Protective Motor Service Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 639 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of PROTECTIVE MOTOR SERVICE COMPANY, A CORPORA-
TION and TWENTY-FIVE EMPLOYEES
Case No. C-25.-Decided April L8, 1936
Motor Truck Transportation Industry-Interference, Restraint or Coercion:
expressed opposition to labor organization , threats of retaliatory action ; espio-
nage ; bargaining with individual employees ; denial of right of employees to
be represented by non-employees-Discrimination : discharge-Reinstatement
Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
M11r. Gerhard P. Van Arkel for the Board.
Mr. Albert L. Moise, of Philadelphia , Pa., for respondent.
Hilda Droshnicop, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
On December 4, 1935 a charge was filed with the Regional Director
for the Fourth Region against the Protective Motor Service Co.,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (hereinafter called respondent), charg-
ing respondent with violations of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3)
of the National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935 (here-
inafter referred to as the Act). On December 26, 1935 a complaint
and notice of hearing, signed by Stanley W. Root, Regional Director
for the Fourth Region, were issued and duly served.
In reference to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged
that respondent had violated Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3), by
its discharge of and refusal to reinstate 241 drivers for joining a
labor union and by its commission of various other acts of intimida-
tion and coercion tending to deprive its drivers of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
In its answer respondent denied that all the men named in the
complaint were drivers, and admitted that it had terminated the
employment of some of them, but denied that it discharged them
for union activities. It further alleged that two of the men named
in the complaint are now employed by it; that one left the company
of his own accord ; that eight of the men were discharged for insub-
ordination ; and that 13 were dismissed for inefficiency.
Pursuant to notice of hearing, Walter Wilbur, the Trial Exam-
iner duly designated by the National Labor Relations Board, con-
ducted a hearing beginning January 8, 1936 in Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania. Respondent appeared by counsel and participated in the
'The complaint erroneously alleged that respondent had discharged and refused to
reinstate 25 men.
639
640 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing. The Board .was also represented by counsel. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded to all parties.
At the hearing the complaint was amended- to include in para-
graph 2 the phrase "or in other capacities" after the word "drivers."
Respondent reserved an exception to the Trial Examiner's ruling.
This ruling is hereby affirmed. Respondent moved at the close of
the hearing to dismiss the complaint as to Uditzky, Birch, Chafin,
Weston and Hartman on the ground that they had not appeared
and that the evidence as to them did not support the allegations of
the complaint. Counsel for the Board consented to dismiss only
as to Chafin : As to Uditzky, Birch, Weston and Hartman, the
Trial Examiner reserved decision on respondent's motion. The
motion is hereby denied.
By order of the National Labor Relations Board, dated January
9, 1936, the proceeding was transferred to and continued before the
Board in accordance with Article II, Section 35 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations.
On March 12, 1936 H. C. Pfaff, Thomas J. Wohlan, David C. Jen-
kins, Paul S. Birch and Horace A. Weston requested that their names
be stricken from the charge. Pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
their request is hereby granted.
As presented before this Board, pertinent allegations of the com-
plaint involve the following 18 of respondent's employees; R. W.
Moore, Harry Uditzky, Carl Jacobsen, A. R. Wheatley, Harry A.
Glading, J. Ragone, E. W. Graham, George Vavrioka, James W.
Connery, Clarence W. Bailey, Frank Brown, S. S. Kelly, W. C. Gil-
bert, Daniel McGeary, Benjamin Greitzer, B. L. Step^hanson, James
Cooper, C. W. Hartman.
Upon the evidence adduced at the hearing and from the entire rec-
ord now before it, including the transcript of the hearing and exhib-
its introduced, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE RESPONDENT
Respondent, Protective Motor Service Company, is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania,
and having its principal office and place of business in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia office is the scene. of the present
dispute. Including a small office force and some mechanics, respond-
ent has approximately 125 to 150 employees. The bulk of these are
drivers and guards.
Respondent is engaged in the business of transporting valuables
in armored cars, and operates approximately 45 to 50 armored trucks,
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 641'
each of which is manned by a chauffeur and at least one -guard. The
valuables transported include coinage and United States Bonds.
Respondent's business is capitalized at $25,000. Its annual gross pay
roll is in excess of $150,000, and constitutes 77% of the total running
expense of the concern. Respondent carries insurance of $50,000,000.2
The daily schedule of trips made by respondent's trucks includes
two daily routes to points outside of Pennsylvania; to Trenton and
to Atlantic City, New Jersey, respectively. In addition, respondent's
trucks make trips to New York as required by customers. On the
average, at least one such trip is made monthly ; frequently several
trips a month are made. Weekly trips. to Camden, New Jersey,
form also a regular part of respondent's business. Other unsched-
uled interstate routes, include those' to Washington, D. C., Baltimore,
Maryland, and Wilmington, Delaware. To cover this transportation
in interstate commerce, respondent has applied to the Interstate Com-
Inerce Commission for a license under the Federal Motor Carrier Act.
Both the drivers and the-guards are shifted about constantly from
route to route. Thus, all of the drivers and guards are actually or
potentially engaged in this interstate traffic.
- The aforesaid operations of respondent constitute a continuous,
flow of traffic, commerce and transportation among the several States.
II. THE UNION
The union here involved, Local No. 470, International Brotherhood"
of Teamsters, Chaffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, is a
labor organization.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Before the inception of-the present dispute respondent's plant had
never been organized. It was common knowledge for many years
that any one who attempted unionization of respondent's employees
would be discharged. S. S. Kelly, one 'of the men here involved, was
suspended for union activities in March, 1933, and McMinnimy, a
driver, was dismissed for the same reason in 1934.
2 Respondent ' s contention that it is a private detective agency, and that the men here
in question are detectives , is utterly without support from the record Marsh, the
president of respondent , admitted at the hearing that a detective agency operated by him,
was a totally distinct corporation . The employees of each are distinct , although on
occasion men employed by respondent have acted as guards and undercover men in the
labor-dispute jobs which form a substantial portion of the work of Marsh's detective
agency. Heavy reliance was placed by respondent upon the wording of the inscription,
on the badges worn by respondent's men while on duty. The inscription reads, "Detective,
State Seal , Protective Motor Service Company , Incorporated, and Captain William Marsh,
Incorporated " The men testified , however , that they had never been sworn in as detectives
or as deputies and that the badge was merely for purposes of identification Marsh
freely admitted that he had received no formal authority from the State to use the State
Seal on the men's badges and that they were accessible to any purchaser at the private
badge company where they were bought.
642 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
After the National Industrial Recovery Act was declared unconsti-
tutional in May 1935, respondent entered upon a policy of cutting
wages and lengthening hours until its oldest and most efficient full-
time drivers and guards were receiving a maximum of $31.50 for a
working week of 65 to 72 hours, as compared with a previous wage
of approximately $41 for a 48-hour week. Most of the men worked
only part-time and thus earned considerably less. At the end of
August 1935, respondent hired several men of the ages of 18 to 21 and
detailed them to some of the older men's schedules for an $18 a week
wage, with the result that the hours formerly given the older em-
ployees on part-time were reduced, with a consequent precipitous de-
crease in earnings. The others feared that they would be shunted
aside in the same way. A general wage cut of 10% was instituted
toward the end of October, 1935.
A. Circwmsta7wes of the dismissals
At about the time of the last wage cut Morrissey, the president of
Local No. 470 (hereinafter called the union), distributed circulars at
respondent's Philadelphia garage urging the men to attend a meeting
on Sunday, October 27, 1935, to discuss their joining the union.
Captain Marsh, the president of respondent, saw the circular on
Thursday, October 24th, but assumed that the men would ignore the
invitation. He discovered on Saturday, however, that the meeting
would be attended by respondent's employees.
About 30 or 35 of respondent's drivers and guards appeared at the
union meeting on Sunday. It was there decided that Moore, an old
and trusted employee of respondent, would inform Marsh that the
men had determined to organize, and that they would consent to form
a company union if that was his preference.
On the following day West, the, general superintendent of respond-
ent, was already in possession of a detailed list of the men who had
attended the Sunday meeting. Marsh was acquainted with all the
proceedings which took place and did not wait to be approached by
Moore. That morning he called in Moore, asked him how the meet-
ing was, and inquired what was his complaint. Moore related several
personal grievances, referred to the pay cuts, the lengthening of
hours of work and the threat presented by the hiring of the younger
men at materially reduced wage scales and concluded by suggesting
that Marsh call a meeting of his employees to discuss their projected
organization. Moore emphasized that "whatever demands were made
would be fair" and indicated that the men would agree to a company
union plan. Marsh replied : "There is one thing that I will not have,
and that is that man McGlone coming down here telling me how to
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 643
run my business . . ."3 He stated emphatically that his busi-
ness was no place for a union; that any difficulties which existed could
have been straightened out without recourse to union organization
had the men made a personal appeal to him; and that he would
have no general meeting of all the men as Moore proposed, but would
wait in his office Tuesday night should any of the union men care to
see him. Marsh was fully aware of the fact that the second union
meeting was to be held on Tuesday night, October 29th.
During the day Marsh called in, separately or in small groups,
most of the men who had attended the meeting on Sunday, ques-
tioned them as to their grievances and expressed in substantially the
same terms his hostility to union organization in the plant. To Gil-
bert, Marsh said : "I will not have anything to do with those thugs,
and highwaymen of that local that you people tied up with."
On Tuesday morning Marsh assembled the union men and reas-
serted his position : "The company is not big enough to have a union
We will not tolerate a union in this company. Let there
be no more talk about unions." During the day Marsh, West and
Al Caecia, the chief mechanic, on various different occasions warned
several of the men that they would be dismissed if they continued to
engage in union activities. Nevertheless the men attended the meet-
ing that night.
Marsh himself testified that he again sent spies to the October
29th meeting. The following morning five of the men whom he
thought to be leaders were summarily discharged. The dismissal of
men who had taken part in the union meetings continued throughout
the following month.'
8 McGlone is president of another local of the International with which Marsh confused
the union involved in the instant dispute.
4 See the following table.
Name Union activity Occupation
Approxi-
mate Time of dis-
length of
service
charge
R W Moore ________-_ Joined union__________________ Driver______________ 8 years---- Oct 30, 1935
Harry Uditzky________ Attended union meeting ------ Guard & Driver__._ 6 years---- Oct. 30, 1935
Carl Jacobsen --------- Joined union------------------ Guard_______________ 5 years --__ Oct 30, 1935
G eorge Vavricka______ Attended union meetings-____ Driver______________ 7 years---- Oct. 30,1935
James W Connery____ Attended union meetings----- Driver & Guard 8 years---- Oct 30,1935
A R Wheatley------- Joined union__________________
(Extra man)
Driver & Guard- 2 years __-_ Nov. 2, 1935
Harry A Glading I____ Joined union__________________ Guard 8 years---- Nov 2, 1935
Clarence W Bailey____ Joined union__________________ Driver & Guard ___-_ 3 years ---- Nov. 2, 1935
J Ragone_____________ Attended union meetings----- Guard______________ 7 years---- Nov. 12, 1935
E W Graham__-_____ Attended union meetings----- Extra man--________ 2 years____ Nov 16,1935
Frank Brown I________ Joined union__________________ Driver & Guard_____ 10 years--- Nov. 14, 1935
S S. Kelly `________ Joined union__________________ Driver______________ 8 years---- Nov 18,1935
W. C Gilbert i________ Joined union__________________ Driver______________ 5 years____ Nov 19, 1935
C W Hartman_______ Joined union__________________ Driver______________ ------------ Nov 22, 1935
Daniel McGeary______ Joined union__________________ Driver______________ 7 years---- Nov 22, 1935
Benjamin Greitzer i--- Joined union------------------ Driver______________ 2 years---- Nov 25,1935
James Cooper I_______ Joined union__________________ Driver______________ 2 years---- Dec 3,1935
B L Stephanson I____ Joined union__________________ Guard_______________ 3 years____ Dec. 4, 1935
I Received or offered letter of recommendation by respondent stating that his work had been satisfactory
and that he had been discharged only because the company was cutting down its force.
644 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the hearing, Marsh gave the following account of his parting
words to the men : "I told them that this thing could not con-
,tinue. . . . This was on Wednesday morning, when these men were
discharged. There, is no use-I want to make it perfectly plain that
I told them this condition of turmoil and meeting all around, down-
stairs, and upstairs, down in the garage, could not continue, and I
asked them to abandon this particular purpose for the time being, and
that we would discuss the matter, and I would ask them to come up
and see me on Tuesday night, and I waited for them there for that
purpose, and they chose to disregard my request, and we parted com-
pany right then and there." To Greitzer, who was one of the last men
to be discharged, Marsh said : "I am sorry, Greitzer. I hate to let you
go . . . I told you boys about going to that union meeting . . ." In
answer to Greitzer's question, "Is that why I am getting out?" Marsh
replied, "Yes."
On November 14th West told one of the men who had been dis-
charged that he would make efforts to have him reinstated, but. re-
ported to him the next day that it lhacl been decided at Marsh's home
the night before that none of the men who had been to the meetings
would be rehired. West added : "I am sorry to say it, but some more
men are going."
None of the men hired by respondent after October 29th joined the
union or attended any of its meetings. Respondent's men now have a
,company union.
B. Respondent's contentions
Respondent denies that Moore, Kelly, Bailey, Glading, McGeary,
Jacobsen, Connery, Ragone, Greitzer, Gilbert, Wheatley, Brown,
Graham, and Stephanson were discharged for union activity, and
asserts that they were discharged for insubordination, disrupting the
organization and because -the other employees refused to work with
them.5 The facts presented in the record do not square with respond-
ent's version of the situation.
Respondent declares that Moore and Kelly were guilty also of in-
solence to Marsh. This charge relates, presumably, to their response
to Marsh's inquiries on October 28th concerning the grievances which
impelled them to join a union. Respondent's contention that Moore
was dismissed because of an expression of personal animosity owing
6 Respondent 's brief asserts that Connery was also discharged because he was "suffering
from a bad case of strabismus ( an eye disease )." Marsh, however , himself contradicted
this flatly at the hearing.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 645
to Marsh's failure to contribute to his hospital expenses when he -was
injured several years before in the company's service, would have
more plausibility had Moore invited the interview and volunteered
the information, had the union issue been absent, and had Marsh
discharged Moore at once. His delay until Moore disregarded' his
thinly veiled threat by attending the second meeting and the swift-'
ness with which he was then ordered to turn in his credentials, indi-
cate clearly the true reason for his discharge. The single reference
to a criticism of the company's methods attributed to Kelly also
occurred in a conversation on October 28th, again in answer to a direct
inquiry. There is no evidence that Kelly had previously volunteered
unsolicited advice or made invidious comments on respondent's man-
agement in the period between this conversation and his dismissal on
November 18th. As in Moore's case, Kelly's persistence in union
activities after Marsh's warning alone explains respondent's action.
Respondent's complaint against the men here in question accord-
ingly reduces itself to that of agitation, annoyance of the non-union
men, insubordination and disruption. of discipline. Marsh and West
avowedly considered these men exemplary employees until the begin-
ning of their interest in unionization. It was not until after Marsh's
ultimatum concerning their union activities that the behavior to which
respondent takes exception began to occur. The men who were not
on duty then discussed their next move in conferences in the cellar
and in restaurants in the vicinity (their regular meeting and recrea-
tion places between trips), or fell into groups in the garage as they
got off their trucks after their runs were over. Respondent freely
admits that these discussions did not hamper the execution of the
regular schedules and that there was no occasion to reprimand any
one for neglect of duty. In spite of its numerous references to "up-
roar", the management admitted that the groups were never larger
than eight men and at no time did it request the men to be quieter.
The evidence relating to the molestation of non-union employees is
peculiarly lacking in conviction ; none of those who were allegedly
abused appeared to testify to that effect, and Marsh conceded on
cross-examination that no objections were forthcoming until he sum-
moned the employees to his office and extracted their complaints by
questioning.
Respondent's contention that the men were discharged for insub-
ordination rather than for union activity warrants further consid-
eration only because it exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of
the rights and duties of an employer under the Act. The conception
of insubordination offered by respondent's counsel and elicited from
646 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Marsh at the hearing 6 reduces itself to the view that failure to con-
sult the employer on the decision to join a union is ingratitude and
disloyalty amounting to a "serious breach of discipline" warranting
"Well. If a man is being satisfactorily employed , and is being paid wages , when half
of the country is being starved to death , and he is independent , and owns his own auto-
mobile, and is in affluent circumstances, to go around with 15 or 20 of his fellow employees
and compel them to change what he calls unfair practices , that is what we call insubordi-
nation . . . If Mr . Brown, or any one else, wants to join a labor organization , we have
no right to prevent that , but what we object to is stirring up the other employees."
Marsh 's testimony , elicited by questions from respondent 's counsel , developed this theme :
. . the main number of our employees have been with me a great many years and
they are personal friends of mine. They know perfectly well-they have all helped to
build up the organization , and they have done everything they possibly could to assist us
in our business , and they look to me to see that their hours of work and the time they
spend there are spent under as comfortable conditions as possible , and I recognize that a
real obligation , and I think that is true."
Q. "You have to separate the chaff from the wheat?"
A. "Yes"
Q. "And the genuine from the non-genuine and the real from the unreal "
Immediately following upon his emphatic denial that the men had been discharged for
union activities , Marsh freely asserted that the employees involved were dismissed "for
attempted formation of this society or joining this society, for the purpose of interfering
with our duties , and the duties of the men. I consider this a breach of discipline ; also
,their , continued presence resulted in discord . . . The explanation of his motive for
dismissing Jacobsen , one of his oldest employees , was delivered with equal confidence :
"Mr. Jacobsen and I have a complete misunderstanding , altogether He seems to think
that he has been commissioned or did seem to think that he had been commissioned by
some mysterious power to take charge of all the rest of the employees , and tell them what
particular society, or whatever it was, they were to belong to. I disagreed with him
I think he ought to tell me, when he is going to do all of those particular things, and
inform me of it. I might as well make it clear of record that it is a very serious breach
of discipline . I would regard it as a serious breach of discipline and do , if anybody, as
I tried to say-if anybody starts any of these kind of moves without telling me about it.
That is the kind of loyalty I expect." It is interesting to note that Marsh 's deepest dis-
pleasure was directed against his most efficient and responsible employees; their attend-
ance at the second union meeting resulted in immediate dismissal and their discharge he
considered the most justified . Thus of Jenkins (who subsequently withdrew as a com-
plaining witness ), Marsh said : "He was in almost a supervisory capacity, and he had a
good deal of information about our place, which he obtained due to the fact that he was
employed , and being as he was , in a supervisory capacity, I think-thought then and
think now , that he ought to have informed me some considerable time before about his
activities in that particular connection Another thing is, he told me that he did not go
to this meeting and did not have anyhing to do with it, and afterward he admitted that
he did Now, a man in a confidential supervisory capacity that don't tell you what hap-
pens and then don't' tell you the truth, I don't think he and I agree on his discharge of
his duties " Similarly , with reference to Brown : "Brown has been with us a great many
years. In fact , when I only had-when there were only five of us working on the
armored cars he was one of the five, and I had the greatest confidence in him. He had
been there so long and of course, on one occasion he had been gone two years , but I had
been in touch with him during those two years somewhat, and his actions with regard to
some of our employees, in connection with this affair, were very much worse , absolutely
very much worse than any of the other men-very much worse I told him , and I tell
him now, if he is in here , that I think he ought to have told me, of all the people con-
nected with this thing . I think he could have prevented it all, and saved a great many
of these men this annoyance and trouble that 'they have been in . I really think that of
everybody else here he is the most deserving of being discharged , whether for unionism
or any other kind of an ism "
Q. "In other words, you and he had been personal friends for a long time?"
A. "Yes, and he had done very well in our business " . . .
Q. "He was active in trying to destroy the discipline of your place?"
A. "Very active."
Q. "And he bit the hand that fed him?" .. .
A. "Whoever is responsible for these men being in this predicament they are in, it is
not me."
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 647
discharge; and that the attempt of the union men to draw the other
employees into their orbit is a serious and regrettable aberration. It
follows from these premises that the employer is compelled by his
traditional status of pater familial and friend to his employees to
defend his non-union men from the persistent proselytizing of union
employees, and that where the most certain means of protecting them
from such importunity is dismissal of the union men, the measure is
a proper one.
The earnestness with which these views are urged by Marsh indi-
cates that it is not superfluous for the Board to emphasize that the
Act is grounded upon postulates radically opposed to those upon
which the foregoing argument proceeds. That union organization is
the exclusive concern of labor; that employees may advance that
objective in any legitimate and orderly manner; and that they are
entitled to the protection of the Board if the employer interferes with
or coerces them in the exercise of their right to organize, are elemen-
tary principles of the legislation under which this Board is consti-
tuted. The open intimidation of employees in the exercise of this
right with which this record is full, is as incompatible with the policy
of the Act as respondent's persistent spying and other covert inter-
ference with the union activities of its men. It is for the employees
alone to decide their method of organization and when the fact of
its existence shall be disclosed, if at all. So long as efficiency is un-
impaired, to discuss union problems on the company's premises, and
in an orderly manner to urge non-union men to join, is wholly per-
missible. It follows from the premise that the employer is under a
duty not to interfere with the self-organization of his men, that he
may not try to protect his non-union labor from the persuasions of
the union employees. To this principle the Act recognizes no excep-
tion based upon allegations of friendship or supposedly fortunate
conditions of employment.
By discharging from employment, and by thereafter refusing to
reinstate R. W. Moore, Harry Uditzky, Carl Jacobsen, George Vav-
ricka, James W. Connery, A. R. Wheatley, Harry A. Glading, Clar-
ence W. Bailey, J. Ragone, E. W. Graham, Frank Brown, S. S. Kelly,
W. C. Gilbert, C. W. Hartman, Daniel McGeary, Benjamin Greitzer,
James Cooper and B. L. Stephanson, and by each of said discharges,
respondent discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment
and has thereby discouraged membership in the labor organization
known as Local No. 470, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America.
By such discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employ-
ment, respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
97571-36-vol. i-42
'648 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV., EFFECT OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It was found above that the men here involved are actually or
potentially engaged in the direct operation of instrumentalities of
interstate commerce. Interference with the performance of their
duties thus involves necessarily an interruption of the regular and
effective functioning of such instrumentalities.
Interference with the activities of employees in forming or joining
labor organizations results in strikes and other forms of industrial
unrest which in the motor transportation industry have the effect of
impeding the functioning of instrumentalities of foreign and inter-
state commerce . The official statistics of the United States Depart-
ment of Labor on labor disputes in the motor transportation industry
indicate that in 1934 and January to July 1935 such interference by
employers resulted in strikes and lockouts involving 100,655 workers
and 1,060,855 man-days of idleness.
The aforesaid acts of respondent burden and obstruct commerce
and the free flow of commerce and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the proceeding the Board finds and concludes as a
matter of law :
1. Local No . 470, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America is a labor organization,
within the meaning of Section 2 , subdivision ( 5) of the Act.
2. Respondent , by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of R. W. Moore, Harry Uditzky, Carl Jacobsen,
George Vavricka, James W. Connery, A. R. Wheatley, Harry A.
Glading, Clarence W. Bailey, J. Ragone, W. W. Graham, Frank
Brown, S. S. Kelly, W. C. Gilbert, C. W. Hartman, Daniel McGeary,
Benjamin Greitzer , James Cooper and B . L. Stephanson , and each of
them, and by thereby discouraging membership in a labor organiza-
tion , has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within
the meaning of Section 8, subdivision ( 3) of the Act.
3. Respondent, by discharging and refusing to reinstate R. W.
Moore, Harry Uditzky, Carl Jacobsen, George Vavricka, James W.
Connery, A. R. Wheatley, Harry A. Glading, Clarence W. Bailey,
J. Ragone, W. W. Graham, Frank Brown, S. S. Kelly, W. C. Gilbert,
C. W. Hartman , Daniel McGeary, Benjamin Greitzer , James Cooper
and B . L. Stephanson, has interfered with, restrained and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
,the Act, and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 649
practices, witliin the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) of the
'Act.
4. Such unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7)
of the Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law and
pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
respondent, Protective Motor Service Company, a Corporation, and
its officers and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist :
(a) From discouraging membership in Local No. 470, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers
of America, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging or threatening to discharge any of its employees for
joining the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Stablemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization
of its employees;
(b) From in any other manner discriminating against any of its
employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment for joining the Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor
organization of its employees; and
(c) From in any other manner interfering with, restraining or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights of self-
organization, to form, join or assist labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective, bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to R. W. Moore, Harry Uditzky, Carl Jacobsen, George
Vavricka, James W. Connery, A. R. Wheatley, Harry A. Glading,
J. Ragone, E. W. Graham, Frank Brown, S. S. Kelly, W. C. Gilbert,
C. W. Hartman, Daniel McGeary, Benjamin Greitzer, James Cooper
and B. L. Stephanson, immediate and full reinstatement, respec-
tively, to their former positions, without prejudice to any rights and
privileges previously enjoyed;
(b) Make whole said R. W. Moore, Harry Uditzky, Carl Jacobsen,
George Vavricka, James W. Connery, A. R. Wheatley, Harry A.
Glading, J. Ragone, E. W. Graham, Frank Brown, S. S. Kelly,
650 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
W. C. Gilbert, C. W. Hartman, Daniel McGeary, Benjamin Greitzer,
James Cooper and B. L. Stephanson, for any loss of pay they have
suffered by reason of their discharge by payment to each of them,
respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which each would
normally have earned as wages during the period from the date of
his discharge to the date of such offer of reinstatement, computed
at the wage rate each was paid at the time of his discharge, less the
amount earned subsequent to his discharge;
(c) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
in its various offices, or other places where they congregate on the
property for instructions or other legitimate purposes, stating (1)
that respondent will cease and desist in the manner aforesaid, and
(2) that such notices will remain posted for a period of at least
thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of posting.
[SAME TITLE]
AMENDMENT OF DECISION
May 6, 1936
The National Labor Relations Board, having duly issued its de-
cision in this matter on April 28, 1936, and being fully advised in the
premises, hereby issues its Amendment of Decision in the following
particulars :
(1) By adding to sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Paragraph 2 ,of
the Order the name of Clarence W. Bailey;
(2) By changing the last sentence of the second paragraph of
Paragraph 1 of the Findings of Fact from, "Respondent carries in-
surance of $50,000,000" to, "Respondent carries insurance of
$5,000,000."