K.C. Love Bottling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 241 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

K.C. BOTTLING COMPANY
K. C. Love, Sr. and Violet Mills Love d/b/a K. C.
Love Bottling Company and Chauffeurs , Teamsters
& Helpers Local 516 , International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America . Cases 16-CA-5752 and 16-CA-5781
March 23, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND WALTHER
On December 3, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Eugene E . Dixon issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions.
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 has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt
his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, K. C. Love, Sr. and Vio-
let Mills Love d/b/a K. C. Love Bottling Company,
Muskogee, Oklahoma, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule 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 findings.
Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied , as the record
and the briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE E. DIXON, Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called
241
the Act, was heard at Muskogee, Oklahoma, June 9 and 10,
1975. The consolidated complaint, dated April 25, 1975,
was based on duly served charges filed on September 16,
1974, in Case 16-CA-5752 and on October 3, 1974, in Case
16-CA-5781 by Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local
516, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, and was issued by
the Regional Director for Region 16 (Forth Worth, Texas)
of the National Labor Relations Board on behalf of its
General Counsel, herein called the Board and the General
Counsel.
The complaint alleges that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by arbitrarily cutting the
routes of its driver employees David Robison and Richard
Scott and by discharging Scott because said employees
joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other union
activities or concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
The Respondent, Love Bottling Company, is a successor
to K. C. Love, Sr., and Violet Mills Love d/b/a K. C.
Love Bottling Company, a partnership, and is a corpora-
tion duly organized under and existing by virtue of the
laws of the State of Oklahoma. At all times material, Re-
spondent has been engaged in the bottling and sale of vari-
ous soft drink products in Muskogee, Oklahoma, where it
owns and operates two plants known as the Dr. Pepper
plant and the Coca-Cola plant.
During the 12 months preceding issuance of the com-
plaint, which is a representative period, Respondent in the
course and conduct of its business operations at the afore-
said plants has purchased products and materials valued in
excess of $50,000 which products were transported to the
aforesaid plants directly from States of the United States
other than the State of Oklahoma.
At all times material Respondent has been an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local 516, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America at all times material has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
David Robison at the time of the hearing had worked for
Respondent about 12 years. He was a route driver-one of
223 NLRB No. 42
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent's best. In November 1973 he and another driv-
er Richard Scott, an employee of some 6 years' tenure,
were transferred from the Dr. Pepper plant (out of which
they sold only Dr. Pepper) to the Coca-Cola plant out of
which they began selling both Dr. Pepper and Coca-Cola.
Notwithstanding the transfer, both Robison and Scott re-
tained the routes they originally had. While there was some
readjustment of the stops, the totals remained substantially
the same-about 40 for each route. In April 1974, through
the efforts of Scott a union meeting for the employees took
place.I Robison attended and signed an authorization card.
Union Animus
According to Robison's undenied and credited testimo-
ny, about a week before the election Respondent's manag-
ing director, Bill Love, said to Robison, "I know its against
the law for me to ask you how you're going to vote with the
Union" but then asked, "Did Glen Cohea [Respondent's
sales manager] have anything to do with it?" On the Sun-
day before the election K. C. Love, Sr., a major officer of
Respondent, called at Robison's home and asked Robison
if he was going to vote for the Union. Robison said he
didn't know. Then Love asked Robison how he felt about
the Union and Robison answered, "Well, I'm not sure."
The next day Love again called at Robison's home and
again asked how he was going to vote. Robison replied that
he was "not sure yet." Love then told Robison "not to stab
him in the back" that Robison "was part of his family." He
also told Robison that he and his wife had worked hard for
Respondent the last 10 years, that Respondent was too
small for a union, and "that the good Lord would . . . take
care of [Robison] on down the road."
Ed Spencer testified at the call of the General Counsel.
He had worked for Respondent on at least two occasions,
for 6 months as a route supervisor until August 1972, and
from November 1973 to July 1974 as "pre-salesman" under
the new program. He testified on direct that prior to the
election Sales Manager Cohea tried to get him to talk the
drivers out of voting for the Union. He also testified about
a conversation with Bill Love on July 22 2 as follows:
I had heard rumors from the other employees that I
was supposed-that I was going to be fired. So I
thought I'd go ask Bill about it. I asked Bill about the
Union-if I was going to be fired, and he said that
they was thinking about it. I asked him what the rea-
son was . And he said I hadn't been running my route
right. I asked him what extent-what I had done that
hadn't been running my route right, and he said "Just
ain't nothing going right."
s s s
And I said , "Really it's over the Union, isn't it?" And
1 Scott was a black driver , the only black driver of about 10 or I I drivers.
It was he who first contacted the Union . He passed out authorization cards
and promoted the Union among the employees, arranged the union meet-
ings and acted as the union observer at the election which was held on June
I I in a unit composed of Respondent's drivers only.
2 He was positive that it was July 22 which was a Monday and the day
that he was discharged.
he said, "I couldn't have fired you over the Union if
I'd wanted to." And I asked him, "Well, what do you
think about the Union?" And he said, "You-they're
crazier than hell if they think I'm going to sit across
the table from that ignorant black son-of-a-bitch and
let him tell me what I can do for him. He doesn't even
have enough sense to make $1.60 an hour anywhere
else."
He also testified that Love said that the employees would
not strike-"that they might strike for a week, and he'd fire
them all and it'd be forgot about."
In his testimony Love denied ever making the statements
attributed to him by Spencer.3 In support of the denial he
further testified that he was in Dallas on July 22 being
away from Muskogee from July 19 through 22, not return-
ing to Muskogee until the afternoon of July 23 by automo-
bile. To corroborate this testimony, Respondent called
Gene Kelly an insurance contractor from Shreveport, Lou-
isiana . Kelly testified that he met with Love in Dallas on
July 22 to discuss business and that they "parted sometime
Monday afternoon." According to Love it takes "four
hours or so" to drive from Dallas to Muskogee.
From the above, apart from Love's own testimony and
accepting Kelly's, it is apparent that Love could have got-
ten to Muskogee on July 22 in time to talk to Spencer. I am
inclined to believe that is what happened and I credit
Spencer. None of the foregoing was alleged in the com-
plaint as independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) so none
will be found." None the less the conduct clearly demon-
strates Respondent's union animus.
Route Discrimination
In mid-July 1974, without any warning or explanation,
Robison and Scott both had their routes cut several stops,
resulting in some diminution of their pay. The cuts in the
routes were the result of the creation by Respondent of a
third city route being made up by mostly large store stops
taken from Robison's east side route and Scott's west side
route. Never before in his 12 years' experience had stops
been taken from Robison or had Respondent put on a
third city route according to Robison. Robison had never
received any reprimands or suspensions nor was he given
any explanation for the route change. Neither was Scott.
The transfers of Robison and Scott in 1973 to the Coca-
Cola plant grew out of a change in Respondent's method
of operation described as "pre-sale." In that program, in-
stead of the drivers doing their own selling as they worked
3 On cross it was brought out that Love had been doing a considerable
amount of business traveling in July and he admitted that it "wouldn't be
unusual" to forget having had a conversation with Spencer.
4 Bill Love's conversation with Spencer was so alleged but was deleted
from the complaint on the General Counsel's motion at the start of the
hearing.
5 They were paid $10 a day plus 7 cents a full case delivered or an empty
case returned . Payroll records show that both Robinson 's and Scott's earn-
ings for the third quarter of 1974 were substantially the same as in the
second quarter . Considering that the third quarter is the peak period for the
soft drink business it is obvious that absent the cutting of their routes they
should have shown more earnings in the third quarter than in the second.
6 Prior to this change in the method of operating , Respondent would run
a "catch up" truck in times of high activity to aid the route driver. This was
true of each route.
K.C. BOTTLING COMPANY 243
their routes, a "pre-salesman" calls on customers the day
ahead of delivery, writes the orders for those deliveries, and
takes them back and assigns them to the appropriate routes
for delivery the next day. This change in the method of
operation resulted in an immediate increase in sales that
accentuated with the advent of the summer months. Ac-
cording to the testimony of Respondent's witness Ray
Rainey, the presalesman at that time, by July the increase
in business was sufficient to warrant the addition of a third
city route .7
Craig Coe, a witness currently in the Marines, called by
the General Counsel, testified that he applied for a job with
Respondent "the second week of July-or the third week
in July. Somewhere around in there." He was interviewed
by Sales Manager Cohea who hired him. According to
Coe's testimony, on the same day that he was hired he gave
notice to Pepsi-Cola for whom he was currently working
and reported for work the following Monday. He also testi-
fied that the Wednesday of the week he went to work he
was put on Gary Romine's old route, Romine getting the
third city route.
Romine, called by Respondent, testified that he was
transferred from an out-of-town route to the city route in
July when it was "brought in" and continued on that route
until late September when it was discontinued. From the
testimony of Gary Dowell, an office employee called by
Respondent, it appears that the third city route was first
run on Wednesday , July 17, and Romine ran it from the
first day. In view of Coe's testimony that on the Wednes-
day of the week he started, Romine started the third city
route.8 It appears and I find that Coe went to work for
Respondent on Monday, July 15, and that his interview
with Cohea took place no later than that and more likely
earlier. I make this finding in the face of testimony by
Dowell that "Mr. Coe's first day on the payroll was August
5, 1974."
On direct Coe testified that in his job interview Cohea
told him that a union had been voted in; that Scott and
Robison were "in on this union deal"; that Respondent
was looking for "reasons to get rid of them"; that Respon-
dent was going to cut Scott's and Robison 's routes and
make a third city route out of the stops taken from those
routes and that Coe would get the new route. At or about
this point in his testimony, Coe claimed that he had no
further recollection of what was said and the General
Counsel was permitted to lead. Coe was then asked if Co-
hea had said "anything about Mr. Love closing the place
down" to which Coe replied, "Well, that was said by sever-
al people. And as far as him saying it, I don't-I can't say,
you know, anybody said it. I just can't, you know, put the
finger on him." Coe was then given his affidavit for the
purpose of refreshing his recollection but would not say
that it did so. He also would not say that he told the truth
when he gave it claiming he was "mad" at the time. He also
r According to Rainey the volume had increased to such an extent that
Scott frequently was not able to make all his assigned deliveries . Robison
got his out but often with the help of an extra truck.
8 Romine testified that the third city route took about 25 hours a week of
his time, the remainder of the week being spent working as an hourly paid
employee , which at $2.80 an hour generated more pay than his deliveries
did.
claimed he did not remember raising his hand on being
sworn.
Continuing his examination, the General Counsel asked
if Cohea had told him why they were taking stops from
Scott and Robison. Cohea replied, "Yeah, he told me. He
said they was going to run a third city route and make all
stores three times a day. And he said Scott and Robison
was in on this union deal." He was then asked if he recalled
Cohea saying "that Bill Love has the ass of Richard Scott
and David Robison and we're going to cut their routes in
hope of forcing them to quit?" Coe answered, "as far as
that goes I-I've heard that said several times, but who it
was I don't-I can't put the finger on Cohea just right out."
Coe's demeanor and attitude on the stand was that of a
very uncomfortable young man. He stammered , his face
flushed, and he hung his head and looked down at the floor
as he mumbled his disjointed hesitating answers. None of
this was in keeping with his clean cut marine poster type of
appearance. I concluded at the time and am of the opinion
now that Coe's display was not that of one who's memory
had failed, but of one who was reluctant to relate anything
damaging to Respondent. Accordingly, although he re-
fused to say that he was told by Cohea that the cutting of
Scott's and Robison's routes was done in hopes of forcing
them to quit, I believe and credit his testimony that he was
told that Scott and Robison were "in on this union deal"
and that Respondent was looking for "reasons to get rid of
them." Strengthening my finding here is the fact that Co-
hea did not testify and no showing was made that he was
unavailable.
The Discriminatory Discharge of Scott
Richard Scott started working for Respondent in Mc-
Alester, Oklahoma, in September 1969. He came to work in
the Dr. Pepper plant at Muskogee in October 1972. In the
spring of 1973 he began working as a route driver and in
November 1973 he was transferred (along with Robison) to
the Coca-Cola plant where they began delivering both Dr.
Pepper and Coca-Cola under the newly instituted "pre-
sales" program. Scott's union activity and the creation of
the third city route out of stops from his and Robison's
routes has been noted.
When he got in from his route on September 10 Scott
was discharged by Sales Manager Cohea. On that day,
Scott had made a stop at a store called Walker's Superette.
In the billing he gave the store owner, Lou Hayes, he made
a mistaken overcharge of $100 on the ticket. Hayes could
see the error the minute he looked at the ticket and con-
firmed that it was wrong when he ran the total on the
machine. Hayes corrected his copy and Scott corrected his.
"That was it," according to Scott.
When he got back to the plant Cohea discharged him.
According to Scott's undenied and credited testimony Co-
hea told him that the reason for his discharge was that
Hayes had said he "stole $100.00 worth of merchandise out
of the store" and he didn't want Scott "in the store any
more." He also told Scott that it was on Bill Love's orders
that he was being discharged.' Scott asked Cohea if he
9 Love's testimony was that it was Cohea's decision to fire Scott and that
Cohea did not discuss it with him prior to making the decision.
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would go back to Walker's to talk to Hayes with him. Co-
hea said he had already been out there to see Hayes and
that he wasn't going back.
Hayes was called by Respondent . He testified that it was
his practice to watch all drivers making deliveries but was
watching Scott "real close" because, as Hayes put it, "I'd
told a certain stockboy that I didn 't want him checking in
with (Scott), and I found them checking in together" and
because Hayes "caught (Scott) several times going in and
out of the back door with pop hulls 10 and bottles," a mat-
ter that Hayes indicated was "nothing real serious" and
was quick to add that he was "not saying that (it) was
totally his fault because there should have been someone
with him.""
There was no contradiction by Hayes of Scott 's version
of the ticket mistake. Hayes testified that he "was a little
bit upset by it." So he called Respondent and told them
what had happened and asked that a different driver be
assigned to his store . The person he talked to said "he'd
come out." Either in this initial phone call or in person
Hayes, without mentioning "any specifics," told the com-
pany representative that he had "been watching [Scott] and
... felt insecure about having him there , and [would] like
a new driver."
The evidence shows that it is not uncommon for drivers
to make mistakes in their tickets . Indeed it is a common
occurrence according to the testimony of Respondent's
Gary Dowell. Dom'-ll testified that although mistakes be-
tween $50 and $100 are rare (they usually run no more
than $10) occasionally "a $20 error will slip by." In any
event all tickets are audited after each route is run and any
excess payments are returned or credited to the customer
and any deficiency in their billings are collected from the
customers. Any shortages not traceable to a specific ac-
count comes out of a driver's pay . Any similar surpluses he
pockets.
The main thrust of Respondent's defense is that the
Hayes complaint was the cause of Scott's discharge. None-
theless, Respondent throws in an assortment of accusations
against Scott: In early August he checked in short some
$81 which of course was deducted from his pay; Scott
brought in more of the competition's empties than the
other drivers-by 40 or 50 to 1; Scott didn't like the "pre-
sale" program and complained to customers and manage-
ment about it;12 Scott altered tickets presalesmen had given
him and was reprimanded for it ; Dill Love had "formally
reprimanded" Scott several times-more frequently than
the other employees . When asked what kind of an employ-
ee Scott was, Love testified as follows:
Richard was a good boy when he came to us, and he
came to us from another plant that we owned in Mc-
Alester. And he came to us highly recommended by
1e Wooden crates the bottles come in.
11 It is the driver's job to load the empties on the truck to return them to
the plant in order for the customer to get credit for them . If the customer
wants to check the driver's work it is his responsibility to provide the check-
er.
12 According to Love , in the spring of 1974 Scott "got exasperated and
offered to quit one day." Love talked him out of it.
the people there. He wanted to move to Muskogee,
and he came here one day and wanted to know if he
moved to Muskogee if he could have a job . And I said,
"I'm sure we can work out something for you." So I
made arrangements, I think , for him to talk with
someone in the production department at the Dr. Pep-
per plant, and he moved up. I had no relationship with
him except I'd see him every few days maybe. And
he-oh , after so long a time-after being there for
awhile , he began to ask me once in awhile if he could
get on a route . And I felt like that was a good thing. I
mean he was black and if he could make it that would
be a good example . And so gradually we came to a
point where we needed a man for the West side, and I
felt like that was the most suitable route because it was
right here in town. It was close by where he could get
supervision if he needed it or help if he needed it rath-
er than putting him out on some redneck route where
a lot of people would be automatically offended by
just his color. And I gave him this route over many
objections from other people-not objections but just
off the cuff opinions of the people he was working
with . But I had faith in him all the way, and it seemed
like he did a pretty good job for awhile. But he sud-
denly-he got to be a-he got to be erratic and he'd
feast one day and starve the next. For instance, one
day he might sell 200 cases. Now, this was the old style
of selling where he sold and made tickets and ev-
erything. He'd sell 200 cases for example one day, and
the next day he 'd sell 30 . He was inconsistent and
remained so until the time he went over to the Coca-
Cola operation and was in the advance selling pro-
gram.
In summary Love testified that "Richard Scott had been
a very good employee, but during the recent time Scott had
turned into a very poor employee and was quite a smart
aleck."
Conclusions
The foregoing evidence , in my opinion , is of sufficient
preponderance to establish the General Counsel' s allega-
tions that Scott's and Robison's routes were cut and that
Scott was discharged because the two employees joined or
assisted the Union or engaged in other union or concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection and that such action was discrimi-
natory within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the
Act. I so find.
What, if any, economic benefits Respondent figured to
gain from the establishment of the third city route is ques-
tionable . I can see no substantial difference in the summer
rush season of putting on a third route or of having a
catch-up truck or trucks to help carry the normal increase
experienced in the hotter months, particularly when the
third route took no more than 25 hours a week to perform.
In any event, from Cohea's revelations to Coe that the two
drivers were "in on this union deal" and that Respondent
was looking for reasons to get rid of them" I draw the
inference that the cuts were instituted in part at least to
K.C. BOTTLING COMPANY
bring on the resignations of those two drivers or at the very
least to punish them for their union activity.
As for the discharge of Scott, in addition to Re-
spondent's stated purpose to find some means of getting
rid of them, the opportunity -that was seized upon by Re-
spondent was so flimsy in the context of all the facts that it
is not worthy of serious consideration . Clearly the ticket
error was an innocent mistake and recognized as such (or
should have been) by Respondent and Hayes. Considering
that all drivers make ticket errors and that no one was ever
shown to have been discharged before for such , and con-
sidering that Scott's other alleged deficiencies were either
nonexistent or condoned as evidenced by Love having
talked him out of resigning in the spring of 1974, the con-
clusion is inescapable , I believe, that Respondent's apprais-
al of Scott's recent change from a "very good employee
... into a very bad employee and . . . a smart aleck" is
nothing more nor less than an appraisal and an indictment
of Scott's union activity. The nexus between that activity
and Scott's discharge is clear.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Love Bottling Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) and (6) of
the Act.
2. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 516, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America , is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By cutting the routes of Richard Scott and David Ro-
bison and by discharging Scott for engaging in union activ-
ities , Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices , it will be recom-
mended that it cease and desist therefrom, and take certain
affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that Respondent cut the routes of Richard
Scott and David Robison and thereafter discharged Scott
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, it will be recom-
mended that Respondent offer Scott full and immediate
reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent po-
sition , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges , and make him and Robison whole for any loss
of earnings or any other monetary loss they may have suf-
fered as a result of such discrimination. Any backpay due
is to be determined in accordance with the formula set
forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 13
245
Respondent, Love Bottling Company, Muskogee, Okla-
homa, its officers , agents , successors , and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Chauffeurs, Teamsters
& Helpers Local 516, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
or any other labor organization, by cutting the routes or
discharging or in any other manner discriminating against
employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or
any term or condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization to join or assist Chauffeurs, Teamsters &
Helpers Local 516, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Richard Scott immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make him and David Robison whole for any loss
of earnings or other economic loss suffered by them in the
manner set forth in the section hereof entitled "The Reme-
dy "
(b) Preserve and, upon 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 neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its place of business in Muskogee, Oklahoma,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 14 Cop-
ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 16, after being duly signed by an author-
ized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees 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.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
13 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
14 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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."
246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Chauffeurs,
Teamsters & Helpers Local 516, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, or any other labor organization,
by cutting the routes , discharging, or in any other
manner discriminating against employees in regard to
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL Nor in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization, to join or assist Chauffeurs,
Teamsters & Helpers Local 516, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mu-
tual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
such activities.
WE WILL offer Richard Scott immediate and full re-
instatement to his former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges , and make him and David Robi-
son whole for any loss of earnings or other economic
loss suffered by them as a result of our discrimination
against them.
LOVE BOTTLING COMPANY