Skaggs Transfer, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 662 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

662 DFCISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Skaggs Transfer , Inc. and Local No. 215 , Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America . Cases 25-CA-
3603 and 25-CA-3603-2
September 21, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS
On May 7, 1970, Trial Examiner Frederick U.
Reel issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, 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
alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal
as to those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases 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 here-
by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and beefs, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts
the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, as modified herein.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respond-
ent interrogated and threatened employees Nancy Folz
and James Palmer as to their union activity in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, that it discharged
employee Patti Mausey because of her support of
the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3), and that
it refused to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the representative of the Respondent's Evansville
office employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5).
' These findings are based, in part, upon credibility determinations
of the Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has excepted After
careful review of the record, we conclude that these credibility findings
are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence
Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing these findings Standard
Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A
3)
Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that the
Respondent by granting increased working hours to
Palmer' and pay increases' to its employees shortly
after its receipt of notice of the Union's bargaining
demand, thereby unlawfully attempted to restrain or
coerce them in the exercise of their rights to engage
in collective-bargaining activities as guaranteed by
Section 7, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Accordingly, we shall amend the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order and the Notice attached to his
Decision by inserting therein language proscribing
a repetition of such conduct. We shall further amend
the Recommended Order and Notice by inserting
similar language proscribing a repetition of threats,
found by the Trial Examiner, as to the possible closing
of the Evansville plant as a consequence of the employ-
ees' union activity.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below,
and hereby orders that the Respondent, Skaggs Trans-
fer, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modi-
fied below:
1. Add to paragraph (c) of the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order and to the fourth paragraph
of the Notice attached to his Decision the words:
"or with possible closing of the Evansville terminal
if union activities continue."
2. Reletter paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order as paragraphs (e),
(f), and (g), respectively, and insert, as paragraph
(d) therein the following:
"(d) Granting increased wages and hours of employ-
ment in order to influence employees against union
representation."
3. Insert in the Notice attached to the Trial Examin-
er's Decision, as the fifth paragraph thereof, the fol-
' Absent a satisfactory explanation, we view the increase in Palmer's
working hours to a point beyond the 40-hour workweek demanded by
him as a full-time employee as a clear attempt to influence him in
his support of the Union, rather than as a lawful attempt to correct
an inadvertent inequity in his employment, as does the Trial Examiner
' We note the Respondent's hitherto relatively dormant attitude toward
wage increases, Secretary Kettler's hasty preparation of new wage increase
schedules the day after receipt of the Union's demand, and pay increases
ordered by President Kaelm for Palmer and Folz, and the only employees
sought by the Union other than Mausey, which increases substantially
exceeded both Kettler 's recommendations and those generally received
by the employees at the other terminals
185 NLRB No. 91
SKAGGS TRANSFER, INC
lowing : "WE WILL NOT grant increased wages or
hours of employment to our employees in order to
influence them against union representation."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FREDERICK U REEL, Trial Examiner. This proceeding,
heard at Evansville, Indiana, on March 12 and 13, 1970,
pursuant to charges filed the preceding December 11 and
January 13, and a complaint issued January 29 and subse-
quently amended, presents questions as to whether Respond-
ent, herein called the Company, interfered with, restrained,
and coerced certain employees in the exercise of their
right to select a bargaining representative, unlawfully refused
to bargain with the Charging Party, herein called the Union,
which represented a majority of the employees in an
appropriate unit , and discharged one employee because
of her union membership Upon the entire record, including
my observation of the witnesses , and after due consideration
of the briefs filed by the Company and the General Counsel,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY, AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Company, a Kentucky corporation engaged in various
states as a motor freight carrier, has its principal office
in Louisville, Kentucky, but operates terminals in several
states (including one at Evansville, Indiana, the only facility
involved in this proceeding), and is admittedly an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
iI. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background-The Evansville Clerical Employees Join the
Union
Although the Company's truckdrivers are represented
for purposes of collective bargaining, none of the office
employees at its various terminals were so represented
prior to the events in this case . Late in November 1969,'
however, the three clerical employees in the Evansville
office, Nancy Folz, James Palmer, and Patti Mauzey,2
signed cards applying for membership in the Union (which
represented the Evansville Truckdrivers), and authorizing
the Union to represent them for purposes of collective
bargaining. Union Respresentative Foster, at the time he
obtained their signed cards, told these employees that he
would promptly write the Company, requesting recognition
and bargaining. He did so in a letter dated December
' Unless otherwise indicated all dates hereinafter mentioned refer to
the year 1969
' The name is misspelled "Mauzly" throughout the transcript
663
2, which the Company received in Louisville on December
4.
Of the three employees who signed cards, one, Patti
Mauzey, was a part-time employee, who had come to
work the preceding June, and, upon her return to high
school in September, had reduced her workweek to from
7 to 10 hours, arriving at 3 30 in the afternoons Her
father was employed as a truckdriver at the Company's
Evansville terminal, and was the union steward there. The
other two office employees, Folz and Palmer, worked full
time. Palmer had achieved full-time status the preceding
June when he graduated from high school. He had formerly
been employed during the school year on a part-time basis.'
Folz had been with the Company since it opened its Evans-
ville office in 1967. Until the promotion of Palmer, Folz
had been the only full-time employee in the office, but
normally had one, and sometimes two, part-time employees
to help her.
B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. The interviews and dinner on December 4
Promptly upon receiving the Union's request for recogni-
tion, Company Vice President Charles Schladand and Com-
pany Secretary Bernard Kettler drove from Louisville to
Evansville to look into the matter. Upon arriving at Evans-
ville they went to a motel and telephoned Folz and Palmer
at the Company's Evansville office, requesting them to
come to the motel to be interviewed Schladand testified
that he and Kettler used the motel rather than the office
for these interviews because the former afforded greater
privacy.'
Folz was the first to be interviewed, and Palmer followed,
but apparently the two interviews were similar in pattern
and content. In both cases, Schladand opened by saying,
"You know why we're here," and both Folz and Palmer
replied in the affirmative Folz testified that in response
to their questions, she told them her reasons for joining
the Union. Her testimony continues:
A. He asked me if I knew what I would be getting
by joining the union. What I would be giving up.
He also asked me who signed the cards for the
union. I told him all of us did.
Q. When he asked you if you knew what you were
going to give up when the union came in did he
elaborate on that?
A. He said, "You are on retirement now A plan
based on your yearly gross pay" and that I would
lose that. And sick leave I would not get paid for.
He said if it was just us it wouldn't matter, but
if we went union then all the other terminals would
go union. And if that happened they could just not
afford it. They would go in the red and would have
to shut their doors.
' After obtaining full-time employment with the Company, Palmer
apparently continued his education outside working hours, with the Compa-
ny paying his tuition
' The following account is a synthesis of the credited testimony of
the four participants Much of the testimony was contradicted.
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
What else if anything did Mr Schladand talk about?
A. Mr`°'Schladand asked us out to dinner. He said,
"I want you and Jim to go to dinner with me."
I asked him if he wanted to talk to Patti, if he
was going to talk to Patti and he said, no, there
would be no need to talk to her
But he did want for us to go out to dinner. He
did ask for me to reconsider it That I would be
giving up a good thing or something like that by
joining a union.
He wanted us to go to dinner and reconsider it
I told him I wouldn't give him an answer then.
He did not expect it but he did want me to reconsider
it and think it over. He did want us to go to dinner
with him that night with Mr. Kettler.
Palmer's interview proceeded along similar lines. Schla-
dand asked him either why he signed a union card or
whether he signed. Kettler told him of various company
benefits, and Schladand told him that they might make
stock in the Company available to employees. When Palmer
complained that he had not been receiving health and
life insurance benefits available to other full-time employees,
Kettler agreed to look into the matter, explaining that
some oversight must have occurred. Palmer also complained
that he had not been working a full 40-hour week, and
Schladand and Kettler told him to correct that by getting
at least 8 hours' work each day. In this connection Schladand
commented that "he did not understand why a full-time
employee wasn't getting his hours and we had a part-
time employee " Palmer also recalled some statement, appar-
ently by Schladand, that if the Evansville office "went
union it would most likely spread through the rest of
the Company's terminals." In this connection Palmer, while
unable to recall the exact phraseology, remembered "the
words being said that they would have to shut the terminal."
Also during the Palmer interview, either Kettler or Schla-
dand said the employees "were taking an important step
and they would like for us [the employees] to think about
it.,,
That evening Palmer and Folz were the guests of Kettler
and Schladand at dinner. The four discussed miscellaneous
office matters not related to the Union, but at the close
of the evening Schladand asked Palmer and Folz "to think
about it and let him know."
2. The antiunion efforts of Company President Kaelin
Schladand and Kettler returned to Louisville after their
dinner with Palmer and Folz, and the next morning, Decem-
ber 5, advised Company President Kaelm of what had
transpired in, Evansville. (Also on December 5, apparently
later in the' day, Kettler gave Kaehn a list of proposed
wage increases for office employees at the several terminals
including Evansville, this matter is discussed, infra.) Kaelin
telephoned to Folz in Evansville, telling her that he was
"hurt, disappointed," and asking her "not to do anything
until he got there." He explained that he was unable
to come that day (Friday) but would be there Monday
and wanted to take her to dinner. The following Monday
Kaelin came to Evansville and spoke to Folz in the office
of the salesman. Her credited testimony is as follows:
He said did I realize I had the retirement benefits.
I had been off sick several times, I had always been
paid. He said if it was just us few it wouldn't make
any difference if we joined the union, but that the
rest of them would want to go. He said, the company
just cannot operate under that because they would
have to close the doors. They can't operate
He also said that he had a few complaints about
me. That he always admired someone with spunk
and I always had my way around there but that
was going to quit, too. That was going to stop.
Q. To the best of your knowledge would you relate
to us the contents of your conversation.
A. He told me, he asked me if I had signed a
card I said, yes. He shook his head and he said
he was disappointed and shocked. And he couldn't
understand it.
Q. Is there anything else he said to you? Did he
ask for anything?
* * * * *
THE WITNESS Yes, sir, he did. He said he wanted
an answer before he left there. And he was going
to get one.
He said he knew that I would give him a direct
answer I would, I told him I would.
TRIAL EXAMINER Answer as to what?
Did he say?
THE WITNESS: Answer if I changed my mind
about joining the union, sir.
* * * * *
Q. Did you have occasion on that day to talk to
Mr. Kaelin again
A Mr Kaelin and Jim came back from lunch. He
asked me if I had my answer. If I would give him
an answer or was he going to have to wait all afternoon.
* * * * *
A I told Mr Kaelin I was going to stick to my
original convictions. I was going to stay with the
union.
Q. Did Mr. Kaelin answer that or make any com-
ment?
A. He asked Jim then and Jim said and then he
said he failed some where or we had failed some
where along the way. He did knot know where but
he felt we failed him.
He thought someone was just giving us sales goods.
TRIAL EXAMINER: What did Mr. Palmer tell
him?
THE WITNESS: Mr. Palmer told him he was going
to stay with the union.
As just noted, Company President Kaelin took Palmer
out to lunch During the lunch, Kaelin attempted to per-
suade Palmer to change his mind about supporting the
Union In the course of the conversation Kaelin let Palmer
know that Palmer's continued support of the Union would
adversely affect his chances of becoming a supervisor in
the Company.
SKAGGS TRANSFER, INC
Kaelm left Evansville that afternoon, but that evening
Palmer telephoned him in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, to advise
that Palmer was withdrawing from the Union.
3. Conclusions with respect to the interviews on
December 4 and 8
The atmosphere surrounding the interviews of December
4 and 8 reeked of coercion. Perhaps the baldest example
is the pressure applied to young Palmer, a boy barely
out of high school, embarked on his first job, and benefiting
from special favor in that the Company helped him finance
his continuing education outside working hours. This lad
was summoned to a motel, closeted there with two highly
placed company officials from the home office, subjected
to interrogation as to whether or why he joined the Union,
told that a possible consequence of union activity among
the office employees was the shutting down of the terminal,
and then-after being taken out to dinner-told that he
was "to think about it" and let the Company know his
decision. To cap the climax, 2 working days later the
company president came from the home office and took
the boy out to lunch where he subjected him to further
pressure including a very thinly veiled warning that the
boy's future chance of promotion to supervisor would be
jeopardized if he adhered to the Union at this time. The
interference with Folz' statutory rights is no less evident,
ranging from interrogation as to who had joined the Union
to threats that her continued adherence to the Union would
cost her privileges she had theretofore enjoyed and might
lead to a closing of the terminal. She too was interviewed
in a coercive setting, was entertained by company officials,
and was repeatedly pressed for an "answer" as to whether
she would abandon her support of the Union
I find that the conduct of Schladand and Kettler on
December 4 and of Kaelin on December 8 constituted
interference, restraint, and coercion violative of Section
8(a)(1)
4. The granting of benefits
As previously noted Palmer had mentioned to Schladand
and Kettler that he was not receiving 40 hours' work
each week and that he was not enjoying certain insurance
benefits to which he was entitled as a full -time employee.
These deficiencies were promptly rectified , and Palmer com-
menced to receive the hours and insurance he claimed.
General Counsel urges that in granting these benefits to
Palmer the Company was improperly attempting to affect
his support of the Union , and to influence his vote in
the event of a representation election I find no violation
in correcting such individual inequities merely because they
came to management 's attention in the course of a union
campaign, or indeed while management was committing
unfair labor practices . See Champion Pneumatic Machinery
Co., 152 NLRB 300, 304 , holding that an employer may
lawfully institute safety measures to correct working condi-
tions which a company-sponsored labor organization
665
brought to his attention shortly before a representation
election. Where an employer corrects deficiencies or errors
in a manner and to a degree no different from that he
would have employed had they been called to his attention
in the absence of union activity, the correction of the
deficiencies or errors is not an unfair labor practice See
Mock Road Super Duper, Inc., 156 NLRB 983, 994; cf.
McCormick Longmeadow Stone Co., Inc., 158 NLRB 1237,
1242.
An even closer question is presented by the wage increases
granted Palmer and Folz on December 30, 1969. As previ-
ously noted, on December 5 Kettler presented Kaelin with
a list of proposed wage increases for office employees in
the several terminals including Evansville Although in
previous years the annual yearend wage adjustments had
been in relatively modest amounts of 10 cents per hour,
on this occasion Kettler recommended more substantial
increases, ranging up to 65 cents, including 35-cent increases
for Folz and Palmer, which would have given them hourly
rates of $2 50 and $2.25, respectively He also recommended
a 40-cent increase for Mauzey ("if we keep on part-time
basis") which would have raised her to the new company
hourly minimum of $2
I credit Kettler's testimony that the raises he recommend-
ed were unrelated to the union movement and reflected
a new company policy, recommended some time before
by a management consultant firm, but not theretofore imple-
mented for reasons unrelated to questions of employee
self-organization. Indeed, considering the fact that the first
hint of union activity did not reach the Company until
December 4 and that Kettler spent a good portion of
that day in travel to and from Evansville and in interviews
there, he would scarcely have had time to work out on
December 5 the full schedule of increases for the approxi-
mately 50 office employees at 6 terminals if the matter
had not been in his mind before that date
About 2 weeks after Kettler gave the recommended
changes to Kaelin, the latter made several revisions in
the proposals, and in the course of so doing raised Palmer
and Folz 60 cents an hour each instead of the 35-cent
raise recommended by Kettler. Kaelin made other changes,
raising the wages of some employees more and others
less than Kettler recommended. The circumstances are high-
ly suspicious, for Kaelin must have been keenly aware
that he had recently barely reclaimed Palmer from the
jaws of union membership, and this substantial raise gave
Palmer 50 cents an hour more than was paid to any
other "teen-ager" in any of the Company's offices. On
the other hand, Palmer's duties were comparable to those
of other employees who received smaller raises but whose
hourly rate after the raises was the same as his.
On the whole, although the matter is not free from
doubt, I find that General Counsel did not sustain his
burden of proof with respect to the wage increases. Cf.
Kern's Bakery, Inc., 154 NLRB 1582, 1587. The matter
is somewhat academic, for in the light of the other violations
proved on this record, a broad cease-and-desist order is
warranted which would restrain any future violations of
the type here alleged, and in any event the bargaining
order hereinafter recommended would require that furture
increases be preceded by bargaining negotiations.
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The Discharge of Patti Mauzey
As noted above, in December 1969, Patti Mauzey was
employed after school hours in the Evansville office. She
had been working there since June, assisting Folz. She
was apparently one of the most capable part-time employees
that office had ever had. During the weeks after school
reopened in the fall of 1969 until her discharge on December
11, she averaged 9.7 hours per week, and her weekly
earnings averaged $15.50
As we have seen, Palmer's complaint at the December
4 interview that he had not been receiving a full 40 hours
of employment each week fell on receptive ears. In point
of fact Palmer had been averaging about 39 25 hours per
week after Mauzey returned to school, but in the month
preceding the interview he had averaged 38.75 hours per
week In any event, Schladand and Kettler told Palmer
to bring his hours up to 40 per week A few days later,
after Palmer renounced his support of the Union, the
Company discharged Mauzey. Kettler made a special trip
to Evansville for the purpose of discharging her, and
explained to her that her work was highly satisfactory
but the Company had to increase Palmer's hours and
hence had no further need for her services In the first
10 weeks of 1970, Palmer averaged 42 25 hours per week.
His overtime rate was $3 75 per hour.
The issue as to Mauzey is whether the fact of her
union membership played a significant role in the Company's
decision to discharge. The Company urges that it owed
Palmer the opportunity to work a full 40-hour week, and
that it decided to give him additional hours (to bring
him up to Folz, who normally worked some overtime)
so that it had no further need for Mauzey. The Company
further shows that the winter season is a comparatively
slack time, and that once before it released a part-time
employee from the Evansville office in December. On the
other hand General Counsel shows that the Company was
opposed to the representation of the office employees by
the Union, that it knew Mauzey was a union supporter,
that once Palmer had defected from the Union the discharge
of Mauzey would destroy the Union's majority, and that
the discharge cannot reasonably be explained on economic
grounds as Mauzey was paid the Company' s minimum
wage whereas working Palmer overtime (which he had
not requested in his complaint) cost the Company $3.75
for each overtime hour To the Company's claim that
it did not regard Mauzey as in the bargaining unit and
did not subject her to the coercive interviews, General
Counsel rejoins that she was included in the unit in the
Company's petition for an election, and that her father's
position as union steward explains why the Company con-
centrated its campaign on the other employees. On the
entire record I think it a reasonable inference that the
desire to destroy the Union's majority was a motivating
factor in the Company's decision to terminate Mauzey,
and I so find.'
In making this finding I do not rely on Folz' testimony that she told
Schladand and Kettler on December 4 how much she needed Mauzey in the
office In general I found Folz to be a reliable witness, and for the most part I
have credited her testimony where it conflicts with that of Kettler,
Schladand, or Kaelm In this one respect, however, I do not credit her
testimony
D. The Refusal To Bargain
As noted above, the Company received the Union's
request for recognition and bargaining on December 4.
On December 8, the Company replied , expressing doubt
of the Union 's majority , and advising that the Company
was initiating a representation proceeding with the Board
so that the question could be settled by a Board election
The Company did in fact file a petition for an election
which was received at the Board 's regional office early
on December 9, but that proceeding was aborted by the
instant litigation . A few days later , after the discharge
of Mauzey and the defection of Palmer, the Company
and the Union tried to reach agreement on an election
to be handled outside the Board 's processes but these negoti-
ations foundered on a disagreement as to who was eligible
to vote.
As of December 4 and 8 , the dates the Company received
and rejected the Union 's bargaining request , the Union
held valid authorization cards from all three employees
in the bargaining unit .' Under these circumstances and
in the light of the unfair labor practices in which the
Company thereafter engaged , I believe a finding of unlawful
refusal to bargain and a bargaining order are appropriate
I would have reached this result even if I had found
the discharge of Mauzey to be lawful , for the extent of
the invasion of Palmer 's statutory rights manifestly preclud-
ed a fair election . See N. L. R. B. v Gissel Packing Co.,
395 U.S. 575, 614-615.
The Company raises some question as to the inclusion
in the unit of Mauzey and Folz. Mauzey, a part-time
employee, who dunng the school year worked every working
afternoon after 3:30 p . m., and who had been steadily
employed for 6 months , was a member of the bargaining
unit . Cf Indianapolis Glove Co. v. N.L. R.B., 400 F.2d
363, 367 (C.A. 6, 1968), and the Board decisions there
cited.
As to Folz, the Company contends that she was excluded
from the unit as a supervisor . Preliminarily it may be
noted that the contention as to Folz is something of an
afterthought as the Company plainly regarded her as an
employee when it sought to dissuade her from continuing
in the Union , and included her as one of the employees
in the unit in the representation proceeding it initiated.
But aside from this, the contention lacks merit . Folz was
the most experienced employee in the office , had been
there since it opened , and until recently had been the
only full-time employee . In the light of her experience,
she was the obvious source to whom the younger employees
turned for guidance . She also expressed her views to manage-
ment on the need for additional help, and there is some
evidence that she notified part -time employees of the Compa-
ny's decision to hire or discharge them . However, she
performed no real supervisory functions and was occupied
full time with her own clerical tasks The mere fact that
she commented to higher management on the quality of
the work performed by the temporary help does not make
' The appropriate unit consists of the office clerical employees at
the Evansville terminal, excluding professional employees , guards, and
supervisors
SKAGGS TRANSFER, INC
her a supervisor See Northern Virginia Steel Corp. v
N.L.R.B., 300 F 2d 168, 171, 172 (C A. 4, 1962), and
the other cases cited in DeKalb Telephone Cooperative,
156 NLRB 1381, 1384.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interrogating and threatening employees Folz and
Palmer with respect to their union activity, the Company
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. By discharging Patti Mauzey because of her support
of the Union, the Company engaged in an unfair labor
practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
3 By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the representative of the Evansville office employees,
the Company engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
THE REMEDY
I shall recommend an order directing that the Company
cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, that it
bargain with the Union upon the latter's request, that
it offer Patti Mauzey reinstatement to her former position
with backpay computed in accordance with the formulas
set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, and
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, and that
it post appropriate notices The cease-and-desist portion
of the order should be sufficiently broad to cover any
invasion of employee rights under Section 7 of the Act,
as the character of the violations here indicates the need
for a broad order. The bargaining order is needed to remedy
the violations of Section 8(a)(1), quite apart from the other
violations found which furnish further and independent
support for it The notice will conform in all major respects
to the order, although I shall not include the "Armed
Services" provision in the notice, for reasons suggested
in B. V.D. Company, Inc., 157 NLRB 978, 982, fn. 6.
Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings and conclusions,
and upon the entire record, I recommend, pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of the following.
ORDER'
Respondent Skaggs Transfer, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees as to their union membership
or activities, or as to that of their fellow employees.
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board,
the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order
herein shall, as provided in Section 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
667
(b) Requesting any employee to advise management offi-
cials of the employee's decision to support or not to support
a union.
(c) Threatening employees with reprisals or loss of oppor-
tunities for advancement if they support a union.
(d) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees because of their union membership or activity
(e) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 215, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men, and Helpers of America, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all office clerical employees of Respondent
employed at its Evansville, Indiana, terminal, exclusive
of all professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively in good faith with
the above-named Union as the representative of the employ-
ees in the above-described unit.
(b) Offer to Patti Mauzey immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former job or, if that job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position, and make her whole,
in the manner set forth in the portion of the Trial Examiner's
Decision entitled "The Remedy," for losses suffered as
the result of her discharge in December 1969.
(c) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of her 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.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary
to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Recommended Order.
(e) Post at its office in Evansville, Indiana, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by it 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 the Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
° In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment
of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading
"Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be
changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board "
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.'
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL, at the request of Teamsters Local 215,
recognize it as the bargaining representative of our
Evansville clerical employees, and engage in bargaining
negotiations with it in a good-faith effort to arrive
at a contract covering the wages, hours, and working
conditions of those employees.
WE WILL offer to Patti Mauzey immediate and
full reinstatement to the job which she held prior
to her discharge in December 1969 or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
and WE WILL pay her for losses she suffered as
a result of that discharge.
WE WILL NOT question our employees concerning
their union membership or activity or that of fellow
employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals
or loss of opportunities for advancement if they adhere
to a union.
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee for union
membership or activity.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise of
his right to join or assist a union
Dated By
SKAGGS TRANSFER, INC
(Employer)
(Representative)
(Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 614
ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana
46204, Telephone 317-633-8921.