Safety Tank Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 144 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Safety Tank Lines, Inc and Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No 22
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America Cases 5-CA-7455 and 5-RC-9430
May 26, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On April 29, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Pla-
tonia P Kirkwood issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Decision,
and the General Counsel and the Charging Party
filed answering briefs to the Respondent's excep-
tions
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 has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt
her recommended Order
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Safety Tank Lines, Inc,
Danville, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 5-RC-9430 be,
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 5 for further proceedings consistent with
the recommendations of the Administrative Law
Judge
i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products Inc 91
NLRB 544 ( 1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing her findings
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PLATONIA P KIRKWOOD, Administrative Law Judge
These consolidated cases were heard in Danville, Virginia,
on November 18, 1975 1 In the unfair labor practice case,
the complaint, dated October 21, was based upon charges
filed by the Union, Charging Party herein, on August 11 It
alleges, and Respondent's answer denies, that Respondent
committed certain conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act, and discriminatorily
discharged two employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act In the representation case, initiated by a
petition in Case 5-RC-9430 filed by the Union on August
7, objections to an election conducted October 10 and the
challenges to two ballots which affect the election results 2
were found by the Regional Director for Region 5 to raise
issues of fact and law parallel to those presented by the
complaint and requiring the conduct of a hearing The Re-
gional Director for Region 5 accordingly consolidated both
cases for purposes of hearing, ruling, and disposition by an
Administrative Law Judge
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the briefs filed with me by General Counsel, Respondent,
and the Charging Party, I make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I JURISDICTION
Respondent, a Virginia corporation, with its principal
place of business in Danville, Virginia, is engaged in the
interstate and intrastate transportation and delivery of gas-
oline and other petroleum products During the preceding
12 months, a representative period, Respondent received
gross revenues in excess of $50,000 from these operations
Although Respondent disputes the Board's jurisdiction, I
find, contrary to its position, that it is engaged in interstate
commerce within the meaning of the Act and that its oper-
ations are of sufficient magnitude to warrant the Board's
assertion of its jurisdiction See HPO Service Co, Inc, 122
NLRB 394 (1958)
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Lo-
cal Union No 22, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act
i Unless otherwise mentioned all dates in this Decision will be for the
year 1975
2 The record shows that all eligible voters-I I in number-cast ballots in
the election that 9 of these II ballots have been opened that the 2 ballots
cast by Farthing and Skiles the alleged discnmmatees in the complaint
case remain in a challenged ballot status and that of the 9 voters whose
ballots had been counted 5 voted against and 4 voted for the Union
224 NLRB No 31
SAFETY TANK LINES 145
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Statement of the Violation Issues, the Supervisory Status
of Individuals named as Respondent's Agents by the
Complaint
The complaint asserts, and Respondent's answer denies,
that Respondent (a) interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by threatening employees with plant shutdown or
plant relocation in the event the Union was selected as the
employees' representative, and (b) discriminated within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act against two
employees-Larry Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles-when
it discharged them on August 8 The complaint attributes
the alleged unlawful conduct to two individuals named as
Respondent's agents therein Charles Taylor, vice presi-
dent of Respondent and general manager of Respondent's
Danville, Virginia, terminal, and Clara Gravely, the dis-
patcher at the Danville terminal Respondent's answer ad-
mits the supervisory status of Taylor within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act, but denies the supervisory status
of Clara Gravely
The record evidence bearing on the issue of Gravely's
status as a supervisor shows that she has no authority to
hire, fire, or establish the wage rates of any employees
That authority is vested solely in Taylor Taylor, however,
is required to divide his time between two other locations,
is frequently "on the road," and does not get to the termi-
nal at all for several days during each month In Taylor's
absence, Gravely alone mans the terminal office and at
such times she possesses and exercises the authority to
make trip assignments 3 to employees, to approve or deny
requests for time off, and otherwise to conduct the day-to-
day business of the terminal She also regularly cosigns
payroll checks, and has authority to sign truck leases and
give out credit cards to the drivers
From all of the above, I find that Gravely actively super-
vises and directs the work of employees and does so in a
manner requiring independent judgment at least for the
substantial periods of time during which Taylor is absent
from the terminal I therefore conclude, contrary to
Respondent's contention, that Gravely is a supervisor with-
in the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act 4
B The Union's Advent
Organizational activity among the Respondent's previ-
ously unorganized employees at the Danville, Virginia, ter-
minal was initiated in July 1975 by two of Respondent's
truckdrivers, Larry Farthing and Larry Dodson Farthing
and Dodson discussed the idea with the remaining five
drivers and obtained a consensus from all of them that the
Union should be contacted On August 2, an initial organi-
3 The pay which drivers receive depends upon the mileage covered by
their driving assignments
4 Compare the responsibilities of dispatchers found to be supervisory by
the Board in Consolidated Freight Ways Corporation of Delaware, 196 NLRB
807, 809 (1972) And see also the portion of the Board s decision in Board
Ford, Inc, 222 NLRB 922 (1976), dealing with the supervisory or manageri
al status of dispatcher Mitchell
zational union meeting was held and attended by six of
seven drivers Joseph Webb, the union business agent con-
ducting the meeting, obtained signed authorization cards
from all six of the drivers who attended the meeting The
seventh driver signed a card that same night on the solicita-
tion of Bobby Joe Skiles and Larry Dodson
By letters dated August 4, the Union notified the Re-
spondent that it was in the process of organizing the em-
ployees, that a majority of the truckdrivers had signed
union authorization cards, and that a representation peti-
tion was being filed with the National Labor Relations
Board Respondent admittedly received these letters on
August 6
On August 7, the Union filed a petition in Case 5-RC-
9430, and, in accord with normal practice, notice of that
petition was sent to Respondent on that date by the
Board's Regional Office
C The Alleged Independent 8(a)(1) Conduct
On the morning of August 8, General Manager Taylor
discharged the two drivers named as discriminatees in the
complaint On the same day, Taylor discussed with each of
the remaining drivers, in private conferences he held with
each in his office, Respondent's opposition to the Union It
is conceded that he referred to written notes he had before
him and told each of the employees why he believed they
should not select the Union as their representative General
Counsel claims, however, that in the course of these confer-
ences Taylor threatened one or more of the drivers with
closure of the Danville terminal and its relocation to Mar-
tinsville, and that Gravely later made a similar threat
With respect to what was said by Taylor at the confer-
ences of August 8, four of the drivers with whom Taylor
conferred at the time were called by General Counsels
They mutually testified that Taylor described the Union as
having connections with "organized crime", that members
of the organized crime group would spend the Union's
dues for their own illicit purposes However, Darrell Van
Dillion, one of the drivers, testified that, in addition, Tay-
lor told him that if the Union were selected the Respon-
dent was prepared to close its Danville terminal and to
move it to a site owned by the Respondent at Martinsville,
Virginia, a city located about 25 or 30 miles away
With respect to the alleged unlawful threat by Gravely,
Kenneth Scearce, one of the drivers that Respondent em-
ployed at times here relevant,6 testified that about a week
after the Taylor conferences supra, Gravely, in a discussion
with him about the Union, told him that Taylor had said
"he might have to move the operation to Martinsville if the
Union were to come in "
Respondent called Taylor and Gravely in rebuttal
Gravely, who testified before Taylor, reported that "one
day" when Scearce and another former driver of Respon-
dent named Meadows visited her in her office, one of them
asked her whether "Mr Taylor was going to move the busi-
s Darrell Van Dillion, Kenneth Scearce, Larry Dodson, and George Sex
ton Dodson and Scearce had voluntarily quit their jobs as of the date they
testified
6 Scearce had terminated his employment with Respondent before testify-
ing at the hearing
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ness to Martinsville", and that she responded "Well it was
a possibility that he might, some time, that the Company
owned land in Martinsville, and the people that owned it
also lived in Martinsville " She claimed no recollection that
any mention of the Union was made at that time Further,
in response to a question put to her by Respondent's coun-
sel as to whether she had ever told any member of the work
force that if the Union came in the terminal would be
moved, she answered "no " Gravely also testified that Re-
spondent owns a terminal site in Martinsville and that the
site on which the Danville terminal is now located is leased
on a year-to-year basis, with the terms of the lease being
negotiated annually towards the end of November
Taylor, in his testimony, denied making any threats to
any employee He affirmed Gravely's report concerning
the ownership of property in Martinsville and the facts
concerning Respondent's year-to-year lease arrangements
He further testified that Respondent's board of directors
had given consideration to moving the terminal to Martins-
ville at some future date and had indicated it would do so
if at any time the lease arrangement at Danville were can-
celed or could not favorably be renegotiated
With specific reference to his August 8 conferences with
the drivers, Taylor testified that, upon receipt of the
Union's August 4 letters, he consulted with Respondent's
counsel and with the latter's assistance prepared certain
written remarks he later read to the employees at private
conferences Admittedly, these remarks explained
Respondent's opposition to the Union and mentioned, in-
ter aka, the Union's connections with organized crime I
But, according to Taylor, the written remarks did not in
any way refer to the Respondent's Martinsville site or to
the possibility that the Danville terminal might be relocat-
ed to the site any time, and he made no remarks apart
from those contained in the material which counsel had
assisted him in preparing 8
I do not credit the testimony of Taylor and Gravely
where it conflicts with that of Dlllion and Scearce, supra
Both of the latter witnesses impressed me, while testifying,
as making a sincere effort to give a fair and impartial ac-
count of what was said to them by the Respondent's agents
at times here relevant, and their testimony on the subject
was not only mutually consistent and inherently plausible
but was lent corroborative strength, it seems to me, by (a)
Gravely's admission that relocation of the terminal by Tay-
lor was in fact discussed by her with employees at this
important point in the union organizational campaign, and
(b) Taylor's admission that he knew that the subject of
terminal relocation had been under discussion by the
Respondent's board of directors
Conclusions as to the Alleged 8(a)(l) Violations
Based on the evidence I find credible here, I am con-
7 In October and just before the election he sent the employees a letter
urging them not to vote for the Union and setting forth certain reasons why
they should not do so This letter (Resp Exh 1) is the subject of one of the
objections to the election which the Union filed
Respondent did not adduce the written material to which Taylor re-
ferred in talking to the employees on August 8
vinced and find that, in seeking to persuade employees to
disavow and reject the Union, Taylor deliberately used the
known fact that the Respondent had a Martinsville locale
suitable for a terminal so as to communicate to the em-
ployees the idea that Respondent not only could, but
would, move the Danville terminal to Martinsville if the
Union were selected as the employee representative I fur-
ther find that Gravely later conveyed the same idea to em-
ployees Therefore, and in accord with relevant Board
precedent, I further conclude and find that by these im-
plied threats of relocation Respondent unlawfully inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights and thereby violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint 9
D The Facts Bearing on the Alleged Discriminatory
Discharge of Farthing and Skiles
Taylor discharged Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles, the
two senior drivers in Respondent's employ at times here
material, on the morning of August 8-the same day on
which he conducted with other of the drivers then em-
ployed by the Respondent the private antiunion discus-
sions earlier described in this Decision It is undisputed
that, in the respective termination interviews Taylor con-
ducted with each of the men, Taylor told each that he had
followed them on the prior day while driving company
trucks on the highway between Martinsville and Danville
and had observed that both had been operating their
trucks in a reckless and dangerous manner and that he was
discharging them for that reason He specified that he saw
them tailgating and passing each other while operating
their respective trucks at speeds in excess of 60 to 65 miles
per hour Both Farthing and Skiles told Taylor his accusa-
tions were untrue, and both indicated they believed that he
was discharging them for Union related causes The ques-
tion presented by the complaint is whether the reasons giv-
en by Taylor were pretextual and the true reason was in
fact union related and hence discriminatory
In support of the complaint' s allegations of discrimina-
tion, General Counsel relied, in part, on the testimony of
Farthing and Skiles respectively denying the dangerous
driving performance attributed to them, and describing
what happened on August 7, on the day that Taylor had
allegedly observed them as follows
Both of them testified that after they had completed
their deliveries on August 7 they had met by happenstance
at the location of a customer-Davis Oil Company-near
Martinsville and had driven each of their trucks the 25 to
30 miles to that terminal, one behind the other, with Skiles
ahead of Farthing Both maintained that Farthing's truck
was never closer than 200 feet behind that of Skiles, that
they did not exceed 60 miles per hour, and that, although
they passed some passenger cars during this trip, including
a police car, they never passed each other
When they returned to the Respondent's Danville termi-
nal both saw Taylor drive in to the terminal in a company
9 See for example Glasgow Industries Inc 204 NLRB 625 627 (1973)
and compare Roselyn Bakeries Inc 192 NLRB 1165 (1972), and the opin-
ion of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, enforcing the Board s order in
the latter case at 471 F 2d 165 (1972)
SAFETY TANK LINES 147
truck about 5 or 10 minutes behind them Taylor parked
his truck and proceeded to go towards the office and both
men greeted Taylor at the time Taylor made no response
to Farthing's greeting, but he did respond to Skiles with a
"Hi " The two men then logged in, made their work re-
ports, and asked Gravely about the next scheduled trips
Gravely told them she had no scheduled trips to then as-
sign them to for the following day, but that she would put
them on standby status Both then went home Both re-
turned to the terminal the morning of the following day to
report for standby call Shortly after their arrival, each was
summoned by Taylor to the office and discharged for the
asserted reasons earlier noted
Testifying in rebuttal, Taylor reported that, on the morn-
ing of August 7, while he was about 5 miles outside of
Martinsville and on his way back to Danville, he observed
two trucks far down on the highway, wondered if one or
both of them belonged to Safety Tank He was then travel-
ing about 55 miles per hour, but proceeded to go faster to
see if he could get close enough to identify the trucks, but
could not get closer than a quarter of a mile from the vehi-
cles despite speeding up to between 65 to 70 miles per hour
Nonetheless, he was able to tell that the two trucks were in
fact company trucks, and he followed them for a distance
of about 20 miles to the terminal During this period he
saw one of the two trucks following each other about 50
feet apart, and observed one pass the other at one time but
he wasn't close enough to see which of the two trucks had
done this He considered the actions he had observed to be
extremely dangerous because, in the event of a collision,
the two trucks were likely to explode, and the attendant
loss to the Company would involve not only the replace-
ment of vehicles worth $60,000 a piece but also the possi-
bility of personal injury suits by members of the public He
therefore decided that the drivers should be fired, and al-
though he found out who they were on returning to the
terminal, he did not mention his decision to them at that
time because he was "too upset" to do so, but waited until
the next day 10 He expressly denied that the union activity
had anything to do with his decision to fire the men n
E Discussion and Analysis of the Evidence Bearing on the
Discharge of Farthing and Skiles
The issue raised by the discharge of Farthing and Skiles
presents, as a threshold matter, a credibility question posed
by the conflicts between the testimony of Farthing and
Skiles, on the one hand, and that of Taylor, on the other,
10I quote his testimony on this point
I believe they were about the two oldest men I had and they know the
danger in our work, and to see those two fellows which I had all the
confidence in the world in, commit an act like that on the highway,
which in my terms is like a loaded gun, to do that, I was so upset I was
afraid to talk to them the morning it happened So I thought
about it that afternoon and that night and I decided the next morning
that I should terminate those people if they were going to drive my
equipment like that
Taylor admitted that, in light of the Union s letter of August 4 he
believed that all seven of his drivers had joined the Union But he testified
had he been interested in effecting a discharge for union reasons he would
have picked the two youngest men he had and not the two oldest
about the critical events of August 7 Based in part on my
impressions of the witnesses while they were giving their
testimony and in part on other reasons explicated below, I
have concluded that, where in conflict, the testimony of
Farthing and Skiles should be credited and that of Taylor
rejected as unbelievable
The account given by Farthing and Skiles as to their
work performance on the day in question was mutually
corroborative and not implausible The absence of any
past record of serious violations and the admission of Tay-
lor that both had enjoyed a reputation as capable drivers
during their tenure as Respondent's employees lends cre-
dence to their mutual disclaimer of (1) having committed
any of the dangerous and reckless acts of tailgating or pass-
ing each other of which Taylor accused them when he dis-
charged them, and (2) having operated at a speed in excess
of 60 miles per hour Moreover, my confidence that their
testimony as a whole was reliable, was reinforced by the
manner and content of their responses to questions about
their overall work record Neither of them sought to por-
tray himself as a model employee Each forthrightly admit-
ted to flaws-Skiles, to having gotten a violation ticket for
driving in excess of a 55-mile legal limit during the course
of his employment, and Farthing, to tardy work-reporting
habits for which he had been called to task and threatened
with discharge if not corrected And both, in their testimo-
ny credibly reported that, under normal conditions, they
did not customarily adhere to the legal limit of 55 in driv-
ing over the highways, and that they had not done so on
the day here in question I find, accordingly, that Farthing
and Skiles had not operated their trucks in the dangerous
manner claimed by Taylor
It is, of course, possible that even though Farthing and
Skiles did not in fact engage in the dangerous and reckless
driving actions attributed to them by Taylor, Taylor might
have in truth gotten a different impression if, as he said, he
had been following them But I have difficulty in believing
the truth of Taylor's representations on the matters here in
issue He was not an impressive witness and his testimony,
as a whole, did not have the ring of truth I note, inter aha,
that, although he admittedly saw the two drivers when he
came in to the terminal on August 8, he made absolutely
no comment indicating either that he had been following
them, or was displeased in any way by them His silence at
that point is difficult to understand if the events to which
he testified had actually occurred
Taking everything into account, and having resolved the
credibility issue in favor of Farthing and Skiles, I find the
reasons advanced by Respondent for discharging these two
employees to be pretextual, 12 and I agree with General
12 Although I note that the employees were operating their vehicles at or
about 60 miles per hour on the day in question and hence over the 55 mile
per hour legal limit I also note that Respondent does not claim this type of
offense of the legal limit as per se cause for discharge Indeed there is
affirmative evidence of uncontradicted character that Respondent has not
disciplined employees who have been ticketed for speeding violations de-
spite knowledge of the ticketing
I have also considered the fact that the two drivers were denied unem
ployment compensation by the state agency involved on findings that Re
spondent had valid cause for their discharge I do not know what evidence
the state agency had before it But, in any event, it is my obligation to arrive
at the decision of the issues here presented on the basis of my independent
Continued
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Counsel that Taylor's decision to discharge these two em-
ployees on August 8 can only be explained as being rooted
in Respondent's opposition to the Union Both were
known union adherents, and one-Farthing-shared with
another employee the responsibility for initiating the
Union's campaign The discharge was effected but 2 days
after Respondent received a union letter advising it that all
its drivers had joined the Union and that the Union there-
fore claimed majority status Furthermore, the discharge
action was taken on the same day that the Respondent
committed other unlawful conduct in furtherance of its
avowed desire to suppress the employees' continuation of
prounion activity and to insure the defeat of the Union's
campaign All of the circumstances, taken together with
the Respondent's advancement of a pretextual reason for
the discharge, clearly warrant the finding that Respondent
was moved by unlawful considerations in discharging Far-
thing and Skiles on August 8 It follows, and I conclude,
that by discharging Farthing and Skiles, to further antiun-
ion objectives, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act as alleged
V THE REMEDY
Respondent shall be required to cease and desist from
the unfair labor practices here found, and, in light of the
serious character of its unfair labor practices, to desist also
from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed
employees in Section 7 of the Act
As affirmative action, Respondent shall be required to
offer Larry Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles immediate rein-
statement to their former jobs discharging, if necessary,
any employees hired to fill their jobs, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights, and to make them whole for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of
Respondent's discrimination against them, with interest to
be computed in the customary manner 14
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend-
ed
ORDER 15
IV DISPOSITION OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REPRESENTATION
CASE
The basic issues raised by the representation case are (1)
whether the Company's challenge to the ballots cast by
Farthing and Skiles in the election conducted on October
10 (both of which are determinative of the election results)
should be overruled and the ballots hence opened and
counted, and (2) whether, in the event the final results of
the election indicate that the Union lost, the election
should be set aside because of the Respondent's commis-
sion of objectionable preelection conduct following the
date (August 7) on which the petition was filed
The sole basis in which the ballots of Farthing and Skiles
were challenged was that they had been terminated on Au-
gust 8 However, as their termination was unlawfully ef-
fected, the challenges to their ballots must necessarily be
overruled, and their ballots opened and counted I shall so
recommend
I shall also recommend that, in the event the revised tally
of ballots indicates that the Union lost the election then the
election should be set aside The conduct here found to be
violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act was also
alleged in some of the objections filed by the Union to be
objectionable preelection conduct That part of its objec-
tions should therefore be sustained 13
consideration of the evidence before me Compare N L R B v Tennessee
Packers, Inc, Frosty Morn Division 339 F 2d 203 204 (CA 6 1964)
N L R B v Pacific Intermountain Express Co, 228 F 2d 170 (C A 8) and
Supreme Dyeing and Finishing Corporation 147 NLRB 1094 1095 In I
(1964)
13 The union also presented and litigated in this case an additional objec-
tion based on statements contained in a letter issued by the Respondent on
October 2, in which it urged the employees not to vote for the Union As the
conduct I have here found unlawful is in itself sufficient to warrant setting
aside the election, I need not and do not dispose of the merits of this addi-
tional objection
I also reject the Union's request, in which the General Counsel did not
join, that in the event the Union loses the election and it is set aside the
Board should not direct the conduct of a new election but should rely on
The Respondent, Safety Tank Lines, Inc, Danville, Vir-
ginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees either impliedly or expressly
that, in the event the Union is selected as the employees'
representative at the Danville, Virginia, terminal, Respon-
dent would shut down the Danville terminal and relocate
its operations to Martinsville, Virginia
(b) Discouraging membership in Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No 22, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other
labor organization of its employees by discharging or in
any other manner discriminating against employees with
regard to hire and tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organiza-
tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities
2 Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer Larry Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles full rein-
statement to their former jobs, discharging, if necessary,
the cards as proof of majority and issue a bargaining order under the princi-
ples enunciated in N L R B v Gissel Packing Co 395 U S 575 (1969) 1
deny the Union s request In so doing I note inter aha that nothing in the
litigation of this case by the proponents of the complaint put Respondent on
notice sufficient to permit its litigation of any questions it might wish to
raise with respect to the validity of the cards as proof of the Union s status
14 F W Woolworth Company 90 NLRB 289 (1950) Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
15 In the event that no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the find-
ings 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
SAFETY TANK LINES
any employees hired to fill such jobs, or if their jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights
(b) Make whole Larry Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason
of their discharge, in the manner set forth in the section of
this Decision entitled "The Remedy "
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its
agents, upon request, for examination and copying, all rec-
ords necessary for the determination of the amount of
backpay due and the right to employment
(d) Post at its terminal at Danville, Virginia, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix " 16 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 5, after being duly signed by Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proceedings in Case 5-
RC-9430 be and they hereby are severed, transferred, and
continued before the Board
16 In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
149
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides presented evidence, it has
been found that we have violated the National Labor Rela-
tions Act in certain respects To correct and remedy these
violations, we have been directed to take certain actions
and to post this notice
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with the closure of
the Danville, Virginia, terminal and its relocation to
Martinsville, Virginia, because of union membership
or activity
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union
No 22 affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, or in any other labor organization of our
employees, by discharging, or in any other manner
discriminating against employees with regard to hire
and tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities
WE WILL offer Larry Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles
full reinstatement to their former jobs, discharging if
necessary any employees hired to fill their jobs, or if
their jobs no longer exist,'to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights
WE WILL make Larry Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles
whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered
by reason of our discrimination against them
All of our employees are free to become and remain
members of the above-named Union or any other labor
organization or to refrain from doing so
SAFETY TANK LINES, INC