TNT Logistics North America, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 2008

353 N.L.R.B. 449 (N.L.R.B. 2008)

TNT LOGISTICS NORTH AMERICA, INC.
353 NLRB No. 41
449
TNT Logistics North America, Inc. and Emerson
Young and John Jolliff. Cases 8–CA–33664–1
and 8–CA–33810–1
October 30, 2008
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN SCHAUMBER AND MEMBER LIEBMAN
On July 24, 2006, the National Labor Relations Board
issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding, in which
it found that the Respondent did not violate Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging employees Emerson
Young, John Jolliff, and Steven Daniels for their partici-
pation in preparing and sending a letter critical of man-
agement to the primary customer of the Respondent’s
East Liberty, Ohio facility.1 Subsequently, Jolliff and
Daniels petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit for review of the Board’s decision. On
January 22, 2008, the Sixth Circuit granted the petition
for review and remanded this case to the Board “for pro-
ceedings consistent with [its] opinion.”2 On May 20,
2008, the Board notified the parties that it had decided to
accept the court’s remand and that all parties could sub-
mit statements of position with respect to the issues
raised by the remand. The Respondent, the General
Counsel, and Jolliff and Daniels (jointly) each filed a
statement of position.3
We accept the court’s remand as the law of the case.4
Consistent with that remand, we find that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging Young, Jolliff,
and Daniels for their participation in writing and sending
the letter.5

1 347 NLRB 568 (2006). Former Member Walsh, dissenting, would
have found that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by
discharging the employees. Member Liebman did not participate in
this decision.
2 513 F.3d 600, 617 (6th Cir. 2008).
3 Jolliff’s and Daniels’ request for oral argument is denied as the re-
cord and statements of position adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
4 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
5 Although Young did not join in petitioning the court for review of
the Board’s Order, the remedy resulting from this decision applies to
him as well. First, the court’s remand to the Board encompassed
Young because the court made findings regarding Young as well as
Jolliff and Daniels. Second, the complaint alleges that all three em-
ployees engaged in concerted activity and that the Respondent termi-
nated all three employees in violation of the Act, and the Board in the
underlying decision made findings regarding all three employees.
Facts
The Respondent engages in the interstate transporta-
tion of freight at its East Liberty, Ohio facility. In May
2002, a number of dock workers approached Young with
concerns about working conditions. The employees sug-
gested outlining those concerns in a letter to the Respon-
dent’s upper management. Because of Young’s previous
experience with a union, he was selected to draft the let-
ter based on grievances to be submitted to him by other
employees. Jolliff and Daniels were among the employ-
ees who provided input for the letter to Young.
On August 12, 2002, Young sent a letter to the Re-
spondent’s senior executives and to the Respondent’s
biggest customer at the facility, Honda of America. The
letter was not signed, but was sent on behalf of the “dock
workers and drivers” of East Liberty. The letter stated it
was “being sent to protest the management & managers”
and that “[w]e hope that our management at our home
office will get an idea of how we the dock workers and
truck drivers at these contracts are being treated & do
something about it.” Under a section titled, “Logbooks,”
the letter read as follows:
Some drivers are being asked to fix their logbooks to
make extra runs. These drivers are being asked by dis-
patchers and management to do these runs and either
fix their logbooks or turn their heads on it. Mr. John
Cox [the Respondent’s Safety Manager] once said he
would not go to jail for fixing logbooks for anyone.
Well Mr. Cox pack your suitcase, it has and is presently
being done at [East Liberty].
The Respondent terminated Young, Jolliff, and
Daniels on August 26, 2002, for their participation in
writing and sending the letter to Honda of America.
Board Decision
In its decision, the Board found that the letter lost the
Act’s protection because the statement accusing the Re-
spondent of asking employees to “fix” the logbooks was
maliciously false. In so finding, the Board relied on
Jolliff’s admission that management never requested
drivers to “fix their logbooks” and the absence of any
record evidence to contradict that express admission.
The Board also noted that Jolliff asserted in a safety
meeting that management should be “disciplined,” which
supported an inference that the employees intended to
effectuate the discipline through the circulation of false
and damaging accusations about management to the Re-
spondent’s largest customer. The Board concluded that
the evidence supported a finding that the “fix the log-
books” statement was made with knowledge of its falsity
or at least reckless disregard for its truth. Consequently,
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD450
the discipline of the employees for participation in the
letter did not violate the Act.
Sixth Circuit Decision on Review
Upon review, the Sixth Circuit held that substantial
evidence did not support the Board’s decision. The court
initially determined that the statement about fixing the
logbooks was sufficiently factual to be capable of carry-
ing a defamatory meaning, and that the General Counsel
had not carried his burden of proving that the statement
was true. 513 F.3d at 611–614.
Next, the court cited four facts which led it to conclude
that the Board’s finding with respect to actual malice was
erroneous and not supported by the record. First, the
administrative law judge, who, unlike the Board, actually
observed the demeanor of the witnesses, had credited
Young’s testimony that Young believed everything in his
letter to be true. Id. at 614–615. Second, the Board,
seemingly made an unwarranted inference in concluding
that because the underlying statement was false it was
made with knowledge of its falsity. In the court’s view,
while one may infer knowledge of falsity when a state-
ment is “so obviously false that any rational person mak-
ing it would have to know it is false,” the charge of log-
book fixing did not fall into that category. Id. at 615.
Third, the Board placed too much emphasis on Jolliff’s
admission that management had not told employees to
alter their logbooks. In the court’s view, even if Jolliff
was never personally asked to fix the logbooks, other
employees could have been, and the record was silent as
to the source of information Young relied upon in formu-
lating the statement. Id. at 615–616. Moreover, the
court reasoned, even if Joliff was the sole source of
Young’s information, his admission alone would not
prove malice on Young’s part because “neither Young
nor Jolliff are particularly articulate or eloquent speak-
ers.” Id. at 616. Such laymen, in the court’s view,
would not be attentive to legal precision in wording, and
may simply have been “careless” or “inartful” in describ-
ing what management requested. Id. The court con-
cluded that the record was too “thin” and incomplete for
the Board to infer malice on Young’s part from Joliff’s
concession that he had not been asked to fix logbooks.
Id. Fourth, the Board, in finding actual malice, could not
properly rely on Jollif’s statement that he thought man-
agement should be disciplined. Id. at 617.
Analysis
Because we have accepted the court’s remand as the
law of the case, the court’s findings and conclusions are
necessarily binding upon us. As the court noted, the re-
cord below was not well developed, and the court’s deci-
sion effectively eliminates from consideration virtually
all of the evidence of malice relied upon by the Board in
its earlier decision. Accordingly, we find that there is an
insufficient basis on this record to conclude that Young
either knew that the logbook-fixing statement was false
or acted in reckless disregard for the statement’s truth or
falsity.6 We therefore conclude that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging Young, Jolliff, and
Daniels for their participation in writing and sending the
letter to the Respondent’s customer, and we enter an Or-
der remedying that violation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by discharging Emerson Young, John Jolliff, and Steven
Daniels for engaging in protected concerted activity.
3. The unfair labor practice found above affects com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by
discharging Emerson Young, John Jolliff, and Steven
Daniels because they engaged in protected concerted
activity, we shall order the Respondent to offer them full
reinstatement to their former jobs, or if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and to make them whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them. Backpay shall
be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co.,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The
Respondent shall also be required to remove from its
files any and all references to the unlawful discharges of
Young, Jolliff, and Daniels and to notify them in writing
that this has been done and that the discharges will not be
used against them in any way.

6 We deny the Respondent’s request for remand to relitigate the issue
of actual malice. The court found that evidence of actual malice is
lacking, and the Respondent does not offer to adduce any additional
relevant evidence that is newly discovered and previously unavailable.
Nor does it argue that it was precluded from presenting any evidence on
this issue at the hearing.
TNT LOGISTICS NORTH AMERICA, INC. 451
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, TNT Logistics North America, Inc., East
Liberty, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
any employee for engaging in protected concerted activ-
ity.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Emerson Young, John Jolliff, and Steven Daniels, imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Emerson Young, John Jolliff, and Steven
Daniels, whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the unlawful action against them,
in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the deci-
sion.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful discharges
and, within 3 days thereafter, notify Emerson Young,
John Jolliff, and Steven Daniels, in writing that this has
been done and that the discharges will not be used
against them in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by Region 8, post at its
East Liberty, Ohio facility, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”7 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including

7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respon-
dent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during
the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since May 6, 2002.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any employee for engaging in protected con-
certed activity.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Emerson Young, John Jolliff, and Steven
Daniels immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Emerson Young, John Jolliff, and Ste-
ven Daniels whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits resulting from their discharges, less any net in-
terim earnings, plus interest.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD452
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful discharges of Emerson Young, John Jolliff, and Ste-
ven Daniels, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, no-
tify them in writing that this has been done and that the
discharges will not be used against them in any way.
TNT LOGISTICS NORTH AMERICA, INC.