Schreiber Trucking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1967

166 N.L.R.B. 1046 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Robert Schreiber d/b/a Schreiber Trucking Com-
pany and/or Robert Schreiber Trucking , Inc. and
Forrest R . Drudge and Ivan Albertson. Cases
25-CA-2670 and 25-CA-2704
August 8, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
"NOTE: We will notify the above-named em-
ployees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of their right to full reinstatement,
upon application, in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from
the Armed Forces." -
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those portions of
the complaint as to which no violations have been
found are hereby dismissed.
On May 31, 1967, Trial Examiner John M. Dyer
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial
Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint and recommended dismissal
of such allegations. Thereafter, the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision and the entire record in
this case, including the exceptions, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner. I
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Robert Schreiber d/b/a
Schreiber Trucking Company and/or Robert
Schreiber Trucking, Inc., Valparaiso, Indiana, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as herein modified.
1. Delete from the second sentence of paragraph
2(d) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order the words "Copies of such notice to be
furnished . . .," and substitute in lieu thereof the
following: "Copies of said notice, on forms
provided. . . ."
2. Add the following immediately below the
signature line at the bottom of the notice attached
to the Trial Examiner's Decision:
In view of our concurrence in the Trial Examiner's finding that
Respondent's discharge of employee Albertson was a violation of Section
8(a)(1), and in his recommendation of reinstatement and backpay for Al-
bertson, we find it unnecessary to pass on the General Counsel's conten-
tion that the discharge was also a violation of Section 8(a)(3).
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN M. DYER, Trial Examiner: Robert Schreiber is
the proprietor and owner of Schreiber' Trucking Com-
pany and the principal incorporator of Robert Schreiber
Trucking, Inc.,' which companies are herein referred to
as Respondent Schreiber. Charges and amended charges
were filed by individuals Drudge and Albertson against
Respondent Schreiber in December 19662 and January
1967 alleging that they were individually discharged by
Respondent Schreiber in November in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. General Counsel's original complaint issued in
January 1967 alleging Drudge was discharged in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) and a second complaint issued in
February 1967 alleging Albertson's discharge as violative
of Section 8(a)(3), at which time the cases were ordered
consolidated. Respondent Schreiber wrote a letter in
answer to the original complaint, and at the hearing,
which was held February 28, 1967, in Valparaiso, Indi-
ana, Respondent Schreiber was permitted to answer
orally to both complaints. The receipt of the various
charges and amendments and of the complaints, that he
was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that General Drivers, Warehousemen, and Helpers
Local Union No. 142, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein referred to as the Union, was a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act,
were admitted by Respondent Schreiber, but he denied-
committing any violations of the Act. All parties were ac-
corded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine
witnesses and a brief filed by the General Counsel has
been considered.
1 A motion to amend Respondent's name as it appears in the caption
was granted at the hearing. Robert Schreiber testified that he is the sole
proprietor of Schreiber Trucking Company and that Robert Schreiber
Trucking, Inc., was incorporated in 1966, but does not exist as a going
concern since none of the business or assets of Schreiber Trucking Com-
pany have been turned over to it and it has no business or assets of its
own Further, Schreiber Trucking Company operated until February 20,
1967, when it was placed in receivership. At the :ime of the hearing
Robert Schreiber did not know whether the business would be continued
or under what name
z All dates herein occurred in 1966 unless specifically noted otherwise.
166 NLRB No. 124
SCHREIBER TRUCKING COMPANY
On the complete record in this case and on my evalua-
tion of the reliability of the witnesses based both on the
evidence received and my observation of their demeanor,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION
At all times material herein, Respondent Schreiber was
engaged as an individual proprietor in the business of in-
terstate transportation of bulk commodities by motor
vehicle, having his place of business at Hebron, Indiana,
until January 9, 1967, and thereafter at Gary, Indiana
During 1966, Respondent Schreiber derived revenues
valued in excess of $50,000 for the transportation of com-
modities in interstate commerce between different States
of the United States and admits and I find that he is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
Respondent admits and I find that the Union herein is
a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Issues
With one truck Respondent Schreiber started a busi-
ness of hauling bulk commodities in tractor and
semitrailer dump units, operating from a yard behind his
house. Harry Brown started as his mechanic and stayed
with him to become the dispatcher and Schreiber's
assistant. Through the years they added additional units
and Schreiber's father, as did other individuals, became
brokers, leasing their trucks to Schreiber and providing
drivers therefor. Most of Respondent Schreiber's busi-
ness originated in the area around Gary and Hammond,
Indiana. Since the trucks were serviced and maintained
at Schreiber's establishment at Hebron, Indiana,
Respondent Schreiber told drivers as he hired them that
their pay would start when the truck started producing
revenue, usually at Gary or Hammond, although they
were to drive the trucks to that point from Hebron. As
Robert Schreiber described it, he felt he was furnishing
the drivers a $20,000 taxicab to take them to work.
Some 5 or 6 years previous to the hearing Respondent
Schreiber signed an agreement with the Union. Schreiber
stated that on numerous occasions he said signing up with
the Union' was the best thing he had done for his Com-
pany, noting additionally that a number of the firms with
which he did business were unionized and it made things
easier for them. A new union contract signed by the
parties on August 15, 1966, retroactive to June 1, pro-
vided a new wage rate and other new terms. The contract
contained wage rates for garage employees although the
garage employees at Respondent Schreiber's shop were
not union members, and apparently were not considered
by the parties as being in the unit.
During the summer of 1966, some of the drivers ex-
pressed dissatisfaction with having to drive the trucks to
the revenue point and not being paid for at least some part
of it. An employee named Stahlbaum became a
spokesman for the employees and voiced complaints and
grievances regarding the number of hours for which em-
ployees were paid. It appears that some employees were
turning in the total hours they worked beginning and end-
1047
ing in Hebron, while some drivers knocked one-half to I
hour from such time to compensate for driving to and
from the revenue point. Respondent Schreiber in deter-
mining wages and deducting additional hours to make up
for the approximate 45-minute drive each way. Thus if an
employee was deducting one-half hour daily as his con-
tribution to driving time to and from the revenue point,
Respondent Schreiber on a 6-day week might knock off
6 hours or more for this driving time. One of the drivers
testified that on trucking jobs where Respondent
Schreiber was not making much money, additional driv-
ing time would sometimes be knocked off. The confusion
of practices led to a large measure of dissatisfaction and
a number of grievances, the source of which Schreiber
laid to employee Stahlbaum. According to Schreiber,
Stahlbaum would wait outside on payday and check the
men's pay to see how much time was "chopped" and
would then bring up grievances. During the summer of
1966 several meetings were held by Schreiber and the
employees td discuss these problems and when the
retroactive pay would be paid by Schreiber.
In September, Stahlbaum was made union steward for
Respondent Schreiber's shop and held that position until
sometime in December 1966. During that period Stahl-
baum estimates he took up 15 or 16 grievances with
Schreiber. Schreiber estimates there were many more
than that, complaining that most of his evenings were
ruined by Stahlbaum. As Stahlbaum testified, a good deal
of personal friction between Schreiber and Stahlbaum
was generated.
There is no testimony to indicate that Respondent
Schreiber had a union steward before Stahlbaum's ap-
pointment. Apparently prior to the summer of 1966,
things ran smoothly at Respondent Schreiber, with the
Union being a distant entity to which dues and health and
welfare payments were submitted and with very little if
any immediate personal contact. The rising tide of
grievances brought about bitter personal feelings between
Stahlbaum and Schreiber, with Schreiber attributing the
problems to personal vindictiveness on Stahlbaum's part,
believing Stahlbaum unable to run a business of his own,
and seeking to run Schreiber into the ground with a mul-
tiplicity of grievances in a company which employed 25
drivers. I cannot determine whether Stahlbaum sought to
police the contract with zeal, or with excessive zeal,
because of his desire to aid his fellow drivers or because
he had a grudge against Schreiber. But in either event,
Schreiber thought Stahlbaum was out to ruin him and
considered Stahlbaum as an identity somewhat apart
from the Union he had been accustomed to deal with.
There are occasions hereafter described when apparently
Schreiber considered Stahlbaum as "the union" and other
times when he considered him as an enemy out to get him
using the Union as a tool.
A copy of the uniform rules and regulations which had
been approved by the Union and the negotiating commit-
tee for the Indiana Truckers Association was followed by
Respondent Schreiber. One of the rule provisions was
that a violation of a State, Federal, or city law governing
motor vehicles when the driver was negligent, such as an
overweight or insecure load, was a penalty against a
driver, except where bulk commodities were involved. It
appears from the testimony that Respondent Schreiber
paid the overload fines where employees were caught
with overweight loads on their trucks up until the fall of
1966. At that time the State authorities began cracking
down and Schreiber posted a sign in the terminal office
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proscribing overloaded trucks. One of the employees
testified that Schreiber specifically told employees not to
overload, saying that if they did so. they would have to
pay their own fines. On occasions prior to this Schreiber
had told employees to overload their trucks on some
short runs, particularly where it was not a well -paying
job. After starting the new practice, the first employee
caught with an overload , and fined was Stahlbaum.
Schreiber paid the overload fine but deducted it from
Stahlbaum's pay. Since that time two other employees
were caught and paid their fines. General Counsel urged
that the deduction of the fine from Stahlbaum's pay
showed animus toward the Union since Stahlbaum was
the union steward. However, under the circumstances I
cannot agree with General Counsel's contention.
When Schreiber was unable to get an agreement with
Stahlbaum and the employees in regard to the payment of
traveling time on the trucks, the terminal was moved to
Gary, Indiana, on January 9, 1967, where it remained
until the business was put into receivership on February
20,1967.
The principal questions in this case are (I) were the
discharges of mechanic Albertson and driver Drudge for
cause or because they individually engaged in, or
Respondent Schreiber thought they engaged in, union or
concerted activities; and (2) whether Respondent
Schreiber engaged in threats of discharge and threats to
move the terminal and whether the terminal was moved
to Gary, Indiana, to dissuade union membership or
support and whether Respondent Schreiber informed
employees that other employees had been discharged
because they had engaged in union or concerted activities.
B Albertson 's Discharge
While attending school, Ivan Alberston started work-
ing for Respondent Schreiber at night learning to be a
mechanic . He left in 1964 and returned in May 1965 at an
increased wage of $ 2 per hour which with three inter-
mediate raises had become $ 3 an hour in October 1966.
Sometime during the summer of 1966, presumably after
the new union contract was signed, Albertson asked
Chief Mechanic Holmes about payment for hours of
work over 40 at an overtime rate Albertson had been
working as much as 70 hours per week but was being paid
straight time . Holmes' response was to shrug his shoul-
ders. Albertson stated he did not pursue the matter
further and never asked Bob Schreiber about payment of
overtime. On November 23, after he had finished work,
Holmes told him what his duties would he the next day,
and then he was called to Schreiber 's office.
Robert Schreiber testified he received a telephone call
from a person he did not want to identify , in the evening
of November 23 This person said Albertson was talking
in his community that he was going to sue Schreiber for
overtime, but was going to wait until after the holidays ap-
parently to make the suit bigger . Schreiber called Albert-
son into his office and told him about receiving the call.
Although Albertson denied the allegations. Schreiber said
he thought Albertson had no loyalty left and he did not
need him any longer and that he heard Albertson was
waiting until after the holidays to bring suit , but not to
wait till after Christmas but do it now, start on Friday
after Thanksgiving. Schreiber said Stahlbaum was push-
ing Albertson and telling him how to get the backpay and
when he got the opportunity he would fire Stahlbaum
and was looking for a reason to fire him Schreiber
testified that he thought Stahlbaum was leading Drudge
and Albertson around with their grievances and that
being the union steward he should have stayed with
the truckdrivers and not concerned himself with the
mechanics who never wanted to get into the Union
Shortly after Albertson' s discharge a union meeting
was scheduled to be held in Schreiber's office, but since
Schreiber was working there, Stahlbaum moved the meet-
ing to the garage . The men were in the garage only a short
time when Schreiber came in and told Stahlbaum that he
did not want him in the garage , that Stahlbaum had
pumped mechanic Albertson so full of bull about the
Union he did not know whether he was coming or going
and got him fired and Schreiber was not about to have it
happen again . He told the men to get back to the office
and hold the meeting but to stay out of the garage.
On the basis of Schreiber's testimony as to why and the
manner in which he discharged Albertson , I conclude and
find that Albertson was discharged because Schreiber felt
he was engaged in concerted activities with Stahlbaum to
secure overtime pay Albertson thought was due him.
Whether Stahlbaum and Schreiber were actually working
in concert is immaterial since Schreiber concluded they
were and for that reason fired Albertson. [ therefore con-
clude and find that Schreiber discharged Ivan Albertson
because Schreiber thought Albertson was engaged in con-
certed activities and that such discharge was in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act There may be some question
as to whether Schreiber thought Albertson was develop-
ing an interest in union activities but in the circumstances
here, I feel that Schreiber thought Stahlbaum was
coaching Albertson to agitate Schreiber and considered
it another example of Stahlbaum's supposed effort to get
him. The reference to Albertson's lack of loyalty and
Stahlbaum ' s leading him around convinces me that
Schreiber saw Albertson in the light of consorting with
the enemy . The later statement in the garage while in-
dicating some suspicion that Albertson was engaged in
union activity , was I believe engendered by the circum-
stance of the union meeting being held in the garage and
did not indicate Schreiber 's thought when he discharged
Albertson. Therefore I do not feel that this discharge vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) but I am recommending that Albert-
son be reinstated and reimbursed for any loss of wages he
may have suffered.
C. Drudge's Discharge
Forrest R. Drudge, a driver, started for Respondent
Schreiber at the beginning of October 1966 and worked
the first 5 days in the garage. Thereafter , during the rest
of October until November 21, Drudge drove 18 days on
various trucks including 6 days for a broker of
Schreiber ' s. Drudge was never assigned a truck of his
own. After driving for a broker from November 15
through 18, Drudge on Friday , November 18, saw
Schreiber and asked when he would be put to work per-
manently on the trucks . Schreiber said he was trying to
buy another company and had some trucks being repaired
and when they got them he would put him on steady.
Drudge says he asked Schreiber about another employee,
Cummings , who was working steady while he wasn't.
Schreiber said that he had a truck down and when he got
it repaired , would put him on it . Sometime between
November 18 and 21, Stahlbaum asked Schreiber why
Drudge was not working while Cummings , with lower
SCHREIBER TRUCKING COMPANY 1049
seniority, was. Schreiber said he didn't like Drudge, he
was no good, and that he was going to cause him a lot of
trouble with the Union and he didn't want him anymore.
On Monday, November 21, Drudge asked Schreiber
what he should do and Schreiber said that as long as he
had to pay him he could work in the garage. In the 8 to 9
hours he worked, he cut a brake drum, swept, and did
some odd jobs in the garage. Before leaving he told
Dispatcher Harry Brown he was getting ready to go home
and Brown handed him his check, saying that this was it,
he was fired. When he asked why Brown replied that
Schreiber never did like his work and it was Schreiber's
orders. On that same day, Stahlbaum learned of Drudge's
discharge and asked Schreiber about it. Schreiber said he
was going to keep Cummings but not Drudge since
everytime Drudge loaded his truck he stopped for coffee
and talked and just didn't hustle for the Company. He
concluded saying Drudge had given him union trouble
and had only been there a short time and if he was there
longer he didn't know what would happen. Stahlbaum
told Drudge he couldn't do him any good and Drudge
should go to the Union. When he reached home Drudge
called Schreiber and asked why he was fired. Schreiber
testified he told Drudge he had only been with him 30
days and already Drudge was going to the Union and he
wondered what it would be like in 6 months. Drudge
testified that Schreiber said he had to put up with another
driver named Redford but was not going to put up with
him. Drudge complained that driver Cummings had less
seniority and was still employed. Schreiber told him to
come in the next morning and they would talk to the
Union then.
On the following morning Drudge went to the union
hall and saw Business Agent Abshire about his discharge.
While conferring, Robert Schreiber called Abshire on the
telephone.-" After the telephone conversation Abshire
told Drudge to go back out there and go to work. Drudge
reported to work on November 23, and asked Schreiber
what be was to do. Schreiber told him to go wash his car.
During the day Drudge performed other odd jobs and be-
fore quitting for the day asked Brown if there was
something further he should do. Brown told the secretary
to make out Drudge's check, that he was fired. Drudge
asked why. Brown replied he was doing what Schreiber
told him to do and Drudge said they would have to pay
him for both days. Schreiber came in and told the office
girl to make out the check for one day's pay at drivers
wages and mark it paid in full. Drudge walked out saying
he would not accept a check marked paid in full.
Essentially Schreiber's testimony was that he con-
sidered Drudge a poor driver who wouldn't hustle and
consequently wasn't producing enough revenue and he
couldn't afford to keep him. Schreiber also complained
that every time Drudge took a truck out something went
wrong with it, to the point where he considered Drudge
a jinx. The biggest problem concerned damage which oc-
curred when Drudge while hauling a load of sand, and
after crossing a railroad track, had the truck springs break
and it became necessary to shovel the load of sand into
another truck and make temporary repairs until the truck
could be brought back to the garage. Schreiber testified
that Drudge must have hit the railroad tracks at an exces-
sive rate of speed in order to break either the strap hanger
or the springs. Drudge testified he crossed the tracks at
approximately 8 to 10 miles an hour which he considered
from his previous experience to be reasonable. The
damage occurred in a mill yard where the ordinary speed
was 15 miles an hour . This accident besides the damage,
tied up two trucks for most of a night . On an occasion,
which seems to have occurred later, a truckdriver told
Schreiber that Drudge was speeding and that if he wasn't
slowed down Drudge's speed might get them thrown off
the job. Schreiber warned Drudge that he was paid by the
hour and not by the number of loads carried and to slow
down. Schreiber also testified Drudge had driven a trailer
with a flat tire and that he had received a report that
Drudge had made a U-turn on a freeway . Drudge at the
hearing denied the U-turn incident and Schreiber prior to
the discharge never mentioned the report to Drudge.
Schreiber stated he considered all drivers to be ap-
prentices for 30 days since they did not have to join the
Union until the 31st day. Schreiber may have meant that
he considered the 30-day period as a probationary period,
and mixed the terms considering that there is no proba-
tionary period provided in the union contract but a rate
for apprentice drivers is set out . In any event neither of
the parties offered a definitive interpretation.
It is difficult to assess all of the matters Schreiber con-
sidered before discharging Drudge and whether some of
the reasons now advanced were discovered retrospec-
tively.4 It seems that Schreiber thought he was insulated
in discharging Drudge for any reason during the 30-day
period after he started driving. His testimony that he told
Drudge he was already running to the Union would seem
to bear this out and is again illustrative of the bad feelings
between Union Steward Stahlbaum, and Schreiber.
From Stahlbaum's testimony it would appear that prior
to the discharge Schreiber had decided that he didn't like
the way Drudge worked nor his driving ability and more
than that did not like Drudge's lack of hustle. However,
considering Schreiber's promises to Drudge on October
18 to put him on a truck steadily as soon as one was
repaired, it would appear that the discharge was ignited
by the fact that Stahlbaum talked to Schreiber concerning
Cummings working while Drudge did not. Schreiber's
main statement both to Drudge and Stahlbaum was that
Drudge had been with Respondent less than 30 days and
already was going to the Union and he couldn't conceive
of the difficulties he would have with him in 6 months.
Schreiber apparently thought that since Drudge had
driven for him less than 30 days, he was on probation and
could be fired for any reason including Drudge 's use of
the Union in airing his complaints . At the hearing
Schreiber sought to distinguish the statement from the
H Abshire told Schreiber that since Drudge had seniority over Cum-
mings , Respondent could retain both or Drudge but not Cummings over
Drudge. Respondent Schreiber had both on the payroll on November 23
and then fired both. He rehired Cummings on a new application after
Cummings told Schreiber he was in debt and had his wife in the hospital.
Cummings remained about 10 days before leaving Respondent
Schreiber's employ
4 Schreiber further sought to deprecate Drudge 's ability by introducing
a transcript of Drudge 's traffic violations . This record requested from the
State of Indiana more than 2 months after Drudge's discharge showed he
had no outstanding violations that would impair his ability to drive and
had a currently valid chauffeurs license . Schreiber also questioned
whether the period Drudge drove for a broker broke his seniority with
Respondent Schreiber Since none of these questions had been raised or
spoken of by any of the parties prior to or at the time of discharge, they did
not enter into Schreiber's decision to discharge Drudge, and I will not
consider them
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharge by saying he didn't make the remark about
running to the Union until after he had discharged
Drudge. Considering all of the circumstances, including
Drudge's undenied statements attributed to Schreiber
that Drudge would be given a permanent assignment on
a truck (November 18), the animosity between Stahl-
baum and Schreiber, Albertson's discharge, as well as
Schreiber's admitted statements in which he considered
Drudge running to Stahlbaum as running to the Union, I
conclude that the principal reason for the discharge was
Drudge's use of Stahlbaum to grieve against Respondent
Schreiber regarding seniority in assignment to a truck.
Schreiber, an individual who had built up his Company
from a very humble beginning , could not stand to see
Stahlbaum acting as the union steward , a person he
greatly disliked , seek to tell him the conditions under
which he had to employ his drivers. I find and conclude
that Forrest Drudge's discharge is in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
D. Independent Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
1. Robert Schreiber was charged with threatening his
employees with discharge and other reprisals including
moving of the facility if they did not refrain from becom-
ing or remaining members of the Union or giving
assistance or support to it. Basically this allegation is con-
cerned with Schreiber's repeated statements to em-
ployees and to Union Steward Stahlbaum in particular,
that if they could not come to some kind of agreement in
regard to traveling time between Hebron, Indiana, and
the point at which the trucks started to produce revenue,
Schreiber was going to move the terminal from Hebron to
Gary, Indiana.
On one occasion while discussing a grievance
Schreiber told Stahlbaum he was tired of him and em-
ployee Lippert running his trucking business and it was
no business of Stahlbaum's who Schreiber sent out and
who he had working in the garage, and that the two of
them were going to put his operations in the north end
(meaning in or near Gary, Indiana). Although this state-
ment could be interpreted as a threat against Stahlbaum's
general union activities, I consider it to be aimed at the
principal source of all the grievances, the traveling-time
problem. One of the employees stated that the question
of traveling time was the cause of 90 percent of the
grievances and dissension. In his original letter answer to
the complaint Schreiber stated that he did tell the drivers
that if they didn't start to make money he would find it
necessary to move the operation.
I think it is clear from the testimony of Schreiber and
Stahlbaum as corroborated by Wilkey and Lippert, that
the main difficulty between the drivers and Schreiber was
the matter of hours spent in traveling between the ter-
minal and where the job commenced and whether the em-
ployees were to donate those hours to management or be
paid for them. The employees in most cases, charged the
employer for those hours and were getting some of their
time "'chopped" by Respondent Schreiber. This problem
was aired at several meetings between the drivers and
Robert Schreiber. Schreiber testified the problem was
caused by Stahlbaum 's agitation and that at one meeting
he so told the men. He also testified without contradiction
that union officials had advised them to work out the
problem between them . Schreiber maintained he could
not economically run his business if he had to pay travel-
ing time and so informed his men , adding that if they
could not agree, he would move the terminal. The
question was not resolved by the parties and Respondent
Schreiber moved the terminal to Gary. The move was not
made for the purpose of inhibiting the employees from
becoming union members or giving assistance or support
to the Union but rather to remove the principal cause of
employee dissension which was a subject for negotiation.
Respondent Schreiber 's move is analogous to a unilateral
action after negotiation and impasse . Since agreement
was not forthcoming the removal of the source of the con-
tention appears to me to be a legitimate resolution and I
find that neither the threat nor the move violated Section
8(a)(1) and accordingly I recommend the dismissal of said
allegations.
2. The complaint further alleges that Harry Brown on
November 23, and Robert Schreiber on November 21
and 29 and on other dates in November and December
told the employees Respondent Schreiber had discharged
some of its employees because they became or remained
members of the Union or gave assistance or support to it
or because they engaged in concerted activities . Counsel
for the General Counsel stated that as to dispatcher
Harry Brown there was no evidence of an independent
violation of Section 8(a)(1), but that the allegation
referred to the discharge of Drudge and that such
discharge itself constituted a threat to other employees,
or otherwise stated , the discharge of Drudge was an in-
herent 8(a)(1) violation . From the testimony, Brown
made no statement to Drudge, or in the presence of other
employees, to indicate that Drudge ' s discharge was
caused either by Drudge engaging in union or concerted
activities . Therefore I conclude and find that the allega-
tion as to Brown should be dismissed.
Stahlbaum 's testimony regarding Schreiber 's remarks
to him on November 21, was set forth above. This re-
mark about Drudge giving him union trouble , in the con-
text of the discharge , I find is violative of Section 8(a)(1).
Schreiber 's remarks to the men in the garage about Stahl-
baum getting a man fired (see above ) presumably oc-
curred about November 29. I find that these remarks also
violated Section 8(a)(1). These two statements were first
a warning to Stahlbaum and secondly a warning to Stahl-
baum and all the employees as to what might happen if
the employees worked in concert with Stahlbaum or if
Stahlbaum continued to file and pursue numerous
grievances.
Schreiber while discharging Albertson told him Stahl-
baum was pushing him and presumably other employees
in pursuing what Stahlbaum considered their rights under
the contract and Schreiber was going to bring Stahl-
baum's activities to an abrupt halt by discharging him the
first time he found a reason to do so . I find and conclude
that this remark to Albertson was violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent as set forth in section II,
above, and therein found to constitute unfair labor prac-
tices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, oc-
curring in connection with Respondent 's business opera-
tions as set forth in section 1, above , have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
SCHREIBER TRUCKING COMPANY
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices as set forth above, I recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act as follows:
Respondent having discharged and thereafter having
refused to reinstate Ivan Albertson and Forrest Drudge
because of their concerted and union activities, I recom-
mend that Respondent offer them immediate and full rein-
statement to their former positions or if such positions are
unavailable through a change in Respondent 's operations,
to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and that
Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimina-
tion against them , by payment to them of a sum equal to
that which they would normally have received as wages
from November 21 and 23, 1966, the date of their
discharges, until the date Respondent reinstates them,
less any net earnings for the interim. Backpay is to be
computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established
by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be
computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 1 further recommend that
Respondent make available to the Board on request,
payroll and other records in order to facilitate checking of
the amount of backpay due and the rights of Ivan Albert-
son and Forrest Drudge.
Respondent has also interfered with employees ' rights
by informing employees that it had discharged other em-
ployees for engaging in union activities or engaging in
concerted activities. It is therefore recommended that
Respondent be ordered not to infringe upon the rights
guaranteed its employees by violating the Act in the same
or in any similar manner.
On the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire
record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Robert Schreiber d/b/a Schreiber Trucking Com-
pany and/or Robert Schreiber Trucking, Inc., is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily discharging Ivan Albertson on
November 23, and Forrest Drudge on November 21 and
23, 1966, and thereafter refusing to reinstate them
because of their union sentiments, membership, and ac-
tivities and because they engaged in concerted activities,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tions 8(a)(3) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. By informing employees that other employees had
been discharged because they engaged in union or con-
certed activities Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
5 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice. In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
RECOMMENDED ORDER
1051
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case
considered as a whole, I hereby recommend that
Respondent Robert Schreiber d/b/a Schreiber Trucking
Company and/or Robert Schreiber Trucking, Inc., of
Hebron and Gary, Indiana, its respective officers, agents,
successors, or assigns and/or its receiver, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in and activities on be-
half of General Drivers, Warehousemen, and Helpers
Local Union No. 142, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, or any other labor organization by discrimina-
torily discharging and not reemploying its employees.
(b) Discouraging its employees from engaging in con-
certed activities for their mutual benefit and protection in
violation of Section 7 of the Act by discriminatorily
discharging and not reemploying its employees.
(c) Informing its employees that it had discharged
some of its employees because they engaged in union ac-
tivities and/or concerted activities.
(d) In any like or similar manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of
their rights to self-organization , to form labor organiza-
tions, and to join and assist General Drivers,
Warehousemen, and Helpers Union Local No. 142, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing
and to engage in concerted activities for purposes of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Ivan Albertson and Forrest Drudge im-
mediate reinstatement in accordance with the recommen-
dations set forth in that part of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Make Ivan Albertson and Forrest Drudge whole
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of
Respondent 's discrimination against them in accordance
with the recommendations set forth in that part of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and the
rights of Ivan Albertson and Forrest Drudge under the
terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its Hebron and Gary, Indiana, terminals
and shop, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 5 Copies of such notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for Region 25, Indianapolis, Indiana,
after being signed by a responsible agent of Respondent,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately following
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in
writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.6
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations not
specifically found herein be dismissed.
6 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director,
in wnting, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
Following a trial in which the Company, the Union and
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board participated and offered their evidence, a Trial Ex-
aminer of the Board has found that we violated the law
and has ordered us to post this Notice and to abide by
what we say in this Notice.
WE WILL NOT try to discourage you from becom-
ing or remaining members of General Drivers,
Warehousemen, and Helpers Union Local No. 142,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, by
unlawfully discharging any of our employees or by
telling our employees that we have discharged other
employees because they assisted the Union or en-
gaged in concerted activities.
WE WILL offer Ivan Albertson and Forrest
Drudge their former jobs with all their rights and any
backpay due.
All our employees are free to become or remain union
members.
ROBERT SCHREIBER D/B/A
SCHREIBER TRUCKING
AND/OR ROBERT SCHREIBER
TRUCKING, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 614 ISTA
Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana
46204, Telephone 63 3-8921.