Local 294, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1023 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

LOCAL 294, INTL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1023
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent Company described in section I, above,
have a close , intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and lend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
will. recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and -take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondents have 'violated the Act by maintaining in effect and
enforcing an illegal union -security provision in their contract . The only remedy
which ,the General Counsel is seeking in connection with this phase of the case is
an order requiring the parties to cease giving effect to, and to eliminate , the illegal
union-security provision . I agree that , under the circumstances disclosed by this
record , such a remedy will be sufficient to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the , entire record in
the case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Animated Displays Company, the Respondent Company herein , is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Carpenters' District Council of Detroit , Wayne and Oakland Counties and
Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, the
Respondent Union herein , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(9)
of the Act. -
3. By maintaining in effect and enforcing in their contract a union -security pro.
vision not authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, the Respondent Company has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and the Respondent Union has violated
Section 8 (b) (I) (A) and (2) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce .within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Respondents Union and Company have not, as alleged in the complaint,
violated the Act in connection with the layoff of Dewayne C. Johns on January 11,
1961.
(Recommendation omitted from publication.]
Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Independent [Valletta
Motor Trucking Co., Inc .] and George Monty. Case No. 3-CB-
505. June 28, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 19, 1961, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, 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 Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions.
to the Intermediate Report.
137 NLRB No. 112.
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner for the reasons
noted below.
Monty, the Charging Party, was employed on the Employer's Al-
bany to Boston route, and, from January 1960 on, was considered by
the Employer to have first preference for extra runs on this route.
Sometime in the fall of 1960, Monty's priority for extra driving as-
signments was reduced and two other drivers, union members like
Monty, who had been receiving extra runs after him, were given job
assignments to which Monty was entitled. The Trial Examiner found,
and we agree, that the loss of Monty's top priority for extra assign-
ments was caused by Smith, the Respondent's business agent, and
Covey, the Respondent's steward on the Employer's Albany-Boston
run, who had been delegated the ministerial work of phoning the
extra drivers as to their availability for runs. ' Despite efforts by
one of the Employer's officials, Nicholas Valletta, to see that Monty
obtained assignments to runs to which he was entitled under the Em-
ployer's priority system, the Union, acting through Covey, con-
tinued to frustrate the Employer's aim by assigning other drivers,
thereby forcing Monty to seek employment elsewhere.
Although the business agent stated to Covey and Monty that he
wished to keep the extra driving jobs on Valletta's Albany to Boston
run open for unemployed union members, we find that this was a pre-
text for discrimination against Monty either because he was consid-
ered a troublemaker by some of the regular drivers or because the
Union wished to substitute its own method of job assignments for
that which the Employer preferred.
We conclude that the Union's action in forcing the Company to
deny employment to Monty violated Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A).'
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner
as its Order with the following changes :
1. Paragraph 2 (e) of the Recommended Order shall be modified to
read :
Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
1 We agree with the 'Trial Examiner that, although Covey acted at times both as an
agent of the Employer and of the Union, his conduct in bypassing Monty was contrary to
the Employer ' s instructions and pursuant to those of Smith , the Union's business agent
'Shear's Pharmacy, Inc, 137 NLRB 451; Brunswick Corporation, 135 NLRB 574;
and Verve Records, Inc, 127 NLRB 1045
LOCAL 294, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1025
2. The notice shall be modified so that the words "A Decision and
Order" are substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a
Trial Examiner." 3
3. The following is to be inserted in the notice, below the sentence
beginning "This notice must remain posted ..." :
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Re-
gional Office, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware
Avenue, Buffalo, New York, Telephone Number, T1. 6-1782, if
they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
3In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order "
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
The complaint herein alleges that the Union has violated Section 8 ( b) (1),(A) and
(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 73 Stat. 519 , by attempting
to cause and causing Valletta to discriminate against Monty by insisting that Valletta
cease giving work to Monty because assignments to him were not in accord with the
Union 's share-the -work plan. The answer denies the allegations of unfair labor
practices and alleges as separate defenses that Steward Covey acted as agent of
Valletta, not of the Union, if he committed any of the acts alleged ; and that treat-
ment of Monty was nondiscriminatory and in accordince with a previously arranged
and nondiscriminatory system of work assignments.
A hearing was held before Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan at Albany, New York,
on July 13 and August 22 , 1961. At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Union
was heard in oral argument . Pursuant to leave given to all parties , a brief was
thereafter filed by the General Counsel.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT ( WITH REASONS THEREFOR)
1. THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It was admitted and I find that Valletta, a New York corporation with principal
office in Vestal, New York, and trucking terminals in Albany, New York, and else-
where in that and other States, is engaged in the general trucking business ; that during
1960 it derived a gross income of more than $50,000, entirely from the transportation
of freight , goods, and material directly between the various States of the United
States; and that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
It was admitted and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The first separate defense is embraced in the Union's denial that it caused the
Company to discriminate since, to the extent that he relies on acts by Covey, the
General Counsel must show that Covey was the Union 's agent. The second separate
defense was offered , at later explained by counsel for the Union, in anticipation of
proof by the General Counsel of a union share-the -work or rotation plan. But
there is no proof of any such plan beyond what was here done ; and if the Union
caused the Company to withhold work from Monty and thereby to discriminate
against him , the presence of a rotation plan need not be shown by the General
Counsel and was not shown , and the anticipatory defense, as was agreed , need not
be considered.
Valletta employs four regular drivers, all members of the Union , at its Albany
terminal or break or transfer point for the Albany-Boston run. Beginning in
December 1959, Monty was employed as an extra, taking the place of an absent
regular driver or driving an extra truck when needed . In January 1960, Covey,
himself one of the four regular drivers, the steward at Albany, and the one who,
649856-63-vol. 137-66
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assigned extra runs, introduced Monty to Frank Valletta , the Company 's secretary,
as the extra driver who "has been covering the runs." For a few months Covey called
Monty at home as needed ; but he then told Monty to be on deck to cover the run
rather than wait to be called.
Whether, using the various terms employed by Monty , he was the "extra driver,"
,the "regular extra driver," or the "only extra driver" on the Albany-Boston run, the
fact is that he had been designated to be and was assigned to the first available extra
run. There is no direct testimony of a statement allegedly made by Frank Valletta
to the effect that Monty was to be the one and only extra man on that run and that
he wanted no other extra drivers driving his trucks. But as we shall see, Nicholas
Valletta, the Company's vice president and Frank's brother, apparently had knowl-
edge of such a statement , or believed that Frank had made it , and expressed his
determination to back it up.
Two other extra drivers, Russell and Whinnery, worked for Valletta in Albany,
pulling extra trips "in back of" Monty; i.e., Monty took the first available extra truck
and one of the other two took the second when more than one extra man was needed.
This continued until the fall of 1960, when Whinnery and Russell started to go out
on runs ahead of Monty. Whereas the latter had previously gone on 1 to 5 trips per
week (he totaled approximately 80 trips in 1960), he averaged less than 1 per week
.in December and little more in November, Whinnery and Russell getting the runs
ahead of him. Monty finally stopped going to the terminal in January 1961.
These facts stand out, whatever few other runs there were or calls by the Union
for Monty to take a run elsewhere. Nor is the situation altered by the fact that
Russell or other drivers had occasionally pulled trips for Valletta before Monty came
-on the scene. Whatever the earlier history, Monty had been assigned priority over
other extra drivers by this Employer, and the issue is whether the Union unlawfully
caused the Employer to discriminate against him by withholding assignments. (We
have noted that the case was tried without reference to a share-the-work plan. Nor
is there evidence of a lawful employer-union agreement which might support any
such plan or other preferential hiring criteria ) While as counsel for the Union
brought out , it was Covey not Frank or Nicholas Valletta who told Russell that he
was in back of Monty on assignments, Covey was at that point repeating the Vallettas'
instructions; and it was also counsel for the Union who brought out that it was
'Covey's duty to make assignments for the Company; so that Covey's recognition of
Monty's priority was the Vallettas'.
I credit Monty 's testimony . He did not claim to be a regular driver , and with
,one unspecified exception received no union benefits which are not generally given
to extra drivers. Except for such minor variance as whether another extra driver
said or merely may have said that he had elsewhere received holiday and vacation
pay, Monty stood up under rigorous cross-examination . Whatever involvements
- were injected concerning union benefits and Monty's very occasional employment
elsewhere ( apparently at Covey's suggestion or request ), Monty was the "regular
extra driver" for the Company and was available as such until the Union caused
a change.
About the end of 1960 Nicholas Valletta told Covey to give Monty assignments
ahead of Russell and Whinnery , and gave Covey 2 weeks to straighten out Monty's
complaints in this respect, telling Covey that he had to back up what his brother
Frank had said . When Monty continued thereafter to complain , Valletta warned
Covey that he would eliminate a run out of Albany. The Company's attitude with
respect to Monty was thus again made clear so that if, as a result of further discus-
sions with union representatives , the Company did not continue to insist on Monty's
preference in employment , the Union 's unlawful causation was quite as clear. (It
stands uncontradicted that at the union office its business agent , Smith, Covey, and
Whinnery in turn attempted to persuade Nicholas Valletta that Monty was a trouble-
maker and no good.)
Valletta's warning to Covey prompted Smith to call , and Valletta now told Smith
that Frank Valletta had promised the extra work to Monty. Nicholas then ap-
parently wrote a note to Covey and spoke to him on the telephone. Valletta was
an honest witness, but he was easily led and his recollection was uncertain. Just
-what he told Covey can be reconstructed only with difficulty as he gave several
versions. He first told us that he had directed Covey to give Monty extra work, then
-immediately restated it as having told Covey to give Monty the extra work. It was
obvious that the distinction escaped Valletta as he testified . He later testified that
all of the extra work could not be given to Monty; accepting counsel's characteriza-
tion , he testified that he told Covey to give him "some" extra work. Valletta finally
had it that he told Covey to give Monty some of the extra work "to keep him going";
but Monty "was looking to become a regular man."
LOCAL 294, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1027
I find that Nicholas Valletta did not tell Covey to give Monty all of the extra
work although he did tell Covey that Monty told him that Frank Valletta had prom-
ised Monty all of the extra work. In fact it was important to have several extra
men available in case of additional need. But that preference was to be given to
-Monty was clear and clearly stated to Covey, as to Smith. Nicholas Valletta recog-
nized and supported Monty's desire to become a regular man. In short, Nicholas
Valletta told Covey and, as the "trouble" continued with other drivers going out, he
told Smith and Covey again that Monty was to be given more assignments; he was
to get extra work ahead of the other extra drivers. This was not done to the
Company's satisfaction or according to Frank Valletta's alleged promise which
Nicholas Valletta tried to back up. The limitation on such assignments and the
role which Covey and Smith played in such limitation has been reviewed. As for
Nicholas Valletta's statement to Smith about running trucks straight through Albany,
being made to "bargain out" a union grievance, the fact that the Company did run
a truck straight through and then agreed not to, represented its previously indicated
wishes concerning more assignments to Monty.
It is unnecessary to create a major industry of analysis of all of Covey's testimony.
It would be a simple matter to show as quite unworthy of credence his story of an
alleged arrangement by which another company, Maishn, made its terminal avail-
able as a transfer point for Valletta without rent for a nonexistent "privilege" of
calling on Valletta's drivers; for by this arrangement, according to Covey, Valletta
and Maislin merely exchanged the right to use each others' extra drivers with an
apparent obligation to give preference to those who had theretofore been employed
as extra drivers by the other! Thereafter Covey testified that it had not been decided
in the arrangement whether one company's men would be used before the other's.
None of this has a direct bearing on the issue of Monty's priority and the subsequent
change effected by the Union. Cutting through the verbiage, explanations, and
arguments, we have noted Nicholas Valletta's repeated calls or demands to Covey
and Smith for preference to Monty and his statement of support for a promise which
his brother had allegedly made. Covey's right to select extra drivers for the Com-
pany was limited by the specific instructions given to him by Nicholas Valletta. If
the latter did not pound the table or hold out to his own bitter end, his choice was
clear and repeated, even to the extent of a temporary change in scheduling a run.
Monty's priority status was definite and was recognized in practice until the fall
of 1960.
As counsel for the Union argued, Covey's authority to call Monty came from the
Company, not from the Union. He was not merely authorized, he was several times
directed to call Monty. From the Union and in Covey's capacity as union repre-
sentative stemmed the refusals and the loss of his preference over the other extra
drivers. The change in Covey's attitude toward Monty despite the Company's posi-
tion, and Smith's decision to keep the job open for other men were effectuated by
the decrease in assignments to Monty while more frequent assignments were given
to other extra drivers. The Union thus caused the Company to discriminate as
alleged.
The testimony that Monty had had an accident and that Covey so reminded
Nicholas Valletta when the latter objected to the employment of Russell because
he had had an accident; that the work had slowed down and that Monty was un-
reasonable in his requests for assignments or otherwise-none of it has been over-
looked. It serves but to becloud the issue if, as found, the Union's acts unlawfully
caused the Company to deny him assignments. The testimony concerning the com-
plaint made by Warm, one of the regular drivers, against Monty further indicates
the Union's interest and activity in the matter of assignments. However such activity
may be justified, it cannot be denied. Covey and the Union were not insulated against
these matters; on the contrary, the Union and Covey, its steward and representative
who transmitted grievances to it, actively involved themselves. If Monty irritated
other drivers, the Union's activity was nonetheless violative.
While the answer admits that Covey was the steward and the Union's agent, and
counsel for the Union admitted that Covey was "for certain purposes" acting for
the Union, the defense is offered that with respect to his dealings with Monty, as in
certain other matters, he was acting for the Company only. Although Covey made
extra assignments as representative of the Company in charge of the Albany break
point, he was himself a rank-and-file employee.' Whatever knowledge he had of
the Vallettas' desire that Monty be given priority in assignments, he had the infor-
'New York State Employers Association, Inc and Red Star Express Lines of Auburn,
Inc, 93 NLRB 127, 129; Redwing Carriers, Inc, 125 NLRB 322, 326
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mation also as representative of 294, a post to which he had been elected by the
regular drivers. As distinguished from his acts and the performance of his duties
for the Company, Covey himself as company representative could not be separated
from Covey as union representative with respect to what he knew. On this matter
of Covey's knowledge, reliance is not placed on a statement not thereafter supported
which was made to him by Kurkowski, steward at Valletta's Binghamton terminal,
that Frank Valletta had told him to tell Covey that Monty was to be "the one and
only man on the Albany run." It is not clear the Kurkowski was in fact a repre-
sentative or agent of the Company to communicate this to Covey; or that this could
be regarded as an admission by the Respondent Union, since Kurkowski was a
steward for another local.
Clearly Covey performed certain functions as company employee and representa-
tive; he so acted in making assignments and in other connections But he also was a
union representative; not only that, but he permitted his union interest to impinge
on and to control his assignments to extra drivers When, in the first half of
December 1960, Monty complained to Covey that he was getting fewer assignments
while more were going to other extra men, Covey replied that he "might not even
be steward," and added that Smith, the union business agent, had taken over the
job. The question was thus, what was the steward qua steward, or the business
agent, now functioning as steward, doing and going to do about the assignments?
The Union's part in this was underscored as Covey advised Monty to go to the
Union's office to get it straightened out; and the Union, as we shall now see, under-
took to decide the issue. Covey was here speaking as steward and union rep-
resentative, and the job which he referred to as taken over by the Union's business
agent was his own union job and authority, not any company job. As the union
business agent was acting as the Union's representative when he acted as steward, so
had Covey. Similarly, when Warm complained to Covey concerning two runs which
Monty allegedly "stole" from him, Covey was ill and referred Warm to the Union.
Assignments and runs were union business , and when Covey undertook to satisfy
the Union's grievances and protests, noted supra, against Monty, he acted as union
representative. Nor was Covey acting as company representative when he told Val-
letta that although the latter was boss, the men were entitled to say with whom they
wanted to work. With respect to Covey's election as steward, Valletta was again led
to agree on the stand that the men who elected Covey steward were electing a
manager. This is fanciful Covey's authority on behalf of the Company stemmed
from the Company, and did not depend on the other drivers. In some capacities,
Covey acted for the Company; in some, for the Union; and in some, for both.2
Shortly thereafter Covey, specifically as steward appeared with Monty at a con-
ference at the union hall, here still as a union representative, I find. Covey's plea
on Monty's behalf at that time was likewise made in that capacity; this was an
intraunion conference, with the union president referring to intraunion discipline-
Smith's explanation to Covey, at the union office and in the presence of Monty
and the Union's president, for keeping the job open for men out of work rather
than recognizing Monty's prior right constituted a decision by the superior union
representative to Covey as steward which Covey as company representative did not
ignore. Here clearly was control exercised by 294, acting particularly through
Covey and Smith, over the Company's employment, to Monty's disadvantage,
until he stopped going to the terminal in January, as noted. There is no issue
but that such control encourages union membership.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the union set forth in section ?T, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of the Company described in section above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union has engaged in and is eng aging in certain unfair
labor practices affecting commerce , I shall recommend that ; , curse and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
2United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , Loral ±`517, f11 'J, (Gil
Wyner Construction Company ), 112 NLRB 714, 71 G, 721 , United States Steel Coipenat,on
(Ame)ican Bridge Division ), 122 NLRB 1324, 1325
LOCAL 294, INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. 1029
It has been found that the Union , by attempting to cause and causing Valletta to
discriminate against Monty by insisting that it cease giving extra work to him,
restrained and coerced employees and caused the Employer to discriminate in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2 ) of the Act . I shall therefore recommend
that the Union cease and desist therefrom . I shall further recommend that the Union
make Monty whole for loss of pay sustained by reason of the discriminatory action
aforementioned , computation to be made in the customary manner.3
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Independent, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By causing and attempting to cause Valletta to discriminate in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment and terms and conditions of employment in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
3. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
upon the entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondent, Local 294,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Independent, Albany, New York, its officers, agents, representatives,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Valletta to discriminate against any employee
by denial of work assignments.
(b) In any other manner causing or attempting to cause Valletta to discriminate
against any employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the
policies of .the Act
(a) Make Monty whole for the loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against him, in the manner set forth in the section of the Intermediate Report
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Valletta, in writing, that it withdraws its objections to priority em-
ployment of Monty as an extra driver.
(c) Post at its office in Albany, New York, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Di-
rector for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Union's representa-
tive, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
v0 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to its members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Union to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Mail to the Regional Director for the Third Region signed copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix," for posting by Valletta at its Albany,
New York, terminal or place of business. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for the Third Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
Union's representative, be forthwith returned to said Regional Director for such
posting.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Third Region, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
3 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corporation v. N L R B.,
311 U S 7; F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294.
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS, AND NONMEMBERS
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor-Management Re-
lations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Valletta Motor Trucking Co, Inc.,
to discriminate against any employee by denial of work assignments.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner cause or attempt to cause Valletta Motor
Trucking Co., Inc., to discriminate against any employee in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make George Monty whole for the loss of pay suffered by him as
the result of the discrimination against him.
LOCAL 294, INTERNATIONAL -BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER-
ICA, INDEPENDENT,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
The Bedford-Nugent Corp . and Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Help-
ers, Local Union 215, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America . Case No.
25-CA-1467. June 28, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 6, 1962 , Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , 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 Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter , the Respondent and the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs i
support thereof.
The Board I has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs , and the entire record'
in the case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified below.'
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[ Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
2 The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , including
the exceptions and briefs , in our opinion adequately presents the issues and the positions.
of the parties
137 NLRB No. 110.