Roadway Express, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 25, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 157 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

ROADWAY EXPRESS , INC. 157
Roadway Express , Inc. and Clay Donald Ferguson.
Case I I-CA-4888
April 25, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY , AND PENNELLO
and 8(a)(3), I see no need to consider whether the
arbitration award of the Carolina Joint Bi-State Com-
mittee satisfied the standards of acceptability set forth
in the Spielberg Manufacturing Co.3 and Airco Indus-
trial Gases-Pacific cases.4
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 1, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
John M . Dyer issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding . Thereafter , counsel for the General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
Charging Party filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and Respondent filed a brief in opposition to
counsel for the General Counsel 's exceptions and
Charging Party's exceptions.
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 briefs'
and has decided to affirm the rulings , findings ,2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the instant complaint be, and the same
hereby is , dismissed.
MEMBER FANNING , concurring:
I concur in my colleagues' adoption of the Admin-
istrative Law Judge 's independent findings that
Ferguson 's discharge was not a result of his limited
advocacy of Professional Drivers Association
(PROD) or of his general complaints on safely. The
record indicates that Respondent 's sole motivation
for discharging Ferguson was not his complaint but
rather his refusal to drive a truck which Ferguson had
argued was unsafe and which the Respondent, after
an investigation , considered safe.
Since the record does not indicate any motivation
in Ferguson 's discharge violative of Section 8(a)(1)
i Charging Party's motion for consideration of a new Labor Department
regulation and correction of an error in its brief is granted.
The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently referred to Iowa 's senior
Senator as Howard Hughes , rather than Harold Hughes.
3 112 NLRB 1080.
4 195 NLRB 676
JOHN M. DYER , Administrative Law Judge : Clay D. Fer-
guson was discharged by Roadway Express, Inc., herein
called Roadway, Respondent, or the Company , on March
20, 1972,' for the Company's stated reason that he refused
to carry out his work assignment and drive a tractor -trailer
from Nashville , Tennessee , to Columbia , South Carolina.
Ferguson filed a charge in this case on April 7,2 alleging that
his discharge violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, but
this charge was amended on July 27 to delete the 8(a)(3)
allegation and instead allege infringement of his Section 7
rights and violation of Section 8(a)(1) by his discharge.
The Regional Director for Region 11 issued the com-
plaint in this case on July 28, alleging in addition to the
requisite jurisdictional and commerce facts that Respon-
dent had terminated Ferguson because he engaged in con-
certed activities and that Respondent through Driver
Supervisor C. B. Crim had violated Section 8(a)(1) by a
statement he made to Ferguson on December 27, 1971.
Respondent's answer of August 23 admits the service and
commerce allegations , the positions of various Respondent
supervisory personnel , and the March 20 termination of
Ferguson , but it denies that Respondent has in any way
violated the Act. Respondent moved to dismiss the com-
plaint because on the same facts an independent arbitral
tribunal had held against Ferguson and Respondent argues
that the Board should defer to that decision . Specifically
Respondent is a party to the National Master Freight
Agreement with the Carolina Freight Council and with the
Teamsters . Pursuant to that contract Ferguson filed a griev-
ance concerning his discharge which was processed with the
Company and then before the Carolina Joint Bi-State
Grievance Committee, herein called the Committee, which
body heard the grievance on April 11 and denied
Ferguson 's claim that he had been wrongfully discharged.
The answer asserts that this decision of an impartial arbitral
panel is final and binding on all parties and should be
deferred to and the complaint should be dismissed.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to argue orally
at the hearing held on August 30 and 31 in Winston -Salem,
North Carolina. General Counsel and Respondent have
filed briefs which have been carefully considered.
The parties are in basic agreement as to the occurrence
of the events but disagree as to whether tractor 5777, which
i Unless otherwise stated all the events herein occurred during 1972.
2 Ferguson also filed charge I1-CB-349 against Local Union 391, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of
America , herein variously called the Local, Teamsters , or the Union, the
bargaining agent for Respondent 's employees , which charge he later with-
drew at the request of the Regional Office on the grounds of insufficient
evidence
203 NLRB No. 25
158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ferguson was driving on March 20, was safe to drive. The
evidence produced before me is basically the same evidence
which was presented to the Committee with the exception
that the manner of presentation differed. At the Board hear-
ing witnesses were examined and cross-examined and vari-
ous documents offered in evidence. At the Committee
hearing, oral presentations were made by Driver Supervisor
Crim for the Company and Representative Mabe for the
Union. They read selected portions from affidavits and doc-
uments and made those affidavits and documents available
to the Committee . Ferguson was present and was permitted
to make any remarks he thought pertinent to the proceeding
and asked if he had any evidence he felt should be adduced.
After making some statements Ferguson said he had noth-
ing further to offer.
It appears that the first question to be answered is the
deferral question and I find that the answer to that question
disposes of this proceeding. I have determined that under
applicable Board law, even though it be possible I might not
reach the same conclusions as did the Committee, I should
defer to their decision and dismiss this complaint, and I will
so find and recommend.
On the entire record in this case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACTS
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND THE UNION INVOLVED
Respondent is a corporation engaged as an interstate car-
rier of motor freight operating in a number of States in the
United States with terminals located in North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. During the past
year Respondent received revenues in excess of $50,000
from its interstate freight operations.
Respondent admits and I find that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Local Union 391, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
11 THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Undisputed Facts
Clay Ferguson started to work for Respondent as an
over-the-road driver in August 1963. In December 1971
Ferguson was assigned a trip from Danville, Virginia, to a
Pennsylvania destination and had some conversations con-
cerning it with his supervisors since his wife was due to have
an operation. After encountering some difficulties due to
the tractor and due to the trailer load being off-center (a
large packing box on a flatbed trailer), Ferguson refused to
proceed and was discharged. He filed a grievance which
went to the Committee which reinstated him but did not
grant any backpay. Ferguson testified without contra-
diction that after the Committee 's decision , and in the pres-
enco of Respondent's Driver Supervisor C. B. Crim, one of
the panel management members of the Committee told him
that he had a good job with Roadway and should appreciate
working for them and that they didn't want to see him down
there anymore.
During the several phone calls between Ferguson and
Driver Supervisor C. B. Crim, concerning this Danville trip,
Crim apparently lost his patience and told Ferguson he was
tired of his little jabs and schemes . Crim did not recall the
remark , but I do not think that under the circumstances this
remark violated the Act. It was not directed to any union
or concerted activities of Ferguson . I therefore dismiss para-
graph 6 and 6A.
On March 20 Ferguson was assigned tractor 5777 for a
run from Nashville, Tennessee , to Columbia, South Caroli-
na. After reporting to work around 10 a.m., he inspected the
tractor and found the seat was loose . A mechanic was as-
signed to fix it and he did so. Ferguson mentioned to the
mechanic that something was wrong with the transmission
in that the gears seemed to be set too close together and
didn' t change right. The gear shift was checked and the
mechanic reported that nothing was wrong with it. Fergu-
son left stating that they would probably have to come after
him since on a previous occasion he had a tractor whose
gears felt like that and it had broken down on the road.
After going a short distance Ferguson noticed some slack in
the fifth wheel (the coupling connection between the tractor
and the trailer) which caused a jerking motion when the
gears were changed or the brakes applied.
After getting out on Interstate 40, he noticed a jerking
and twisting motion in the tractor cab which started around
25 or 30 miles per hour and got progressively worse through
40 to 45 miles an hour . He testified he was having trouble
holding the truck in the road , felt it was extremely unsafe,
and stopped after going 5 or 6 miles. He signaled another
Roadway truck and asked the driver , Roy Potts , to drive
tractor 5777 and tell him what if anything was wrong with
it. Potts agreed and drove off in tractor 5777, while Fergu-
son followed in Potts' tractor . After driving a short distance
Potts pulled over and, according to both Potts and Fergu-
son, told Ferguson there was something wrong with the
tractor in the way it was jerking around , and he didn't feel
it was safe and advised Ferguson to take it back to Nash-
ville. Ferguson said he would continue to the nearest truck
stop (Hageman's) where Ferguson pulled in and Potts went
on to his destination.
It was then about noontime and Ferguson called the
Nashville dispatcher and told him something was wrong
with the tractor . The dispatcher told him to have the me-
chanic at Hageman 's check out the tractor and call back.
Hageman's mechanic John Buckliew is a small -statured in-
dividual with some 4-5 years , experience as a truck mechan-
ic. After being told by Ferguson that the tractor was jerking
around, Buckliew "road-tested " it, testified he could barely
hold it on the road , and reported this to Ferguson and told
him that he could not remedy the problem . Ferguson called
the Nashville dispatcher , reported what Buckliew said, and
put Buckliew on the phone with the dispatcher. Buckliew
said it appeared to him that the front end was out of line
and the right front tire was cupped , and he couldn 't effect
the repairs . The dispatcher then asked Ferguson to carefully
drive to Cooksville some 50 or so miles further on where
Respondent had a "tire bank " and a man who could change
the tire and possibly align the front end. Ferguson refused,
saying the tractor wasn't safe on the road.
ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.
Ferguson also talked to the main office in Winston-Salem
and said that something was wrong with the tractor and that
he wouldn't move it . It was decided that the Nashville termi-
nal would send a mechanic and a safety man to Hageman's
to check the tractor . Mechanic Joe Caudill , who operates a
mobile repair business for trucks , and Merritt Williams,
Respondent 's safety supervisor for its District 5 , arrived at
Hageman 's around 1:30 or 2 o 'clock , conferred with me-
chanic Buckliew and Ferguson , and then took the tractor-
trailer for a road test . Both Caudill and Williams testified
that there was some vibration in the front end around 40 to
42 miles an hour but that it diminished above or below that
speed, and they considered the vehicle safe and so advised
Ferguson after performing the road test . Ferguson again
refused to continue the trip and further phone calls were
made.
Ferguson contracted Safety Investigator Claude Gatlin,
Jr., of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and asked
him to check the vehicle . Gatlin , the DOT man got to the
truck stop late in the evening of March 20 . In the meantime
Respondent had sent driver C. J. Roberts ( 15 years as a
company driver) to Hageman 's to take the vehicle on to
Columbia , South Carolina , since Ferguson refused to drive
it. Gatlin inspected the tractor visually , as had Caudill, and
could find nothing visibly wrong with it . Gatlin refused to
drive it himself , saying he was not a truckdriver and asked
replacement driver Roberts to roadtest it and tell them what
if anything was wrong with it . Roberts testified he drove it
some 10 to 15 miles , reported to Gatlin and Ferguson that
there was a wobble or shimmy in the right front wheel,
demonstrated to them some slack in the "fifth wheel" cou-
pling between the tractor and the trailer , and said he felt it
was safe to drive.
Roberts after making this report drove the vehicle on to
Columbia , South Carolina, and wrote up a vehicle report
stating that there was some slack in the "fifth wheel" and
some shimmying in the right front wheel . Roberts testified
that the shimmying and wobbling occurred at 35 to 40 miles
an hour and that above that speed it stopped.
Ferguson was given a bus ticket and left for Winston-
Salem . On the following day he received a letter from Re-
spondent stating that based on his actions of March 20 his
seniority was terminated which in effect meant he was dis-
charged.
After the unit arrived in Columbia, South Carolina, it was
taken over by driver March Logan , who had driven for the
Company some 14 years and had been an over-the-road
driver for 24 or 25 years . Logan drove the tractor -trailer
with the same load to Charleston , South Carolina, where the
trailer was dropped . After laying over for 12 hours Logan
drove tractor 5777 with another trailer to Winston -Salem,
arriving there on March 22. Logan testified that he had
spoken to driver Roberts who brought the unit from
Hageman's and asked how it was steering, and Roberts told
him that it drove alright as far as he was concerned. Logan
said he considered the vehicle safe for the road or he would
not have driven it.
Edward D . Ray, a journeyman mechanic at Respondent's
Kernersville shop , has worked some 14 years as a garage-
man and mechanic for the Company . On March 22, Ray
received a work order on tractor 5777 which had been writ-
159
ten by his maintenance shop foreman , Gary Bennett. The
work order stated that he was to repair the clutch which was
hard to push , check the fifth wheel for slack , and check the
steering and the front end. Ray testified he checked the
slack in the fifth wheel with a pin on a handle and found
that it did not seem to need adjustment , and so on the work
order he wrote in code number 1 indicating that it had been
checked and no repairs or adjustments were necessary. He
also found that the clutch operated normally and wrote
code number I in as the action opposite that direction for
repair.
Ray testified that in checking the steering he checked the
front end and the rear springs and hangers and found the
rear spring hangers and pins excessively worn and in his
opinion needing replacement . He showed the worn condi-
tion to Foreman Gary Bennett and Fleet Manager Healey
who was in the garage . A short time later Foreman Bennett
told Ray to put the vehicle on the ready line, rating it as
serviceable , and not replace any parts . Thereafter Supervi-
sor Bennett added to the work order "rear pins and han-
gers" and "Road Test OK" and inserted code number 1
beside each . The vehicle was not "road-tested" by either
Ray or Supervisor Bennett and was only driven inside the
"yard." Tractor 5777 was sent out on another assignment
later that day.
Ferguson filed a grievance concerning his discharge,
which came before the Committee on April 11. A copy of
the transcript of that proceeding was received in evidence
as General Counsel 's Exhibit 4. A review of the transcript
(17 single-spaced typed pages) shows that the Company's
position was set forth by Driver Supervisor Crim and
Ferguson 's position was given by Union Representative
Mabe and amplified by Ferguson . In the Company 's pres-
entation Crim said that the mechanic who checked tractor
5777 was journeyman mechanic Ray, who had been a shop
steward for the Union , and he offered the drivers' reports
and the mechanic 's report . This submission does not indi-
cate that some of the code checks were made by Supervisor
Bennett and not by mechanic Ray. Mabe for the Union set
forth Ferguson 's case including citing from and making
available to the Committee statements from Ferguson, from
driver Potts , who drove the tractor at Ferguson 's request,
from Buckliew , Hageman's mechanic , and from
Respondent 's mechanic Don Ray stating he had found the
rear spring hangers and pins badly worn and in need of
replacement . After this Ferguson was allowed to supple-
ment his statement, and he was questioned by the panel
concerning the events. Ferguson and Mabe were asked by
the Committee if they had anything further to offer and they
replied that they did not. The Committee then met in execu-
tive session and later announced its decision denying the
grievance.
B. General Counsel 's Positions
Ferguson testified that he had picked up some literature
in Cincinnati from an organization known as PROD (pro-
fessional drivers), which was begun by Ralph Nader follow-
ing hearings before Senator Howard Hughes and whose
purpose is to stress safety in the trucking and bus industries.
He brought the pamphlets to Respondent's Kernersville ter-
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
minal and one of them was placed on the bulletin board.
Ferguson did not testify that he sought in any other way to
promote PROD or that Respondent had any knowledge of
any connection between him and PROD, and he admitted
he did not join PROD. A company driver named Merrill
who had testified before Senator Howard Hughes' commit-
tee pushed PROD and his efforts were known by Respon-
dent.
General Counsel assumes and seeks a finding that Re-
spondent and the Union would be inclined against PROD
because of the attacks made by that organization on the
safety records of the trucking and bus industries and the
attitudes or inaction of management and the Union. There
is no proof of the attitude of either Respondent or the Union
and such an assumption would have to be made on the basis
of PROD's pamphlets. From this.position General Counsel
urges that Respondent took a dimmer view of those who
made safety objections to equipment than it had prior to
PROD's organization.
Respondent was aware of PROD and various Respon-
dent supervisors may have seen its literature; however, the
incidents cited by General Counsel do not establish that
Respondent has changed its view of employees complaining
about safety conditions. In each of the cited incidents Re-
spondent sought to ascertain whether the condition was
unsafe or not, sometimes urging drivers to proceed with
their equipment, but in each case making the repairs (found
necessary) before requiring the driver to proceed. Similarly
here Respondent made an effort to determine whether the
vehicle was roadworthy or not and determined to its satis-
faction that it was. The fact that two experienced drivers
drove the vehicle some 800 miles without untoward prob-
lems would seem to bear out Respondent's view.
I cannot say that Respondent sought to retaliate against
Ferguson for anything he may have done in behalf of
PROD since there is no evidence that he did anything of
which Respondent might be aware, if indeed it is opposed
to PROD.
From the evidence before me I cannot conclude that
Respondent treated driver complaints about safety in a dif-
ferent manner after the organization of PROD. It seems
clear that in each instance of a complaint concerning safety
some attempt was made to determine the validity of the
complaint and the problem was remedied before the vehicle
was ordered to proceed.
Therefore I cannot find that there is any disparity in the
way driver's safety complaints were treated after the organi-
zation of PROD and I conclude that PROD had nothing to
do with the treatment accorded Ferguson.
Nor do any of General Counsel's cited events indicate an
untoward difference in the manner safety complaints were
treated as against other contract violation complaints. Gen-
eral Counsel urged that there was a disparity in that one
driver was discharged for refusing to take a load of freight
directly to a destination, claiming that under the contract
the freight should be taken to the Raleigh terminal and then
dispatched on a local or "peddle" run by a small truck to
its destination . Respondent reinstated this driver after he
filed a grievance and granted him backpay without going to
the Committee. General Counsel concludes from this, and
urges, that personnel discharged for things other than safety
complaints were treated more generously by Respondent
and accordingly safety complainants were accorded dispa-
rate treatment.
This seems too much of a jump to me. The facts seem
rather to suggest that, where the contract specifically pro-
vides what is a "peddle" run and what is not, Respondent
may have reviewed the contract, found itself in error, and
settled the matter as quickly as possible. The question in the
instant case appears to be one of expert opinion, possibly
mixed with results, that is, whether the vehicle was roadwor-
thy. The issue as to whether a run is a "peddle" run or an
over-the-road one would seem clear cut by comparison. I
can find no evidence of disparate treatment in comparing
these two events.
Article 16 of the National Master Freight Agreement
provides in part as follows:
The Employer shall not require employees to take out
on the streets or highways any vehicle that is not in safe
operating condition or equipped with the safety appli-
ances prescribed by law. It shall not be a violation of this
Agreement where employees refuse to operate such equip-
ment unless such refusal is unjustified. All equipment
which is refused because not mechanically sound or
properly equipped, shall be appropriately tagged so
that it cannot be used by other drivers until the mainte-
nance department has adjusted the complaint. After
equipment is repaired, the Employer shall place on
such equipment an "OK" in a conspicuous place so the
driver can see the same.
Under no circumstances will an employee be re-
quired or assigned to engage in any activity involving
dangerous conditions of work or danger to person or
property or in violation of any applicable statute or
court order , or in violation of a government regulation
relating to safety of person or equipment. The term
"dangerous conditions of work" does not relate to the
type of cargo which is hauled or handled. [Emphasis
supplied.]
This article, particularly the emphasized part, appears to
set the stage for the grievance proceeding before the Com-
mittee. For, having concluded that the General Counsel's
arguments concerning disparate treatment are ill-founded,
we come to the last contention, that Ferguson was dis-
charged for asserting his Section 7 rights and insisting on
performance of the contract. Here Ferguson under the con-
tract is asserting his right not to be required to drive an
unsafe vehicle. The question then devolves on whether his
refusal (again under the contract term ) is justified or not, or
further if he is being penalized for asserting his right. But
this right must include the obligation of Ferguson being
substantially correct in his assessment of the safety factors
and not "crying wolf."
In essence this is the question that was presented to the
Committee. That Committee in reaching its conclusion to
deny the grievance had to conclude that Ferguson's refusal
to drive the vehicle was unjustified . Possibly bolstering its
conclusion is the fact that the tractor was driven some 800
miles without any repairs by experienced drivers after
Ferguson 's refusal.
It appears then that the Committee considered and decid-
ed in essence the same question that I would have to resolve;
ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.
that is, whether Ferguson was discharged for enforcing a
contractual right . In this circumstance and under the
Board's law in Spielberg Manufacturing Co., 112 NLRB
1080, it seems that I should defer to the Committee's deci-
sion if the elements set forth in Spielberg are met.
In inverse order, the decision of the Committee is not
clearly repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act.
The facts are closely balanced and one could conclude
either that the truck was safe or unsafe depending on one's
assessment of those inspecting the vehicle and its subse-
quent use.
The parties had agreed to be bound by the Committee
decision as evidenced by the contract terms and the partic-
ipation of Ferguson, the Union,3 and the Company in the
proceeding.
The remaining question is whether the proceedings of the
Committee were fair and regular. The General Counsel con-
tends that they were not because witnesses were not pre-
sented for their individual testimony and the therapeutic
effects of cross-examination . General Counsel maintains
that where confrontation and cross-examination are not
present, the traditions of Anglo-Saxon law are so distorted
as to make the proceeding not fair or regular and this, he
claims , deprived Ferguson of due process.
Neither the General Counsel nor Ferguson claims that
the hearing was unfair or not regular in any other manner
such as was claimed in Denver-Chicago Trucking Company,
Inc., 132 NLRB 1416. There the Joint Committee was com-
posed of an equal number of management and union repre-
sentatives and had functioned in the same manner for some
18 years in disposing of grievances. In the Denver-Chicago
case the grievants claimed they had not received a fair hear-
ing by having their witnesses interrupted and reprimanded
and evidence refused, and by their not being given the rea-
sons for the decision after they were requested. No such
claims are made in the instant case.
The Board in the Denver-Chicago case, despite these
greater problems, decided to defer to that arbitral process
and in essence passed on the sufficiency of the manner in
which the case was held . There was no allegation of collu-
7 The General Counsel appears to hint that the Union did not exert itself
in Ferguson 's behalf because of his association with PROD, but nowhere was
it alleged or was evidence offered that the Union was dishonest or misleading
in its treatment of Ferguson or even that it opposed him or PROD Therefore,
that question under Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S 335, has no place here.
161
sion between management and union representatives there,
nor is there here.
It does not appear feasible for the Board or me to estab-
lish what is a proper form and manner of arbitral process
and determine that without presentation of witnesses and
cross-examination an arbitral proceeding is not fair and
regular . The Committee has been in existence for a number
of years and apparently has developed and followed a pro-
cedure which has allowed it to settle grievances and disputes
under the contract to the satisfaction of those parties. It
would seem presumptuous at this time on the state of this
record to tell those parties their procedures are not fair and
regular unless there is confrontation of witnesses and cross-
examination , and I will not so presume 4
There is no explicit statement by the Committee that it
was not dealing with the unfair labor practice aspects of the
matter, such as was made by the arbitrators in Airco Indus-
trial Gases, 195 NLRB 676, and Kalamazoo Gazette, 193
NLRB 1065. In fact I have found that the Committee's
decision is on the same facts on which an unfair labor
practice finding would depend . A decision on those facts
has been made by an arbitral body whose impartiality has
not been attacked . On those facts the Committee found that
Respondent was justified in discharging Ferguson for his
refusal to continue his assigned trip to Columbia, South
Carolina, and in effect found that the vehicle was roadwor-
thy.
The requisite showings having been made , I hereby grant
Respondent 's motions to dismiss the complaint and to defer
to the April 11 decision of the Carolina Joint Bi-State Com-
mittee regarding Ferguson.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the
following recommended:5
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
° In Honolulu Siar •Bulletm, Lid., 123 NLRB 395, 408, fn. 45, the Board
acknowledged that the strict standard of a Board hearing is not necessary
before the Board will defer to an arbitration award.
5 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 .46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.