3180 charges were filed on July 9, 1968, by
Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 215, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter
1025
referred to as the Union . The complaint issued on October
30, 1968. The complaint alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act (a ) by statements
and conduct attributed to persons alleged to be supervisors
of Respondent , (b) by laying off three employees and then
terminating those employees and a fourth employee
between April 22 and June 29, 1968, and (c ) by refusing
to bargain with the Union as representative of its drivers
and warehousemen after a majority of them had selected
the Union as their representative . In its answer,
Respondent denies the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
In Case 25-RC-3769 the Union filed a petition on April
22, 1968, seeking to represent a unit of all the drivers and
warehousemen employed by Respondent. On May 15 and
20, 1968, Respondent and the Union, respectively , signed
an agreement for consent election which was approved by
the Regional Director on June 7, 1968. Under the terms
of the agreement an election was to be held on July 2,
1968, among all drivers and warehousemen of the
employer at its Jasper, Indiana , establishment. The
payroll period for eligibility was established as that ending
Saturday , May 11, 1968. On July 2, the election was held,
resulting in a vote of one for the Union , one against, and
five challenged ballots. Following the election, both
Respondent and the Union filed timely objections to the
conduct of the election . On October 30, 1968, the
Regional Director issued his report on the challenged
ballots and the objections . He found that the evidence
submitted by Respondent in support of its objections was
not sufficient to sustain its objections and overruled them.
He found also that the issues raised by the challenged
ballots and the Union' s objections were substantially the
same as those raised by the allegations of the complaint in
Case 25-CA-3180. Accordingly , he concluded that the
challenges and the Union's objections could best be
resolved after a hearing , and ordered that a consolidated
hearing be held.
A hearing was held before me in Jasper , Indiana, on
December 16 and 17, 1968. At the close of the hearing
oral argument was waived , and the parties were given
leave to file briefs which have been received from the
General Counsel and Respondent.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, an Indiana corporation, maintains its
principal office and place of business at Jasper, Indiana,
where it provides warehousing, carloading and related
services. During the year prior to the issuance of the
complaint, a representative period, Respondent in the
course and conduct of its business performed services
valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located outside
the State of Indiana. I find that Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act, and that assertion of jurisdiction herein is warranted.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
175 NLRB No. 167
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
111. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Union's Organizing Campaign and Request
for Recognition
During the spring of 1968 Respondent employed eight
drivers and warehousemen at its facility. On April 18,
1968, as a consequence of a telephone call from one of
Respondent's employees, Union Business Representative
Joseph D. Kleumper met with five of Respondent's
employees at employee Anthony Borden's home. During
the course of the meeting he gave the employees
applications for membership and representation, and the
five employees present, Anthony Borden, Arnold Renner,
Larry Weidenbenner, Donald Jacob, and Paschal
Luebbehusen, filled the cards out, signed them, and
returned them to Kleumper. On the day after the meeting
Borden gave employee' Cletus Hopf a blank card to sign.
Hopf did, and Borden transmitted this card to Kleumper.
On April 19, 1968, the Union's president sent a letter
to Respondent to the attention of its manager, Dennis G.
Schuetter. In it he asserted that the Union had been
designated as collective-bargaining representative by a
majority of Respondent's employees in a unit composed of
all drivers and warehousemen excluding all other
employees. The Union requested recognition as the
representative of those employees and asked Respondent
to set a time and place for a meeting to begin negotiations
for a contract. The Union offered to prove its majority at
the meeting by any "mutually agreeable" means.
Schuetter received the letter on Saturday, April 20,
between 8 and 10:30 in the morning.
On April 22, Schuetter responded to the Union's letter
stating:
"We are in receipt of your letter dated April 19, 1968.
The material contained in your letter certainly was news
to us. We have no way of knowing and have no
knowledge that your Local represents a majority of our
employees.
This matter will probably have to be submitted to
the National Labor Relations Board. If you are found
to qualify by the Board for a secret ballot election we
advise that we will cooperate with the Board in this
respect.'
B. Changes in Respondent 's Practices and Policies
After the Union Demand
1. The facts
Before the Union demand for recognition the employees
had been allowed breaks in the morning and afternoon
which lasted from 10 to 25 minutes. The morning after
the Union's demand was received Schuetter began limiting
the break period to from 10 to 15 minutes. Thereafter
Randy Schuetter, Dennis' son, who served as leadman and
whose supervisory status is in dispute, began to watch the
employees during their break period and to instruct them
to return to work after 10 minutes.'
At that time Dennis Schuetter also instructed Randy
generally to watch the men more closely to see that the
work was done. Although Randy had previously spent a
considerable portion of his time at a desk in a dispatching
'It appears that the Union 's petition , which is also dated April 22, was
filed before Respondent 's letter was received by the Union.
'These findings are based on the testimony of Dennis Schuetter , Borden,
and Renner . Their testimony is not in conflict in this regard.
room or office, after that date he began to spend more
time on the dock watching the employees more closely
and taking notes which he had not previously done.'
Before the union demand the employees sometimes
worked in groups of two or three in loading and unloading
freight. After the demand Randy Schuetter instructed
them to work individually on separate trailers and
separated them when he found them working together.'
Also at that time Respondent changed the employees
practices with respect to clocking in and starting work.
Previously employees had punched timecards for one
another and they often started work 5 or 10 minutes late.
After receipt of the Union's demand, the employees were
instructed to punch only their own timecards and to start
work promptly at 7 in the morning.'
Before April 22, Borden shared driving duties with
Renner and Luebbehusen. All three also worked on the
dock when there was no driving to be done. Borden drove
approximately 85 percent of his working time. From April
22 on, Borden was given no further driving assignments.
After that time he and Weidenbenner were assigned on at
least one occasion to mow grass. Previously a farmer with
a tractor had mowed the grass, although employees other
than Borden had been asked to cut down grass along the
railroad tracks. During slack times employees had
previously been assigned to paint the warehouse and had
been given anything that was available to do.'
Until April 22, the normal workweek for Respondent's
employees was 50 hours, although Weidenbenner appears
to have worked somewhat less, between 42 and 48 hours a
week. After April 22 Weidenbenner worked a day and a
half and was laid off as set forth below. Borden and
Jacob's work weeks decreased to between 27 and 29 hours
a week. Renner's work week also decreased but in a lesser
amount, and he worked approximately 45 hours a week
after that date. Luebbehusen's work week varied, and he
worked 40, 45, and sometimes 50 hours a week in the
period immediately after April 22. Hopf continued to
work 50 hours a week after April 22. Later, in August,
Luebbehusen's workweek increased to 60 hours a week,
and Hopf worked 55 to 60 hours a week.'
2. Concluding findings
The evidence shows that immediately upon receipt of
the Union's demand for recognition, Respondent made
several restrictive changes in work practices. As for the
conceded shortening of break periods, Dennis Schuetter
denied that the change in policy was related to the Union
and testified that business had been falling off and that
'These findings are based on the testimony of Dennis Schuetter , Borden,
Renner, and Weidenbenner . Dennis Schuetter conceded that he gave such
instructions to Randy Schuetter . Although Luebbehusen testified that there
was no change in the way that Randy Schuetter worked , in his testimony
he impressed me as overly anxious to support Respondent's position, and
his testimony in this regard is not credited . Randy Schuetter did not
testify.
'Donald Jacob so testified without contradiction.
'Dennis Schuetter testified that the change in clocking practices occurred
about 2 weeks before he received the Union 's demand and was a
consequence of difficulties he encountered in making out a payroll. His
explanation went only to the requirement that employees punch their own
cards, and his testimony as to the timing of the changes was not
corroborated . Both Borden and Renner testified that the changes were
communicated to them on April 22, the next working day after the
Union's demand was received . I have credited them in this regard.
'Borden's testimony in this regard is uncontradicted.
'fhe testimony of the various witnesses as to the length of their
workweek is uncontradicted.
JASPER POOL CAR SERVICE, INC. 1027.
"was what it was mostly for." Schuetter denied also that
the change in the intensity of supervision by Randy
Schuetter at Dennis Schuetter's instruction was due to the
union activities but offered no affirmative explanation for
that change. His explanation for the change in practices as
to punching of timecards is set forth above and I have not
credited him that it occurred before the Union demand.
No explanations were offered for the changes in the
practices with respect to starting times and employees
working together in groups.
All of these changes occurred at the same time and
appear to have been of a piece. All followed immediately
the Union's demand for recognition. While a simple desire
for economy might explain some of the changes, it does
not explain them all. Thus the unexplained requirement
that employees cease working in groups would appear to
have no purpose other than to inhibit communication
between employees while at work and to make working
conditions less pleasant. Moreover, absent any showing
that an increase in the intensity of supervision was
required by inadequacy of work performance, that change
appears to have had similar purpose. While Dennis
Schuetter denied the relationship of the union activities to
the restriction of breaks, his response that the change was
"mostly" because of a decrease in business leaves an open
question as to what remainder of the reason was. I
conclude from the timing of these changes, the nature of
some of them, and the explanations offered that whatever
justifications Respondent might have found in the
condition of its business for instituting some of them,
these changes were made on April 22 as a response to the
Union's demand for recognition and were intended to
discourage the employees' union activities and
membership in violation of Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the
Act.
At the same time, as set forth in more detail below, I
am satisfied that there was a decline in Respondent's
business which had started even before the union demand
was made. Thus, on April 8, Kreilan, a retarded
employee, was laid off, and after April 22, Respondent
was able to handle its work first with a reduced workweek
and later with a reduced work force. Although there is
some evidence in the testimony of Renner, considered
below, that Respondent had required the employees to
speed up their work at the time of his discharge in June,
none of the other three employees who were laid off in
April and May testified to a speed up in the work pace
despite increased supervision. Also none testified that
there was more work available that they were permitted to
perform.
In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that the
decrease in the work week or the change in the work
assignments of Borden and Weidenbenner would not have
occurred but for the Union's demand. Although some
employees appear to have worked longer hours than
:others after the union demand, the length of the
employees' work weeks corresponded to their relative
seniority. The reassignment of Borden from mixed duties
to straight warehouse work is not inconsistent with the
impact of a reduced volume of business. The assignment
of Borden and Weidenbenner to grass mowing appears to
have been novel, but Borden conceded that when their
regular work was slow, employees were given anything
that was available to do. Neither Borden nor
Weidenbenner testified that there was other work
available for them when they were assigned to mow grass.
Accordingly, although the timing of the reduction of the
workweek and the changed assignments raises some
suspicion, I conclude that the evidence as a whole does
not support a finding these changes were based on the
employees' union activities or violated the Act.
C. Statements Attributed to Dennis and Randy
Schuetter
1. The supervisory status of Randy Schuetter
The complaint alleges that Randy Schuetter is a
supervisor and agent of Respondent for whose conduct
Respondent is responsible. As set forth above, Randy
Schuetter is the son of Dennis Schuetter, manager of
Respondent. Dennis Schuetter is concededly a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act and an agent of
Respondent. Apart from the two Schuetters during the
Spring of 1968 up to the time of the Union's demand,
there were seven or eight other persons employed by
Respondent as drivers and warehousemen.
Most assignments are transmitted to employees by
Randy Schuetter. However, according to Dennis
Schuetter, there is not much variation in Respondent's
operations from day to day, and he gives Randy Schuetter
instructions as to how the employees are to be assigned.
Dennis Schuetter spends from 92 to 95 percent of his time
at the warehouse. Most of that time he is in an office, but
he conveys instructions to Randy Schuetter. When he is
away from the warehouse, Randy Schuetter is in charge
but Dennis Schuetter calls in from time to time and
conveys instructions to Randy Schuetter.
Until April 22, Randy Schuetter spent a substantial
portion of his working time in a dispatch office, which is
separated from Respondent's business offices, where he
worked on bills of lading. After April 22, Randy
Schuetter spent most of his time on the dock. As set forth
above, at that time Dennis Schuetter instructed him to
watch the other employees more closely, and he did. In
addition to telling the others what work they were to
perform, he also enforced the changes in policy with
respect to break periods and starting times and he
instructed employees not to work in groups on the dock.
On occasion when employees wanted time off, they made
their requests to Randy Schuetter who granted them,
although when Renner wanted time off on one occasion he
spoke to Dennis Schuetter about it. Randy Schuetter
received no special benefits other than those received by
other employees and was paid 5 cents an hour more than
the others.
In the light of the additional duties given to Randy
Schuetter and performed by him in response to the union
demand as well as his relationship to Dennis Schuetter
and his previous duties, I conclude that after April 22,
Randy Schuetter was more than just another employee
and was a supervisor and agent of Respondent for whose
conduct Respondent became responsible, whatever his
status may have been before April 22.
2. Statements attributed to Randy Schuetter
On April 23, while at work Borden commented to
Randy Schuetter, "I guess you are pretty mad at us now."
Schuetter replied that he was not. He added that he hoped
the employees would get a union and find out "how really
rotten it was." Borden replied that the employees were
just trying to better themselves. Schuetter stated that none
of them had "enough guts to go up and ask his old man
for a $2 raise." Borden replied that if they had, they
would not have gotten it. This was the only conversation
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Borden had with either Randy or Dennis Schuetter
about the Union.' The complaint does not appear to allege
any violation of the Act in Schuetter's statements to
Borden, and I would not find one in any event.
On April 22 or 23, while at work Randy Schuetter told
Renner and Luebbehusen that he thought the employees
were only hurting themselves with the Union and stated
that he thought they could have done better if they had
gone to his father and tried to work out a contract with
Respondent because its directors could shut the place
down anytime they wanted to. Renner replied that they
were trying to get a union in to better themselves. This
was the only conversation that Renner had with either
Randy or Dennis Schuetter about the Union'
I find that Schuetter's statements to Renner and
Luebbehusen violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
threatening them with the possibility of reprisal in the
form of plant closure for having gone to a union. The
complaint also alleges that Schuetter's statements
additionally violated Section 8(a)(l) by threatening that
Respondent would not negotiate in good faith with the
Union if it was selected by the employees to represent
them, by suggesting formation of a labor organization to
negotiate directly with Respondent, and by promising
employees benefits and improvements if they negotiated
directly with Respondent rather than with the Union. I
find it difficult to read into Schuetter's statements more
than the converse of the threat of closure, that is that the
employees would not be hurting themselves and would be
better off if they had not chosen to seek the aid of an
outside union . In my view the violation found and the
remedy recommended for it are sufficient to remedy the
vice of Schuetter's statements.
3. Statements by Dennis Schuetter
About 2 weeks before the election Dennis Schuetter
asked Luebbehusen what he thought about the Union
Luebbehusen replied that he did not know. Schuetter
stated that what each man did was his own business." In
the' absence of any other evidence of interrogation by
Respondent and in the context of Schuetter's entire
conversation with Luebbehusen, I conclude that his
question to Luebbehusen did not amount to coercive
interrogation which violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
About a week before the election, Luebbehusen asked
Dennis Schuetter if he could have all the out-of-town runs
because he was the senior driver. Schuetter replied that as
Luebbehusen was the oldest man, he could have the
out-of-town runs if he wanted them and was available."
There is no evidence that the Union was mentioned during
this conversation and there is no evidence that Schuetter's
response indicated any substantial deviation from past
practice or constituted a significant concession to
Luebbehusen. I conclude that the evidence is insufficient
to support a finding that Schuetter promised or granted a
'These findings are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Borden
Randy Schuetter did not testify
'Renner so testified , and Luebbehusen after initially testifying that he
could not recall more than a fragment of the conversation confirmed that
Schuetter said the directors could close the place down anytime they
wanted to, as ' he had stated in an affidavit given during the investigation of
the case
'•Luebbehusen initially testified that he could not remember whether he
had spoken to Schuetter at this time but then testified as set forth in the
findings after being reminded of his affidavit Schuetter conceded that he
had talked to some employees about the Union and told them to use their
own judgment
benefit to Luebbehusen for the purpose of discouraging
union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(I)
D The Layoff and Termination of Borden, Jacob and
Weidenbenner
Borden, Jacob, and Weidenbenner were Respondent's
three least senior employees, with respective starting dates
of December 10, 1966, March 21, 1967, and September
18, 1967. On April 23, 1968, shortly after the Union
demand, Respondent laid off Weidenbenner. On May 16,
1968, Respondent laid off Borden and Jacob. As noted
above they had worked short work weeks from April 22
until they were laid off Before the Union demand and the
layoff of these employees, on April 8, Respondent had
laid off a retarded employee who had also worked on the
dock. After the layoffs, Respondent was left with three
employees other than Dennis and Randy Schuetter.
When Weidenbenner was laid off, Dennis Schuetter told
him that business had slowed up and that he had to send
him home but that he would probably be recalled on the
following Thursday. When Borden and Jacob were laid
off, Schuetter told Borden that work had slowed up and
that Borden and Jacob were laid off for the rest of the
week. None of the three employees was recalled at the
indicated times, and on June 13, Respondent sent each.of
them identical letters notifying them that they were
terminated.
There is no evidence that there was work available for
these employees to do at the time they were laid off.
Although Renner testified that there was a speed up at a
later date to make it possible to perform the work without
them, there is no evidence to suggest any speed up at the
time of the layoffs, and the evidence shows that
Respondent operated without additional help following the
layoffs and without replacing Renner after his discharge.
There is also some testimony, by Renner indicating that at
the time of his discharge Dennis Schuetter was working
on the dock contrary to his usual practice. Schuetter
testified that he only worked on the dock during vacation
periods, as he had in the past. The record does not
establish whether any employees were on vacation at the
time Dennis Schuetter was performing dock work nor
does it establish the extent or duration of his work on the
dock.
The June 13 letter to the laid off employees read as
follows:
Due to the reasons that I will set forth below, we
find it necessary to terminate your employment with
this company. This will allow you an opportunity to
seek permanent employment elsewhere. We assure you
that any request for a recommendation that might be
asked of this company by any future employer will be
granted. Here are the reasons.
(1) On January 17, 1968, the Interstate Commerce
Commission allowed the Commercial Carriers to
increase the ratings on furniture. The new ratings
increase the rate on chairs from 2 x 1st. class to 3 x 1st
class per cwt On desk, 11/4 x 1st class to 1 3/4 x 1st
class per cwt. Other items were also increased Due to
such drastic increase in rates, causes the manufacturer
to lose business and forced to ship the most economical
way In order to ship the cheapest way is by loading
"According to Luebbehusen, Schuetter replied only that the chances
were that Luebbehusen might have all the out-of -town runs However, he
conceded that in his affadavit he stated that Schuetter told him he could
have them, and Schuetter testified as set forth in the findings
JASPER POOL CAR SERVICE, INC. 1029
light weight carloads direct from the plants. Some are
loading 4000 lbs and 5000 lbs in carloads which is
cheaper than what Jasper Pool Car Service can ship it.
[sic]
(2) Some of the plants we work with have reduced
working hours.
(3) Some of the plants that we service are working
warehouse stock for future shipping.
(4) Two of the larger shippers to Jasper Pool Car
Service are closed for vacation from May 28, 1968 to
June 17, 1968. The other plants will close from June 29,
1968 to July 15, 1968. Almost all plants are closed for
two weeks for majority of the men have two weeks
vacation time and desire to be off, making it
impractical for rest of the plant to operate
economically.
(5) Outside members have been bringing in their
merchandise by their own trucks due to insufficient
tonnage for Jasper Pool Car Service to make the pick
up. Other members have been shipping carloads to
Jasper Pool Car Service which require dock handling
alone.
(6) The Market for Household Goods will begin on
June 16, 1968, in Chicago, Illinois and will run for one
week. One can expect a slow period before and after
each Market. Buyers are waiting on new designed
furniture and the sale people are moving to and from
the Market.
From the six points that I have listed above it has
caused substantial decrease in our business, and I just
cannot foresee the hiring or rehiring of any additional
employees.
I thought it advisable to notify you of this so that
you would know there was to be no expectation of any
employment with this company.
Schuetter in his testimony gave similar reasons in
explaining the reasons for the layoffs and subsequent
terminations. Although his testimony is less than clear in
some respects, the lack of clarity would appear to stem
from an assumption of greater knowledge of the nature of
Respondent's business than the record discloses. His
testimony is not inconsistent with the contents of the
letter. Although the letter and his testimony suggest that
the decline in business was explained in part by the
decision of some of the shippers who used Respondent's
services to ship directly from their plants, that decision
was related by Schuetter to economic considerations, and
there is no allegation that there was any collective
withholding of business from Respondent for the purpose
of permitting it to reduce its work force.
As noted, even after Renner's discharge, Respondent
did not immediately replace him, but continued to operate
until the end of August without hiring additional help. At
that time Respondent started to hire additional help, some
of whom worked part time and some of whom worked full
time. The first full-time employee was hired on October
19. Thereafter Respondent added three more new full-time
employees." In November Respondent also offered
reemployment to the three. laid off employees and to
Renner. Borden and Renner returned to work in
November.-
'The second new full-time employee , Peterson, who was later replaced
by Atkin , was hired during the week ending November 16. Although
Schuetter initially testified that these were the only full -time employees
hired , he later testified that there were two additional full time employees
on Respondent's payroll at the time of the hearing , Donald and Ray
Stillwell . Earlier he identified Donald Stillwell as a temporary employee
hired during the week ending November 9 . The date of hire of Ray
Concurrent with the beginning of the expansion of
Respondent's work force a new operation was started by
the manufacturers in the Jasper area who utilized
Respondent's shipping services. Known as the Jasper
Furniture Forwarding Company that operation was
designed to provide the manufacturers with a private
over-the-road trucking operation. Dennis Schuetter also
was managing Furniture Forwarding, and some of
Respondent's employees were loaned or transferred to
Furniture Forwarding. It appears that Furniture
Forwarding was in its formative stages before the
organizing campaign among Respondent's employees
began. The complaint contains no allegations as to
Furniture Forwarding.
Under these circumstances, despite the timing of the
layoffs and the reduced work weeks of Borden, Jacob, and
Weidenbenner in relation to the receipt of the Union
demand for recognition, it appears that Respondent had
valid business reasons to reduce its work force on April 23
and May 16. Accordingly, I find that the layoffs did not
violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The conversion of the layoffs into terminations and the
failure to recall the laid off employees at the start of the
expansion of Respondent's operations raises a more
difficult question. The question to be decided or course is
not when work first became available for the laid off
employees but what motivated the terminations.
The record is not without support for the allegations of
the complaint. Thus Respondent' s initial response to the
Union's demand for recognition in the form of changed
conditions of employment and Randy Schuetter's
statement to Luebbehusen and Renner" indicate that
retaliation was not absent from Respondent's thinking.
Although Respondent initially led the employees to believe
that their layoffs would be of short duration, there is no
evidence that Respondent's economic outlook changed
between the time of the layoffs and the terminations, and
the terminations occurred after approval of the consent
election agreement at a time when they had a substantial
impact on the voting eligibility of the laid off employees."
While this evidence leaves a lingering doubt as to
Respondent's motivation, I do not conclude that it is
sufficient to overcome Respondent's explanation for the
terminations, for the evidence does appear clear that in
addition to the seasonal decline attendant to the work
schedules of Respondent's customers, there was
uncertainty as to the future prospects for restoration of its
business stemming from rate changes affecting the
shippers, and any prospect we need for additional help
was still some time off.'° Although there is some suspicion
as to the motivation for the offers to reinstatement to the
laid off employees which came the day after issuance of
the complaint in this case, the offers were made, and only
one new permanent employee was hired before the laid off
employees were offered jobs. There is no past history or
layoffs of any substantial duration against which to
Stillwell was not established.
"Borden , Jacob, and Weidenbenner were offered reinstatement by letter
of November 1, 1968, without prejudice to Respondent's position in this
case . Borden returned on November I but Weidenbenner and Jacob did
not respond to the offers . Renner returned to work on December 2, 1968,
under circumstances not entirely clear from the record.
"In view of Randy Schuetter 's relationship to Dennis Schuetter I view
his statement as more than an independent speculation by a minor
supervisor or agent.
"However, the force of this fact is somewhat diminished by the fact that
Respondent ' s representative signed the consent election agreement the day
before Borden and Jacob were laid off.
"Over 2 months passed after the termination letters were sent before
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
compare Respondent's actions with respect to the
termination and recall of Borden, Jacob, and
Weidenbenner. In these circumstances, I cannot conclude
that a preponderance of the evidence establishes that
Respondent was motivated by the union activities of the
laid off employees in terminating them and waiting until
November 1 to offer them reemployment. Accordingly, I
will recommend dismissal of the allegations of the
complaint that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by laying off and terminating Borden,
Jacob, and Weidenbenner.
E. The Suspension and Discharge of Arnold Renner
On June 18, 1968, Dennis Schuetter suspended Renner
from employment for 10 days and on June 29 he
discharged Renner.
Renner started to work for Respondent in October
1965. He worked as a dockman for about a month and a
half and from then on drove a truck, performing dock
work when there was no driving for him.
Renner was in the Army Reserve and went to summer
training camp in early June 1968. On July 17 he returned
to work. According to Renner during that day and the
next morning Dennis Schuetter several times urged him to
move faster. On one occasion while he was waiting for a
switching engine to return a car he was working on,
Dennis Schuetter told him to get to work and that there
was not time to stand around. Schuetter testified that he
observed Renner on the day of his return and that Renner
was walking slowly, dragging in his work, and wheeling
smaller loads than normal on his hand truck. According
to Schuetter he said nothing about it to Renner because
he thought Renner might be tired from the summer camp.
However, the next day, he testified that he observed that
Renner's work was unchanged and called Renner into his
office.
What happened thereafter is not in essential dispute.
Renner protested that Schuetter was being unfair.
Schuetter told Renner that he was either going to increase
his speed and work like the rest of the employees or get
out. Renner accused Schuetter of making 4 men do the
work of 7 or 8 and said that he did not think it was right
to make them do so for the same rate of pay, Schuetter
told Renner that if that was the way he felt, he was
suspended for 10 days and should punch out. There was
no mention of union activity.
After 10 days Renner inquired about returning to work.
Dennis Schuetter told him to report the next morning and
that he would expect Renner "to be a man." Renner
returned to work on June 28.
According to Renner, several times that day and the
next morning, Schuetter told him to step it up and get
moving despite the fact that he was working at his normal
rate of speed. Schuetter testified that he told Renner at
the time he punched in on June 28 that if he was not
going to work like the others he should not bother to
punch in. Renner punched in and, according to Schuetter,
started to work in the same way as before his suspension.
During the morning of June 28, Schuetter showed Renner
how he wanted Renner to stack chairs for movement and
told him that he was tired of Renner's slow tactics and
Respondent hired any additional help Although Hopf and Luebbehusen
worked more than their normal workweek during August, their combined
excess work would not have amounted to full-time work for a single
employee.
would not put up with it any longer. Schuetter testified
that he told Renner to do his work properly or get out.
According to Schuetter, Renner did a fair job for the rest
of that day. However, the next day Schuetter observed
Renner for about an hour and concluded that he was
again working slowly. What happened next is again
undisputed.
Schuetter told Renner that if his work was the best he
could do, he should get out. Renner asked Schuetter what
he wanted him to do and if Schuetter wanted him to run.
Schuetter replied that he did not but just wanted Renner
to work like the others. Renner said that he was not about
to run. Schuetter told him that if he was going to get
smart about it, he should clock out and Schuetter would
give him his paycheck. Renner decided not to clock out
because he did not want Schuetter to say he had quit.
Schuetter gave Renner his paycheck, telling him that he
had always thought Renner was 'a man but that Renner
had him fooled. There was some further discussion but
again the Union was not mentioned. On December 2,
1968, Renner was reemployed but with no concession by
Respondent that his discharge was improper.
As indicated above the evidence is in dispute as to
whether Renner's work was deficient after his return from
military leave or he was harassed to work at a faster pace
than previously required.
Renner's shortcomings, attributed to him by Dennis
Schuetter, Paschal Luebbehusen and Elmer Hopf, were
that Renner's work was slow and "draggy" and that in
moving chairs in and out of the warehouse he stacked
only two chairs at a time on his hand truck rather than
three or four at a time. According to Schuetter, on the
morning of June 28 he showed Renner how he wanted the
chairs stacked but on June 29 observed Renner moving
two chairs at a time as he had before.
Renner testified that the matter of the number of chairs
stacked by him for a single load on his hand truck was
not raised by Schuetter until the day of his discharge after
which he complied with Schuetter's instructions until he
was discharged. According to Renner, there was no
uniform practice as to how chairs were stacked and his
practices at the time of his discharge were the same as he
and other employees had followed during the period of his
employment. He conceded that he sometimes moved two
chairs at a time and was doing so at the time Schuetter
raised the matter with him.
Luebbehusen and Hopf both testified that normal
practice was to stack chairs three or four high for
movement and not two high. Although Luebbehusen's
testimony in several places showed signs of being
consciously shaped to support his employer's position,
none of the other former employees who testified were
questioned about the practices on the dock in moving
chairs, and Renner's contrary testimony stands
uncorroborated.
It is clear from the undisputed testimony of Renner's
statements to Dennis Schuetter at the time of his
suspension and discharge that Renner believed that he was
being overworked to compensate for the reduction in force
a month earlier. Far less clear however, is whether that
belief was justified and whether Renner was in fact
decreasing his own effort. I conclude that the latter was
the case. Although Renner's explanation for sometimes
moving chairs two at a time is not wholly lacking in
plausibility, I am not persuaded that the number of chairs
moved in each load had no substantial relationship to the
speed with which the work was done. I conclude that
Renner's uncorroborated testimony as to normal work
JASPER POOL CAR SERVICE, INC.
practices must be rejected.
I also conclude that Dennis Schuetter's version of the
circumstances which led to Renner 's discharge should be
credited. Despite Renner's apparent belief that there was a
speed up to compensate for the layoffs, the evidence shows
that before the layoffs, Borden, Jacob, and Weidenbenner
worked substantially less than they had previously.
Although starting times were more vigorously enforced
and break periods were reduced, none of the laid off
employees testified that there was otherwise a speed up in
the work pace which caused their shorter work week.
There is no evidence to contradict Respondent's
explanation for the substantial decrease in work during
the period when Renner was discharged. Moreover, there
is no evidence that Renner was replaced during his
suspension or for 2 months following his discharge.
Although the workweeks of Luebbehusen and Hopf
increased in August, I find it difficult to conclude that
even if Dennis Schuetter performed dock work during this
period, a speed up in the required work pace could
account for the ability of a drastically reduced work force
to perform the work previously performed by the same
work force and Renner.
I find that Renner was discharged after suspension and
warning because of his deficient work performance.
Accordingly, I conclude that the allegations of the
complaint that his discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act should be dismissed.
F. The Pay Increase
On July 27, 1968, a little more than 3 weeks after the
representation election, Respondent granted a
25-cent-an-hour increase to its employees. According to
Dennis Schuetter the raise had been "in the mill" before
the Union appeared on the scene. Schuetter testified that
normally in April the factories around Jasper opened their
contracts for increases which brought on raises for
Respondent's employees.
The complaint alleges that Respondent promised and
granted its employees wage increases and other benefits on
June 27 and July 27, 1968, if they refrained from Union
membership and activity. Apart from the evidence
discussed above as to Dennis Schuetter's conversation with
Luebbehusen about out-of-town runs, no other evidence
was offered to establish any promise of wage increases or
other benefits at any time. Accordingly, I will recommend
dismissal of the allegations of the complaint that
Respondent promised wage increases and other benefits to
employees.
The grant of wage increases occurred after the election
at a time when the objections to the election were
pending. The grant of an increase at such a time may
violate Section $(a)(1) of the Act if "undertaken with the
express purpose of infringing upon [employees'] freedom
of choice for or against unionization and . . . reasonably
calculated to have that effect.' 117 Here there is no direct
evidence to connect the wage increases with the election.
Dennis Schuetter's explanation of the increases, while
brief, was not refuted, and the factual premises of his
explanation were not explored. Absent some basis for
rejecting that explanation, I conclude that any inference to
be drawn from the timing of the increases and
Respondents earlier unfair labor practices are not strong
enough to overcome Schuetter's explanation. Accordingly,
I find that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by its grant of the wage increases.
G. The Alleged Refusal To Bargain
1031
The complaint alleges that on and after April 20, 1968,
Respondent refused to bargain in good faith with the
Union as representative of Respondent's drivers and
warehousemen. The evidence is clear that as of that date a
clear majority of Respondent's employees had delivered
signed authorization cards to the Union and that the unit
sought by the Union, which was the same as that in which
the consent election was held, was appropriate. The cards
signed by the employees, captioned "Application for
Membership and Authorization For Representation"
contained a clear and unequivocal authorization for the
Union to act as collective-bargaining agent for the
employees.
On April 19, the Union mailed a request for
recognition to Respondent claiming a majority among the
drivers and warehousemen and offering to prove its
majority status "by any means which may be mutually
agreeable" at a meeting which it requested. On April 22,
Respondent replied asserting that it had no knowledge as
to the Union's claim of majority representation.
Respondent's letter, as set forth above, suggested that the
matter would probably have to be resolved by the Board
and offered cooperation in arranging for an election. As
set forth above, the Union filed a representation petition,
and the parties entered into a consent election agreement.
An inconclusive election was held following which the
Union filed objections considered below.
The General Counsel contends that Respondent's lack
of good faith is established by its unfair labor practices
which commenced simultaneously with its receipt of the
Union's recognition demand. In Aaron Brothers
Company of California, 158 NLRB 1077, the Board set
forth the principles which govern this case." The Board
stated:
Whether an employer is acting in good faith or bad
faith in questioning the union's majority is a
determination which of necessity must be made in the
light of all the relevant facts of the case, including any
unlawful conduct of the employer, the sequence of
events, and the time lapse between the refusal and the
unlawful conduct. Where a company has engaged in
substantial unfair labor practices calculated to dissipate
union support, the Board, with the courts' approval, has
concluded that employer insistence on an election was
not motivated by a good-faith doubt of the union's
majority, but rather by a rejection of the collective
bargaining principle or by a desire to gain time within
which to undermine the union. However, this does not
mean that any employer conduct found violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, regardless of its nature or
gravity, will necessarily support a refusal-to-bargain
finding. For instance where an employer's unfair labor
practices are not of such a character as to reflect a
purpose to evade an obligation to bargain, the Board
will not draw an inference of bad faith."
Before and after Aaron Brothers, the Board has found
a failure to establish bad faith despite an employer's
"N.L R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company , 375 U.S 405, 409; Ralph
Printing & Lithographing Co., 158 NLRB 1353, enfd. as modified 379
F.2d 687 (C.A. 8).
"See also Bernel Foam Products Co., Inc., 146 NLRB 1277, which
establishes that an election following a refusal to bargain does not bar a
finding of an 8(a)(5) violation if the election is later set aside . As set forth
below , I recommend herein that the July 2 election be set aside.
"158 NLRB at 1079
1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
commission of unfair labor practices after a demand for
recognition.30
Here the violations which I found occurred immediately
after receipt of the Union's demand for recognition. They
consisted of a decrease in the time allowed for breaks,
intensification of supervision, a change in rules as to
punching of timecards, enforcement of prompt starting
times, restrictions against employees working together in
groups, and a threat that Respondent's directors could
close the warehouse. Thereafter Respondent engaged in no
further violations of the Act.
The unfair labor practices in this case are substantially
similar to those before the Board in Merritt Packing and
Crating Service, Inc., 172 NLRB No. 202. In that case
the changes in. practices were announced a day or two
before the union's demand for recognition and the filing of
a representation petition. However, I find this slight
difference in timing immaterial. Some of the changes,
including a significant discontinuation of a past practice of
making work to provide a full 40-hour work week, took
effect and remained in effect after the Union's demand.
Although the Board found that the respondent in that case
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by its conduct, it
concluded that the illegal conduct was "not of such a
character as to reflect a purpose to evade an obligation to
bargain"" and dismissed the refusal to bargain allegation
on that ground.
In the present case, apart from Respondent's unfair
labor practices, there is no other evidence to support the
contention that Respondent's refusal to bargain was not in
good faith. In these circumstances, I follow the Board's
Merritt Packing decision and find that the General
Counsel has not made a sufficient affirmative showing of
bad faith to support the conclusion that. Respondent
refused to bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act. Accordingly, I will recommend that this allegation of
the complaint be dismissed.
IV. THE CHALLENGED BALLOTS AND OBJECTIONS TO
THE ELECTION
There were five challenged ballots in the election. These
were ballots cast by Randall Schuetter, Anthony Borden,
Donald Jacob, Larry Weidenbenner, and Arnold Renner.
I have found above that Randall Schuetter was a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act and that Arnold
Renner was discharged for cause before the election was
held. Accordingly, I will recommend that the challenges to
their ballots be sustained."
I have also found that Borden , Jacob, and
Weidenbenner were not laid off or discharged for
discriminatory reasons. The question remains whether at
the time of the election they were laid off employees with
a reasonable expectancy of recall. As set forth, they were
notified on June 13, 1968, that their layoffs, previously
described to them as temporary, were in effect being made
permanent in that they were being terminated to give
them an opportunity to seek permanent employment
elsewhere. Of the six reasons set forth in the letters to
them, four indicate a basis for a temporary decline in
business, one indicates a basis for a permanent change in
"Hammond & Irving , Incorporated , 154 NLRB 1071; Merritt Packing
& Crating Service , Inc.. 172 NLRB No. 202; Fashion Fair. Inc., 173
NLRB No. 28; Grafton Boat Co., Inc., 173 NLRB No. 150.
Quoting from Hammond & Irving, Incorporated . supra.
"Ordinarily an employee must be employed both on the eligibility date
and the date of the election to be eligible to vote . See Macy's
Missouri-Kansas Division , 173 NLRB No. 232.
Respondent's business, and the remaining reason could
indicate either a temporary or permanent decline. At the
time of these events, the shippers whom Respondent
serviced were actively seeking to establish alternative
means for handling some of their shipments, and as set
forth above, Jasper Furniture Forwarding, Inc., started to
operate in September for that purpose. Although it
appears that Respondent might have reasonably
anticipated that some of the factors to which it attributed
the decline in its business would change by the end of the
summer, in the face of the uncertainties created by rate
changes and the plans to establish Jasper Furniture
Forwarding, I find that Borden, Jacob, and Weidenbenner
had no reasonable expectation of reemployment in the
forseeable future at the time of the election and were not
eligible voters." Accordingly, I shall recommend that the
challenges to their ballots be sustained.
The Union's objections to the election are based on the
same conduct as the allegations of unfair labor practices
in the complaint. As set forth above, the representation
petition was filed on April 22, 1968. In Goodyear Tire
and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453, the Board decided
to apply the same cutoff dates in representation cases in
which consent election agreements were executed as in
those which went to hearing. Thus, the Board held that it
would consider as a basis for setting aside an election any
objectionable conduct which occurs after the date of the
filing of the petition. Although there is some ambiguity in
the formula set forth in Goodyear for determining the
controlling date, it is clear that the Board intended
consent elections to be governed by the same rules as
elections conducted after a hearing. In the latter case the
Board has specifically held that conduct occurring on or
after the date on which a petition is filed will be
considered on its merits as a basis for objections."
Here the changes in working conditions and the
statement of Randy Schuetter found to have violated the
Act were made on or immediately following the day that
the petition was filed. While I have concluded that the
unfair labor practices were not sufficiently substantial to
warrant issuance of bargaining order, I have not
concluded that they were so insubstantial or limited in
their impact as to have had no effect on the results of the
election. A restriction of previously relaxed work practices
and a more rigid application of work rules reasonably
carries with it to employees the message that if they chose
union representation they may expect more restrictive
treatment in the future based on that choice, particularly
in the light of Randy Schuetter's threat. Accordingly, I
conclude that the Union's objections to the election based
on the conduct found herein to violate the Act should be
sustained, and I recommend that the election held on July
2, 1968 be set aside and a new election conducted.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent
be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action as set forth below.
As I have found that the allegations of the complaint
otherwise have not been sustained, I shall recommend that
the remaining allegations of unfair labor practices in the
complaint be dismissed.
"Rembrandt Lamp Corporation. 128 NLRB 905.
" West Texas Equipment Company, 142 NLRB 1358.
JASPER POOL CAR SERVICE, INC. 1033
Although the Regional Director provided in his order
consolidating cases that Case 25-RC-3769 be transferred
to the Board after decision by a Trial Examiner, with
further proceedings with respect thereto to be governed by
Rule 109 . 69(e), I regard this aspect of his Order as an
inadvertance . Section 102 . 62(a) and the terms of the
consent election agreement executed by the parties in this
case provide for a final decision by the Regional Director
rather than by the Board . Therefore , in accord with
established Board practice in such cases, I shall order that
Case 25-RC-3769 be severed and remanded to the
Regional Director for Region 25 for further action as he
deems appropriate in accordance with Section 102.62(a) of
the Board ' s Rules and Regulations and the terms of the
consent election agreement.76
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent , Jasper Pool Car Service , Inc., is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Chauffeurs , Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 215,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
3. By threatening employees with plant closure and
changing its practices as to starting times, break periods,
clocking in, working in groups , and intensity of
supervision because of the union activities of its
employees , thereby discouraging membership in the
Union , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a)(l) and (3) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. Respondent has not otherwise engaged in unfair
labor practices as alleged in the complaint.
protection or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Jasper, Indiana, place of business copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."T' Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including 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.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations in the
complaint in Case 25-CA-3180 otherwise be dismissed.
ORDER SERVING AND REMANDING CASE
25-RC-3769
Case 25-RC-3769 is hereby severed from the
consolidated proceeding and remanded to the Regional
Director for Region 25 for further action as he deems
appropriate in accordance with Section 102.62(a) of the
Board's Rules and Regulations.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby recommend that Respondent Jasper Pool
Car Service, Inc., Jasper, Indiana, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with closure of its business
because of their union activities or sympathies.
(b) Discouraging membership in Chauffeurs, Teamsters
& Helpers Local Union 215, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization,
by discriminating with regard to hours of work or terms
or conditions of employment.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization, to form labor
organizations , to join or assist Chauffeurs, Teamsters &
Helpers Local Union 215, a/w International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in any other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
"The Chardon Telephone Company. 139 NLRB 529; The Orchard
Corporation of America, 170 NLRB No. 141; International Metal
Specialties . 172 NLRB No. 39.
"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
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
"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 Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
After a trial at which all sides had the chance to give
evidence, it has been found that we violated the National
Labor Relations Act, and we have been ordered to post
this notice to inform our employees of their rights.
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To organize themselves
To form , join, or help unions
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
To bargain as a group through a representative
they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all of these things
We have also been ordered to assure our employees
that:
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these
rights.
You are free to join Chauffeurs, Teamsters &
Helpers Local Union 215, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, or any other union, and by
majority choice, to select any union to represent you in
bargaining with us.
WE WILL NOT change your hours of work or working
conditions or treat you differently in any way because
you join or favor a union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our operations or
punish you in any way because you join or favor a
union.
Dated By
JASPER POOL CAR
SERVICE, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
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, 614 ISTA
Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana
46204, Telephone 317-633-8921.
I