Upland Freight Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 165 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

UPLAND FREIGHT LINES, INC. 165
Upland Freight Lines , Inc. and Lloyd Rosenogle and
Fred L . Dressler and Jerrv Hall and John Green
and General Truckdrivers , Warehousemen & Help-
ers Union Local 467, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America . Cases 31-CA-3593, 31-CA-3609,
31-CA-3666. 3l-CA-3667. and 31-CA-3787
February 21, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JFNKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PFNIa 10
On October 12, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Stanley Gilbert issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. "Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel each filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Upland Freight
Lines. inc., Fontana, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STANLEY GILBERT , Administrative Law Judge: Based
upon a charge filed in Case 3l -CA-3593 by Lloyd
Rosenogle on February 20, 1973; a charge filed in Case
31-CA-3609 by Fred Dressler on February 28, 1973: a
charge filed in Case 31-CA-3666 by Jerry Hall on March
28, 1973; and a charge filed in Case 31-CA-3787 by
i John Green filed a charge on March 28, 1973, as amended on June 4,
1973, in Case 31-CA-3667. However, during the course of the hearing said
amended charge was withdrawn and the allegations in the complaint
relating to Green were stricken , particularly par 7(b) and the inclusion of
his name in par 6 (a). The allegation in par 13 of the complaint of a
violation of Sec 8(a)(4) relates to the allegations with respect to Green and
should have been stricken along with the other allegations with respect to
him Therefore , it is hereby stricken
2 By motion of the General Counsel, the second part of par. 9(a) of the
complaint , commencing with the words "and ceased deducting . " was
General Truckdrivers. Warehousemen & Helpers Union
Local 467, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, hereinafter
referred to as the Union, on June 4, 1973, the consolidated
complaint was issued on July 3, 1973.1 Said complaint, as
amended, alleges that Upland Freight Lines, Inc., herein
referred to as Respondent or the Company, violated
Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act.2 Respondent, by its
answer, denies that it committed the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.•i
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in San Bernardi-
no, California, on July 24, 25, 30, and 31, 1973, before me,
duly designated as Administrative Law Judge. Appear-
ances were entered on behalf of General Counsel and
Respondent. A brief was received from the General
Counsel on September 4, 1973. By letter dated August 31,
1973, counsel for Respondent stated that it had decided
not to file a brief.
Upon the entire record`' in this proceeding and my
observation of witnesses as they testified, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FAC1
I. BUSINLSS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a California corporation with its principal
place of business in Fontana, California, where it is
engaged in the business of hauling freight. In the course
and conduct of its business operations dunng the year
preceding the issuance of the complaint herein, Respon-
dent performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for
firms located within the State of California, each of which
firms annually produces, sells, and ships goods valued in
excess of $50,000 directly to customers outside the State of
California.
As is admitted by Respondent, it is now, and at all times
material herein has been, an employer engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. I HE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
As is admitted by Respondent, the Union is now, and at
all times material herein has been, a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Lloyd Rosenogle
on February 12, 1973, Fred Dressler on March 10, 1973,
and Dale Malensek on May 23, 1973. Respondent , during
the course of the hearing, contended that it did not
dismissed during the course of the hearing
Although Respondent denied the allegations in par 5 of the complaint
with respect to Don Wellner, particularly that he was an agent and
supervisor of Respondent , dunng the course of the hearing, by stipulation,
Respondent admitted his supervisory status
' General Counsel filed an unopposed motion to correct the transcript
which is hereby granted. the changes in the transcript are set forth in
"Appendix B" attached hereto [omitted from publication ], together with
two corrections made by me
209 NLRB No. 36
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharge Rosenogle but that he voluntarily quit his
employment. Respondent admitted that it discharged
Dressler and Malensek on the dates indicated. Respon-
dent, however, contended that the above-mentioned
terminations of employment were not violative of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The complaint further alleges
that Respondent engaged in many violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, including a more stringent enforcement
of its warning notice system," changing the payday for its
employees, assigning a new truck to Rosenogle, and a
considerable number of acts of interrogation, threats, and
promises of benefit by Gerald (Jerry) Wilson, president of
Respondent, and Wellner, its dispatcher.
A. Background Information
Respondent is a trucking firm with about 21 truckdri-
vers. Commencing in December 1972, the Union conduct-
ed an organizational drive among said employees. On
January 3, 1973, the Union filed a petition with the Board
in Case 31-RC-2316, seeking to represent Respondent's
truckdriver employees. Pursuant to a stipulation for
certification upon consent election approved February 5,
1973, a Board-conducted election was held on February
16, 1973, in which the vote was 11 in favor of the Union
and 9 against , with I challenged ballot. Objections to the
election were timely filed by Respondent and on April 30
the Regional Director issued a report on objections,
recommending that they be overruled. On May 18, 1973,
the Board issued its Decision and Certification certifying
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining represent-
ative of the Respondent's truckdriver employees.
B. Resolution of the Issues of Fact
Because of the many incidents to which the witnesses
testified and because of the interrelation of said incidents,
it appears that an understanding of the facts and the
resolution of the issues raised thereby can best be
accomplished by setting forth the incidents in as near to
chronological order as possible and by making the
concluding findings after the entire exposition of the
findings of fact.
It should be noted at the outset that Wilson testified that
he had talked about the Union with all of the employees
except Rosenogle. His pertinent testimony with respect
thereto is as follows:
A. Well, I asked the employee what they were
really wanting. Did they really want to put the
company out of business with demands of $6.00 and
something an hour . And I would tell them that the
company couldn't afford that.
And on occasion I have asked an employee if we had
a strike and half the boys wanted to work would they
cross a picket line.
* * * * *
Q. You mentioned a $6.00 figure . Where did you
get that figure , Mr. Wilson?
5 Also alleged to be '.iolative of Sec 8(a)(3)
A. These were figures that various drivers had
come up with. They had mentioned that the union had
mentioned it to them. And I had asked several drivers
why did they want to put me out of business.
*
Q. Now, in your opinion what if any impact would
$6.00 an hour have on the company?
A. It would put us out of business within 90 days
or less.
Q At any times during January and February did
you question employees as to whether or not they were
for the union?
A.
Q.
Yes.
And did any employees tell you they were?
A. Yes.
Q. Of the 20 or so employees with whom you
discussed the union how many told you they would on
various occasions?
A Well, what they told me and what we had were
different. I had about 18 in my favor and on election
day I lost by one vote. So what I was told wasn't
necessarily the truth.
It should also be noted that Wilson did not deny much of
the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses as to his
conduct. With respect to said testimony which is set forth
hereinbelow, it should be understood that, unless otherwise
indicated , it was uncontradicted.
On or about January 4, 1973. according to Rosenogle's
testimony. Wilson asked him into his office and told him
that he had heard that the union movement was on again,
to which Rosenogle replied that he hadn't heard about it.
Wilson then said that if the Union came in he was going to
have to close the gates and the employees would all be
without a job. Also, according to Rosenogle's testimony,
Wilson in the course of their conversation asked him how
he was going to vote in the election, to which he replied
that he would vote with the majority. Wilson then said that
he would have to take that as a yes answer , to which
Rosenogle replied, "Okay, Mr. Wilson, if that is the way
you want it. Then I will definitely vote yes." As above
stated, Wilson testified that he talked to all the employees
about the Union. He further testified, however, that he did
not talk to Rosenogle. His explanation of why he made an
exception in Rosenogle 's case is not convincing and,
therefore, Rosenogle's above-summarized testimony is
credited
On the same day, January 4. 1973, according to
Rosenogle's credited testimony, he had a conversation with
Wellner in which Wellner asked him if Wilson had talked
to him that day. When Rosenogle stated that he had,
Wellner asked him what he had told Wilson. Rosenogle
stated that he had told Wilson that he would vote for the
Union, to which Wellner replied, "then you are going to be
without a job."
On January 5, 1973, according to the credited testimony
of employee Jerry Hall, Wellner asked him what he
thought about the "union thing." When Hall stated that he
did not want to talk about it, Wellner persisted in asking
UPLAND FREIGHT LINES, INC.
him what he thought about the Union. Hall then said that
Wellner knew what he thought of the Union and Wellner
replied "Well Jerry [Wilson] is making other plans."
Also on January 5, Respondent ordered a classified
advertisement to be published in a San Bernardino
newspaper which appeared for 14 consecutive days starting
on January 6. The advertisement was as follows:
DUE to driver problems: long established trucking
firm is selling 25 late model Diesel tractors with a sub
haul-lease agreement for 5 yrs. All equipment to be
sold by Feb. 1 Contact G. R. Wilson, (714) 987-3025,
(714) 822-2035 days, (714) 987-5233, eves.
On January 6, according to Hall's credited testimony, he
saw the above advertisement. He also testified that on that
day he had a conversation with Wilson. His credited
testimony with respect thereto is as follows:
Mr. Wilson came up to me and said you don't have
to worry about a job. I am selling all but four trucks. I
am going to sub-haulers with the rest of my business.
And then he asked me what I thought of the union.
I told him I didn't have anything to do with it and I
didn't want to talk about it. And he said would you
vote against the union to help the company succeed
and I just shrugged it off. 1 didn't say no more.
On January 7, according to Hall's testimony, he had
another conversation with Wilson. His credited testimony
with respect thereto is as follows:
I went to the yard to wash my truck and Mr. Wilson
was there and he asked me if I would come into the
office and talk to him. So I went into the office and
talked to him. He said well, what do you think of this
union deal and I said Jerry, just like I told you
yesterday. I didn't have nothing to do with it and didn't
want to talk about it.
And he said he was selling the trucks, what did I
think of this. And I said Jerry, they are your trucks.
And then he came up with this that we had an
agreement last year whenever this union deal came up,
that we had an agreement that it wouldn't come up
anymore unless I informed him that it was coming up.
And I said Jerry. I didn't sign anything. And he said
yes, but we had a verbal agreement. I said, Jerry, I still
didn't sign anything. He said if I have to I will spend
$10,000 to put the ones in jail that brought this union
deal up.
And I just shrugged and didn't think no more of it.
And then he asked me if I would vote yes to help the
company succeed again.
*
He said I was supposed to be the spokesman for this
thing, this union thing , that I was supposed to be the
spokesman for it . And that every employee who came
here was under the same agreement that I was. That
they were supposed to know the union wasn't to or
wasn 't supposed to be brought up again.
167
And I just shrugged it off. I didn't want to talk about
it anymore.
He said he could afford $4.00 an hour for the
persons, $4.00 an hour wages and thirty-five cents
benefits for the persons who had been there a year or
longer.
THE WITNESS: He said this union deal would put
Rosenogle out of his new home and put Les Little and
his family-they just started a new family and that it
would put them in jeopardy because there would be no
more work there.
Hall further credibly testified that Wilson also asked him if
he had signed a card, ostensibly a union authorization
card, to which he replied that he had.
On January 8, according to Hall's credited testimony,
Wellner asked Hall if he had gone to the "meeting"
(ostensibly referring to a meeting the employees had with
the union representatives on the previous day), to which
Hall replied that he had. Wellner then asked him if he had
changed his mind and Hall said that he had not. When
Wellner asked him how he would vote, Hall told him that
he did not want to talk about it. When Wellner persisted in
questioning him as to his vote, Hall replied, "Well, if Mr.
Wilson calls my home any more when I am not there, it
would change my mind."
On January 8, according to the credited testimony of
Terry Lawrence, when Wilson interviewed him for employ-
ment, Wilson stated that if the Union came in he would
have to close his Company.
Also on January 8, according to Rosenogle's credited
testimony, Wilson gave him three warning slips, the first
dated December 27, 1972, the second January 3, 1973, and
the third dated January 8, 1973. It appears from Roseno-
gle's credited testimony that he had not been previously
given any warning slips, although he had engaged in
conduct warranting issuance of such slips twice in 1972
and he had been disciplined by a 30-day suspension in
May 1972 for one of those incidents. It is noted, however,
that, according to the record, the Respondent did not start
using warning slips until July 1972.
On January 9, 1973, according to Rosenogle's credited
testimony, he was assigned a newer truck than the one he
had previously operated. Wilson told him that the new
truck was his (Wilson's) idea and maybe this would help to
influence his (Rosenogle's) decision, ostensibly with
respect to how he would vote in the union election.
On or about January 9. 1973, according to the credited
testimony of employee Alfred Ward, Wilson asked him
how he was going to vote, to which Ward replied that he
did not know yet. Wilson then stated that if the Union did
come in he could not afford to keep the yard open and stay
in business.
On or about January 10, 1973, according to Dressler's
credited testimony, he had two conversations with Wilson.
In the first conversation, Wilson asked him what he knew
about the Union and which way he would vote. Dressler
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
informed him that he would vote for the Union. It appears
that at the time Wilson was making a tally of which way
the drivers would vote. He indicated to Dressler that he
would list him as voting for the Union, to which Dressler
said "okay." It further appears that Wilson told Dressler
that the Company could not afford the Union and would
go broke, that he would have to close the gates, and that all
the drivers would be without jobs. It further appears that
Wilson asked him if he and his father wanted to buy a
truck and Dressler said he couldn't afford to do so. In the
second conversation, it appears that Wilson asked Dressler
again if he wanted to buy a truck and stated that he had
received $25,000 in down payments on trucks he had
already sold. Again, Wilson told him that he "just can't
stand up under it," referring to the "union deal," that if the
Union were successful all the drivers would be out of work
and "we'll have to shut the gates."
On or about January 12, according to the credited
testimony of Rosenogle's wife, she had a conversation with
Wellner as follows:
Well, I was going down to pick my husband up from
work and I asked Mr. Wellner if Lloyd was there and if
he was ready to come home. Mr. Wellner did not
answer me. He asked me if I knew how my husband
was going to vote in the union election and I told him
no, I didn't.
And he said that if the union got in-he said, do you
know that if the union gets in there will be no jobs for
anybody. And I said that I would tell Lloyd what he
had told me.
Let's see. He asked me why Lloyd was doing this to
him and I told him Lloyd wasn't doing anything to
him. And he said that he held Lloyd's decision to vote
for the union personal and I asked him why and he said
because he ran this yard and I told him that he did not
run the yard, that Jerry did.
He asked me what Lloyd had against Jerry and I told
him the company hadn't held up to the promises they
made to the men. And he said you know, if it wasn't for
me Lloyd wouldn't be working here right now and he
said if I had my way I would fire Lloyd now and that
Lloyd was making $0.75 an hour more than he should
have been.
She further testified on cross-examination that Wellner
said that "if it weren't for the Union" he would fire him
that day.
On January 13, according to Hall's credited testimony,
Wilson asked him "who started this union thing" and he
replied that he did not know.
On January 16, Respondent posted a notice to all drivers
which they were required to sign and did. The notice stated
that "failure to comply with the following rules and
regulations from this day forward, January 16, 1973, will
result in the issuance of red slips; any driver receiving three
(3) red slips will be fired." Then followed a number of
rules, a few of which were new Although other notices
containing rules had previously been posted, none stated
anything with respect to punishment for the violation
thereof. The so-called red slips had been issued by
Respondent since July 1972 bearing the inscription that
"anyone receiving (3) three warning slips will be subject to
dismissal." It is noted at this point, however, that,
according to the credited testimony of Dressler, on
February 21, 1973, he was given a "pink slip" (apparently
the alternative term for the warning notice) and, when he
asked Wellner why he was being given the warning notice,
Wellner said to him "because you guys wanted to go to the
Union and be legal and everything else . . . the Company
was going to be the same way."
Shortly before January 19, 1973, according to the
credited testimony of Dressler, when he and employee
Jerry Jones walked into the office, Wilson said "here comes
the instigators" and referred to them as "captain" and
"colonel."
On or about the same time, according to Dressler's
credited testimony, when he passed Wilson and two
employees with whom Wilson was talking, Wilson stated,
apparently referring to Dressler, "I am just going to keep
agitating him and try to get him to swing at me so I can
hurt him."
On January 19, according to Dressler's credited testimo-
ny, he went into the office to ask the secretary if his
paycheck was ready and, when she said that it was not, he
flung some papers into a basket and uttered "a bad word."
Later when Dressler returned to the office, Wellner gave
him a warning notice for using abusive language in the
office, racing his engine, and running his truck at excessive
speeds in the yard and suspended him for 10 working days.
Dressler then complained to Wilson about the suspension
and refused to sign the warning notice. Wilson then issued
a second warning notice for his failure to sign the first
warning notice and for making threats against Wellner.
General Counsel does not contend that either of the
warning notices was not justified by Dressler's conduct but
that Respondent followed a pattern of using warning
notices more frequently and for transgressions which
previously had only evoked oral reprimands. Dressler
credibly testified to two instances prior to January 1973
when he engaged in conduct which, it appears, would have
justified the issuance of warning notices to him, but for
which he was not given warning notices.
On January 20, Rosenogle's wife had a conversation with
Wilson at Respondent's plant. According to the credited
testimony of Mrs. Rosenogle, Wilson asked her how her
husband was going to vote in the election, to which she
replied that she did not know, he asked her what she
thought about the election, to which she replied she did not
have any thought because she did not work for Respon-
dent; he then said "he would hate to see so many people
lose so much" and that "if the Union came in he would
have to close the gates", and he asked her if she would help
her husband decide how to vote in the election, if she
"would influence his vote."
In the latter part of January, Wilson had two conversa-
tions with employee William Foil. According to the
credited testimony of Foil, in the first conversation Wilson
asked him how he was going to vote in the forthcoming
election; and in the second conversation, approximately a
UPLAND FREIGHT LINES, INC. 169
week later, Wilson stated to him that "if the Union came in
he would have to shut the Company down, that he
wouldn't be able to continue operating any more"; Wilson
again asked him how he was going to vote; and he further
stated that if it were not for the deadbeats employed at the
Company there would be no problem with the Union.
In the beginning of February, Wilson had a conversation
with employee Alfred Ward. Ward's credited testimony as
to their conversation is as follows:
Well, Mr. Wilson asked me if I had been at the
Union Meeting and I told him yes. He asked me what I
thought of it and I told him I didn't think very much of
it. And he said well, that is the way most of your union
meetings will go.
And he asked me again if I was going to vote or how
I was going to vote and I told him I still had to think
about it and he said well, you ought to be a man and
stand on your own two feet and do what you think is
right.
And I told him okay and that was the end of that
conversation.
In the second week of February, Wilson had another
conversation with Foil. Foil's credited testimony as to this
conversation is as follows:
He asked me if I had changed my mind on the way I
was going to vote and he also was telling me that he
wouldn't be able to continue operating if the union
would come in. They would have to shut the doors and
everybody would be out of a job.
And he was also saying that he could give the
employees a 25 cent increase at that time because of
something with Kaiser. Kaiser was supposed to come
up with some kind of money that he would be able to
increase the wages.
In the second week of February, Jerry Hall overheard a
conversation between Wilson and Wellner in the office
next to the one in which he was present. According to his
credited testimony, he overheard Wilson tell Wellner that
"if he had to he would follow every driver here who put the
union in and get enough on them to fire them if the union
got in." It is not clear that Wilson was aware that he could
be overheard by Hall. Consequently, this above-credited
testimony will not be relied upon to support a finding of a
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. However, it will be
considered in appraising the extent of the antiunion
attitude of Wilson.
On February 10, Rosenogle saw that he was scheduled to
work on Monday, February 12, and he told Wellner that
he needed time off to finish moving to a new house.
Wellner made no comment, so Rosenogle reported for
work at 7 a.m. on February 12 as scheduled and worked
until approximately 6 p.m. At that time Rosenogle told
Wellner that he was going to go home in order to finish
moving. Wellner told him that he was "sick and tired" of
his attitude, that everyone else was in the same barrel.
Rosenogle then went to park his truck and Wellner came
up to him and asked him for the keys to the truck.
Rosenogle asked what he was going to do with it and
Wellner replied that he was going to use the truck. Also,
Rosenogle testified that, when Wellner asked for the keys,
he told him that "it would be a long time before he called
me back to work." It is not clear whether Wellner
categorically denied Rosenogle's testimony, but it is noted
that Wilson testified that Wellner stated to him that he told
Rosenogle that "it would be a long time before he ever
would come back to work." The above-summarized
testimony of Rosenogle is credited. Rosenogle did not
report for work the remainder of the week but did go to the
plant on February 16, the day of the election , to vote.
When he attempted to vote, his vote was challenged by
Respondent's observer on the ground that he had been
terminated. On February 19, Rosenogle returned to the
yard and asked Wellner whether he was going to be put
back to work and Wellner told him that he was not unless
he wanted to make an application for employment as a
new employee. Rosenogle refused to make such an
application. According to Respondent's witnesses, several
attempts were made to reach Rosenogle by telephone on
Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, February 13, 14, and
15, but no one answered the telephone. When Wellner told
Wilson of this, Wilson said to him "we would assume he
quit." Wilson further testified that on February 12 or 13 he
consulted the Respondent's labor consultant who suggest-
ed that he not invite an unfair labor practice by
discharging Rosenogle, but that, if Rosenogle did not show
up for work, to try to reach him by telephone and then at
the election have the Respondent's observer challenge
Rosenogle's vote because he "did not come to work." It
appears there exists considerable antagonism between
Rosenogle on the one hand, and Wilson and Wellner on
the other.
On February 15, according to the credited testimony of
Hall, he had a conversation with Wilson, who asked him
how he was going to vote in the union election to be held
the next day, to which Hall replied that he did not want to
talk about it, and Wilson then said that he didn't think he
had his vote anyway.
Also on February 15, according to the credited testimony
of Terry Lawrence, he had a conversation with Wilson in
which Wilson asked him who he "thought was going to
vote which way," to which he replied that he did not know;
Wilson asked him who the instigators were and he told
Wilson who he thought they were, one of whom he
mentioned was Rosenogle; Wilson replied that Rosenogle
would not be able to vote for the Union because he had
quit; and Wilson also asked Lawrence how he was going to
vote, to which Lawrence replied that he was going to vote
against the Union.
On February 16, the day of the election, according to the
credited testimony of Dressler, just before he voted in the
election, Wilson said to him ". . just remember we can't,
you know, keep the company if the Union is in. . . ."
Also on February 16, according to the testimony of Hall,
he had a conversation with Wilson. Hall's credited
testimony as to said conversation is as follows:
He came up and got on the side of my truck and said
how did you vote and I said I voted for myself and he
said he thought he was going to lose then because there
had been a bunch of drivers who had lied to him.
170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
And I said Jerry, I never did lie to you. I never told
you how I was going to vote. And he said he knew this
and he wasn ' t going to forget it . He said you had better
start looking for another job because you won't be
employed here too much longer.
On February 19, according to the credited testimony of
Dressler, he had a conversation with Wilson in the course
of which Wilson asked him whether he would cross the
picket line if the Union were voted in, to which Dressler
replied that he would not . Also, according to Dressier's
credited testimony , he had another conversation with
Wilson later that day in which Wilson told him that he was
going to sell Respondent 's trucks and would offer them to
certain of the employees.
On February 19, Wilson had a conversation with Ward.
Ward 's credited testimony as to said conversation is as
follows:
Well, I just came in from Los Angeles and Mr.
Wilson came out and stepped up on the side of my
truck and he said , well, Al, it is too bad you voted
against us. And I said well , do you remember the other
day when we had our talk and he said yes.
And I said well, you told me I should stand on my
own two feet and do what I think is right and I said
that is what I did. And he said well , I go and fight a war
for guys like you so you will have a free country to live
in and then you turn around and try to stab me in the
back like this.
He said how would you like for someone to come
into your house with a gun and try to make you do
something you don't want to and I said, well, I
wouldn't like it. And he said well , that is just what you
guys are trying to do to me.
He said I go and fight in the war and watch my
friends get shot and everything and then you guys turn
around and do this to me . So I told Mr. Wilson. I said
my brother was in Viet Nam twice and you are no
better than he is and with that he got off the side of my
truck.
Also on February 19, according to the credited testimony
of Ward , he had a second conversation with Wilson. His
credited testimony as to said conversation is as follows:
A. He told me that when I first answered the
phone, he asked me what the drivers wanted out of this
and I told him that we wanted better wages and better
working conditions out where we were working and not
so many hours as we were working.
Just mostly pertaining to the working conditions that
we had. So he went on and told me he had ordered 50
new trailers and he had called Fruehauf Trailer
Company to cancel the order on them and they would
only let him cancel the order on 25 because they
already had the other 25 made up.
And that he would have to go ahead and take those.
And that if he signed a union contract that he would
have to finance through the bank so he could keep his
credit rating upstanding.
Q. Do you recall anything further in that conversa-
tion?
A. That is what I am just trying to think about.
Yes. He told me that the way things were right now that
he could pay us $4.00 an hour plus insurance benefits,
better insurance.
And then he asked me if I would go and talk to some
of the other drivers and try to persuade them to not go
for this union contract... .
On or about February 21 or 22 , Wilson had another
conversation with Ward , according to the credited testimo-
ny of Ward, in which Wilson asked him if he had talked to
some of the drivers, to which Ward responded that he had;
Wilson then asked him what they had said, to which Ward
replied that they had said that "he should have thought of
that six months before"; Wilson asked him whom he had
talked to and Ward said that he had talked to employees
Dressler, Hall, and Durrer, to which Wilson responded
that they were probably part of the rabble rousers.6
On or about February 23, Foil had a conversation with
Wilson. Foil's credited testimony as to said conversation is
as follows: "He asked me if it came down to a strike would
I have any qualms about crossing a picket line and I told
him I wouldn ' t do it."
In the latter part of February, according to the credited
testimony of Hall , he had a conversation with Wellner in
the course of which Wellner asked him what kind of a deal
would it take to keep the Union out, to which he replied
that Wellner was not supposed to ask him such a question;
Wellner then said that Wilson would like to get together
with the men to keep the Union out and wanted them to
sign a contract ; and Hall replied that he wouldn 't go for
any of that "Yandale stuff" to which Wellner responded
that he would not either.?
On February 23, Dressler was, in effect , suspended for 30
days and , on March 10 , he was discharged . Dressler,
Wilson , and Wellner testified to the material events which
occurred during this period . Following are the findings of
fact with respect to said suspension and discharge based
upon credited portions of the testimony of the above-
mentioned witnesses.
On February 23, when Dressler returned about 4 p.m.
from a run to Los Angeles , Wellner told him that he
wanted him to make three more runs to Los Angeles.
Dressler complained that he could not do it, that he was
too tired , to which Wellner responded "well, you won't
work Monday then ." When Dressler asked him why,
Wellner said , "Because you will be fired ." Dressler was
then told to get his belongings out of his truck and when he
returned to the office he asked Wellner if the reason for
firing him is because he refused to work overtime , to which
Wellner replied that it was.
On February 26, Dressler reported to the Respondent's
yard to get his paycheck and was told by Wellner that he
and Wilson had talked it over and they were going to
suspend him for 30 working days instead of firing him.
6 In the transcript the phrase is incorrectly set forth as "rebel rousers."
7 Yandale is a labor consultant who was then employed by Respondent.
UPLAND FREIGHT LINES, INC. 171
Wellner had informed Wilson of his action with respect to
Dressler and Wilson consulted Yandale, the aforemen-
tioned labor consultant . Yandale advised him that, if
Dressler were fired, there would be a possibility of an
unfair labor practice charge and they decided that it was
better to suspend Dressler for 30 days. During the last
week in February, Dressler telephoned Wellner several
times. In the first conversation, he asked Wellner why he
was "doing this to me" and told Wellner that he was
"going to screw the wrong guy at the wrong time one of
these days," at which point Wellner terminated the
conversation . In the second conversation , Dressler repeat-
ed this statement and Wellner invited him to come to the
yard at any time he wanted to "have at it" and again
abruptly terminated the conversation. In the third tele-
phone conversation, Dressler asked Wellner if he could
come back to work and Wellner told him to call Wilson,
that it was not up to him to decide. Shortly thereafter,
Dressler called Wilson's home and spoke to Wilson's wife
who informed him that Wilson was out of town. Approxi-
mately a week later, he called Wilson's home again and
again was informed that Wilson was not at home. The
third time that he called he reached Wilson and asked him
about his job and Wilson told him to come to the yard to
discuss it. On March 10, Dressler spoke to Wilson at the
yard and asked if he was going to be returned to work and
Wilson said that he would not be because he had made
threats to Wellner and the Company. It appears that the
threat he made to Wellner was the statement about going
to "screw the wrong guy at the wrong time" and there was
nothing in the record to indicate what threat he made "to
the company." Dressler asked Wilson whether he could
return to work if he would drop the charges which he had
filed with the Board on February 28 (with respect to his
suspension), to which Wilson made no answer.
The General Counsel does not contend that the 30 days'
suspension was discriminatorily motivated but does con-
tend that the discharge on March 10 was so motivated. It is
Respondent 's contention that neither of said actions was
discriminatorily motivated. It should be noted at this point
that it appears from the record that Dressler has a
belligerent personality and that there is considerable
antagonism between Dressler, on the one hand, and
Wilson and Wellner, on the other.
On May 23, employee Dale Malensek was discharged by
Respondent, which action General Counsel contends was
discriminatorily motivated. Following are findings of fact
relevant to Respondent's conduct toward Malensek.
On February 15, Malensek was interviewed by Wellner
for a job as a truckdriver and, when Malensek asked him if
it would be a steady job, Wellner said it would be, but if
the Union is "voted in" at the election to be held the
following day the Respondent would not be able to use
him. It does not appear that any explanation was given him
why, in that event, he could not be used. Malensek was put
to work on that day, February 15, but was not scheduled to
work the following day. On February 16, Malensek
telephoned Wellner and was informed that it did not seem
they were going to be using him. However, during the first
week in April, Malensek talked to Wellner and Wilson and
was put to work. About the middle of April, according to
the credited testimony of Malensek, he had a conversation
with Wilson, who asked him if he knew that the "Union is
coming" and Malensek said he had heard that it was.
Wilson then asked Malensek what the other drivers had
said, ostensibly about the Union, to which Malensek
replied that he did not know. Wilson then asked him which
way he would stand, to which Malensek replied that if the
Union comes in he would go with it and, if it doesn't, he
would not. At that point Wilson asked him whether or not,
if there were a picket line , he would cross it, to which
Malensek answered that he did not know, that he would
not want to get his face "bashed in."
On or about the end of April, Wilson asked Malensek
whether he had made a decision on crossing the picket line,
to which Malensek replied that he did not know, that he
would have to see what happened.
Malensek, Wilson , Wellner, and George Beattie, a
mechanic working for Respondent , testified to events
leading up to the discharge of Malensek on May 23.
Following are findings of fact based upon credited
portions of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses.
About the second week of April, Wilson asked Beattie in
what condition Malensek kept his truck, to which Beattie
replied "like a pigpen." It appears , however , that thereafter
Malensek kept his truck in as good condition as did the
other drivers. Early in May, Wellner told Malensek that he
was getting a raise of 25 cents per hour , since he had
completed 30 days of employment.
On May 23, after Malensek had completed a run in his
truck, he went into the office where he was informed by the
secretary to turn in his keys, that he was fired. Malensek
asked her why, to which she replied that she did not know.
Shortly thereafter, Malensek asked Wellner what he had
done wrong, to which Wellner replied that he did not
know, that he was probably putting his own job "on the
line" by refusing to sign a warning notice to Malensek for
abuse of equipment.8
Malensek then went into Wilson 's office with the
unsigned pink slip. Following is Malensek 's testimony with
respect to his interview with Wilson:
A. Well, I walked in there and he goes yes, what is
wrong. What seems to be your problem. And I said that
is what I would like to know. And I sat down and I was
holding one pink slip and he showed me two more and
one was for reckless driving and the other was for
wasting time in the yard.
Q. What did he say about each of those pink slips?
A. First of all he said abuse of the equipment or I
asked him about it and he said that our yard mechanic
said that I was the worst or had the worst kept truck in
the yard. That I never clean it. I never wax it. And that
it is just filthy all the time. It is in the worst shape of all
the trucks in the yard.
And I argued about that with him . I said I would like
to talk to the mechanic about that and he said, no,
never mind. Just forget about it . So then he went on to
8 It appears that Wellner refused because he had not observed
Malensek's misconduct.
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the other one and he said I have outside people wh.)
said you drive like a maniac on the road.
And I told him that I honestly didn't think it was
true, because I hadn't gone over 60 miles per hour in
that rig yet.
Q. Was he specific as to whom he had heard that
from?
A. No. Just from outside people. And then on the
third one he said that I was wasting time in the yard.
And you can check my charts and everything. I don't
waste time in the yard.
And then he was getting kind of irate and he said
about your friend, Jerry Hall, he goes I am going to
push this thing all the way and if I can't get him legally
I am going to get him on the outside and don't you
think I don't have enough influence to do it.
And I said well, that is none of my business, you
know. And he said, well, that's okay. And he said this.
Why do you want to work here if this is such a bad
place to work. And I said well, I like this place to work.
I do my job. I never refused any overtime. I have
driven every Saturday I have worked here.
And he said well, what are you working here for and
I said because I am paying off my bills and I am getting
ahead of them. I said look, I have to pay my bills and
he said well, I am looking for men who will work for
me. And then he paused for a couple of minutes and
turned to me and said would you cross a picket line for
me if we got picketed? And I said I don't know. Again,
I wouldn't want to get my face bashed in.
And he said well, it takes guts to make a decision
and I said, well, look I don't know how many decisions
I have made but I have made a lot of them. I wait until
the time is right and then I make them. And I haven't
gone wrong too many times.
So he kept asking me again, well, all I want to know
is would you cross a picket line. And I said look, Jerry,
I really don't know. And he said oh, you are a sly one
and that was it.
Malensek's above-quoted testimony is credited except for
the findings set forth hereinbelow.
Wilson denied that he said anything about crossing the
picket line on the occasion of Malensek's termination, but
admitted that he had asked him that question on an earlier
occasion. This denial is credited. Wilson further testified
that he was standing in the yard when he observed
Malensek coming into the yard from the run which he had
dust completed and that he entered at an excessive speed.
Beattie, who was called as a witness by Gener^1 Counsel,
corroborated Wilson's testimony as to the speed with
which Malensek had entered the yard, and his testimony is
credited that he told Wilson that ii it were his truck he
"wouldn't put up with the guy." Beattie also credibly
testified that he had never observed any other of
Respondent's drivers coming into the yard as "recklessly"
as Malensek had on that occasion. Malensek admitted on
cross-examination that Wilson spoke to him during the
course of their conversation about his discharge about the
reckless manner in which he had entered the yard shortly
prior thereto. It appears that with respect to the warning
notices for "wasting time" and failing to keep his truck
clean, Wilson had a reasonable basis for believing that
Malensek had engaged in such conduct.
C Concluding Findings
1. The violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
The record clearly discloses that the Respondent
engaged in a systematic interrogation of employees as to
how they were going to vote in the union election Not only
is there considerable credited testimony demonstrating
this, but, also, Wilson admitted that he engaged in such
conduct. Based upon credited testimony, it is also found
that Respondent engaged in unlawful interrogation of
employees as to their union activities, the activities of their
fellow employees, how they had voted in the election and
whether they would cross a picket line in the event of a
strike. There is no showing that any of the interrogation
was for a legitimate purpose and, except for one or two
instances, there was no assurance given to employees
questioned that there would be no reprisals taken against
them. Therefore, it is concluded that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in widespread
unlawful interrogation of its employees as to their
protected activities. Engineered Steel Products, Inc., 188
NLRB 298, Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591,
593-594; Johnnie's Poultry Company, 146 NLRB 770, 775;
Ramona's Mexican Food Products, Inc., 203 NLRB No.
102; Dayton Motels, Inc. -d/b/a Holiday Inn of Dayton, 192
NLRB 674, 677.
It is clear from the credited testimony that Respondent
engaged in widespread threats of economic reprisals
against employees for engaging in union activity and for
their selection of the Union as their bargaining representa-
tive, particularly threats to employees that they would be
without jobs and that the Company would close down.
Also, publishing an advertisement to sell trucks "due to
driver trouble" and offering of trucks for sale to some of
the drivers constituted further threats of loss of jobs. While
Wilson did testify that he mentioned that he could not
afford $6-an-hour wages in talking to the employees, it
appears from the record that the statements implying
inevitable loss of jobs because of the Union were not
merely expressions of opinion. Cf B. F. Goodrich Footwear
Company, 201 NLRB 353, and Birdsall Construction
Company, 198 NLRB No. 20. Rather it appears that the
statements made by Respondent of the loss of jobs and
closing of the plant and the advertisement of sale of trucks
were intended as threats of economic reprisals should the
employees select the Union as their bargaining representa-
tive DeLuca Bros Inc., 201 NLRB 327; Alamo Express,
Inc. and Alamo Cartage Company, 170 NLRB 315, 317.
Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
granting and promising benefits in order to dissuade
employees from their adherence to the Union. N.L.R.B. v.
Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409-410 (1964). Based
upon credited testimony, it appears that Respondent gave
Rosenogle a newer truck with the intent of persuading him
to disassociate himself from the Union. It also appears
from credited testimony that Respondent implied that it
would be willing to pay employees a higher rate of wages
UPLAND FREIGHT LINES, INC. 173
per hour and give them better insurance benefits if they
would defect from the Union.
2. Violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
Based upon the credited testimony, it is found that while
Respondent did have a system of issuing wntten warning
notices to employees prior to the advent of the Union, it
commenced a greater use of the warning notices system
after the Respondent became aware of the union activity.
That this was done in reprisal for said activity is
particularly disclosed by the credited testimony of Dres-
sler, who was told when he asked why he received a wntten
warning notice "because you guys wanted to go to the
Union and be legal and everything else ... the company is
going to be the same way." This conclusion is further
substantiated by credited testimony that Wilson was
overheard saying to Wellner that if the Union came in he
would follow every driver who put the Union in and get
enough to fire them. Consequently, it is concluded that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
expanding its implementation of its written warning notice
system in reprisal for the employees' union activities.
As to the termination of Rosenogle, it is found that it
was motivated by Rosenogle's adherence to the Union. It
appears that management bore considerable antagonism
toward him and that it did not arise until its discovery of
his support of the Union. He was threatened with loss of
his job because of his support of the Union and three
warning notices were issued to him on January 8 for
conduct which dated back as far as December 27, 1972.
There was an attempt to influence him against the Union
by giving him a newer truck and also an attempt to
influence him through his wife. His refusal to work
overtime on February 10 might very well have deserved
disciplinary action, and, in effect, Wellner informed
Rosenogle that he was suspended by his statement to
Rosenogle that it would be a long time before he was called
back to work. It is found that Respondent resorted to a
pretext to rid itself of Rosenogle by its claim that it
assumed he quit because on the following 3 days he failed
to report or answer his telephone, notwithstanding the fact
that he had been indefinitely suspended. Therefore, it is
concluded that Rosenogle did not, as contended by
Respondent, quit his employment, but was discharged, in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, on February
16 when his vote was challenged on the ground that his
employment was "terminated."9
As to the termination of Dressler, it is found that his
discharge on March 10 was discriminatorily motivated.
The record demonstrates that management was considera-
bly antagonistic toward Dressler. It appears that while
some of the antagonism was evoked by Dressler's belliger-
ent personality, it also appears that said antagonism was
largely caused by Dressler's support of the Union. Wilson
referred to him as one of the principal instigators of the
Union. While the record clearly demonstrates that Wilson
was antagonistic toward employees who he knew support-
ed the Union, it is found that he was particularly
antagonistic toward Dressler in view of his statement that
he was going to keep agitating Dressler so that Dressler
would swing at him and that he could then hurt Dressler. It
is further found that his antagonism toward Dressler was
further intensified when Dressler filed a charge with the
Board on February 28 over his 30-day suspension. While it
is quite likely that Wilson was annoyed by Dressler's phone
calls to Wellner and to his (Wilson' s home) during
Dressler's suspension, it is found that Respondent's
reliance on said annoyance and his ambiguous threat to
Wellner was merely a pretext for ridding itself of Dressler
because of his support of the Union. Consequently, it is
concluded that Dressler's discharge on March 10 is
violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
As to Malensek's discharge on May 23, 1973. it is
determined that the General Counsel has failed to prove by
a preponderance of the evidence that it was unlawfully
motivated. There is no basis for finding that Respondent
believed or suspected that he was a supporter of the Union.
He was not qualified to vote in the election and was not an
employee during the organizational drive. While it is true
that he was interrogated as to whether or not he would
cross the picket line, as were many of the other employees,
his answer that he did not want to get his face "bashed in"
by crossing the picket line could not have reasonably
indicated to Respondent that he was a supporter of the
Union, but only, at the most, that Respondent could not
count on him to cross the picket line if a strike were called.
It appears that Respondent's complaints against his job
performance were not unfounded and that his discharge
was provoked by his reckless driving into the yard just
before his discharge. General Counsel's witness who
observed Malensek's reckless entry into the yard (as did
Wilson) credibly testified that he told Wilson that if
Malensek were driving his truck he would not put up with
him. Also, said witness credibly testified that he had never
seen another of Respondent's drivers enter the yard as
recklessly. Consequently, it appears that Respondent had
reasonable, lawful cause for discharging Malensek. and his
statement of reluctance to cross a picket line, at the most,
casts only a slight suspicion on Respondent's motive for
Malensek's discharge.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent set forth in
section III, above, occurring in connection with its
operations set forth in section I, above, have a close.
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered
to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor
practices found herein and take certain affirmative action,
as provided in the recommended Order below, designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Lloyd Rosenogle and Fred
9 It would appear that he was on suspension prior thereto
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dressler were discriminatorily discharged, it will be
recommended that Respondent be ordered to offer them
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or, if
their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges. It will be further recommended that
Respondent be ordered to reimburse them for any loss of
pay they may have suffered as a result of their discrimina-
tory discharges in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth'
Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-293, together with 6-percent
interest thereon in accordance with Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
unlawfully interrogating employees with respect to their
protected activities, by threats of economic reprisals
against employees for engaging in union activity and for
selection of the Union as their bargaining representative
and by granting and promising benefits in order to
dissuade employees from their adherence to the Union.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by expanding the implementation of its written
warning notice system in reprisal for employees' union
activities.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by its discharge of Lloyd Rosenogle on February 16,
1973, and Fred Dressler on March 10, 1973.
6. General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponder-
ance of the evidence that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint, by
its discharge of Dale Malensek.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER to
Respondent, Upland Freight Lines, Inc., Fontana,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully interrogating employees with respect to
their protected activities.
(b) Threatening employees with economic reprisals for
their activities on behalf of General Truckdrivers, Ware-
housemen & Helpers Union Local 467, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, or for the selection of said Union
as their collective-bargaining representative.
(c) Granting or promising benefits to employees to
persuade them to abandon their support of said Union.
(d) Discouraging membership in the aforesaid Union by
discriminating against its employees in regard to hire or
tenure of employment or any other term or condition of
employment.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights under Section 7
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Lloyd Rosenogle and Fred Dressler
immediate and full reinstatement to their formerjobs, or, if
their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges.
(b) Make Rosenogle and Dressler whole for any loss of
pay suffered by them by reason of their discriminatory
discharges in the manner set forth in the section hereina-
bove entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Upon request, make available to the Board or its
agents for examination and copying all payroll and other
records containing information concerning its backpay
obligation under this recommended Order.
(d) Post at its place of business in Fontana, California,
copies of the notice attached hereto and marked "Appen-
dix A." I I Copies of said notice on forms to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 31, after being duly
signed by an authorized representative of Respondent,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for a period of at least 60
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations in the
complaint that Dale Malensek was unlawfully discharged
be, and they are hereby, dismissed.
1O In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
II 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 read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT unlawfully interrogate employees with
respect to their protected activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with economic
reprisals for their activities on behalf of General
Truckdrivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Union Local
UPLAND FREIGHT LINES, INC.
467, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or for
the selection of said Union as their collective -bargain-
ing representative.
WE WILL NOT grant or promise benefits to employees
to persuade them to abandon their support of said
Union.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the afore-
said Union by discriminating against employees in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
other term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOI in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of rights
under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Lloyd Rosenogle and Fred
Dressier immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs , oi, if their jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions . without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL make Rosenogle and Dressier whole for
175
any loss of pay suffered by them by reason of their
discriminatory discharges.
Dated By
UPLAND FREIGHT LINES,
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 compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board 's Office , Federal Building, Room 12100, 11000
Wilshire Boulevard , Los Angeles , California 90024,
Telephone 213-824-7357.