Pink Moody, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1978

237 N.L.R.B. 39 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

Pink Moody, Inc. and Reynaldo Salinas. Case 7-CA-
13856
July 20, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS. PENELLO. AND Mt RPHY
On August 31, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Herbert Silberman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions and supporting arguments.
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 sup-
porting arguments and has decided to affirm the rul-
ings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative
Law Judge, but only to the extent consistent here-
with.
The complaint alleges that on March 5, 1977, Re-
spondent laid off employee Reynaldo Salinas and
failed to recall him until March 9, 1977, because Sali-
nas complained about the unsafe condition of Re-
spondent's trucks and refused to drive a truck which
had defective brakes.
The basic facts are not in dispute. Respondent is a
contract hauler for the U.S. Postal Service in and
around the Detroit, Michigan, area. In the course of
its operations it employs, among others, four drivers
who operate Respondent's "box" trucks, three of
whom work days, while Salinas works nights Sunday
through Thursday and during the daytime on Satur-
day. Respondent has three box trucks, numbered 25,
26, and 27. Salinas could use any of the three trucks,
but generally drove truck 25. Starting in November
1976, Salinas began experiencing brake trouble with
truck 25. The brakes would work at the start of his
run, but after a period of operation, the brake pedal
would lock up, leaving the vehicle without brakes.
On numerous occasions, as was his custom with any
discovered defect, Salinas left notes in the truck call-
ing attention to the defective brakes. On one occa-
sion when the brake pedal malfunctioned, Salinas
was able to drive the truck through his shift by driv-
ing very slowly in low gear. On another occasion
when the brake pedal locked up, he called Moody.
Respondent's president, and asked him what to do.
Moody responded that "it was up to you." Salinas
left the truck at the postal skip center. For the next
several nights Respondent took truck 25 out of ser-
vice. In February 1977, the brake pedal again locked
PINK MOODY. INC
up and, when Salinas telephoned Moody, another
driver brought truck 27 to Salinas to complete his
shift.
During this period of time, Salinas on several occa-
sions spoke with his fellow drivers regarding the de-
fective brakes. On Thursday, March 3, driver Horn
drove truck 25 and experienced the malfunctioning
brake. That night, in a phone conversation with Sali-
nas. Horn stated that he would not drive truck 25
again. Salinas discussed the situation with Horn.
That night, Salinas left a note asking that truck 25 be
fixed by Saturday. The next morning (Friday), Re-
spondent directed Horn to drive truck 25, and Horn
refused. There was no confrontation, however, be-
cause truck 27 became available before Horn started
his shift. On Saturday, March 5, Salinas took truck
25 out and again experienced the locked brake pedal.
He called Moody from one of his stops to tell him
that he needed another truck because of faulty
brakes. Moody instructed Salinas to drive the truck
back to the garage. When Salinas refused, Moody
told him he was laid off for a few days. Salinas was
recalled on March 9.
The Administrative Law Judge found that Salinas
was not engaged in concerted activities at the time of
this refusal to drive truck 25. Although he acknowl-
edged that operating unsafe motor vehicles was a
matter of concern to all of Respondent's employees,
he distinguished the Board's decision in Alleluia
Cushion Co., Inc., 221 NLRB 999 (1975), and Air Sur-
rev Corporation, 229 NLRB 1064 (1977). by noting
that the discriminatees in those cases had not inter-
fered with or interrupted their normal work tasks.
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that since
it was not clear to Respondent at the time it suspend-
ed Salinas that his fellow employees shared his con-
cern and interest about the defective brakes, Respon-
dent could not be denied its right to discipline
Salinas when he individually refused to perform his
duties.
In Alleluia Cushion, supra, we held that where an
employee speaks up and seeks to enforce statutory
provisions relating to occupational safety designed
for the benefit of all employees, in the absence of any
evidence that fellow employees disavow such repre-
sentation. we will find implied consent thereto and
deem such acitvity to be concerted. In Air Surrey',
supra, we found as concerted activity an employee's
individual inquiry at his employer's bank as to
whether the employer had sufficient funds on deposit
to meet the upcoming payroll. because the matter
inquired into by the employee was of vital concern to
all employees. And in Dawson Cabinet Company, Inc.,
228 NLRB 290 (1977), we extended the Alleluia
Cushion principle in order to find as concerted activi-
237 NLRB No. 7
39
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ty a female employee's individual refusal to perform
a certain job unless she was paid the same wages as a
male employee doing the same job, because the em-
ployee was attempting to vindicate the equal pay
rights of the female employees.'
In the instant case, the facts clearly establish that
Salinas' refusal to drive truck 25 on March 5 was
concerted activity within the meaning of Alleluia
Cushion, Air Surrey, and Dawson Cabinet. Respon-
dent acknowledged its own concern over the brakes
on truck 25 when it took the truck out of service for
a few nights in January after the brakes had malfunc-
tioned while Salinas was driving his route. In March,
Respondent became aware that other drivers besides
Salinas were concerned about the malfunctioning
brakes on truck 25. Thus, on March 3 Salinas had a
telephone conversation with Horn, who had driven
truck 25 that day and had experienced the malfunc-
tioning brakes. Horn stated that he (Horn) would not
drive truck 25 again. The next day, when directed by
Respondent to drive truck 25, Horn refused. Nothing
happened, however, because another truck became
avialable before Horn started his run. The very next
day, Salinas refused to drive truck 25 back to the
garage when ordered to do so by Respondent. Thus,
at the time Respondent suspended Salinas, it was on
notice that on successive days, two of its drivers had
refused to drive truck 25 because of the brake prob-
lem.
In addition, compliance with an order to drive a
motor vehicle with malfunctioning brakes would
clearly violate traffic regulations,2 and thus any bene-
fits resulting from Salinas' refusal to drive such an
unsafe vehicle would inure to the benefit of all of
Respondent's drivers.
In light of these facts, it is clear that Salinas' ac-
tions on March 5 were part of a continuing effort by
Salinas and at least one other employee to have Re-
spondent repair the brakes on truck 25, that Respon-
dent was fully aware of such effort as well as the
specific problem with the brakes on truck 25, and,
thus, that Salinas' activity was concerted. Inasmuch
as Respondent suspended Salinas for engaging in
protected concerted activities, we find that his sus-
pension violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Pink Moody, Inc., is an employer engaged in
B Thus, the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Salinas' refusal to
perform his normal work tasks distinguished this case from the 4lleluia
Cushion line of cases is clearly incorrect.
2 An employer's ordering of a commercially licensed driver to violate
traffic regulations and ordinances would be a matter of grave concern to all
drivers.
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. By suspending Reynaldo Salinas because of his
having engaged in protected concerted activities, the
Respondent, Pink Moody, Inc., interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act,
thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practice affects com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found, contrary to the Administrative Law
Judge, that Respondent engaged in an unfair labor
practice by suspending an employee because of his
having engaged in protected concerted activity, we
shall order Respondent to cease and desist therefrom
and to take certain affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent suspended Reynal-
do Salinas in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
we shall order Respondent to make him whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the
suspension, in accordance with F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and with interest
thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in
Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Pink Moody, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Suspending employees because of their having
engaged in protected concerted activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Reynaldo Salinas whole for any loss of
pay he may have suffered by reason of his suspension
on March 5, 1977, in the manner set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
' See. generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
40
PINK MOODY, INC.
(b) Expunge from its records any disciplinary ac-
tion taken against Reynaldo Salinas because of his
refusal to drive truck 25 on March 5. 1977.
(c) Preserve and, upon request. make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copsing.
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports. and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Detroit. Michigan, facility copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 7, after being duly signed by Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof.
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing, within 20 days of the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
In the event that this Order is enforced hba judgment of iI United SlaIte
Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted hs Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a. Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of tlhe
National Labor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT suspend employees because they
have engaged in concerted activities protected
by the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make Reynaldo Salinas whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered because of
his suspension on May 5, 1977, with interest.
WE WILL expunge from our records any disci-
plinary action taken against Reynaldo Salinas
because of his refusal to drive truck 25 on
March 5, 1977.
PINK MOODY, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASt-
HERBERT SILBERMAN. Administrative Law Judge: Reynal-
do Salinas, an individual, having filed a charge of unfair
labor practices on March 7, 1977, in Case 7-CA 13856
against Pink Moody. Inc.. herein called the Company, a
complaint was issued by the Regional Director for Region
7. dated April 21. 1977. alleging that Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended. In substance, the complaint alleges
that Respondent laid off its employee Reynaldo Salinas for
the period from March 5 until March 9, 1977. "because of
the Charging Party's complaints about the unsafe condi-
tion of Respondent's trucks and his refusal to drive a truck
which had defective brakes, and because of other activity
that is protected by Section 7 of the Act." The Company
filed an answer, dated April 29. 1977, generally denying
that it has engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing in this proceeding was held
in Detroit, Michigan. on July 27. 1977, before me. General
Counsel and Respondent were represented at the hearing
by counsel and Charging Party appeared in person. In ac-
cordance with the procedure authorized by Section
102.35(i) of the Rules and Regulations of the National La-
bor Relations Board,' the parties at the hearing entered
into a stipulation waiving a verbatim transcript of the oral
testimony and waiving the right to file with the Board ex-
ceptions to the findings of fact which the Administrative
Law Judge shall make in this case. A copy of the stipula-
tion is attached hereto as Appendix A [Appendix A omit-
ted from publication.]. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues.
Pursuant to permission granted the parties at the hearing.
General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs with me.
Upon the entire record in this case,2 I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company. a Michigan corporation, under contract
with the United States Postal Service hauls mail within the
metropolitan area of Detroit, Michigan. During the calen-
dar year 1976, which period is representative of Respon-
dent's operations. it received payments for the services it
rendered in excess of $50,000. The complaint alleges, Re-
spondent admits, and I find that the Company is an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
See (;eorge W liamsf Sheet Metarl (Co. 201 NLRB 1050 (1973)
2! The pleadings ind the other formal papers were received in evidence as
GC. txhs. I(a) Ihrough I(f) No other doecuments were introduced in evi-
dence
41
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
11 ltitl AI.L. (;ED UINFAIR I.ABOR PRA( TICES
The Company hauls bulk mail on a contract basis for the
United States Postal Service. Reynaldo Salinas, a driver for
the Company, was suspended from March 5 to March 9,
1977, when he refused to drive his truck because its brakes
were defective. Salinas' suspension in the context of his
repeated complaints to the Company and his conversations
with other employees about the mechanical and equipment
defects in the trucks that he drove is alleged to violate
Section 8(a)(1).
During the times material hereto, the Company operated
three box trucks which are numbered 25, 26, and 27. 3 Sali-
nas, who started with the Company in February 1976,
drove such a truck. He normally worked nights from Sun-
day to Thursday and days on Saturdays. Al Cook, Charles
Horn, and Don Mixon were the other operators of the box
trucks. For the most part they worked days and none
worked at the same times as Salinas.
Salinas customarily drove truck 25, which he considered
his assigned vehicle, although he was permitted by the
Company to drive any of the three box trucks at his discre-
tion without obtaining prior permission from his supervis-
ors, Foreman Herman Bowery or President Aubrey L.
Moody. Because Foreman Bowery and President Moody
usually were not at the Company's premises during the
hours Salinas worked, it was Salinas' practice, begun early
in 1976, whenever he noticed a defect in the truck which he
drove to leave a note in the vehicle directed to Bowery or
Moody calling attention to the fault.'
One night in November 1976 while Salinas was driving
truck 25, the brake pedal would not move, so that he was
compelled to operate the vehicle for the remaining part of
his shift without functioning brakes. He was able to do this
by driving slowly in low gear. Salinas left a note in the
truck calling attention to the fact that the brakes were de-
fective. From that night until March 5, 1977, whenever Sa-
linas drove truck 25, which was most of the nights that he
worked, he noticed the same defect. He left many notes
complaining about the brakes, but effective repairs were
never made.
Salinas' explanation for driving truck 25 during this en-
tire period rather than using truck 26 or 27, which he could
have done without obtaining prior permission from his
supervisors, is that at the beginning of each shift when he
went on duty the brakes on truck 25 operated, and he only
began to experience trouble after the truck was on the road
for a period of time. He testified that he was reluctant to
use truck 26 because he was told once by a Unites States
Post Office supervisor at the management sectional center
in Royal Oak, referred to herein as the skip center, not to
use that truck because its bed was lower than the loading
dock so that it was difficult to move cargo in and out of the
The Company also used other vehicles. However. Salinas and the other
drivers mentioned herein operated onl' the box trucks,
4At different times he left notes calling attention to bald tires on each of
the three trucks. He also left notes calling attention to an inoperative seat
lock on truck 26 and a hole in the floor and an inoperative windshield wiper
on truck 25.
vehicle. However, truck 26 was regularly used in the day-
time to deliver and receive cargo at the skip center. Salinas
testified that he was reluctant to use truck 27 because
Charles Horn, a day driver who normally drove truck 27,
had indicated that he objected to Salinas driving truck 27.5
One night in the first week of January 1977, Salinas com-
plained to drivers from other companies that operating his
truck was dangerous because the brake pedal stuck. A sug-
gestion was made that he leave the truck or call Moody.
Salinas telephoned Moody at 6:30 a.m. and asked Moody
what he should do. Moody responded that "it was up to
you." Salinas left the truck at the skip center, from which
place he had telephoned Moody. For several nights there-
after Salinas did not drive truck 25 because when he re-
ported for work at the garage a note was in the vehicle
stating, "don't drive." When Salinas again began driving
truck 25, the problem of an inoperative brake pedal recur-
red: nevertheless, he continued using the truck and leaving
notes advising that the brakes were defective.
Once in February 1977 Salinas telephoned Moody from
one of his route stops and informed Moody that he was
unable to drive his truck because the brakes were inopera-
tive. Another driver brought truck 27 to the stop. Salinas
changed vehicles and completed the balance of his shift
using truck 27.
At various times Salinas complained separately to Cook,
Horn, and Mixon about the bad brakes on truck 25.6 The
response he received sometimes was that he could drive the
truck, and at other times that if he did not drive the truck,
the Company would get someone who would drive it.
Thus, Horn, in partial corroboration, testified that in Feb-
ruary, 1 or 2 weeks before Salinas was suspended, Salinas
asked Horn what he should do about the bad brakes on
truck 25, and Horn replied that he should drive carefully.
On March 3 Horn drove truck 25 and discovered that
the brake pedal did not function. That night Horn had a
telephone conversation with Salinas, during which Horn
informed Salinas that he (Horn) would not drive truck 25
again. Salinas asked Horn what he should do and Horn
responded, "Do your own thing." 7 Horn explained that he
believed people must solve their own problems in their own
way.' On March 3 Salinas left a note in truck 25 asking
that the brakes be fixed by Saturday, March 5.
On March 5 Salinas drove truck 25. When he arrived at
one of his regular route stops, the Warren Post Office, he
telephoned Moody and informed Moody that he needed
another truck because the brakes on truck 25 were bad.
Moody instructed Salinas to drive the truck back to the
garage. Salinas refused. Moody then told Salinas that he
was laid off for a few days. Salinas was recalled to work on
March 9. Thus, Salinas lost the pay he would have earned
I Horn was not a supervisor and had no authority to dens Salinas the use
of truck 27.
There is no evidence that Salinas discussed any other truck defects or
other maintenance problems with these drivers.
( Contrari to General Counsel's assertion in her brief. Horn did not say
that "nmavbe ISahlinas] shouldn't drive the truck."
t fhe next dai, March 4. lHorn was directed to drive truck 25. which he
refused to do floweser. no confrontation developed because b' the time
Horn was required to leave. the ( ompany's garage truck 27 became avail-
able and Horn used that vehicle
42
PINK MOODY. INC.
for the balance of his shift on March 5 and for the next
three shifts.
Salinas and Horn were the only witnesses who were
called to testify by General Counsel. Respondent rested its
case without calling any witnesses. The testimony given by
Salinas and Horn, which is not controverted, is credited in
full.
There is no evidence that Reynaldo Salinas participated
together or in concert with any other employees in a strike
or a refusal to work or in an activity related to their terms
or conditions of employment or that Salinas had embarked
upon a course of action the purpose of which was to enlist
the cooperation of other employees with respect to a mat-
ter relating to a term or condition of employment.9 Never-
theless, General Counsel contends that Salinas was en-
gaged in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid
or protection within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. In
support of this position, General Counsel relies upon .4A/e-
luia Cushion Co., Inc., 221 NLRB 999 (19 7 5 ); and cases
following Alleluia such as Diagnostic Center Hospital ('orp..
of Texas, 228 NLRB 1215 (19 7 7 ); and Air Surrey Corpora-
lion. 229 NLRB 1064 (1977). These cases stand for the
proposition that "an individual's actions may be consid-
ered to be concerted in nature if they relate to conditions
of employment that are matters of mutual concern to all
the affected employees." 10 In such instance it is immaterial
that the individual had not been designated by other em-
ployees to act on their behalf and had not informed any
other employee that he was doing so "so long as there is
evidence that fellow employees share the acting employee's
concern and interest in common complaints." '
It can be assumed that operating unsafe motor vehicles
was a matter of concern among the Company's employees.
as is reflected by the testimony of Salinas and Horn.I2
However, that alone does not determine the decision in this
case. As has been many times observed, the Act must be
interpreted to accommodate the tension between the rights
granted employees by Section 7 and the right of an em-
ployer to conduct his business and maintain discipline over
his employees.'3 In the cases upon which General Counsel
relies, the activities for which the employees were disci-
plined did not interrupt or interfere with their normal work
tasks. Thus, in Alleluia the employee filed a complaint with
the California OSHA office protesting safety conditions at
the respondent's plant;' 4 in Diagnostic Center Hospital the
individual who was disciplined wrote a letter to his
employer's officials protesting the employer's failure to
9 The phrase. "term or condition of emplosment." is used In Its brrades
sense to include ans matter which directl t or Indirectr, mas have an influ-
ence upon the welfare of the emplovees
0 Air Surret Corporation. supra
Diaagnostic Center Hospital (C rp of exn ,J, ipri at 1217
1 It is not clear from the Board's decisions when a matter of Individual
concern to more than one employee becomes "matters of mutual concern Io
all the affected emplo'ees"
See V.L R.B . Erle Reststor (Cor.. et a/. 373 S 221 228 230( i963)
14 The discharge of an employee who threatened to make safeIs comp-
laints to a Government agencs also has been held to iolate Sec 8(a)i I I
& P Motor Erpress. In(, 230 NILRB 653 11977)
1 Accord: Ambulamn- Sersues o .Vev Brediford. In . 229 NI RB 1(X6
(1977). A;, (Kit Ueh ec anilal (Contraotor. Ino 27 NILRB 1884 11'977: Re-
tad Clerks tEnion. Local 588, 227 NI.RB 7 19h761
grant a wage increase and protesting the emploser's al-
leged discriminatory practices,:t and in Air Surrey the indi-
vidual inquired at the employer's bank whether the em-
ployer had sufficient funds on deposit to meet its upcoming
payroll. Unlike the cited cases. here Salinas was disciplined
for his refusal to comply with a direct order given to him
during his regular working hours relating to his normal
work duties. It would play havoc with the conduct of busi-
ness if an employer were denied the right to discipline an
employee who individually refuses to perform his duties
because of a work-related complaint unless at the mini-
mum it is clear to the employer that "fellow employees
share the acting employee's concern and interest." " The
problem is not in any way alleviated if the protection
which General Counsel contends employees have to refuse
to compls with instructions is limited to instances where
the employees complaint is justified. That too would place
an intolerable burden on plant operations. In effect, each
employee then becomes a self-appointed policeman in the
plant to enforce codes not anywhere written or assembled
but developed on an ad hoc basis. If this were sanctioned,
perhaps in time and after much litigation there might de-
velop a body of principles applicable to industrial relations
which would be akin to the common law. However, I do
not envisage that the Board had anything like this in mind
when it decided All/euia and the later cases applying the
principle therein stated. I do not believe that the Board
intends to extend A.llcluita to reach the facts in this case. '
Furthermore. "[iln order to sustain an 8 (a)( I) discharge
finding, it is necessary to establish that at the time of the
discharge the employer had knowledge of the concerted
nature of the activity for which the employee was dis-
charged." 0 When on March 5 Salinas refused to drive
truck 25, there was nothing in the incident to alert the
Company that Salinas was acting on behalf of his fellow
employees as well as himself.
it (General (Counsel does not contend that this case is In an? was govierned
b, Sec. 502 of the Act or that Sahlinas sas engaged In a strike
t Dav, son (ahnet (omrpanl . Inr, 228 NI RB 290 {1977). is to he distin-
guished from the instant case because in Dasswn, although the discharged
enmplo ee. (iastineau. was icting aIone at the time she engaged In her work
stoppaige In protest of a compans praitice of paving men motre than women
for doing the same s pe of ork. her work stoppage was part of an ongoing
effort which at it, inceptiiin had been discussed with other women emplos-
ees who agreed with (Gastineau in principle and which was aimed at Impros-
ing the wage,, not onls of (,astneau. but also of the other women as well
Alsot the CornpanN knew that there .ias emplosee dissatisfaction with the
practice and that a complaint had been lodged with the Wage and Hour
Divlsion of the l)epartmenl if Lahbor concerning the matter (iastineau's
refusal to do her work v.was concerted aciivits. for her actiIns were -not
solels aimed at resioling a per.sonal prhblem I he welfare of other workers
was also In mind the requirement of concertedness relates to the end, not
the means " I i R B Sen-,rn . /In - 558 F: 2d 433. 434 (( A 8. 1977) Here
Salinas' discussions with other emplosees were limited to Slinas' colm-
plaints about the brakes In truck 25 Salinas was not directls seeking ani
benefit for other employees Although other emplotee vs , wo r snmetimes
drive truck 25 would also benefit If the brakes In truck 25 were repaured ii
does not appear that ans one other than Salinas regularly operiated that
vehicle, so that his complaints about the brakes in Ihat truck cannot he
considered as a common emplormntn problem that he ais bringing Io man-
agement's attention, and there is nio evidence that concern for other emplo-
ees played anS part In Sahnas' refusal to drive truck 25 on March 5. 1977'
ix Dianosmt, ( tlter tu11-rliil ( ,r,, o! lT sa, mplra at 1210
43
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I find that General Counsel has not proved that the Re- CONCLUSION OF LAW
spondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint. Respondent has not engaged in the unfair labor prac-
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon tices alleged in the complaint.
the entire record in the case, I make the following: [Recommended Order for dismissal omitted from publi-
cation.]