Roadway Express

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 2006

347 N.L.R.B. 1419 (N.L.R.B. 2006)

ROADWAY EXPRESS
347 NLRB No. 122
1419
Roadway Express, Inc. and Jeff Haas
Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No.
776, a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters1 and Jeff Haas. Cases 5–CA-32308 and 5–
CB–9765
August 31, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, SCHAUMBER, AND KIRSANOW
On March 9, 2006, Administrative Law Judge Karl H.
Buschmann issued the attached decision. The General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The
Respondent Union and Respondent Employer filed an-
swering briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions2 and
to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The recommended Order of the administrative law
judge is adopted and the complaint is dismissed.

James C. Panousos, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Ira H. Weinstock, Esq., of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for the
Respondent Union.

1 We have amended the caption to reflect the dissafiliation of the In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters from AFL–CIO effective July 25,
2005.
2 Members Schaumber and Kirsanow agree with the judge’s conclu-
sion that the General Counsel failed to establish, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the Union’s conduct in bringing suspected DOT
driving-log violations by Charging Party Jeff Haas to the Company’s
attention was motivated by unlawful animus. They observe, however,
that there is some evidence of animus in the record. Haas is a “core
payer,” i.e., a Beck objector, and in December 2003, a union steward
referred to core payers as “fucking scumbags.” Also, the Union per-
sisted in pressing a complaint about Haas December 15, 2004 DOT log
entries even after the Company had determined that the complaint
lacked merit. On the other hand, the Union has an established history
of bringing drivers’ logs to the attention of the Company when it be-
lieves DOT regulations have been violated; the judge found that the
Union’s complaints about Haas logs were “at least arguably” valid;
Haas conceded in his testimony that other drivers have complained
about his logs; and noncore payer drivers have been disciplined for log
entries similar to Haas’. In addition, the steward’s insulting characteri-
zation of core payers was remote in time from the events at issue here,
and there is no evidence that the Union has failed to represent fairly
four other core payers in the Company’s employ. Therefore, although
Members Schaumber and Kirsanow believe that there is room for doubt
about the relative seriousness of the DOT violations upon which the
Union based its complaints against Haas and the Union’s motivation
toward him, they find that the evidence of unlawful animus is insuffi-
cient to sustain the General Counsel’s burden of proof.
Carl H. Gluek, Esq. (Frantz Ward, LLP), of Cleveland, Ohio,
for the Respondent Company.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KARL H. BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on August 29 and 30, 2005.
The charges were filed January 12, 2005, as amended, and the
consolidated complaint was issued April 26, 2005. The com-
plaint alleges that the Respondent, Roadway Express, Inc. (the
Company) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National La-
bor Relations Act (the Act) by discriminating against its em-
ployee Jeff Haas for issuing a disciplinary warning and a sus-
pension to encourage membership in a labor organization. The
complaint also alleges that the Respondent, Chauffeurs, Team-
sters and Helpers Local Union No. 776, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Union), violated Section 8(b)(2)
and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act for attempting to cause and causing
the Company to discipline Jeff Haas, because of his status as a
core financial member and “Beck” objector. The Respondents
filed timely answers, admitting the jurisdictional allegations in
the complaint, but denying the commission of any unfair labor
practices. On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, Roadway Express, Inc., an Ohio corpora-
tion with offices and a place of business in Carlisle, Pennsyl-
vania, has been engaged in the interstate transportation of
freight. With gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for the trans-
portation of freight from the State of Pennsylvania directly to
points located outside the State, the Respondent is admittedly
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
The Issues
1. Did the Union violate Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of
the Act by causing and attempting to cause the Employer to
discipline Jeff Haas, because he was a core financial member of
the Union?
2. Did the Company violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by discriminating against Jeff Haas and discipline him, at
the behest of the Union, because Haas was a core financial
union member.
The Facts
The Union and Roadway have been operating pursuant to the
National Master Freight Agreement and Central Pennsylvania
Supplemental Agreement, effective April 1, 2003 through
March 31, 2008 (Jt. Exh. 1). Roadway is also bound by detailed
safety regulations as prescribed by the Department of Transpor-
tation (DOT) (GC Exh. 30). Jeff Haas, one of approximately
300 road drivers employed by the Company at its facility, has
been a member of the Union ever since his employment with
Roadway in 1993. In 2003, Haas ran for union office with a
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1420
slate of other union members, advocating the removal of the
incumbent union officers on the grounds that they were wasting
expenditures and failing to adequately represent the members.
Haas and his group were defeated, and the current officers,
including Daniel Virtue, president, Keith LaCroix, business
agent, and John Vogel, secretary-treasurer, remained in office.
Haas then decided to become a financial core payer and Beck
objector. He accordingly notified the Union in writing on De-
cember 12, 2004, and again on December 28, 2004, that he
wished to become a financial core payer. He also requested an
accounting showing the Union’s expenditures (GC Exhs. 33,
34). After the Union failed to acknowledge Haas’ request, he
sent a certified letter, dated December 28, 2004, repeating his
request for an accounting of union dues and stating his core
payer status. The Union presumably honored the request to
consider Haas to be a core member, but it did not supply him
with an accounting. According to the testimony of the Union’s
business agent, Haas was one of four road drivers listed by the
Union as core members.
Haas was generally regarded by his employer as a good em-
ployee who “runs hard.” According to Paul (Greg) Kelly, direc-
tor of regional operations for Roadway, Haas was regarded as a
good worker. By letter of January 6, 2005, Kelly acknowledged
Haas’ “accomplishments for being one of the top 10 driving
performers at the Harrisburg facility in 2004” (GC Exh. 35).
However, in two incidents Roadway disciplined Haas. In the
first scenario was a letter, dated November 1, 2004, in which
Roadway issued Haas a warning, signed by Lou Franklin, re-
source administrator. The warning stated: “On 10/28/04 at Car-
lisle, Pa. you violated our policy (or contract) by your failure to
follow instructions. You turned in a log for 10/27/04 that did
not conform with the D.O.T. Further violations of this nature
will result in disciplinary action” (GC Exh. 18). The warning
actually came from Kelly. He authorized it, because at that time
he was the Respondent’s relay manager. Kelly explained that
he was suspicious about the accuracy of Haas’ log entries, after
the Union brought the issue to his attention. Donald (Don) Ly-
ons, the Union’s shop steward, had referred Haas’ logs to the
Company on prior occasions, because the Union felt that Haas
was stretching the DOT regulations in order to increase his
driving times.
On this occasion, Kelly informed Haas that the Union was
not happy with the way he worked, and added that he should
just accept the letter. Kelly promised to bury the letter, saying
that it would just go away. According to company policy, a
warning letter expires 9 months from its issuance. The letter has
expired in the meantime and is, according to the Respondent,
no longer of any significance. Nevertheless, the Charging Party
contends that the episode shows that he was treated unfairly,
because of his status as a core financial payer. In this regard,
the record contains detailed, technical information as to
whether the Union and the Company had a legitimate concern
with Haas’ performance involving his log entries, as well as his
work habits.
Ordinarily, when the Union believed that a member was not
abiding by the established work rules or standards set by the
contract or regulations of the DOT, the Union can apply its
internal disciplinary process. But here, the Union was not in a
position to discipline Haas if it thought that he was out of line.
As a core payer, he could not be brought up on internal union
charges or be disciplined by the Union. Accordingly, filing a
grievance, bringing violations to the attention of the Employer
was a way to deal with such issues. From the perspective of the
Union, Haas violated not only company policy but also DOT
regulations. Lyons, shop steward, testified that another driver
had approached him to question a run around claim that Haas
was dispatched in violation of the Federal Motor Carriers
Safety Regulations as to hours of service. Lyons stated that
Haas’ log of October 28, 2004, showed that he punched out at 3
and leaving the facility at 3:15. According to Lyons, Haas
could have logged in at 2:45, because a driver is to report for
work prior to his dispatch, but failing to log in until 3:15 vio-
lated the DOT regulations and the contract. Lyons also testified
that Haas logged off duty at Deer Park, New York, from 7:30
until 8. Company policy, the regulations, and the contract, re-
quire that when a driver is in employment, his log should re-
flect the time as on duty time. Keith LaCroix, union business
agent, agreed with Lyons’ assessment, and also testified that
waiting to be dispatched is regarded on duty time. And the
procedure of dropping and hooking a trailer could be logged as
driving time, but is definitely on duty and Haas should have
logged on duty. The purpose of the hour of service regulations
is to insure that fatigued drivers are not operating motor vehi-
cles on the public highways. Both union witnesses felt sure that
Haas had violated Roadway policy and Federal regulations. The
Union filed a grievance on November 4, 2004, alleging that
Roadway had dispatched Haas in excess of the negotiated run-
ning times (GC Exh. 12).
As the Company’s relay manager, Kelly reviewed the driv-
ers’ logs daily to make sure that their hours matched up, by
looking at the punch marks and the pay records, before entering
the data into the computer. After reviewing Haas’ logs of Octo-
ber 28, 2004, Kelly determined that they matched the punch
marks (GC Exhs. 2A, 17). But Kelly testified that he had prob-
lems with Haas’ logs of October 28 and October 29, 2004. Ini-
tially, he questioned the log of October 28, 2004, because, in
his opinion, the run as logged was impossible to do. The task,
called “drop and hook” involving the attaching and detaching
the trailer from the cab, was impossible to complete in only 15
minutes. Secondly, Haas was dispatched at 3 p.m., yet his log
showed him to be off duty from 3 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. Kelly testi-
fied that Haas should have logged as on duty when he was dis-
patched at 3 p.m., because the preinspection task is considered
on duty. Kelly had so informed Haas on November 4, 2004,
during a meeting in Kelly’s office, but Kelly testified that he
did not discover this discrepancy at the time. Therefore, Kelly
did not rely on that for purposes of the warning, even though
pretrip inspections performed by Haas should by all accounts
have been on duty. Finally, Haas was not supposed to put him-
self in an off-duty status while waiting at the terminal. Ordi-
narily, the motor carrier makes that determination, or the dis-
patcher. Kelly testified that he had raised that issue with Haas
before, but that he had not followed Kelly’s directions. Accord-
ing to Kelly, Haas was really pushing it this time, so that a
warning was appropriate. In any case, the record shows that
Kelly questioned Haas’ log entries and informed him that the
ROADWAY EXPRESS 1421
Union was not happy with the way Haas worked the system, in
stretching the DOT regulations.
Running hard and reducing his on-duty driving time, allows
a driver to get more work and additional runs. A driver is lim-
ited by regulations to 70-hours driving time during an 8-day
limit. Drivers are paid on the basis of miles driven, so that an
entry of off duty will not be considered towards the 11-hours
driving limit and the 70-hour time limit. Other drivers feel that
work is taken away from them when someone like Haas gets
additional trips as a result of his practice of performing work
while off duty.
The record shows in great detail the technical requirements
in completing logs in conformity with DOT regulations and
whether Haas violated the regulations, but it is clear that his
logs should not have reflected his pretrip inspections on Octo-
ber 28 and 29, 2004 as off duty. In his testimony, Haas de-
scribed it as a shady area.
The Union’s grievance, filed on November 4, 2004, did not
seek to penalize Haas but challenged the Company’s action for
dispatching Haas in excess of the negotiated running times. The
aim of the grievance was to compensate the other drivers who
lost the work. Haas was dispatched to drive from Carlisle,
Pennsylvania to Deer Park, New York, and return and from
Carlisle to Hagerstown, Maryland and back. The grievance also
raised the issue of Haas’ logs of October 28 and 29, 2004 for
logging out at 3 p.m. after his start time (GC. Exh. 12). The
purpose of the grievance was to protect any available driver
who could have been dispatched, if Haas had properly logged
in at 3 rather than at 3:15 for his Deer Park run.
The second incident involving the Union’s relationship with
Haas was revealed by a letter of December 20, 2004, signed by
Chris Boyer, Roadway’s resource administrator, informing
Haas of a 1-day suspension (GC Exh. 31). The letter stated:
“You logged 2.5 hours off duty while waiting for a dispatch.
This must be logged ‘on duty, not driving.’” Union Steward
Don Lyons initiated the Company’s inquiry into Haas’ logs,
when he brought Haas’ logs of December 15, 2004, to Kelly’s
attention (GC Exh. 32). Kelly conferred with Llewellyn Frank-
lin, relay operations manager, and decided not to pursue the
matter. They decided that the Union’s complaint did not show
any violation. However, subsequently, while Kelly was on va-
cation, Lyons approached Chris Boyer, driver superintendent,
with the same complaint and persuaded him to issue the sus-
pension letter. When Haas received the letter, he immediately
called Franklin who said that he did not know about it, but that
he would talk to Kelly. Three hours later, after having con-
sulted with Kelly, Franklin called Haas and informed him that
the letter of December 20, 2004, had been rescinded, torn up
and not to worry about it. The Union justified its criticism of
Haas’ activity, suggesting that a driver is not permitted to take
himself off duty for more than 2 hours.
The General Counsel argues that the warning letter and the
suspension letter are illustrative of the Company’s discrimina-
tory treatment of Haas and the Union’s discriminatory motive
towards Hass, because he is a core financial payer or Beck
objector. In support, the General Counsel cites incidents of the
Union’s past antipathy towards core payers, in particular Haas.
The Respondents argue that the core payer status of Haas did
not play any role in their treatment of him by demonstrating
that other employees or union members were treated in the
same manner.
Analysis
The leading case dealing with the allegations in the com-
plaint is Radio Officers v. NLRB (A. H. Bull Steamship Co.),
347 U.S. 17 (1954). There, the Court held that union induce-
ment of an employer to discharge a union member or to dis-
criminate against him or her for reasons other than failure to
pay union dues or fees authorized by a union shop violated
Section 8(b)(2). The purpose of the Act is to assure that em-
ployees are free to exercise their rights to join a union or to
refrain from joining a union. Section (b)(2) prohibits a union
“to cause or attempt to cause” an employer to discriminate in
violation of Section 8(a)(3), and Section 8(a)(3) prohibits an
employer’s discrimination based on the exercise of employee
rights, i.e., to encourage or discourage union membership. Bre-
ininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 6, 493 U.S. 67 (1989).
Moreover, the encouragement or discouragement of union
membership banned by the Act is that which is accomplished
by discrimination. Teamsters Local 357 v. NLRB (Los Angeles-
Seattle Motor Express), 365 U.S. 667, 675 (1961). And, as
argued by the General Counsel, an employer violates the Act
when it accedes to an unlawful demand from the union to dis-
criminate against an employee. Fruin-Colnon Corp., 227
NLRB 59 (1976), enf. 571 F.2d 1017 (8th Cir. 1978).
Here the record shows that the Union had initiated the Com-
pany’s perusal of Haas’ logs. Upon its own review of the
documents, the Company issued the warning letter and the 1-
day suspension notification. The Union’s shop steward, Don
Lyons brought Haas’ logs of October 28 and 29, 2004, to the
attention of Gregg Kelly, Roadway’s relay manager. Even
though the warning was signed by Lou Franklin, it is clear that
Kelly made the decision to issue the warning. Kelly’s testimony
shows that he was suspicious of the times reflected on Haas’
logs which, in his opinion, did not accurately reflect the time
spent on the “drop and hook” procedure at Deer Park. Kelly
doubted that the procedure could be done in 15 minutes. Kelly
was also critical of Haas’ practice of putting himself in an off-
duty status. The record shows in great detail the extent to which
any form of discipline was justified. In that regard, the Com-
pany and Union were convinced that Haas had stretched the
regulations in order to increase his driving time. Upon its re-
view of the logs and pay records, the Company decided to dis-
cipline Haas. The second incident, resulting in the suspension
of Haas was promptly rescinded. Lyons had brought this issue
to the Company’s attention as well. That infraction was not
well established and was not considered a DOT violation.
Again, the Union had initiated the incident.
Although the General Counsel argued extensively that the
warning and the suspension were totally unjustified or without
any reasonable basis, the record shows that Haas circumvented
Company rules and DOT regulations to obtain more driving
assignments. The DOT regulations provide, in pertinent part, as
follows (GC Exh. 30, p.147:
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1422
On duty time means all time from the time a driver begins to
work or is required to be in readiness to work until the time
the driver is relieved from work and all responsibility for per-
forming work. On duty time shall include:
All time at a plant, terminal, facility, or other property of
a motor carrier or shipper, or on any public property,
waiting to be dispatched, unless the driver has been re-
lieved from duty by the motor carrier.
All time inspecting, servicing, or conditioning any
commercial motor vehicle at any time.
These provisos clearly support the Respondents’ arguments
that (1) Haas was required to log on-duty time at 3 on October
28, 2004, (2) that it is the Company’s responsibility to relieve a
driver rather than the individual himself, and (3) that any time
in preparation of the actual driving time, including preinspec-
tions and drop and hook work, is considered on-duty time. The
Roadway road driver’s manual similarly defines “on duty not
driving” as time spent performing work other than driving,
including pretrip inspection and dropping and hooking (E. Exh.
1). Moreover, other witnesses doubted that the drop and hook
procedure could be performed in 15 minutes or even 18 min-
utes, as testified by Haas. For example, General Counsel’s wit-
ness, Randall Eckenrode, a driver and core payer, testified that
under the best of conditions the task would take a half an hour.
These and other incidents convince me that Haas, a hard worker
and skilled driver, was indeed running hard and use the times to
his advantage. Haas testified, “I can’t help that I work faster
than other individuals” (Tr. 296). He was able to subtract these
times from the 70-hour weekly time limit and the 11-hour daily
driving limit to gain additional driving assignments.
Assuming that the Union went out of its way to bring Haas’
logs to the Company’s attention, was the Union motivated by
Haas’ core payer status? And did the Company accede to the
Union’ requests to discriminate? There is no direct evidence in
the record to suggest that the Union or the Company retaliated
against Haas, because he was a core payer. There were no
threats directed against Haas because he was a core payer, nor
any clear expressions made by union officials critical of Haas’
status with the Union, nor any independent 8(a)(1) conduct that
interfered with his rights as a core payer. Moreover, the Union
was aware of at least four other financial core payers among
Roadway’s drivers, yet there is no evidence that the Union had
failed to represent them fairly. Indeed, Haas had to concede that
the Union represented him in spite of his membership status
and obtained a favorable decision about an issue involving his
sick leave. Haas also admitted knowing that the Union checks
the logs of most of the drivers on a regular basis, and that other
drivers have complained about his logs.
Significantly, the record shows that Roadway considered
Haas one of its most productive employees, and there is no
evidence in the record to suggest that Roadway’s decisions to
discipline Haas were related to his status with the Union. In-
stead, the Company believed that Haas was trying to manipu-
late the system, and violated DOT regulations and Company
policy. In his testimony, Haas admitted that he did not believe
that the Company was concerned about his union status. And
Company witnesses, Kelly or Franklin, denied considering
Haas’ core payer status in their business dealings with him or
being influenced by the Union. The record also shows that
Roadway used its own judgment in deciding whether to issue a
discipline. Roadway issued the warning after Haas failed to
heed management’s advice on previous occasions. The letter
has since expired. And when during the middle of December,
the Union called Haas’ logs of December 15, 2004, to the Com-
pany’s attention, because Haas had logged off duty 2.5 hours
for waiting for a dispatch at a terminal, Franklin and Kelly
made the decision not to issue a discipline. The subsequent
decision by Chris Boyer, driver superintendent, to issue the
suspension was promptly rescinded after Kelly, who was supe-
rior to Boyer in the Company’s hierarchy, received a telephone
call from Haas. Roadway rescinded the letter of suspension on
the same day Haas received it. The Company acted on its own,
without consultation with the Union in doing so.
The record also shows that Roadway has disciplined other
drivers for similar reasons, when their logs violated DOT regu-
lations (GC Exhs. 13–16, E. Exh. 2). Moreover, I have no rea-
son to doubt the testimony of Roadway’s supervisors, Kelly
and Franklin. Their demeanor while testifying appeared honest
and plausible. I find that there is no evidence in the record that
the core payer status of Haas was a motivating factor in the
Company’s decision to discipline him. Wright Line, 251 NLRB
1083 (1980). The only evidence that the Company could be
said to have acceded to a request from the Union to issue a
discipline, was Boyer’s letter of suspension which was
promptly revoked by his supervisor.
With respect to the Union, the General Counsel points to cer-
tain circumstantial evidence or background evidence from
which an inference of discriminatory conduct is to be drawn. In
this regard, the General Counsel relies on an incident a year
earlier, during the second or third week of December 2003,
when Don Borden, shop steward, once referred to core payers
as “fucking scumbags” during a conversation with another
driver. The remarks were overheard by Eckenrode, who con-
fronted Borden, saying that he was also a core payer. Borden
said that they don’t contribute to the local Union and they don’t
support them. Haas entered the room at that point and Borden
said, we better shut up, here he comes. Another incident cited
by the General Counsel happened in April 2004 in Roadway’s
yard. Steve Hockenberry, shop steward for yard workers, ap-
proached Eckenrode as he was getting out of his truck and said,
I heard that you became a core member. Eckenrode asked how
he got that information. Hockenberry said that the stewards had
a list of names of core payers. Hockenberry had assumed that
such information was kept confidential.
Indications of the Union’s animus against Haas as a core
payer are found, according to the General Counsel, in a griev-
ance filed by the Union on May 8, 2004. The grievance accused
the Company of dispatching Haas in excess of negotiated run-
ning times on April 8, 2002 (GC Exh. 8). The Union filed a
similar grievance on June 7, 2004, blaming the Company for
permitting Haas to reset his log hours, a unique procedure per-
mitting drivers to work in excess of the 70 available hours,
which another driver could have used (GC Exh. 7). In May
ROADWAY EXPRESS 1423
2004, Haas was called into the office by Lou Franklin, relay
operations manager, who informed Haas that the Union was
filing a grievance about drivers resetting their hours. Resetting
hours pursuant to DOT regulations permitted drivers to increase
their running times in excess of the 70 hours in the 8-days limit.
Haas, who was one of the few drivers who chose to reset, was
told by Franklin that the Union considered him one of the main
individuals who favored resetting his logs, and that his status
with the Union may have been the reason. Haas later con-
fronted David Wolf, a union steward, about the issue, Wolff
only said, that he could do nothing about it. The General Coun-
sel also points to the Union’s failure to respond to Haas’ written
requests to be a core payer and his demands for an accounting.
Finally, without any direct evidence, the General Counsel relies
on a legal presumption that whenever a union interferes with an
employee’s employment status, by inference such conduct is
presumed to be unlawful.
Haas never filed a grievance with the Union about his issues,
although he could have, but he filed a charge with the Region
on June 23, 2004, in which he referred to the Union’s griev-
ances of May 8 and June 7, 2004, stating that the Union con-
stantly checks his logs, that it files grievances against the Com-
pany for the way it assigns work to him and that other drivers
who (GC Exh. 28). Haas subsequently withdrew the charge
(GC Exh. 29).
Although the General Counsel filed a comprehensive brief
and a detailed analysis of the technical issues, I find that the
evidence of unlawful motivation by the Union unpersuasive.
On the one hand, the Union was unduly persistent in referring
Haas’ logs to management’s attention, on the other, the issue of
his core financial status appeared to be of little or no signifi-
cance. Basically the background consisted of a derogatory re-
mark made by a union steward a year earlier about core payers
generally, grievances filed by the Union dealing with Haas’
logs about a controversial practice of resetting and Haas’ own
impression that the Union was unduly and overly concerned
about his logs. Of relevance to the tension between Haas and
the Union may have come from Haas’ unsuccessful campaign
to run for union office and to topple the union leadership with
accusations of fiscal mismanagement. In any case, union stew-
ard, Borden, testified that he did not know the identity, nor the
number of core members in Teamsters Local 776, and he de-
nied using a derogatory term to describe core payers. Lyons
testified that he also did not know who the core payers were
and professed not to know what a Beck objector is. I do not
credit their testimony in this regard. Not only was it self serv-
ing, but while testifying about this, their demeanor was hesitant
and appeared uncertain.
Relevant to the issue discrimination against Haas as a core
financial payer, is whether the Union harassed other core pay-
ers, not only Haas. LaCroix identified a memorandum, dated
November 2004, and signed by the president of the Union,
Daniel Virtue (U. Exh. 8). The memorandum, addressed to
members and agency fee payers, explained the rights of mem-
bers to become financial core payers. LaCroix testified that
Haas’ status as a core payer did not play any role in the Union’s
treatment of Haas, and that the Union did not ask Roadway to
discipline Haas because of his status with the Union. His testi-
mony is consistent with the Union’s practice of filing griev-
ances against the Company, and not against any employees,
including Haas.
The Union also points to numerous letters of discipline simi-
lar to those given to Haas, issued by Roadway to other drivers
for violations of DOT regulations and company policy (U. Exh.
9). Indeed, the documents showed that current union members,
Borden and LaCroix, were not immune from such warnings.
And, it also showed that Lyons was warned on March 6, 2003,
for failure to log drops and hooks under “on duty, not driving.”
Driver Metcalf was suspended for his failure to properly log
drops and hooks. He also received warnings for other infrac-
tions. While most of the disciplinary letters referred to specific
provisions in the regulations, several warnings were sufficiently
specific to reveal that they involved issues similar to those in-
volving Haas. The record also contains grievances filed by the
Union against Roadway for violations of negotiated running
times involving other drivers (U. Exh. 13). I find little evidence
of disparate treatment by the Company or the Union against
Haas.
Instead, the record shows that the Union was motivated by
complaints from other drivers that Haas was running hard and
taking work away from union members in the way he processed
his logs. Running hard, according to Sharrell Coalson, a fellow
driver meant that Haas was driving more miles than he should
be running. He testified (Tr. 106):
Mr. Lyons said that he had been hearing the [sic] Mr. Haas
was running really hard and that they needed to kind of watch
what he was running so maybe they could find something to
slow him down.
Eckenrode, the other driver who testified for the General
Counsel, who is also a core payer, similarly testified that other
drivers complained about Haas for running outside the regula-
tions. Eckenrode said that everybody knows who among the
drivers runs hard, and that it included Haas. Haas admitted that
other drivers have complained about him.
Union Steward LaCroix testified that Roadway and the Un-
ion had adopted negotiated running times, namely set times for
driving times between terminals and other destinations (GC
Exh. 6). According to LaCroix, the Union has filed numerous
grievances about drivers exceeding the negotiated running
times. Lacroix issued a memorandum of March 15, 2004, that
stewards were to monitor logs with Roadway’s management as
to the driving times of seven or eight drivers, who had prob-
lems with DOT regulations (GC Exh. 11). One of the concerns
of policing the contract with Roadway is the maintenance of
standards. Breaking down conditions occurs when a driver does
not abide by the negotiated work rules or DOT regulations.
According to Kelly, the Union has brought more of Haas’ logs
to his attention than those of other drivers, because “they felt he
was stretching the DOT regulations” and it “feels that Haas
takes work away from other drivers because he completes runs
in less time than he is allotted for the runs . . . . this is the rea-
son they scrutinize his logbooks; not because he is a Beck ob-
jector” (Tr. 214, GC Exh. 19).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD1424
In sum, considering that there is no evidence of discrimina-
tion by the Union or Roadway against other Beck objectors,
that other drivers, like Haas, were disciplined by the Company
for similar infractions, that Haas’ infractions were shown, at
least arguably, to conflict with DOT regulations and Company
policy and resulted in an increase in his driving times, and that
fellow employees were critical of his “running hard,” I cannot
find that the Company’s actions or the Union’s conduct towards
Haas rose to the level of unlawful discrimination, or were moti-
vated by his core financial payer status, as alleged in the com-
plaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The General Counsel has not shown by a preponderance of
the evidence that the Respondent, Roadway Express, Inc., has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and(3) of the Act or that the Respon-
dent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended1
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

1 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.