Queen City Coach Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1966

159 N.L.R.B. 204 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Region 14, shall , after being signed by a representative of Respondent , be posted by
it immediately upon , receipt thereof and be maintained by uit for .60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily . posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any material. ,
(c) Notify, the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within 20 days
from -the receipt of this Decision and Recommended Order what steps the Respond-
ent has taken to comply herewith.2' '
2In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be' modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writing, within
10 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has -taken to comply
herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board,' and in order to effectuate the 'policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate or threaten our employees unlawfully concerning
their union membership and activities.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Union of District
50, United Mine Workers of America, or in any other labor organization by
discriminatorily discharging any of our employees or in any other manner
discriminating against any individual in regard to his hire or tenure of
employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Frank A. Kohn, Jr., immediate and full reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position, and make him whole for loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him; and if he is
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States WE WILL notify
him of his rights to reemployment under applicable statutes.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining members of any labor organization.
SIGMA CHEMICAL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by, any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1040
Boatmen's Building, 314 North Broadway, St. Louis, Missouri 63102, Telephone
622-4156.
Queen City Coach Company and Amalgamated Transit Union,
Local No.1531 . Cases 11-CA-2855, 2885, and 2898. June 13,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 28, 1966, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his
.Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
"affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deei-
159 NLRB No. 19.
QUEEN CITY COACH COMPANY 205
sion. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not
engaged in other unfair labor practices, and recommended that those
allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent
filed a "Statement of Exceptions" to the Trial Examiner's Decision,
and the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member
panel [Chairman -McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudical error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision and the entire record in these cases, including
the exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the fmdings,l conclusions,
and recommendations 2 of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications
noted below.3
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
with the following modifications :
[1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), the present paragraph
2(b) and those subsequent thereto being consecutively relettered:
[" (b) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full rein-
statement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service
i In section III of his Decision, the Trial Examiner erroneously states- "A third election,
held on March 25, 1965, resulted in a vote of 102 for and 79 against the Union " It was
stipulated that "the result of the March 25, 1965 election was 102 to 79 against the
Union " The Board's records in Case 11-RC-1925, the representation proceeding, show
that, on April 2, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 11 issued a certification of results
showing that the Union had lost the election
9 The Trial Examiner recommends that Respondent be ordered to post copies of the
notice at "each of its terminals in Charlotte, Fayetteville, Jacksonville, Wilmington,
Greensboro, Asheville, and Rockingham, all in North Carolina, Augusta, Georgia, Myrtle
Peach, South Carolina, and Johnson City and Bristol, both in Tennessee" Respondent
excepts, stating that "various of such terminals are in no way involved in the present
proceeding." We disagree with Respondent. Elections held in July and August 1964
and March 1965 included all of those terminals. The authority of Snodgrass, Respond-
ent's agent who is found to have unlawfully entrapped certain employees, spans the
terminals named above. Furthermore, the drivers found to have been unlawfully dis-
charged worked out of the Charlotte, North Carolina, and Augusta, Georgia, terminals,
and drivers from those terminals come into contact with drivers from all of the terminals
named above In the circumstances of this case, we find that the unlawful activities
found to have occurred can best be remedied by requiring Respondent to post copies of the
notice herein adopted at all of the terminals named above.
3 We do not adopt certain of the Trial Examiner's extraneous comments and charac-
terizations which appear under the section of his Decision entitled "The Discharge of
Ernest Garrison and Parker Love." In the fifth from last paragraph, we adopt his
factual findings relating to the financial condition of Joyce Lewis, but disavow all else.
In the fourth from last paragraph, we agree with his finding that Snodgrass told tile
three checkers to look after the matter of salary deductions themselves, and with his
credibility finding as to Snodgrass, but disavow all else. In the third from last paragraph
of that section, we disavow the second from last sentence. We do not rely on footnote 1
of the Trial Examiner's Decision
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces."
[A typographical error appears in present paragraph 2(c) of the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. The name "Greensobor" is
hereby corrected to read "Greensboro."]
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A hearing in the above entitled proceeding was held before Trial Examiner
Thomas A. Ricci on January 25, 26, 27, and 28, and February 7, 1966, at Char-
lotte, North Carolina on separate complaints of the General Counsel against
Queen City Coach Company, herein called the Respondent or the Company. The
issues litigated are whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act. No briefs were filed by the parties.
Upon the entire record and from my observation of the witnesses I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Queen City Coach Company, a North Carolina corporation , is engaged in the
transportation of passengers by motor vehicle. It operates routes directly across
State lines and maintains terminal facilities in the States of North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee . During a typical 12-month period it received
gross revenues from such transportation of passengers in excess of $250,000. I
find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Transit Union , Local No. 1531 , herein called the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The issues presented
This case is concerned with the discharge of five of the Respondent's bus-
drivers, four released in August 1965 and one the following November 1.
As to each man there is testimony , of varying quantitative or probative weight,
showing that the Respondent was aware of their prounion attitudes , and the
complaint alleges that all five were discharged because of their activities or senti-
ments in favor of collective bargaining through the Union. The conduct of the
Company now said to have been in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act fol-
lowed several abortive attempts by the Board to hold free elections among the
total busdriver group, about 180 employees . Successive elections , held in July
and August 1964, were set aside by the Board because of improper interference
by the Respondent' s representatives , clear indication that the Respondent was op-
posed to union representation in the Company. A third election, held on
March 25, 1965, resulted in a vote of 102 for and 79 against the Union.
At the hearing , each of the five drivers admitted certain errors or failures to
comply with company operating rules in the course of their work. The extent
or severity of their past failures is disputed as to three of them . The other two
conceded the wrongdoing which the Respondent asserted , for the first time at
the hearing , as the ostensible ground for their discharge. The question, in every
instance, is whether despite the mistakes, or willful misconduct , however shown,
it must be said , on the basis of the preponderance of the substantial evidence on
the record as a whole, that the real motivation in the discharges was instead to
discourage union activities among the employees . The, focal point of the evidence
offered by the General Counsel to prove union animus in the Respondent is the
testimony of Joyce Lewis, a tall, unmarried , and attractive 32-year old woman
used by the Respondent to entrap two of the drivers-Ernest Garrison and Parker
Love-into carrying her free of charge on a regular bus run and thereby create
grounds for summary discharge . She said she was prevailed upon to do this by
QUEEN CITY COACH COMPANY , 207
Frank Snodgrass , a professional private investigator recently hired by the Com-
pany. Snodgrass corroborated her-story thus far, that with knowledge she had
long known the two drivers, he set the stage to ensnare them.
Apart from this calculated strategy , there is conflict in the testimony of Lewis
against Snodgrass . She-testified he told-,her at the time the reason for attempt-
ing to trick these , as well as certain other named drivers , was because they were
union members , or officers , and that the Company would pay a bonus to him if he
succeeded; indeed , that he also -promised her a portion , of the bonus as a further
reward . Snodgrass, at the hearing , denied ever having spoken of the Union, or of
union members to Lewis . - The question of credibility between them goes to the
heart of the entire complaint , for if in truth - the investigator so directly revealed
such a purpose in his activities ,. an intent by the Respondent to rid itself of pro-
union employees stands stark on,the record.
The issue in the discharge of the remaining three drivers-Floyd Byrd, Thomas
Home, and Horace Wilkins-falls into a more usual pattern . , There were acts of
negligence , disregard of various regulations , lateness; and faults of this type., As
will be seen , the conflict in the testimony on this aspect of the case is 'one of
degree rather than kind . The empolyees attempted to minimize their errors and
the company witnesses enlarged upon them so as to make - the offenses appear
more aggravated.,. Apart from understandable exaggerations either way , in sub-
stance the things - chargeable, to these employees in major ' portion did happen.
The : Respondent asserts, in defense; that they were discharged for these reasons;
the General Counsel contends there-Is enough persuasive evidence to'require a
conclusion that - these errors -on' their part were but pretexts used to cloak union
animus in each case.
B. The discharge 'of, Ernest Garrison and Parker Love
Joyce .,Lewis was employed - at the Holiday Inn Motel in Florence, North
Carolina, as supervisor of the chambermaids;,she earned $65 weekly. On July 5,
1965 , she met Snodgrass who 'was staying at the Inn and whose room required
attention ., Her testimony ;follows: Snodgrass told her the employment office -was
closed [this was the Monday following , the 4th of July, when the 'USES was on
holiday ] and did she know anyone who wanted a job checking busdrivers. She
mentioned her brother , Samuel , and Alfred Smith, a, friend of , her young sister.
In looking about ,the room Lewis noticed a ".Queen City Trailway Book and a
sheet of paper with three names on it=Garrison , Love, and Neal Young.' , She
commented she knew Garrison and Love- and Snodgrass asked how long had she
known these .men, would she work for him, and did she think she could persuade
them to , carry, her as a " passenger, without payment . .At,first , she refused the job
and Snodgrass drove -her home .that; ,evening, where he spoke to , her brother.
Samuel Lewis 'and, Smith , agreed to work. The next day , again at,the motel, which
Snodgrass used as an office, -he' spoke to Joyce several times ,trying ,to convince
her to accept the work. 'In the end she acquiesced . In the' course of