Mashkin Freight Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1979

243 N.L.R.B. 848 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Teamsters Local 559, an affiliate of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America (Mashkin Freight
Lines, Inc.) and John R. Catania, Jr. Case I CB-
4009
July 31, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
On April 9, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Wil-
liam F. Jacobs issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Teamsters Local 559, an
Affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Newington, Connecticut, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc. 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM F. JACOBS, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me on July 26, 1978, at Hartford,
Connecticut. The charge was filed on February 2, 1978, and
amended on March 8, 1978, by John R. Catania. an indi-
vidual. Complaint issued on March 20. 1978, alleging that
Teamsters Local 559, an affiliate of The International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, herein called the Union, violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by failing and refusing to prop-
erly represent Catania in regard to his discharge on Septem-
ber 9, 1977,' by Mashkin Freight Lines. Inc., herein called
Mashkin or the Company. In its answer, the Union denied
that it had engaged in the unfair labor practice alleged.
All parties hereto were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to intro-
duce oral and documentary evidence and to argue orally.
The Union submitted a brief, and the General Counsel sub-
mitted a memorandum of points and authorities. Based on
the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses.,
and after due consideration of the post-hearing documents
submitted. I make the following:
FINDIN(iS OF FAI
I. JURISDI( I()ON
Mashkin Freight Lines, Inc., is a Connecticut corpora-
tion which maintains its principal office and place of busi-
ness in East Hartford Connecticut, where it is engaged as a
common carrier in the interstate transportation of freight
and commodities. During the course and conduct of its
business the Company has caused large quantities of goods
and materials used by it to be purchased and/or trans-
ported in interstate commerce from and through various
States of the United States other than the State of ('onnecti-
cut. In the course and conduct of its interstate freight trans-
portation business operations the Company annually de-
rives gross revenues in excess of $50,000: annually receives
goods and materials at its East Hartford, Connecticut, facil-
ity valued in excess of $50,000 which goods and materials
are transported to said facility directly from States other
than the State of Connecticut: and annually performs truck
freight services valued in excess of $50,000 fr customers
located in States other than the State of Connecticut. The
complaint alleges, the answer admits.2 and I find that Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
I. IHE LABOR O)RGANIZATION INVOI.lED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
IIIll. THE UNFAIR ABOR PRA(I I(ES
John R. Catania first obtained employment with Mash-
kin in 1976, initially on a part-time basis. On about July 5.
1977. he and his brother-in-law, Harold Haczynski, applied
at the Company for full-time employment, were accepted.
and began working as truckdrivers on a full-time basis.
Haczynski immediately and Catania about I week later on
July 11. The Company's truckdrivers and certain other em-
ployees are covered by a collective-bargaining agreement
and are represented by the Union. The contract contains a
All dates are in 1977 unless otherwise indicated.
The answer was amended at the hearing to admit the jurisdictional alle-
gallions.
243 NLRB No. 144
X48
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 559
union-securit) clause requiring newly hired employees to
become union members 31 days after hiring. Catania and
Haczynski, aware of the union-securitN requirements of the
contract, attempted on several occasions to contact the
steward in order to fill out the necessary papers to obtain
membership. T'o this end, they left messages attached to the
stewards, timecard. but neither the steward nor anyone else
from the Union contacted atania or Haczynski in re-
sponse to their messages.' Similarly. both Catania and
Haczynski discussed the necessity ofjoining the Union with
certain company officials and requested the necessary pa-
pers to fill out to have dues deducted. These. however. were
not forthcoming.
On September 6 while on the job Catania suddenly took
ill and was taken to a hospital where he remained for ap-
proximately I week. The day Catania took ill the Company
was notified by a fellow employee. On September 7 the
day after Catania was admitted to the hospital. Haczxnski,
still unsuccessful in his attempts to contact the steward.
visited the union hall in order to straighten out matters and
to join the Union. Once there he spoke s with Jack Fennelly.
secretary-treasurer of the Union. who was in charge of la-
bor relations on behalf of the Union at Mashkin. Haczynski
told Fennelly who he was, that he worked at Mashkin. and
that he was there to join the Union. Fennell appeared to
Haczynski to be little angry about his working at Mashkin.
He said that he did not know Haczynski was working at
Mashkin and stated that he had men that were sitting on
the bench not working. He asked Haczsnski how he hap-
pened to get the job. In reply Haczynski told Fennelly how
he had gone down and filled out the application, and that
he had been told that he had to join the Union in 31 days.
He then mentioned Catania and stated that neither of them
had received the necessary forms from Mashkin to make
application. When Fennelly heard Catania's name men-
tioned by Haczynski he said, "That son-of-a-bitch, what is
he doing working there?" Fennelly then went on to de-
scribe to Haczynski how Catania and his father had joined
I The steward, a driver, was on a different schedule s.o Catania and
Haczynski were unable to make personal contact with him. By affidavit In
lieu of testimony, the steward denied ever having received messages or notes
from Catania. He did not mention Haczynski. Catania and Haczynski are
credited with regard to their testimonies concerning their efforts to contact
the steward.
* Haczynski testified variously as to the date of this incident: in one in-
stance he stated that it was at least I month before Catania got out of the
hospital (September 12 or 13). another time that it occurred on or about
August 29. The application for membership card, which he testified that he
filled out on the day of his visit is. however. dated September 7. 1977. Al-
though Haczynski initially testified that he did not date this card, he subse-
quently testified that he may have done so. he card, which he admits he
otherwise completed. appears to contain uniform handwriting throughout. I
find, in accordance with Fennelly's testimony and with the evidence as con-
tained on the card, that Haczynski's visit to the union hall occurred on
September 7.
' The conversation between Hacznskl and Fennell? is based primarily on
Haczynski's credited testimony. Fennell's version of the discussion. where it
differs from Haczynski's. is not credited nor are his numerous denials.
6 Fennelly denies that lHacz.nski mentioned that C(alania as rworking at
Mashkin He also denies calling ('atania an SO.B ut admits criticizing
Catania for not paying dues and for lining the L nion onl toI obtain work
for his trucks on a few union jobs. As noted pres' ously, wherever there are
discrepancies between tlaczynskis testimony and that ot Fennell. ltac.zn-
ski's testimony is credited over Fennell)'s
the Union when they were engaged in the trucking bhsincS>
just to obtain work on a couple of union jobs, and that that
was the only reason the> had joined the inion. lie stated
that he knew Catania from before, that he was a trouble-
maker, and that he. Fennelly. had always had trouble from
Catania. The two then dropped the subject ol (atania and
began to discuss such subjects as initiation ifes and insur-
ance. As Haczynski was leaving the immediate area to go
elsewhere to fill out the necessars forms and dolculiecnts to
enable him to join the Union. he heard Fennell, ;th ise one
of the secretaries that C(alania as \ working at lashkin.
On September 12 or 13 (Catania sas released trom the
hospital. He immediately contacted P'at (iaruti. NMashkin's
terminal manager. and advised him that he as read to
return to work. (iarufi asked Catania it' he had recei ved the
certified letter which stated that he had been terminated lor
excessive absenteeism. Catania replied that he had not,
whereupon Garufi stated that the letter as selt-explana-
tory and hung up. ('atania and his wile then went to the
post office and picked up the letter which (iarufi had men-
tioned. The letter, addressed to ('atania and signed by John
F. Mahon, a vice president at Mashkin's, xas dated Sep-
tember 9 and advised Catania that he las terminated etlec-
five September for excessive absences. 'Ihe letter noted
that Catania had previously been warned abouI t his ah-
sences. At the bottom of the letter it was noted that a cop\
was being forwarded to Fennelly as well as to certain com-
pany officials. Immediately upon picking up the letter at the
post office, (atania called the Union and spoke to Fen-
nelly.7 He identified himself to Fennells. with ahom h e had
spoken on at least one previous occasion prior to his obtain-
ing employment at Mashkin. He asked Fennell it' he had
received a copy of his termination letter fromn Mashkin.
Fennelly replied in the negative. and he stated that the last
he had heard Catania was still working at Union Carbide.'
Catania thereupon read his termination letter to Fennelly
and asked him if the Company could legally terminate him
for being in the hospital. He told Fennelly that he was
going to come down and file a grievance. Fennelly replied
that Catania should not bother to file a grievance. either
written or oral. He informed Catania that he did not belong
at Mashkin's because Fennelly had men on the bench in
good standing with the local while Catania was still under
' This discussion appears as testified to by Catania. ho is fullt credited
Where his testimony conflicts with that of Fennelly, the latter's testimonx i1
rejected, as are his numerous denials
Since I have already found that Haczynski advised Fennelly on Septenim-
ber 7 that Catania was employed at Mashkin. I find further that ennelly's
statement to Catania that he did not know that he was employed at Mashkin
was untrue The question then arises as to why Fennelly would lie to Catanl.i
about his knowledge of Catania's hasing been employed hee What did he
have to hide unless. of course. he had been involved in Mlhkin's decision to
terminate Catania. The timing would support such a theory fr (atania went
to the hospital on September 6. Fennell) learned ol his employment on
September 7 and Catania was terminated effectie September . Morcover.
though the contract requires that both the employee and the t nt on receise
written warnings before an employee is discharged. n ('atan.'s case the
procedure was not followed. Since the VInlon's complicits in ('atalll.a's ternrill-
nation is a question which is not before me I will not treat the matter lurlhcr
except to note that Fennelly may well hae had god,J reason tr not being
totally candid during this consersation with ('atania n September 13 and
during the hearing when he testified concerning this conersatlonl
949
D)I('ISIONS O()F NA'IIONAI. IABOR RELA IONS BOARD
suspension for being behind in his dues. ('atania admitted
that he was behind in his dues and was willing to pay the
penalties when he got on his feet even though he did not
believe that he should have to pay penalties for back dues.
He tried to explain to Fennelly how he started working for
Mashkin. that he had worked there the required 31 days,
and that he needed Fennelly to represent him."' Fennelly
replied that he would not let (atania attempt belatedly to
pay his back dues. Ie accused Catania of thinking that he
could come in and out of the local any time he felt like it.
He refused to represent C(atania, saying, "There is nothing I
can do for you because your record. being what it is, and
your standing what it is with the local....' Fhe discus-
sion was loud on both sides and ended with ('atania stating
that he would go to the Board and seek legal advice from
an attorney. Since Fennelly had told him that a grievance
would not be accepted. Catania did not attempt to file one.
but after seeking the advice of several attorneys he finally
filed the instant charge.
Analysis and Conclusion
The above facts reflect that John Catania, upon being
terminated by the Company. sought the assistance of the
Union in obtaining reinstatement, but that he was denied
that assistance because although he was an employee in-
cluded within the bargaining unit he was not a member in
good standing of the Union.
It is by now axiomatic that a union must, as statutory
agent of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, ad-
minister the grievance and arbitration machinery contained
in the collective-bargaining agreement and make decisions
'The record reflects a certain degree of animnosily on Fennelly's part
toward (atania which is apparently the result of' he historical relationship
between Catania and the Union. Thus. Catania was a one time engaged in
the trucking business with his father. In 1971 he joined the Union. He re-
mained in business or about I year, then went to work for several other
companies. some of which were nonunion. lie then went to work for Union
Carbide, which was an open shop where the Union had a contract. In 1976
the Union determined that certain employees at Union Carbide were not
having dues deducted: one of them was Catania. When ('atania was asked
why, as a member of the Union. he was not having dues deducted. he
claimed that he had taken out a withdrawal card. When Fennelly checked
the union records, there was nol evidence that (atania was in withdrawal hut
was in arrears in his dues. Subsequently. (atania cntacted the Union and
asked honw he could get straightened out. It was determined that (Catania
could regain good standing status if he would pay S 100 reinitiation ee plus
a $100 fine A letter was sent to (atania on October 4. 1976. advising him of
this decision. Catania never replied to the letter and had no actual contact
with the Union thereafter until his telephone conversation with Fennelly on
September 12 or 13 of the following year.
t0 Fennelly denied that Catania stated that he wished to file a grievance or
that he requested Fennelly to intercede for him in this matter. I find Fen-
nelly's testimony in this regard particul:'rls incredible I cannot reasonably
conclude, as Fennelly would have me do. that Catartia would. immediately
upon receiving his notice of discharge. call the Union and not seek its aid but
only attempt to straighten out his good standing. something which had been
hanging fire for years. After all. he had just been told that he was no longer
employed. and if he could not pay his arrearages when he had a job. wh)
would he suddenly call the Union ,eiv to ask abhout his standing at time
when he was no lmnger employed. ennelly's description of this discussion
and its alleged purpose is preposterous I find. in acciordance with (atania's
credited testiminy, that he called Fennelly to seek his aid i obtaining rein-
statement and specifically requested permission to file a griea:nce for hat
purpose.
as to the merits of particular grievances in good faith and in
a nonarbitrary manner. See I 'ea v. Sips.v 386 U.S. 171
(1967). It may not refuse to permit a nonmember employee
of the bargaining unit to file a grievance simply because he
is a nonmember. for that is in violation of the Act. See
International Union. United Aultomobile, Aeroslace & Agri-
cultural Implement Workers o/IAmerica UA I, anod it. l.oal
No. 1303 (Jervis Corp., Bolivar Diisionj. 192 NL RB 966
(1971): nor may a union, once having discouraged the em-
ployee from filing the grievance, as a defense to a subse-
quent charge. rely on the fact that the employee failed to go
ahead and file his grievance aflter having been discouraged
from doing so initially. See Local 130.3. supra. For the griev-
ance procedure is vital to collective bargaining, and griev-
ance representation is due employees as a matter of right.
See International A.vsociation /of Machiniss and Aerospace
Workers. Local Union No. 697. AFL (10 (The H.O. Can-
/iecl Rubber Conpany1 of Virginia. Inc.), 223 NLRB 832
(1976). he Board has stated, therefore, that a union's de-
nial of assistance in prosecuting grievances is a grave mat-
ter. Peerles.v Toll and Engineering Co., 111 NLRB 853, enfd.
231 F.2d 98 (7th Cir. 1956). cert. denied 352 U.S. 833
(1957). and where a union's abandonment of an employee's
interest in reinstatement is influenced by considerations
which are arbitrary and in bad faith and the handling or
refusal to handle the matter is dictated by the union's view
of the employee as a troublemaker (as in the instant case),
rather than by the merits of the case, its failure to process
the grievance is violative of Section 8(b)(1)(A). Here the
Union made no decision as to the merits of ('atania's griev-
ance and neglected even to take the initial step of investi-
gating to determine whether the grievance was worth trying
to resolve. Such an approach toward its duty to fairly repre-
sent the individuals in the bargaining unit is a breach of
that duty. United Steelworkers of' America, AFL-CIO (In-
ter-Ro'al Corp.), 223 NILRB 1184 (1976). and reflects an "1
don't give a damn" attitude heretofore found violative by
the Board. See Inter-Royvl ('orp.. supra. Respondent's dis-
criminatory refusal to refer Catania because he was not a
member of the U nion, United Steelworkers oJ'America, I.o-
cal 8093. A4FL (10 CL( (Kenneott Copper Corporation,
Ray Mines Diision. 225 NLRB 802 (1976) and/or because
he was not in good standing Cf. United Brotherhood of Car-
penters nd Joiner o A nmerica. Local No. 1089(. AFI. C10
(Etnmell & ": Ilargettll dl//a E. - Hargett & Contpaynv). 233
NLRB 275 (1976), is therefore in violation of Section
8(b)( I )(A) of the Act.
TIl REM[I)Y
Having found that the Union has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices. I will recommend that it cease and de-
sist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act. Inasmuch as the Union
failed and refused to process Catania's grievance, as noted
above, and thereby restrained and coerced him in violation
of Section 8(b)( I )(A). it must be held liable for any loss
(Catania may have suffered as a result thereof. Therefore, I
1 Sermii- E /isphus 1nternati onal Un . .mi 5 79, 4 Ft. ( 0 ( 1'0 0 unt,
ot Dearlur. id/ih/,a Bc,cr/ &Manoir ('swilil/ cnsf ( ntcr. lial t). 229 N RB 692
(1977)
85(
II \N SII RS I()(' 1 ')
will recommend thatl tie Union he ordered first o ICIquICsl
the ('ompan to reinstlate ('atania: second. tiling this thinle
Union should be ordered to request that the (',olipan
waive the time limitations cont.ainlce in the grievalice pro\i-
sions of the contract and. i the C('oilpani agrees to wai\e
the time limitation, to process (atania's griesance diligentl
through to its proper conclusion.'
The Union's backpaN liabilitl must be limited to a loss
suffered by Catania as a result of' its refusal to process his
grievance. Consequentl. I shall recomniientl that t ie 'nion
make Catania whole for anl losses he m;la have sutltlerd as
a result of his discharge by the Compalil I'rom tilhe date of
that discharge September 8. 1977. until an one of the til-
lowing should occur: C(atania is reinst;ited b\ the ('oni-
pany: he obtains other substantiall equilvallent cnlplo-
ment; or his grievance is diligently plocessed throuL gh to lts
proper conclusion. Backpay is to he colmputed ii accord-
ance with the formulak set iorth in If . Ilt, ,,/iih ( o,,
parnv. 90 Nl.RB 289 (1950). with interesl to be coniputed in
the manner prescribed in f7orida .'c/ ( r,,ral,./it 231
NILRB 651 (1977).
(o')N( I l SI(ls ) l .I a,(,,
I. Mashkin Freight I.ines. Inc.. is an eploser engaged
in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Teamsters Local 559, an affiliate of' lhe International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and
Helpers of America is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing to firly and properly repre-
sent and process the grievance of John R. C(atania., Jr.. in
regard to his discharge the Union has restrained and co-
erced him in the exercise of rights guaranteed him in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(b)( I )(A) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of Mashkin Freight Lines. Inc..
have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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 within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law and upon the entire record in this case. I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDERS4
The Respondent. Teamsters I.ocal 559, an affiliate of The
International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Ware-
2I Cf. Inier-Royal Corp., supra
"See, generally, Ists Plumbing Heating (o. 138 NRB 716 (1962)
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided b Sec 102.46 o he
Rules and Regulations of the National l.ator Relallons Board. the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as prosided n Sec. 102 48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted b the Board and become ts
findings, conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto shall he deemed
waived for all purposes.
I1tUseIIlll Ill 1d IJeplC, Ill '\lllt' CL'/ I I iCiII. , IT.ILCSM1 '
;iSlls. ;1ltli lI . er sclliltll\ S hI i i '.
1. ('easc .i1tnd deflit I lll:
(a) Restlliitlg (tr Coclig l 1\ II \ l hL\ cplos cIIII t\e CtLItI.
ot rights giit.lenle h Sectiot 7 \ iliil hiil I ntlilic itild
it11.sil ii t. l ilJ l/ d prope1l\ tlt l'Ct tl icll l lt Css
heir Lrie illce..
(h Rc'snlli mlig oil O1ciit'll cr1 l II ccI', I ll ;i I i likI iI I -
. lIke lit hdutioslsl itlirl/ios ictlill s liili is ie.es-
sil' ,t' (' ee I t.i tlhe pillpocts IIi \ t!
IItTI \lsistls. li A1 snhtiiltIll;l\ CT(tiii.IIil t' I)(IIlii1 It
s1,slikiin I t' i ill l it 1 it, iles to rti'lltMl il. it
luelst tl. ( ollllpL 1 ll I i l l. 1111' Ill 11I l lllt h ll , 11ll.l ll lcl d
pil e lii i lk\ Iigrt' i sl ll' tlt' ilet' 11 11AI t1 I l . 111t's ( .111
Ia11' Irilc'te toi ll\e titl ilc llllt hitls plot tlitll slll
(h) NM;tk .Johll R. ( it;Ij1, 1. J .M ,l' l l ;1l\ 1,s ol
'lililtig s lie lli\ tlse sitltl.Ic l is l1 1r.'liIIl it I11\ lill.lic. '
h\ Ma;shk, I t, lglt Iit hs Jlt ,litit [St' ,Cttt. l l, ltl dis-
cliarge. Sptenllihr . 1''77. untnil lie Is elissti;t.'dk 11lt
(o111plpall oroi (1 s11ls (1lltCl 5Ill3t;lllillll t'11\ilnliT t 1 C lllph1-
tilelit irl his git'\sitC 1'. illtllt Iplcessetl [tilliiel ti ils
proper itt I.itsiit.I Il.i B kpa\ is i, t h' c tuillllted II/ tt d-
;illc s\ lh th tirililUai set I t 1l in it til tiitltrll t tis 111 )t.i
sion entitlled "I tie Ren'ed "
() Post at t ItIlCSss ilitict's 1illtl Icltllig ha11lls ntl t ill
places here iotices to is Illlillhe-s ;illd otliCtIl 'lpl1\CC s IlI
the h;argainin Ltit -irc cIsotllaril\ poslttl (Ii1111 tlitg ll
such places at Mlashikin I reigll I.lies. il.. opiet's t tilt
attachei notlice inarked "\ppendti \.li ('(pi', e1 \;tid 1 io-
lice, on lornis proitIedI h til Regional lircctor li r Re-
iolln I. after being dlul\ sigLne h tile Inlion's reprcllsetll-
ti\e. shall be posted h! the non iiti iiliediitlJ ipti receipti
thereofl. and be maintllllled h i ot (0() coitSetllie d;i\s
thereafter. Re;isonaile steps ;hall e taken [i the I 1io , Io
iisUre tlhat s li s Ioilc .ire 1 .ltt'.. JdeICt.d. or to..ered
bh an' other ilaltrial.
(I) Notif\ Ilt' Reioial l)irectol tr' Region I. iii s.ril-
ing. \ithini 20() d; fro llthe tate of ithit ()rlder. \\ha seps
hae beenti take n It coiplx herc\ lth.
' In Ihe centl hal this ()rder is elorced h Ji .idglnlt ., I nited
States courl ol appea lI. Ihe ,,rds lin he notice readin "l')eld h ()rder l
the National l.abor Relaltiols ard shhall read 'Tosled P'uirlail o a Jdg-
menl oIt the niled Slle ( url it \ppeaI.H t rUirtin an ()rdtcr It he Na
tinil l.abhor Relations B(iard
APP'IN D )IX
NOII( I- (l F.I' ll I Is AND) NI1 MBI Rs
P()Sll-I) ORI)IR ()I- It
NAII()NAI. L.AB()R Rhl AIINS BOARD
,An Agenc of the nietl States ( ios ernment
After a hearing. the National Iahor Relations FBoart h\-
him found that we s'iolated the Nationail I.abor Relations
Act. we hereh, nolit' ol th;t:
vi ,\\11 I soI fail r refuse to l iirls rerprselnt an\
employee a hargalillg llit rpresentet h s r
S ,
I)I('ISI()NS ()I NAI ION AI, ABOR RA I.AIONS B()ARI)
arhitrarily fail or refuse to tile and process any emplov-
ee s grieance.
WI Ii I NoI in all like or related manner interfere
wilh. restrain, or coerce employees in thile exercise of
rights guaranteed themn in Section 7 of the Act.
WtI sNil request iMashkin Freight l ines. Inc.. to
reinstate John R. (atania, Jr., to his tormer position
or i it no longer exists, to a suhstantial equivalent
position. It' it refuses to reinstate him. WI: iVll request
it to waive the time limitation contained in the griev-
arnce provisions of the contract and, if the (ompa n
agrees to waUli the time in l talions. \ I t 11 process
(atallia's cgrievance diligentl\ tlhrouih to its proper
conclusion
Wl ,il I make John R. ( atania. .. whole for ins
losses which he ma, haLe silltcred is a restuit of our
liilure to promIpll, tile anlld process hiLs grievance.
IIAMSIIkRS el)( Al 559, AN Al- 1 1 AI 1 I lt IN-
II:RNAIIONAI BRO(III.RII()l) ()ll [IlAMS It RS
( tllt I I t RS, WARI II1)' SIl N AND 1Il l lRS )l
AMI:RI A
X52