Roadway Express, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 397 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

Roadway Express, Inc. and Prod, Inc. (Professional
Drivers Council). Case 8-CA- I 1331
March 23, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESI)AI.E
On November 24, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Abraham Frank issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, 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 Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Roadway Express, Inc.,
Akron, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order.
DECISION
ABRAHAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The
charge in this case was filed on September 6, 1977,1 and the
complaint, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
issued on November 3. The hearing was held on February
21, 1978, in Akron, Ohio. All briefs filed have been consid-
ered.
At issue in this case is the question whether Respondent
unlawfully interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees by sending them threatening letters and engaging in
surveillance of their concerted activities with respect to a
demonstration by employees in front of Respondent's Ak-
ron premises on or about June 6.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS or LAW
A. Preliminary Findings and Conclusions
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the
business of transporting freight in interstate commerce. It
owns and operates terminals in Akron, and Toledo, Ohio,
I All dates are in 1977 unless otherwise indicated.
ROADWAY EXPRESS. INC.
the only facilities involved in this proceeding. Respondent
admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Professional Drivers Council, hereinafter called PROD,
is an organization formed to promote safety and improve
working conditions in the trucking industry: to provide in-
formation to union members: and to promote educational,
legislative, and regulatory programs.
B. The Demonstration on June 6
About 2 weeks prior to June 6 several notices were
posted on bulletin boards at Roadway facilities announcing
a PROD demonstration on June 6. On that date about 7:30
a.m. Herbert W. Snyder, a member of PROD, a road driver
for Respondent at its Akron terminal and a road steward
for Local 24 of the Teamsters, hereinafter called the Team-
sters, the bargaining representative for Respondent's drivers
at its Akron and Toledo terminals, met with driver-employ-
ees of Respondent and others at the VFW hall on Tall-
madge Avenue in Akron. Snyder led the marchers to Re-
spondent's general offices at 1077 Gorge Boulevard in
Akron. There Snyder and other members of PROD, includ-
ing employees of Respondent from other terminals and
wives and children of members, paraded on the street in
front of Respondent's building with placards advertising
their "gripes" or grievances. The demonstration was peace-
ful. About 65 marchers walked back and forth carrying
placards with slogans, such as "Overtime Option for Road
Drivers." "Let's Stop Babysitting the Telephone," "Road-
way's Equip is Suicide on Wheels," "Stop the 70 Hour a
Week Slavery," "We Are Tired Driving Down the High-
way Asleep," and "I Would Like to See My Kids Grow
Up." No attempt was made by Snyder or other demonstra-
tors to negotiate with Respondent as to these grievances.
No attempt was made by the demonstrators to stop trucks
entering Respondent's office premises.
On the morning of June 6 Snyder observed G. E. Corbin,
Respondent's driver superintendent, in his car adjacent to
the Carpenter's union hall observing the gathering of
PROD members at the VFW hall. Snyder approached Cor-
bin and asked Corbin what he was doing there. Corbin re-
plied that he was there to find out who was present at the
demonstration. Snyder noted that Corbin was using a CB
radio in his car to communicate with another person or
persons. While walking in front of Respondent's general
offices, demonstrators observed that a big camera on a tri-
pod was focused on them from Respondent's upper office
window, that people were standing around, and a man was
talking on a telephone. Respondent introduced into evi-
dence two pictures of the demonstrators and conceded that
those pictures, at least, were taken by company officials.
On June 6, following the demonstration, Snyder had oc-
casion to be in the office of Warren Bond, Respondent's
relay manager. Snyder noticed a number of photographs of
the demonstration. Snyder asked Bond's permission to look
at them and Bond told Snyder to go ahead and look. Sny-
der recognized the pictures of many demonstrators, includ-
ing his own. He also saw a letter signed by Dan Gunn
listing the names of drivers who had participated in the
241 NLRB No. 63
397
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
demonstration and who could be recognized from the pho-
tographs of the demonstration.
On June 28 Charles E. Simpson. a road driver for Re-
spondent and one of the PROD demonstrators on June 6.
called his driver superintendent, C. O. Sayre, from Spring-
field, Indiana. Simpson complained to Sayre about defec-
tive equipment. According to Simpson, the equipment had
been put on the ready line without being repaired after
another driver had refused to use it. Sayre said to Simpson,
"Don't you think you have done enough by going down to
Akron?" Simpson asked, "Would you like to rephrase that
again?" Sayre had no further comment.
One of the main grievances of the demonstrators related
to Respondent's practice of requiring the drivers to "babysit
the telephone." As explained by witnesses for the General
Counsel, it was the customary procedure for drivers avail-
able for assignment to report to the dispatcher and ask to
be put "on the board." The dispatcher would indicate to the
driver that he should be ready for duty at a specific time.
However, on many occasions the driver would not be called
at the set time or within a reasonable period after that time.
Nevertheless, regardless of the length of time he was re-
quired to wait for a telephone call from the dispatcher, the
driver could not leave the area of his telephone. A call
scheduled for a 2-hour wait might not occur until 18 or 26
hours later. In the interim the driver could not leave his
home without risking a warning letter because he was not
available for work. After a certain number of warning let-
ters a driver could be suspended under the terms of the
collective-bargaining agreement. Another grievance of the
demonstrators was that Respondent's drivers were required
to work 70 hours in an 8-day week. Some of the demonstra-
tors also believed that Respondent's drivers should be given
the option of deciding whether they wanted to work over-
time. A number of drivers complained about the heat gen-
erated from the engines in Respondent's new trucks. At
times the cab was unbearably hot. Other complaints related
to the drivers' concern about unsafe trucks and falling
asleep at the wheel.
The slogans on the placards, set forth above, advertised
these grievances. Testimony of witnesses for the General
Counsel explicated the meaning of such slogans.
C. The Certified Letters
On June 13, C. O. Sayre, Respondent's Toledo driver
superintendent, sent identical certified letters to road driv-
ers Harold J. Estep and Ralph Cravens, two of the June 6
demonstrators. The letters read as follows: "Your actions of
6/6/77 is [sic] under investigation and if upon completion
the company reserves the right to discipline if deemed nec-
essary." On June 14, G. E. Corbin, Respondent's Akron
driver superintendent, sent identical certified letters to road
drivers Herbert Snyder, Archer Van Camp, James A.
Spoerndle, and Herbert Carney, participants in the June 6
demonstration. The letters read as follows: "This is to ad-
vise you that a survey of your work record is being made at
this time. If record is such as to require disciplinary action
you will be notified as to the time and date said hearing will
be conducted.
Estep had been given permission by Foreman Jerry
Brewster on June I to be off duty on June 6. Estep had
never previously received a letter from Roadway Express
stating that his actions on a given day were under investiga-
tion.
Ralph Cravens went on sick call on June 5 because of an
injured hand and remained on sick call for about 14 or 16
days. Following his receipt of the June 13 letter Cravens
had a discussion with Sayre. Cravens said, "I don't under-
stand this letter you sent me. You refer to my actions on
June 6, 1977." Sayre replied, "You know what you did on
6 6 77." Cravens said, "Yes, I know I went to the doctor's
and it cost me $63. If you are talking about the PROD
demonstration, we didn't do anything wrong, and I would
like to know if you would take this letter out of my file."
Sayre said, "No, I am not going to pull the letter out of
your file." Cravens then said, "Thank you sir, you will be
hearing from me through a protest letter." Subsequently,
Cravens wrote a letter of protest to Respondent, but did not
file a grievance. Cravens had never previously received a
letter from Roadway informing him that his activities on a
given day were under investigation.
Snyder was not scheduled to work on June 6. Snyder had
never previously received a letter from Roadway Express
stating that his record was being investigated or surveyed.
On May 19 Van Camp asked Corbin for permission to be
off on June 6 to attend to personal business. Corbin said,
"Well, that's a long time off:" Van Camp relied, "Well. I
just wanted to inform you now ahead of time." On June 2
Van Camp was told by Bond that he could not have June 6
off. Van Camp said, "Well, I may not need the day off. I
may just take care of this personal business and go on to
work." Bond said, "We want you to be available all day
that day." Van Camp replied, "Well, I just explained that I
would go to work as soon as I take care of my personal
business, but I have this personal business to take care of,
and I must take care of it. Then I will be able to go to
work." Van Camp called in approximately I p.m. on June 6
that he was ready to go to work. He was not called to work
until 5:10 p.m. on that day. Respondent suspended Van
Camp for I day on the ground his absence on June 6 was
unauthorized. Van Camp filed a grievance pursuant to the
collective-bargaining contract. The grievance was denied by
the Ohio State Grievance Committee, the forum designated
under the contract to hear grievances.
Van Camp had never previously received a letter from
Roadway Express stating that his work record was being
surveyed.
Spoerndle was suspended by Respondent for I day be-
cause he was not available for work on June 6. On a few
previous occasions Spoerndle had been unavailable for
work at Roadway Express without receiving any written or
verbal warnings for failing to be on "will call" or failing to
be available. On those occasions Spoerndle had not re-
ceived any letters stating that his record was being sur-
veyed.
Spoerndle filed a grievance alleging that his suspension
was due to the PROD demonstration. Respondent took the
position that Spoerndle had been suspended for unavaila-
bility only. Spoerndle's grievance was denied by the State
Joint Committee.
About 3 weeks after the June 6 demonstration Spoerndle
had a discussion with Dawson, Respondent's vice president
for maintenance. Dawson said, "I believe in what is right
398
ROADWAY EXPRESS. INC.
and to stand up for yourself in the manner of protesting,
which you did, but I don't believe that you should have
went [sic] through PROD."
Prior to June 6. Carney spoke to Respondent's dis-
patcher, Bill Cuger, and told Cuger to put Carney on "will
call." A driver who wants to be off work for various reasons
will tell the dispatcher to put the driver on "will call." The
driver then goes to the bottom of the list of active drivers
and builds up to be dispatched in turn. Prior to June 14
Carney had never received any form of disciplinary action
from Roadway Express; nor had he ever received a letter
from Roadway Express stating that his record was being
surveyed.
Carney was asked to report for work at 3 p.m. on June 6.
He was standing by the dispatch window and heard Bob
Stephens, a road driver, say to Bond, "Well, the demonstra-
tion must have gone pretty good. I see you are all smiles."
Bond replied, "They just made a bunch of ass holes out of
themselves."
The June 13 and 14 letters were issued by Respondent
pursuant to article 46 of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment, which provides: "Warning letters must be post-
marked no later than ten (10) days following the Employ-
er's knowledge of the violation, except in those cases where
a letter of investigation was issued within such ten (10) day
period." The letters of June 13 and 14 fall into the category
of letters of investigation. The parties stipulated that these
letters were the only letters of investigation from January 1,
1976, to the date of the hearing relating to a matter that did
not involve some type of accident.
Analysis and Final Conclusions of Law
Insofar as is here pertinent, Section 7 of the Act guaran-
tees employees the right to engage in concerted activities for
"the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection .... " Under Section 8(a)(1) it is an unfair labor
practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or co-
erce employees in the exercise of such rights. Section 9(a)
provides that representatives selected by a majority of the
employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining with respect to rates of pay. wages. hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment shall be
the exclusive representative of such employees for such pur-
poses. There are two provisos to this Section: (1) "That any
individual employee or group of employees shall have the
right at any time to present grievances to their employer
and to have such grievances adjusted, without the interven-
tion of the bargaining representative, as long as the adjust-
ment is not inconsistent with the terms of the collective-
bargaining contract or agreement then in effect:" and (2)
"That the bargaining representative has been given oppor-
tunity to be present at such adjustment."
In support of his prima facie case the General Counsel
proved that Respondent's employees, members of PROD.
were engaged in concerted activity for their mutual aid and
protection on June 6. The General Counsel also proved that
Respondent, through Superintendent Corbin, engaged in
surveillance and creating the impression of surveillance of
such activity on the morning of.lune 6 while the demonstra-
tors were gathering in front of the VFW hall in Akron. The
evidence further establishes that Respondent engaged in
surveillance of the protest demonstration in front of its gen-
eral offices on Gorge Boulevard in Akron by taking pictures
of the demonstrators, including driver-employees of Re-
spondent.
I also conclude that Superintendent Sayre's question to
Simpson on June 28, relating to Simpson's complaint about
defective equipment (Don't you think you have done
enough by going down to Akron?") was a veiled warning to
Simpson that his participation in the June 6 demonstration
had put him in jeopardy with Respondent with respect to
complaints about working conditions.
I conclude further that the investigatory letters of June 13
and 14 were intended by Respondent to inhibit and did, in
fact, inhibit employees from engaging in PROD demonstra-
tions to protest working conditions, including Respondent's
dispatch procedures.
The critical issue before me is whether the employees'
concerted activity of June 6 is protected or unprotected.
The General Counsel contends that it is protected under the
provisions of Sections 7 and 8(a)( ). Respondent argues
that it is unprotected because of the Teamsters' status as the
exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's em-
ployees, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Em-
porium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organi-
zation, 420 U.S. 50 (1975).
The Board's original decision in The Emporium, 192
NLRB 173 (1971), focused mainly on the question whether
employees had a protected right to act outside a collective-
bargaining contract and contrary to their Union's advice in
matters relating to alleged racial discrimination. The
Board2 found that the picketing activities of the employees
was "no mere presentation of a grievance but nothing short
of a demand that the Respondent bargain with the picket-
ing employees for the entire group of minority employees."3
The complaint was dismissed.
On certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Dis-
trict of Columbia, the Supreme Court agreed with the
Board, reversing the circuit court's contrary determination.'
The Court held that the exclusivity principle of Section 9(c)
takes precedence over Sections 7 and 8(a)( ) and leaves un-
protected attempts by a minority of employees to engage in
separate bargaining with their employer with respect to
wages, hours, and conditions of employment. The Court
refused to fashion an exception to the exclusivity principle
in favor of employees who seek "to bargain separately with
their employer as to the elimination of racially discrimina-
tory employment practices peculiarly affecting them .... "5
In the interim the Board issued United Parcel Service,
Inc., 205 NLRB 991 (1973). On substantially less evidence
of the picketing employees' objective and without the spe-
cial circumstance of alleged racial discrimination, the
Board, held that "the picketing employees acted in contra-
vention of the contractual grievance procedure and sought
to initiate direct negotiations with the Respondent over
matters which properly were to be processed through the
agreed-upon grievance procedure of a contract." United
2 Members Jenkins and Brown dissenting.
I The Emporium. 192 NLRB at 185.
'485 F.2d 917.
Emporium Capwell Co. 420 U.S. at 65.
6 Then-Member Fanning and Member Jenkins dissenting.
399
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Parcel Service, Inc., supra, footnote 2. In that case a minor-
ity group of employees, including 10 stewards, agreed to
picket the company between the hours of 9 a.m. and noon
on July 17, 1971, a Saturday when no employees normally
would be working. Eleven picket signs advertised specific
grievances and complaints of the employees. At all times
material Local 688 of the Teamsters was the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of these employees. The picketing
did not interfere with the operation of a training school or
the work of drivers entering the company's premises. On
July 19 the company discharged two union stewards who
participated in the picketing on the ground that their pick-
eting was a violation of their obligations under the contract
both as stewards and employees. On the same day the com-
pany issued warning letters to 11 employees who partici-
pated in the picketing.
The Board adopted the conclusion of the Administrative
Law Judge7 that the complaint as to the two dischargees
should be dismissed under the rule of Spielberg Manufactur-
ing Company, 112 NLRB 1080 (1955). With respect to the
warning letters, the Board's conclusion that one of the pur-
poses of the picketing was to "seek and obtain direct nego-
tiations with a top Respondent official" was based upon
admissions by one of the discharged employees, Ronald
Gushleff. At a hearing before the joint committee, Gushleff
gave a statement that "probably in my own case I was
hoping beyond hope that Mr. Hebebrand [the Missouri
District Manager] would appear on the scene and I thought
at that time maybe he'll talk to me, if he sees me on a
Saturday .... " Gushleff also testified by picketing on July
17 he was "Attempting to communicate with Roy Hebe-
brand, the Missouri District Manager."8
In Emporium Capwell, supra, the Supreme Court relied
upon the following facts to conclude that the demonstrators
were attempting to engage in separate bargaining: The
union representing the affected employees had invoked the
grievance procedure of the existing contract to resolve
charges that the company was engaged in racial discrimina-
tion. Several employees took the position that the union
should picket the company's store because the contractual
grievance procedure was inadequate to cure their grievance.
This the union refused to do, asserting that it was bound by
the processes of its contract. The dissident employees re-
fused to participate in the grievance procedure. Instead, the
dissident employees held a press conference and expressed
their desire to deal directly with the top management of the
company. Thereafter, these employees picketed the store
and urged a consumer boycott of the store. The secretary-
treasurer of the union again asked them to rely on the griev-
ance procedure and warned that they could be fired for
their activities. The picketers continued to press their de-
mand to deal directly with the company president.
The facts in the instant case are sharply in contrast to
those in Emporium Capwell. There is no evidence here that
the demonstrators insisted on bargaining separately with
Respondent's top management in derogation of the Team-
sters' bargaining authority. There is no evidence that the
Teamsters objected in word or deed to the conduct of the
The title of Trial Examiner was changed to Administrative Law Judge on
August 19, 1972.
B United Parcel Service, Inc., 205 NLRB at 997-998.
demonstrators in protesting Respondent's method of effec-
tuating dispatch procedures and other company practices
as to which the contract is silent. There is no evidence that
the employees' peaceful demonstration was contrary to,
and in derogation of, the contractual grievance procedure.
Indeed, the Teamsters processed the grievances of Van
Camp and Spoerndle, who were suspended by Respondent
on the ground that they were unavailable for work on June
6. Apparently, the Teamsters were in agreement with
Spoerndle that his suspension was due to the PROD dem-
onstration, contrary to Respondent's position that he had
been suspended only because of unavailability. There is no
evidence that the demonstrators attempted to injure Re-
spondent's business by appealing to customers to boycott
Respondent. Nor did the demonstrators impede ingress or
egress to Respondent's premises. The bylaws of the Toledo
Area Chapter of PROD specifically disclaim an exclusive
bargaining function. Contrary to Respondent's contention,
there is no evidence in this record that PROD functions as
a labor organization for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing with this or any other Employer.
A number of employees testified as to their purpose in
demonstrating on June 6. Snyder testified that the protest
was to "Maybe bring attention to other people, the news
media, the public." He denied that he was seeking direct
negotiations with Respondent for PROD. Cravens also de-
nied that he was seeking direct negotiations with Respon-
dent or to process specific grievances with Respondent.
Similarly, Estep denied that he was seeking direct negotia-
tions with Respondent or to discuss or process individually
any specific grievances he may have filed against Respon-
dent. Spoerndle testified that the day before the protest
PROD sent out a press release informing the news media of
the PROD demonstration. Spoerndle was named in the
press release as the area coordinator for PROD.
Against this testimony there is the undeniable fact that
the employees were carrying placards in front of Respon-
dent's premises advertising grievances relating to their
working conditions, grievances arguably subject to the
grievance-arbitration procedures or collective-bargaining
negotiations. Cravens testified that "We wanted them [Re-
spondent] to hear our side of it, so when we go to the Union
to see if there is some way to change the contract for the
dispatch, you [Respondent] would already know what us
drivers are asking for." He agreed that he was attempting to
communicate to Roadway his unhappiness with the dis-
patch procedures. The hope was that Roadway officials
would pay attention to the drivers' protest and change its
procedures.
In Emporium Capwell. supra, the Supreme Court noted
that the principle of exclusive representation is "tempered
by safeguards for the protection of minority interests."9 One
such safeguard permits an employee to present his griev-
ances to his employer without the cooperation of his union
and with the consent of his employer to have those griev-
ances adjusted so long as the adjustment is not inconsistent
with the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement'0 and
9420 U.S. at 65.
10 The Black-Clawson Company v. International Association of Machinists
Lodge 355, District 137, 313 F.2d 179, 185 (2d Cir. 1972), interpreting the
proviso to Sec. 9(a).
400
ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.
the union is given an opportunity to be present at the ad-
justment.'
Clearly, the demonstrators in the instant case would be
engaged in protected concerted activity if they had pre-
sented Respondent with a list of their grievances, with the
hope that Respondent would hear their grievances and re-
spond. Dawson, Respondent's vice president for mainte-
nance, conceded to Spoerndle that Spoerndle had a right to
stand up for himself and protest and objected only to
Spoerndle's protest through PROD. It may well be that
Respondent was equally concerned with the fact that the
protest took the form of picketing under the auspices of
PROD. Normally, picketing, even peaceful picketing is a
tactic utilized by employees to put pressure on their em-
ployer to yield to their demands. But peaceful, informa-
tional picketing is not unlawful absent an unlawful objec-
tive and it is protected concerted activity under Section 7 of
the Act absent an impermissable objective. Contrary to Re-
spondent's contention, the instant case is clearly distin-
guishable with respect to the employees' objective from the
Supreme Court's decision in Emporium CapwKell, supra.
While the quantum of evidence as to the employees' objec-
tive was less in United Parcel Service, Inc., supra, I find that
case too distinguishable. In the instant case there is insuffi-
cient evidence to warrant the conclusion that the concerted
activity of these employees on June 6, otherwise protected,
was unprotected because of an admission by the participat-
ing employees that they were engaged in an attempt to bar-
gain separately with Respondent in derogation of the au-
thority of their exclusive bargaining representative. The
weight of the evidence in this case is that the demonstrators
on June 6 picketed with placards to alert the public and
Respondent to certain disagreeable working conditions
with the hope that these conditions would be corrected ei-
ther by Respondent itself voluntarily or in future negotia-
tions between Respondent and the Teamsters.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(l) of the Act by the following conduct:
(1) Superintendent Corbin's statement to Snyder on the
morning of June 6 that Corbin was present on Tallmadge
Avenue to observe who was present for the PROD demon-
stration, thereby creating the impression of surveillance.
(2) Superintendent Corbin's presence on Tallmade Ave-
nue on the morning of June 6 to observe employees prepar-
ing to participate in the PROD demonstration, thereby en-
gaging in surveillance.
(3) Respondent's conduct in taking pictures of the dem-
onstrators on June 6, thereby engaging in further surveil-
lance of protected concerted activity.
(4) Superintendent Sayre's veiled warning to Simpson on
June 28 because of his participation in the demonstration
on June 6 by questioning whether Simpson had not done
enough by going down to Akron.
(5) Respondent's conduct in sending investigatory letters
to employees who participated in the June 6 demonstration,
thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
The above unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
H Second proviso to Sec. 9a).
I make no finding with respect to the suspensions of Van
Camp and Spoerndle because of their unavailability for
work on June 6. While these suspensions were litigated to a
limited extent, the complaint does not allege that either sus-
pension is an unfair labor practice and Respondent was at
no time on notice that it would be required to defend itself
as to such conduct.
ORDER 12
The Respondent, Roadway Express, Inc., Akron, Ohio,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Creating the impression of surveillance of its employ-
ees' protected concerted activities.
(b) Engaging in surveillance of its employees' protected
concerted activities by physical observation and picture
taking of such activities.
(c) Warning employees concerning their participation in
protected concerted activities by questioning whether such
conduct was not "enough" in the context of employee com-
plaints about working conditions.
(d) Threatening employees with possible future disciplin-
ary action because of their participation in protected con-
certed activity by sending them investigatory letters of the
effect that disciplinary action may be required as a result of
the employees' protected concerted activity.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind and remove from all personnel files and rec-
ords of Respondent copies of the letters of June 13 and 14
and all references thereto sent to employees who partici-
pated in the June 6 demonstration at Respondent's general
office on Gorge Boulevard in Akron, Ohio.
(b) Notify the employee recipients of the above letters, in
writing, that all such letters are rescinded and all copies and
references to such letters have been removed from the em-
ployees' personnel files and Respondent's records.
(c) Post at its terminals in Toledo and Akron, Ohio, cop-
ies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 3 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 8, after being duly signed by its representative, shall
be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by it to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided b 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 b) the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
L3 In the event that this Order Is enforced b) a judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted b) Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board "
401
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NolI(CE To EMPIOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF 111E
NATIONAL LABOR RELAIIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WIL.I NOT engage in surveillance or create the
impression of surveillance with respect to our employ-
ees' protected concerted activities.
WE WILL. NOT warn employees not to participate in
protected concerted activities by suggesting that they
have done enough by engaging in such conduct in the
context of employee complaints about working condi-
tions.
WE WILl. NOT threaten our employees with possible
future disciplinary action because of their participation
in protected concerted activity by sending them inves-
tigatory letters to the effect that disciplinary action
may be required as a result of such protected concerted
activity.
WE; WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind and remove from all personnel files
and company records copies of such letters and all ref-
erences thereto sent on June 13 and 14, 1977, to em-
ployees who participated in the June 6, 1977, demon-
stration at Respondent's general offices on Gorge
Boulevard in Akron, Ohio.
WE wil.i. notify the employee recipients of the above
letters, in writing, that all such letters are rescinded
and all copies and references to such letters have been
removed from the employees' personnel files and com-
pany records.
ROADWAY EXPRESS, IN(C.
402