Kent Brothers Transportation Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 25, 1971

188 N.L.R.B. 53 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

KENT BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION CO.
Kent Brothers Transportation Co. and Richard B.
Green . Case 19-CA-4622
January 25, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND
JENKINS
On August 14, 1970, Trial Examiner Stanley Gil-
bert issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner 's Decision. Thereafter, Re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's De-
cision and a supporting brief and the General Counsel
filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no preju-
dicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Kent Brothers Transportation Co.,
American Falls, Idaho, its officers, agents , successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order.'
1 In footnote 15 of the Trial Examiner 's Decision, substitute "20" for "10"
days.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT, Trial Examiner: Based on a charge filed
January 30, 1970,' as amended March 23, 1970, by Richard
1 The date of January 30 is alleged in the complaint , which allegation is
admitted in Respondent 's answer. Although it is indicated in the original
charge , an exhibit herein , that it was filed on January 13 , 1970, it is immateri-
al in the disposition of this case which of the dates is correct.
53
B. Green, an individual, the complaint herein was issued
March 26, 1970. The complaint, as amended ,2 alleges that
Kent Brothers Transportation Co., hereinafter referred to as
the Company or the Respondent, engaged in conduct viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Respondent, by
its answer, denies that it committed the unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Pocatello, Ida-
ho, on April 21 and 22, 1970, before the duly designated
Trial Examiner. Appearances were entered on behalf of
General Counsel and Respondent, but no appearance was
entered on behalf of the Charging Party . Briefs were re-
ceived from General Counsel and Respondent within the
time designated therefor.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding and my obser-
vation of the witnesses as they testified, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a proprietorship solely owned by Gilbert
Kent which maintains its principal office and place of bus-
iness at American Falls , Idaho , where it is engaged in the
intrastate and interstate transportation of farm products by
trucks . In the course of its business operations , Respondent
annually realizes gross revenues in excess of $500,000 of
which more than $50,000 is derived from sales or services
directly to customers located outside the State of Idaho.
As is admitted by the Respondent, it is , and at all times
material herein has been , an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
fI THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As is admitted by Respondent, Local Union No. 983,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Independent, hereinaf-
ter referred to as the Union, is, and at all times material
herein has been , a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background and Summary of Events
Respondent owns about 30 trucks and maintains a staff
of from 12 to 15 regular employees of whom several are on
a part-time basis. Respondent entered into a contract dur-
ing the 1969-70 beet-Hauling season to load and deliver
beets to a U & I Sugar Company plant in Idaho Falls,
Idaho, from dumps located at West River, Pleasant Valley,
and Schiller. The beet-hauling season commenced about
November 6, 1969. Respondent finished hauling beets from
West River on November 28, and moved to hauling beets
from Pleasant Valley which task was finished about 11 a.m.
on the morning of January 7. Respondent then turned to
hauling beets from the third location in the afternoon of
January 7 and on January 24 its beet-hauling operations
were concluded.
Respondent hired about 20 temporary employees during
the beet-hauling season. Among them were Richard B.
2 The complaint was amended during the course of the hearing, principally
to recite that Respondent is a proprietorship owned by Gilbert Kent rather
than a partnership (as originally alleged)
188 NLRB No. 6
54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Green and Edward L. Robinson, as well as five others, who
were employees of Garrett Freight Lines on layoff status
therefrom. It was common knowledge that Garrett dnvers
are members of the Union. In December 1969 and early
January 1970, a number of Respondent's employees ques-
tioned Green and Robinson about union representation.
Both Green ..d Robinson contacted union representatives,
Dewey Doss and Alvin Hill, and discussed with them the
matter of organizing Respondent's employees. Green ob-
tained authorization cards which he passed out among the
drivers and solicited them to sign the cards. Robinson dis-
cussed with a number of the employees the desirability of
having union representation. Both of them signed cards as
did a number of the other employees during the first week
of January.
In the afternoon of January 6, Hill and Doss met with
Kent and, claiming majority representation, demanded that
the Respondent recognize the Union as the bargaining rep-
resentative of Respondent's employees. It is inferred that
the demand was refused. On the previous day, January 5,
both Green and Robinson were discharged by Kent.' Doss
and Hill also discussed with Kent the matter of the dis-
charge of Robinson and Green and urged their reinstate-
ment, to which Kent agreed. In the course of the
conversation Kent stated that he had had no trouble with
his employees wanting a union until the Garrett drivers
came to work for him. It is noted that besides Green and
Robinson the five other Garrett drivers who were tempo-
rarily employed by Respondent were discharged or laid off
by Respondent. There is nothing in the record to indicate
that Respondent had in its employ any other laid-o'f Gar-
rett drivers. Altogether there were 10 temporary employees
who were discharged or laid off on January 5 and on or
about January 8. According to the uncontradicted testimo-
ny of Kent said 10 employees had the lowest seniority
among Respondent's employees. Although it appears that
one of them, K. C. Henry, was hired at the very beginning
of the beet-hauling season, since Kent's testimony is uncon-
tradicted, it is credited.
In the period extending from the night of January 7 to the
evening of January 8, Respondent "laid off" nine temporary
employees, six of whom had been hired while on layoff from
Garrett and three whom were known by Respondent to be
union members. (Green, who had been recalled by Respon-
dent and had been returned to work on January 7, was
among those who were laid off.) The seventh Garrett driver,
Robinson, who had been informed by the union representa-
tives on January 6 that he would be recalled to work, had
made previous arrangements for time off to take a trip to
Oklahoma. He apparently proceeded to carry out his
planned trip and was never notified directly by Respondent
of the decision to reinstate him. Thus, Robinson was not
working at the time the other nine above-named drivers
were laid off. None of the 10 above-named employees ex-
cept 1, K. C. Henry,4 was notified by Respondent to return
to work after January 8.
The above findings of fact are based on credited testimo-
ny which is uncontradicted, except as indicated.
3 Although Kent's testimony is somewhat confused as to whether he did
discharge them , and Respondent's counsel , in his opening statement , took the
position that Green had not been discharged on January 5 but had voluntar-
ily quit on the morning of January 8, it appears from Respondent's brief that
it concedes that both were discharged on that date Kent's testimony and that
of Green and Robinson are discussed herembelow wherein it is concluded
that the testimony of Green and Robinson should be credited that they were
discharged on said date
4 Respondent's attempt to recall Henry is set forth hereinbelow in the
section entitled "The Remedy "
The Issues
There is testimony with respect to the questioning of em-
ployees by management and to statements made to them
commencing during the first week of January 1970. Among
the issues in this proceeding are whether or not this testimo-
ny sustains the allegations that Respondent engaged in con-
duct constituting unlawful interrogation, threats of reprisals
for union activity, and unlawful assistance in the circulation
of an antiunion petition, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of
the act.
Another issue is whether or not Green and Robinson
were unlawfully discharged on January 5 in violation of
Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
A further issue is whether or not the layoff of nine em-
ployees on or about January 8 was discriminatorily motivat-
ed in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
Resolution of the Issues of Fact
Green testified that in the afternoon of January 5, 1970,
Kent climbed into his truck and told him that he had heard
some rumors that he (Green) "had been instigating some
union activity." Green further testified that he told Kent
that some of Respondent's older drivers had asked him
about the Union; that Kent explained to him that "in his
type of business, in agricultural-hauling agricultural prod-
ucts, that he couldn't afford a union"; and that Kent said
that he would "close his doors" before he would have a
union in his shop, that "in five hours" he could have leased
trucks (independently operated) to haul beets, and that he
was not making any money from the operation. Also, Green
testified that Kent asked him if he "was the one that was
having this petition passed around" (ap arently alluding to
authorization cards), and that he deniedpit. Green's testimo-
ny as to the closing portion of their conversation is as fol-
lows:
. And then at the end of our conversation-towards
the end of our conversation he said that he'd have the
back of a man's head tore off; he wouldn't do it himself
but he would have it done, and when it was done it
would be when whoever was the instigator of this union
activity least expected it.
All of the above testimony of Green as to his conversation
with Kent in the afternoon of January 5 is uncontradicted
and is credited. (Kent was not questioned with respect to the
subject matter thereof.)
Robinson testified that Kent called him about 5:30 p.m.,
on January 5, and said to him that he had heard "some ugly
rumors" that he (Robinson) was "trying to bring the union
in," and that he (Kent) would not "put up with it" and
"won't have it." Robinson also testified that Kent told him
that he would replace him that night. Robinson had been
scheduled to work on the evening of January 5 starting at
approximately 9 p.m.
Green testified that Kent called him at his home about 10
p m., on the same day and told him that he was certain that
he (Green) "was the instigator of the union activity," and
that "it didn't look like" he liked his job, that he was not
doing his job, and that he had "better come on out and pick
up" his check. In addition, Green testified that Kent stated
to him that "Robinson was the other instigator and he had
already been fired," and that Robinson was not "perform-
ing his duties" and was "an agitator."
Kent testified on direct examination to his telephone con-
versations with Green and Robinson on January 5 and his
reasons for discharging them . Kent testified that he had a
number of complaints about Robinson's not doing his job
KENT BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION CO. 55
properly, that he had warned Robinson about it, and that
Ralhph Dines, Respondent' s foreman in charge of the beet
haul, had also warned Robinson.5 Kent further testified as
follows:
A. On the same evening, I had called Mr. Green, and
I told Mr. Green basically the same thing-
TRIAL EXAMINER The same evening? I dont know
what you mean by "the same evening."
A. This same evening that I had called Mr. Rob-
mson. Pardon me, sir-which was January 5th, I think.
I tald Mr. Green that the same thing was true in his
case .6 I said, "I want to talk to you in the morning." I
said, "I'm not going to put you on a truck tonight. I
want to talk to you in the morning, or else you can
bring your time in the morning , whichever one you
want to do, but I am going to talk to you before you
go back to work."
Q. This was on January 5th?
A. This was on January 5th. Mr. Greens said, "I'll be
out in the morning," and he didn't show up in the
morning . Instead I had a phone call.
It is noted that Kent's above testimony as to his conversa-
tions with Robinson and Green bears little similarity to their
testimony. It is not clear from Kent's testimony on direct
examination just what he claims was the substance of his
conversation with Robinson except that it might be inferred
therefrom that he stated to Robinson that he was dissat-
isfied with his work performance. It appears that by his
testimony with respect to his conversation with Green that
Kent intended to indicate that he did not discharge him, but
merely told him that he wanted to speak to him before he
went to work.' There is no categorical denial in Kent's
testimony, on direct examination, of the testimony of Green
and Robinson, but merely an omission of any reference
thereto. It is noted that Kent's testimony does not indicate
that his version of the conversations was intended to be a
representation of the complete conversations. In any event,
on cross-examination, Kent testified as follows to his
telephone conversation on January 5 with Robinson:
A. I told him that it had come to my attention again
that he had been stopped with his truck at times when
he wasn't authorized to be stopped with it. He had been
carrying on b.s. sessions with several of the guys, and
tying them and their trucks up, several times . I said, "I
know what you're talking about, but that's neither here
nor there. I don't care what you're talking about. You'-
re spending too much time talking. You've been
warned about this several times , Ed. You can bring
your time out, and I'll make your check out tomorrow.
Q. Did you mention what he had been talking
about?-To him?
A. -I probably mentioned it.
Q. Did you state any words to the effect that-you
are out there talking to employees and instigating Un-
ion activity? Anything along those lines?
A. -This may have been mentioned. What I told
him was that he was instigating activity, he was doing
all sorts of things on company time when he should be
working.
,Q. Where did you hear that he had been instigating
any of this Union activity?
A. Uh-There was two or three of the dnvers told
me.
5 This testimony was not contradicted and is , therefore , credited
6 Apparently that he had received complaints about Green 's work.
7 This is consistent with the position Respondent took in its counsel's
opening statement , but, as noted above , in its brief Respondent apparently
concedes that Green was discharged on January 5
Q. Who were these drivers?
A. -I'd-Do I have to mention their names?
MR WESTON Yes.
A. Leonard Arant mentioned it to me.-Uh-I'm
sure that Vernon Baker mentioned it to me-Uh-I'm
sure that-uh-Well, I know Ello Jensen-
Q. Didn't Ralph Dines mention it to you?
A. Ralph Dines said he heard it
Q. Heard what?
A. That he was doing this.
Q. Doing what?
A. Talking. Spent a lot of time talking.
Q. About what?
A. About the Union. Anything else. He was-
Q. Ralph Dines told you that he was doing this?
MR. WESTON Would you mind letting him finish his
answer.
Q. Pardon me. Did I interrupt you, Mr. Kent?
A. Yes, I think so. He told me that he knew for a fact
that Ed had been tying the truck up. He had heard that
he was stopping the other dnvers. He knew that he was
stopping other drivers. He had heard that he was stop-
ping them getting them to sign Union pledge cards, and
all this sort of thing.
Based on the uncontradicted and credited testimony of
Robinson as to his conversation with Kent later in the eve-
ning of January 5, set forth hereinbelow, the uncontradicted
and credited testimony of Hill that he persuaded Kent to
reinstate Robinson and Green, and the apparent concession
of Respondent that the employees were discharged on Janu-
ary 5, it is concluded that Kent did discharge them in the
course of his conversations with them on January 5. Rob-
inson and Green were impressive witnesses with respect to
the details of their conversations with Kent. Their versions
of their conversations with Kent are consistent with other
facts found herein and with Kent's above testimony on
cross-examination. Consequently, it is concluded that the
above testimony of Robinson and Green should be cred-
ited.
About 9 p.m., on the same night, January 5, Robinson
went to Kent's office and asked him "just what this whole
deal is." According to Robinson's testimony, Kent told him
that he had it from "pretty reliable sources" that he had
been taking time off from his job to discuss union activities
and was `trying to bring in the union." Robinson chal-
lenged him to prove that he had not been doing his job and
admitted that he had discussed the Union with employees
who questioned him about it. Robinson further testified that
Kent stated that "he would not have the union in," that
there was not enough money in the work he was doing.
Robinson also testified that Kent said to him that if the
question ever arose whether he had discharged him (Rob-
inson) for union activity he (Kent) would deny it, that he
would state that his reason for discharging Robinson was
because he had not been performing his duties. Kent was
not questioned with respect to the subject matter of
Robinson's above testimony and it is, therefore, uncontra-
dicted and is credited.
As stated hereinabove, the union representatives talked to
Kent in the afternoon of January 6 and persuaded him to
reinstate Robinson and Green. Robinson testified that he
had previously arranged with Respondent for a few days off
to take a trip to Oklahoma and that when he talked to Doss
on the morning of January 6 he informed Doss that "rather
than go back out there and go to work and work for a day
or two and have to take off for three or four, I think I'll just
go ahead now and leave and go get her and then come back,
and Dewey [Doss] said that might be a pretty good idea."
It appears that Respondent knew of Robinson's plan to go
56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to Oklahoma and that it made no effort at the time to notify
him to come back to work. At no time thereafter did Re-
spondent attempt to recall Robinson.
It appears that Doss informed Green on the evening of
January 6 that he and Robinson would be reinstated and
instructed him to call Kent . Green called Kent and Kent
stated that he would rehire the two "to haul beets" and told
him that he would get in touch with him in the morning.
Green received no call from Respondent until the evening
of January ^nd was instructed to report to work at 11:4
p m., Janua7. By that time Respondent was hauling beets
Prom the Scler dump.
Green testified that he was supposed to give a ride to
Idaho Falls to Patterson, the driver whom he relieved that
night, but that Dines told Patterson to obtain a ride with
another driver, that "Kent doesn't want anyone talking with
Green." This occurred shortly after midnight of January 7.
This testimony of Green is credited and it is inferred there-
from that Kent was fearful that Green would proselytize his
other drivers.
Following is a summary of testimony which was uncon-
tradicted and is credited, which testimony relates to the
allegations in the complaint of violations of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act and to the motivation of the discharges on Janu-
ary 5 and the layoffs on or about January 8.
William Egan, who was one of the Garrett drivers tempo-
rarily hired by Respondent, testified as follows as to state-
ments Kent made to him and other employees on January
4:
A. Well, when I walked in, Mr. Kent and Mr. Harris
and Mr. Baker were already talking, and I'd either
finished shift or was changing-getting some oil or
something-anyway, I happened to be in the shop.
And Mr. Kent made the statement that he didn't want
no union out at his place and that there were ways to
take care of it , or something to that nature, that he
could take care of it personally, you'd never know
where it came from.
Q. (By Mr. Davis) Did he tell you how he was-what
this was precisely, taking care of?
A. Well, I can t remember his exact words on it, no.
Q. During this conversation with Mr. Kent, did he
state at that time what action he might take if a labor
organization represented his employees?
A. Mr. Kent said that his organization wouldn't
stand-that wages and one thing wouldn 't stand a un-
ion shop over there and that he just wouldn't-they
wouldn t have one. He stated he would prefer to sell his
trucks and lease his hauls.
Egan further testified that on January 4 or 5 8 Dines told
him that Green had been fired and that as soon as Robinson
came to work he would also be fired. Egan further testified
as follows:
A. He said that he had found the one agitator and
that they would catch the other one as soon as he got
in, or they was looking for the other one; and I said
who would that be. And he said, well, we figured it's
Ed Robinson-or this as near as I can remember the
conversation.
J. B. McCallister, also a laid-off Garrett driver, testified
that on January 6 he saw Green at the Schiller dump and
Green asked him to sign a union authorization card which
he did. After he returned to his truck, one of the drivers, who
Dines later told him was named Jensen , came over and
spoke to him. His testimony as to statements made by Jen-
sen is as follows:
But at this time Mr. Jensen spoke to me and, in fact,
he crawled up on the outside of the truck-it's one of
these cab-over trucks-and he was standing on the
step, and he told me he didn't want me talking to Mr.
Green . And he said he didn't want any of us Garrett
drivers causing any trouble around there , and he said
that he'd worked for Gilbert Kent before I ever came
there and he'd be working there after I was gone, and
that if I didn't like it, why didn't I just quit . And I didn't
know the man, and I didn't knows name, and I asked
him to get off the truck, which he did.
He further testified that later in the day at the Pleasant
Valley dump he saw Dines talking to the driver named
Jensen 9 and then Dines came over to his truck and got in
with him ; that Dines asked him if he had heard of any union
activity and he said that he had ; that he had talked to Green
in Idaho Falls; that Dines asked him if he had signed a
union authorization card ; that he said he had signed one;
that Dines stated that "we" do not want a union in Kent
Brothers; that he asked Dines who the driver (Jensen) was
and that Dines told him his name and informe d him that he
was a driver who had been with Respondent a long time.
McCallister further testified as follows:
A. I asked Mr. Dines if he didn 't think it was foolish
to terminate Mr. Green and Mr . Robinson for union
activity and he said we 're not going to say that they
were terminated for that.
Q. What did he say they were terminated for, if he
did, in fact?
A. He didn 't say what they were going to be termi-
nated for; he said we are not-we're going to say they
were not terminated for this.
In addition McCallister testified that about 4 hours later
he had a conversation with Kent . His testimony with respect
thereto is as follows:
A. Mr. Kent asked me if I had signed a authorization
card for the union , and I said I had, and he explained
to me that he wouldn't have-he didn't want a union.
He explained to me , not in monetary terms but in the
terms that I had to realize his position ; the union would
cost him too much money and he wouldn 't have it. And
in the course of this conversation, he stated he would
shut the doors before he had a union.
K. C. Henry , who was hired around the first of November
1969 to haul beets, testified that in the early part of January
1970 in a conversation with Kent he told Kent that he had
signed a union authorization card and that Kent said that
he could not afford a union and that before he would have
his employees represented by a union "he'd lock up the shop
and shut her down."
Henry further testified to the conversation he had with
Dines, some time prior to January 8 , as follows:
A. He said that me and some of the other guys ought
to get together and kick the shit out of Dick Green and
Robinson for causing all the trouble that it was about,
and I said, well-
Q. (By Mr . Davis) That what was about?
A. That's what I asked him, I said , "What trouble?"
I just assumed that when all of us guys signed these
cards that there was going to be a discussion among
gentlemen.
Q. And what did you-what did he say after you
said , "What trouble"?
A. Well , he says-he says , "I think there 's going to
t It appears that this must have occurred on January 5, the day that Green 9 It is noted that Kent testified that Jensen was one of the drivers who told
and Robinson were discharged . hun about Robinson 's union activities.
KENT BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION CO. 57
be some heads roll about this, and , " he says, "1 don't
want to see you go ." I said, "Me either , especiallZ me.
I don't want to go no place . I'm doing all right.'
Q. Your saying this now or-
A. Yeah , I told this to Dines . And he said, "Well,"
he says, "something ought to be done to fix them guys
up," he says, "cause they're causing you a lot of trou-
ble." I said , "Do you mean me because I'm union,
too?" And he said , "I guess that's the way it stands."
And about that time , why he left . He helped me fuel up
and-but I got all checked out, and I left.
Virgil Harris , who was also a Garrett driver hired by
Respondent to haul beets, testified that on January 4 or 5
he had a conversation with Kent in the presence of several
other employees . Kent asked him if he had signed a union
authorization card and he informed Kent that he had and
that he was a member of the Union , and Kent left for a short
while and then came back and stated "I can't stand it. I'll
have to close my doors . I can't stand to pay these wages."
He further testified as follows:
A. Well , he was upset, and he says, I'll tell you what,
I can 't stand it. He says, I'll tear the back of a man's
head off if I find out who's instigating this union prob-
lem. And I says , Oh, Gib , you know,-
Harris was one of the employees who was laid off on Janu-
ary 8 (at or about 3 p.m.).-He testified that the next morning
when he went to get his check Dines stated to him "if you
guys would square that Dick Green away and that Ed Rob-
inson ... you could still have a job ." (It is noted that Kent
testified that he would be willin to rehire the employees
whom he laid off or discharged g(on a job available basis)
except Green and Robinson , that he would not be willing
to rehire either of them.)
Darwin Blair, who was employed by Kent for almost 3
years except for summers and voluntarily terminated his
employment on January 18, 1970 , testified that, on January
6, Dines asked him what he thought about the Union to
which he made a noncommittal reply . Blair further testified
that on January 14 he had a conversation with Kent about
the Union in which Kent told him he did not "believe it
could work in his operation ." He also testified as follows to
Kent's further statement:
THE WrrNESS• And that he wouldn 't havt it in there,
that he'd sell his trucks firts; and that he didn't under-
stand how come we wanted to go behind his back to
be represented by the union.
He also testified that on January 16, in another conversation
with Kent about the Union , Kent stated that "he couldn't
make it work , he'd sell all his trucks and keep his contracts
and haul with leased trucks ." He further testified that on
January 16 Kent asked him if he had signed an authoriza-
tion card and , when he stated that he -had, Kent replied
"well, only three or four of you guys have signed authoriza-
tion cards ." Blair was asked whether Kent stated at that
time what action he would take if the employees chose to
be represented by a union , and in response thereto Blair
testified as follows:
A. He just said that he could tie this up in courts or
whatever for two or three years, that he could keep the
union out for two or three years.
During the month of January a petition was circulated
among the employees for their signatures indicating that
they did not wish to be represented by a union . The only
testimony in the record regarding Respondent's action with
regard to the circulation of the petition is the testimony of
John Wegner who, at the time lie testified , had been em-
ployed by the Respondent for 4 years . Wegner testified that
he signed the petition but that some time before he signed
it Dines jumped up on the side of his truck and told him
"there was a petition going around that we didn 't need the
Union" and that he should sign it. " It appears that this
occurred in the first week of January
As stated hereinabove , all of the foregoing summarized
testimony was uncontradicted and is credited.
It is alleged in the complaint as follows : "On or about
January 8, 1970 , Respondent laid off its employees Leonard
Arant, Vernon Baker, Joe Boos, William Egan , Richard
Green, V. R. Harris , Myron Henderson , K. C. Henry, and
J. B. McCallister , and at all times since has failed and re-
fused to reinstate said employees to their former or substan-
tially equivalent positions , because of its knowledge or
belief that said employees were members of, sympathetic to,
or acting on behalf of the Union."
In his opening statement counsel for the Respondent stat-
ed that it was Respondent 's position that Green voluntarily
quit when he walked off the job on January 7 and that the
other men whose names are set forth in the above allegation
had been hired to do a particular job , that of hauling beets,
and that the job was finished and the work had ceased and,
therefore, their jobs ceased to exist.
Green testified that he reported for work shortly before
midnight on January 7,10 that he was supposed to make four
trips on his shift , that after two trips he needed fuel, that the
fuel tank at the Schiller dump was empty, that he waited for
45 minutes for fuel, and that, at approximately 7:45 a.m., on
January 8 he got into his car and drove to Pocatello to calk
with the "union people." When he arrived at the union hall
he found several employees there who said they had been
laid off during the night . Kent testified that he called Green
in the evening of January 8 and his testimony with respect
to the call is as follows:
Q. What was the purpose of your call?
A. To tell him that we were going to cut down on the
beets that we were hauling, and I was going to take
advantage of that time to work on some of the trucks
that needed work badly . I was going to use the partic-
ular truck that he was driving to haul potatoes with-
and that I wouldn't need him anymore.
Q. Did you mention at that time any other reason for
him not being needed?
A. No. I didn t.
Considerable testimony was introduced as to whether or
not the fuel tank at the Schiller dump was dry, as to whether
Green needed fuel, as to whether he could have obtained
fuel some place else , and as to other matters relating to his
leaving the truck at the Schiller dump . It appears from both
Green s and Kent 's testimony that the matter of Green's
leaving the truck at the Schiller dump was never mentioned
to Green . Rather, he was told he would not be needed any
more because his truck required overhauling and that Re-
spondent was cutting down on the amount of beets it would
be hauling (which was what was also told to the other men
who were laid off on or about January 8). Consequently, it
is concluded that Respondent did not consider that Green
had voluntarily quit but that it laid him off for the same
reason or reasons that it laid off the other men at or about
the same time.
Boos was notified that he was laid off on the evenin g of
January 8. McCallister had been told to report to the Schil-
ler dump at 4 p.m ., on January 8, after concluding his shift
time at midnight on January T. and was called at some time
prior to 4 p.m. on January 8 and told not to report. Henry
10 As found heremabove , he was reinstated at that time after having been
discharged on January 5.
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was laid off in the evenin of January 8. Harris was notified
about the layoff at about p.m., on January 8. As indicated
above, Green was notified in the evening of January 8. The
record does not disclose when the other four were notified.
Kent , in denying that the termination of the employees on
or about January 8 had anything to do with the fact that
they belonged to the Union , testified as follows:
A. I was sure they belonged to- the Union. I mean
I-Most of them were working for Garrett 's, and it's
common knowledge that Garrett operates with a Un-
ion contract . -1-Mr. Green had told Garrett operates
with a Union contract . -I-Mr. Green had told me at
one time that he belonged to the Union. The Union had
nothing to do with it, because I knew they were Union
when they came to work there.
Q. Do you still have Union men working out there
for you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you were to make another agreement to haul
beets, would you call these men back that were laid off?
A. Most of them . -Yes, sir.
Q. What do you mean by "most of them"?
A. There's two out of the ten in question that I
wouldn 't call back.
Q. And what two is that?
A. One of them is Ed Robinson . I discharged him for
just cause . The other one is Richard Green.
Q. Was he discharged for just cause?
A. He was discharged at the same time the other
fellows were, but-before that time , he had been
warned about spending a lot of time with the truck and
other things-stopping the truck when it shouldn't
have been stopped, and-
(The last portion of Kent 's above-quoted testimony further
demonstrates the appropriateness of the above -stated con-
clusion that Respondent did not consider that Green had
voluntarily quit.)
It appears that some of the men had been laid off by the
morning of January 8. Hill testified that he called Kent on
the morning of January 8 after several of Respondent's
employees stated to him that they had been laid off. His
testimony with respect to the conversation with Kent is as
follows:
A. Yes, I telephoned Mr. Kent to ask him why, num-
ber one, that he had brought in other trucks to haul his
beets thereby laying off these people . His answer to me
was that he had to put those trucks in the shop for
repairs, and that he had beets to haul to fill his quota
at the U & I Sugar Company , and he had to get other
trucks from around the area to do this.
Q. Where did you receive the information he had
leased trucks?
A. From the drivers that morning that they had saw
that-and this was verified by Mr. Kent in my tele-
phone conversation with him the morning of January
the 8th.
Q. On the morning of January the 8th then he did
acknowledge that at that time he was using leased
trucks?
A. Yes.
The above testimony of Hill is uncontradicted and is cred-
ited.
Henry testified that , when he was laid off on the evening
of January 8, Kent told him that he was laying hull off for
a little while, that he was going to do some work on his
truck , and that he was going to lease some trucks . When he
asked Kent if he could be put into one of the leased trucks,
Kent told him that he could not, "that they brought their
own people ." Henry further testified that at that time he saw
some leased trucks at the plant which arrived while he was
talking with Kent . Henry s above testimony is credited.
Kent testified that, on January 7 about 11 a.m., Respon-
dent was finished with transporting beets from Pleasant
Valley and that afternoon started transporting beets from
Schiller ; that the round trip from Pleasant Valley was
around 170 miles and the round trip from Schiller was a
little over 100 miles . Therefore, it is apparent that, because
of the shorter haul, a larger amount of beets could be trans-
ported from Schiller than from Pleasant Valley with the
same number of trucks . Kent testified that in the evening of
January 7 he received a call from U & I that they were going
to get too much tonnage from Schiller and that they thought
they wanted to keep the tonnage down to about the same
level as had been hauled from Pleasant Valley and he told
them that he would cut it down . His testimony continues as
follows:
A. I very definitely needed some work done on some
trucks . I took advantage of the situation . I took the
trucks off, and started having some work done on some
of my trucks. He also told me that-uh-to keep it
open . That he might change, but he didn 't think that
he would . And I didn 't know whether he was going to
change it or whether he wasn't.-He then called me-
Q. Before you get into that What did you do then
when he told you this? Did you cut down your crew?
A. Yes, I cut down my crew. I took off about 5 or
6 trucks . I don't remember for sure at this time. And
I laid-as I remember it-nine men off that day.
Q. Did they have less seniority than any of those that
stayed on?
A. Yes , I'm sure they did.
Q. Are those the men that are mentioned in this
Complaint?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what happened next?
A. Uh-Well, almost -Oh, probably some time the
next day, Mr. Benscoter called me again , and said we
needed to pick it up to around 1800 tons a day, or
somewhere thereabouts , and I put on-
Q. In other words, he gave you instructions first to
cut it d^ppwn , and then later on, he told you to put it back
up again
A. Right.
Q. Now, during this interim , did you hire some inde-
pendent contract to haul your beets?
A. Yes . At that time , I hired-three trucks.
Q. Whose trucks were they?
A. I hired one of Harvey Thornton's that da y. I hired
one from Darrell Winmill , which is D & B Trucking,
and I hired one from Irving Yonke.-At a later date,
I hired some more , after I talked to Mr. Benscoter
again.
Q. Now, was it more economical for you to do that
than to hire these other men back?
A. Very definitely . If it hadn't have been, I wouldn't
have hired them.
Q. Explain to us how it was more economical.
A. Well, from this particular pile, even thought it is
a lesser mileage , the rate is enough lower that by using
all my own trucks, paying all the expenses that you
incur in these things and everything. r -There was no
way that I was even breaking even on the job, really,
and by hiring other trucks . -I rented all these other
trucks, trailers-I rented trailers to them . I'd charge---
Q. You mean you rented your own trailers to them?
A. That's right . Um-hum.
KENT BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION CO. 59
Q. And they paid you rental on them.
A. They paid me rentals' on the trailers . I charged
them for loadin gg. By doing this, I can figure a profit
into the loading. knew what it was costing me. I could
figure a profit into it. I know what it costs me to run
a trailer . I can figure a profit into them, when I rent
them. But there wasn 't any profit in-I mean; it's-
There just wasn 't as much money in running my. own
trucks on the job as there would be in hiring other
trucks.
It appears from a study of the above outlined and quoted
testimony of Kent that he advanced as his reason for laying
off the drivers on January 8 the fact that he had been told
to cut down on the tonnage and , therefore, would not need
some of the trucks and drivers and could have trucks serv-
iced . It appears from Hill's' credited testimony that on the
morning of January 8 Kent admitted to him he had already
leased trucks or planned to lease them. At least five of the
drivers were not laid off until the afternoon or evening of
that day . That Kent had already arranged to lease trucks
before he finished laying off the drivers is confirmed by
Henry's credited testimony that he saw,two leased trucks
arrive at Respondent 's premises in the evening of January
8 at the time he was notified . that he was being laid off.
According to Kent's testimony, he was not notified to in-
crease the tonnage until January 9. Thus , it appears that not
only was he leasing trucks while laying ' off the drivers, but
also he started to lease them before he had been told to
increase the tonnage.
Kent testified that it was more profitable to lease trucks
than to have continued operating his own trucks for the
remainder of the beet haul. Aside from the fact that this
contention was not substantiated , it is the opinion of the
Trial Examiner that said contention , even if it were valid,
is immaterial to the issue of the motive for the layoffs and
cannot be considered more than a mere afterthought:
Concluding Findings
Based upon the credited testimony and findings of fact
set forth hereinabove, the following conclusions are made
with respect to the conduct of Respondent:
. 1. In the afternoon of January-5, 1970, Kent unlawfully
interrogated Green as to his union activity, threatened to
close down his plant rather than have the Union. represent
his employees, and threatened physical violence against the
instigator of union activity among the drivers. Each of said
acts constitutes an individual violation of Section 8(a) (1) of
the Act.
2. On January 5 at or about 5:30 p.m., Kent discharged
Robinson in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
-3. About 10 p.m. on January 5, Kent, discharged Green
in violation of. Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act and by
stating to Green that he had fired Robinson, "the other
instigator," Respondent also violated Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act.
4. On January 4, Kent stated to Egan and other employ-
ees that he could not stand union wages and that rather than
have a union represent his employees he would prefer to•sell
his trucks and lease his hauls. It is found that this conduct
constitutes a threat of reprisal for union activity in violation
of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.11
5. On January 5, Dines told Egan that Green had been
fired and that Robinson would also be fired because they
were agitators (ostensibly on behalf of the Union). It is
i 1 The conclusion that this threats found hereinbelow are violative of Seciion
found' that this conduct constituted an implied threat to
discharge employees who are active on behalf of the Union
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act:
• 6 On January 6, Dines asked McCallister about the un-
ion activity of his fellow employees and his own union
activity which conduct constituted unlawful interrogation
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of. the Act.
7. Also on January 7 , Kent asked McCallister if he had
signed an authorization card. This constituted unlawful in-
terrogation within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
Also, at the same time , Kent stated to McCallister that he
would shut the doors before he would have a union, that the
union : would cost him too much money . Said - statements
constituted an unlawful threat in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
8. In the early part of^ January 1970, Kent told Henry
that he could not-afford a union and before he would have
his employees represented ,by a union he would shut down
his plant which constituted a threat in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. '
9. Shortly - prior to January 8,'Dines told Henry that he
and- some of the other drivers should beat up Green and
Robinson for "causing all the trouble ," ostensibly referring
to their union activity , and threatened that he (Henry) and
other employees would lose their jobs because of the union
activity . This conduct was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
10. On January 4 or 5 , Kent asked Harris in the pres-
ence of several other employees if he had signed a union
authorization card which constituted unlawful interroga-
tion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.,
11. - A short while later, Kent stated to Harris that he
could not stand to pay union wages, that he would have to
close his doors , and that he would "tear the back of a man's
head off" who was responsible for instigating the "problem"
with the Union. The. foregoing conduct constitutes threats
of reprisal for union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
12. On January 8, Dines stated to Harris "if you guys
would square that Dick Green away and that Ed Robinson
. you could still have a job. It is evident that by this
statement Dines intended to' convey the message that Re
spondent would not retain in its employ drivers who. en=
gaged in union activity and that such activity on the part of
Green and Robinson endangered the jobs of other drivers.
It is concluded that this conduct constituted a violation of
Secion 8(a)(a)of the Act. - '
13. On January 6, Dines asked Blair what he thought
about the Union which conduct constituted unlawful inter-
rogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
14. On January 14 and 16, Kent stated to Blair in effect
that he could not afford a union and that rather than have
a union represent his employees he would sell his trucks and
haul with leased trucks which conduct constituted threats of
reprisal in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
15. On7anuary 16, Kent asked Blair if he had signed a
union authorization card which conduct constituted ' unlaw-
ful interrogation. in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
16. Also on January 1,6, in response to Blair's question
as to what he would •do if the employees chose to be repre-
sented, by a union, Kent stated. that he could keep the 'un-
ion out for two or three years" by tying the matter up in
courts. This constituted a threat to refuse to bargain in good.
faith with the union selected by his employees in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Although this conduct is not
specifically alleged in - the cofnplaint, it is deemed to be
sufficiently related to the allegations therein to permit this
S(a)(1) of the Act is based on N.L.R.B . v. Gissel Packing Co„ 395 U. S. 575. finding.
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
17. It is alleged in the complaint that the Respondent
unlawfully assisted in the circulation of an antiunion peti-
tion. The only evidence in support of the allegation is the
credited testimony of Wegner that Dines told him the peti-
tion was beIing circulated and that he should sign it. Despite
the fact that this is the only incident in the record of such
conduct, in view of the foregoing findings of violations of
Section 8(axl) and (3) of the Act which occurred virtually
contemporaneously, it is concluded that Dines conduct
constituted restraint , coercion, and interference within the
meaning of Section 8(axl) of the Act.
18. Based on the credited testimony with respect to the
layoffs and the concluding findings hereinabove, it is con-
cluded that Kent laid off the drivers on January 8 in order
to get rid of known union men who he knew, or believed,
were infecting the other employees with a desire to have the
Union represent them . It is evident that Respondent had a
strong union animus and , on a number of occasions, stated
that he could use the device of leasing trucks to offset union-
ization of his drivers. It is noted that 7 of the 10 drivers who
were discharged or laid off on January 5 and 8 were Garrett
drivers and that it is found hereinabove that Kent com-
plained that he had no trouble with his employees wanting
a union until the Garrett drivers came to work for him. it
is also noted that Kent admitted that he was aware of the
fact that all of the said 10 drivers were members of the
Union. Furthermore, Kent's explanation that he . laid off the
drivers because of the decrease in tonnage requrements, in
face of the finding that he was planning or had already
leased trucks while he was laying them off, is found to have
been merely a pretext. Consequently, it is concluded that
the layoffs on or about January 8 of the nine drivers, as
stated in the complaint, were discriminatorily motivated in
violation of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act.
N THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent, set forth in
section III , above, occurring in connection with its opera-
tions set forth in section I, above , have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor prac-
tices found herein and take certain affirmative action, as
provided in the Recommended Order below, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Richard B. Green on January. 5, 1970, reinstated
him on January 7, 1970, and then again discriminatorily
discharged him on January 8, 1970, it will be recommended
that Respondent be ordered to make him whole for any loss
of pay he suffered during the period when he was first
It having been found that Leonard Arant , Vernon Baker,
Joe Boos, William Egan , V. R. Harris , Myron Henderson,
K. C. Henry, and J . B. McCallister were discriminatorily
laid off or terminated on or about January 8 , 1970, it will
be recommended that said employees be made whole for
any loss of pay suffered by them during the period between
their layoffs and January 24, 1970, the end of the beet-
hauling season.13
The Trial Examiner concludes that all of the above-
named 10 employees were hired only temporarily for the
duration of the beet-hauling season and, therefore, will not
recommend reinstatement of any of the above -named em-
ployees, as requested by the General Counsel Inasmuch as
the Trial Examiner is of the opinion that the record will not
support a finding that the employment of any of the above-
named employees would have continued beyond the end of
the beet-hauling season on January 24, 1970, he has not
recommended backpay for them after said date . The afore-
said em loyees shall be made whole in the manner set forth
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-293, and
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
In view of Kent's statement in the record that he would
be willing to rehire (on a job available basis) all of the
aforementioned employees except Richard B. Green and
Edward L. Robinson, it will be further recommended that
he be ordered to rehire any of said employees upon applica-
tion if a job is available for them.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record of the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 26) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent interfered with , restrained , and coerced
its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
the following conduct:
(a) Unlawully interrogating employees as to their union
activity or union activity of fellow employees.
(b) Threatening to close its plant or to subcontract its
hauling operations in the event the employees elected to
have the Union represent them.
(c) Threatening to discharge employees if they engage in
union activity or if their fellow employees do not cease to
engage in union activityt .
(d) Threatening bodily injury to employees responsible
for union activity or recommending to their fellow employ-
ees that they inflict bodily injury upon employees who en-
g e in such acti vity.
(e) Stating to employees or implying that fellow employ-
ees have been discharged for union activity.
(f) Threatening to refuse to bargain in good faith with the
Union should the employees elect to have it serve as their
bar aining representative.
(g) Unlawfully assisting in the circulation among its em-
ployees of a petition expressing po position to the -Union.
4. Respondent violated Sectiono8(ax3) and (1) of the Act
discharged and subsequent)y reinstated and for the further
period between his second discharge on January 8 through It is noted that Robinson took a trip to Oklahoma during the aforesaid
the end of the beet-hauling season on January 24, 1970. period and, therefore , the time in which he was absent on said trip should
It having been found that Respondent discriminatorily be excluded in the computation of the amount due him.
discharged-Edward L. Robinson on January 5, 1970, it will 13 It is noted that on January 18 Respondent attempted to recall Henry,
be recommended that Respondent be ordered to make said
but he was ill and could not report to work for several days; that later, when
whole for any of he suffered for the
he reported to Respondent that he had recovered, he was told that he would
emplo yee y pay be called when needed ; and that apparently he was never called . His inter-
pefrom his discharge until the end of the beet-hauling venutg period of illness should be taken into account in computing his
season on January 24, 1970.12 backpay
KENT BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION CO. 61
by discriminatorily discharging Richard B . Green and Ed-
ward L. Robinson on January 5, 1970.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by discriminatorily laying off or terminating Leonard Ar-
ant, Vernon Baker , Joe Boos , William Egan , Richard B.
Green, V. R. Harris, Myron Henderson , K. C. Henry, and
J. B. McCallister on or about January 8, 1970.
steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no-
tices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial. In addition , copies of said notice signed by Gilbert
Kent shall be mailed by it to the above-named employees.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writin ,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Trial Examines
Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply here-
with .15
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, and upon the foregoing findings of
fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in this
proceeding, it is ordered that Kent Brothers Transportation
Co., its officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating employees as to their union
activity or union activity of fellow employees.
(b) Threatening to close its plant or to subcontract its
hauling operations in the event the employees elect to have
the Union, or any other labor organization, represent them.
(c) Threatening to discharge employees if they engage in
union activity, or if their fellow employees do not cease to
en age in union activity.
(d) Threatening bodily injury to employees responsible
for union activity and recommending to their fellow em-
ployees that they inflict bodily injury upon employees who
en e in such activity.
rStating or implying that an employee has been dis-
charged for union activity.
(f) Threatening to refuse to bargain in good faith with the
Union, or any other labor organization, should the employ-
ees elect to have it serve as their bargaining representative.
(g) Unlawfully assisting in the circulation among its em-
ployees of a petition expressing opposition to the Union, or
any other labor organization.
(h) Discouraging membership in Local Union No. 983,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, Independent, or any
other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating
against them in regard to hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment.
(i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Leonard Arant, Vernon Baker, Joe Boos, Wil-
liam Egan, Richard B. Green, V. R. Harris, Myron Hender-
son, K. C. Henry, J. B. McCallister, and Edward L.
Robinson whole for any loss of pay suffered by them by
reason of the discriminatory terminations of their employ-
ment in the manner set forth in the section hereinabove
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Employ any of the above-named individuals upon
application if jobs are available for them.
(pc) Upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents, for examination and copying, all payroll and other
records containing information concerning Respondent's
backpay obligation under this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its place of business in American Falls, Idaho,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."14 Copies
of said notice, on forms furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 19, after being duly signed by Gilbert Kent, shall
be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter , in conspicuous places , including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 .46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein shall, as
provided in Section 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 . In the event that the Board's
Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the
words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
15 In the event that the Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this
provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in
wasting , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the Respon-
dent 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 unlawfully interrogate employees as to
their union activity or union activity of fellow employ-
ees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant or to subcon-
tract our hauling operations in the event the employees
elect to have Local Union No. 983 , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America , Independent, or any oth-
er labor organization, represent them.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees if they
engage in union activity or if their fellow employees do
not cease to engage in union activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten bodily injury to employees re-
sponsible for union activity or recommend to their fel-
low employees that they inflict bodily injury upon
employees engaged in such activity.
WE WILL NOT state to an employee , or imply, that a
fellow employee has been discharged for union activi-
ty.
WE WILL NOT threaten to refuse to bargain in good
faith with the Union, or any other labor organization,
should the employees elect to have it serve as their
bar aining representative.
E WILL NOT unlawfully assist in the circulation
among our employees of a petition expressing opposi-
tion to the Union, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local Union
No. 983 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Independent, or any other labor organization of our
employees , by discriminating against them in regard to
hire and tenure of employment or any term or condi-
tion of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain , or coerce employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL make Leonard Arant, Vernon Baker, Joe
Boos, William Egan, Richard B. Green, V. R. Harris,
Myron Henderson, K. C. Henry, J. B. McCallister, and
Edward L. Robinson whole for any loss of pay suffered
b them by reason of the discriminatory terminations
of their employment.
WE WILL employ any of the above-named individuals
upon application if jobs are available for them.
Dated By
KENT BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION CO
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not to be defaced by
an one.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, Re-
public Building, 10th Floor, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101, Telephone 583-4532.