Young's Motor Freight Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 2, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1430 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of BESS F. YOUNG, D/B/A YOUNG'S MOTOR FREIGHT
LINES and LOCAL UNION No. 968, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMER-
ICA, AFL
Case No. 39-CA-9L-Decided November 0, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 16, 1950, Trial Examiner Lee J. Best issued his Intermedi-
ate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended dis-
missal of these allegations. Thereafter the Union and the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Murdock and Styles].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the
exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in.the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the additions and modifications noted below.
1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent,
through its dock foreman, interrogated employees Hudson and Weis-
ner concerning their union activities and thereby violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.'
I The Trial Examiner refused to find that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act by its terminal manager ' s questioning of Williamson as to whether he had
belonged to a union during his former employment . Because of the absence of any excep-
tion we shall not disturb this ruling . See, however, Jos. N. Fournier, Rome Lincoln-
Mercury Corp ., 86 NLRB 397; and Linde Air Products Company, 86 NLRB 1333.
91 NLRB No. 226.
1430
YOUNG'S MOTOR FREIGHT LINES 1431
2. We also find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the evidence does
not support the allegation that the discharge of employees Hudson,
Hitchens, Baldwin, Carter, and Weisner was violative of the Act.
The Respondent's plan to discharge these employees because they were
objectionable to some of Respondent's customers clearly antedated the
commencement of the dischargees' union activity.' It is true, as the
Union contends in its exceptions, that at the time this plan was formu-
lated the Respondent may have had reason to anticipate that the
Union would eventually approach its employees in the course of an
organizing campaign. The evidence supporting the inference, how-
ever, does not suffice to show that the Respondent's decision to replace
the Negro drivers with white employees who, presumably, would also
be open to union solicitation, was motivated by antiunion reasons.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Bess F. Young, d/b/a
Young's Motor Freight Lines, Beaumont and Houston, Texas, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union activities,
affiliation, or sympathies, in any manner whatsoever;
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, or to join or assist Local Union No.
968, International Brotherhod of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, AFL, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or
all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be af-
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the purposes of the.Act :
2 However, we do not rely upon the Trial Examiner 's implication that these employees
were impelled to join the Union by advance information , surreptitiously obtained, con-
cerning their discharges.
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Post at its Beaumont and Houston, Texas, terminals, copies of
the notice attached hereto marked Appendix A.3 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth
Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent's representative,
be posted and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Necessary action shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material ;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of service of this Order, what
action has been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, disc
missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminated in re-
gard to the hire and tenure of employment of Hosey Hudson, Ray
Hitchens, Vernon L. Baldwin, Robert Lee Carter, and M. C. Weisner
because of their membership and activities in behalf of Local Union
No. 968 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, AFL, in violation of Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act as amended.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act, 1947, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
interest, sympathy, affiliation, or activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form labor orga.uizations, to join or assist
LOCAL UNION No. 968, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of
such activities, except to the extent that such right may be af-
IIn the event this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted in the notice, before the words , "A Decision and Order ," the words,
"A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
YOUNG'S MOTOR FREIGHT LINES 1433
fected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized by Section 8 (a)
(3), of the Act.
YOUNG'S MOTOR FREIGHT LINES,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By -------------------------------
(Representative ) ' (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Evert P, Rhea, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the General Counsel.
Messrs. Charles S. Pipkin and Alto V. Watson, of Beaumont, Tex., for the
Respondent.
Mr. Al Schulman, of Dixie & Ryan, Houston, Tex., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed on September 21, 1949, by Local Union No. 968, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL, herein called the Union, a complaint was issued on March 24, 1950, by the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board' through the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region at Fort Worth, Texas. The complaint alleges
that Bess F. Young, doing business as Young's Motor Freight Lines, herein called
the Respondent, has engaged in and is now engaging in certain unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the Labor Management
Relations Act, 1947, herein referred to as the Act. Copies of the charge, the
complaint, and a notice of the hearing were duly served upon the Respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the charge sets forth that the
Respondent:
On September 20, 1949, by its officers, agents and employees, terminated
the employment of Hosey Hudson, Ray Hitchens, Vernon L. Baldwin, Robert
Lee Carter, and M. C. Weisner, truck drivers, because of their membership
and activities in behalf of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 968, a
labor organization, and at all times since such date it has refused and does
now refuse to employ the above-named employees.
By the acts set forth in the paragraph above, and by other. acts and conduct,
it by .its officers, agents and employees, interfered with, restrained and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
The Respondent filed an answer and amended answer admitting that on or
about September 20, 1949, it discharged Hosey Hudson, Ray Hitchens, Vernon L.
Baldwin, Robert Lee Carter, and M. C. Weisner, while employed at its Houston
terminal (not Beaumont), but alleges that said discharges were effected for
cause by reason of customer complaints and the consequent adoption of a com-
1 Herein respectively designated as the General Counsel and the Board.
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pany policy to replace all colored employees at Houston with white employees.
Respondent denies that these employees were discharged because of their mem-
bership and activities in behalf of the Union or that any unfair labor practices in
violation, of the Act resulted therefrom. It denies that the action taken by the
Respondent has any substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States or tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was conducted at Beaumont, Texas, from April
18 to 21, 1950, and concluded at Houston, Texas, on April 22, 1950, before the
undersigned Trial Examiner, duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. A
motion by counsel for Respondent to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was denied.
Motion to dismiss the complaint when the General Counsel rested his case was
also denied. All parties were represented by counsel, participated in the hear-
ing, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the issues involved herein.
At the hearing, and without prejudice to its right to contest the charge of
unfair labor practices herein, the Respondent tendered unconditional reinstate-
ment of Hosey Hudson, Vernon L. Baldwin, and Robert L. Carter, which was
accepted by those three employees. Reinstatement was not tendered to Ray
Hitchens and M. C. Weisner.
Oral argument was waived by all parties. Briefs filed pursuant to leave
granted have been given due consideration.
Having observed the witnesses, evaluated all of the testimony,_ documentary
evidence, and exhibits, the undersigned Trial Examiner hereinafter submits his
findings, conclusions, and recommendations based upon all of the evidence and
the entire record in the case.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Young's Motor Freight Lines is an individual business owned solely by Bess F.
Young with its principal office located in Beaumont, Texas. Including prior
ownership and operation by the husband of Bess F. Young, the Company has been
in existence and engaged in the business of a motor freight common carrier for
approximately 21 years. At present the Company operates under Railroad Com-
mission Permit No. 2926 and Motor Freight Interstate Commerce Commission
Permit No. 14847. It maintains a terminal at Beaumont, Texas, and a branch
terminal at Houston, Texas ; and is engaged in the transportation of freight in
and between those two cities.
During the year 1949 beginning January 1 and ending December 31, 1949; the
Company's gross dollar volume of revenue was $123,758. Of this total revenue,
25 percent was received from shipments either into or out of States other than the
State of Texas. During the same period of time the total expenditures of the
Company were $121,051, of which 10 percent was in interstate commerce. The
average number of employees employed by the Company during this period was
25. The Company purchased oil and gasoline from the Shell Oil Company, Pure
Oil Company, Humble Oil and Refinery Company, and Magnolia Petroleum
Company.
The Trial Examiner finds that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
YOUNG'S MOTOR FREIGHT LINES 1435
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 968, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Historical background
In August 1947, the Respondent employed Charles M. Bickford, an expert in
the motor transportation industry, as. general manager, who continued in her
employment in that capacity until December 1949. He handled claims, solicita-
tion of business, legal matters, insurance, personnel, and all other affairs of the
entire system with full authority including the right to hire and fire employees.
During the year 1949, Bess F. Young became ill and participated in the business
to a limited extent. She suffered an attack of pneumonia in January 1949 and
again in August 1949, during which time she lost her voice for a part of the time.
Consequently, the operation of the Company was conducted solely by the general
manager, except that she maintained contact with him insofar as possible in an
advisory capacity. Mr. Bickford was in complete control of her business affairs
throughout the year 1949. Prior to 1949, the Respondent employed Negro truck
drivers and helpers exclusively, both at the Beaumont and Houston terminals.
The Respondent has always operated on an open-shop basis, and prior to the
unfair labor practices alleged herein had never dealt with labor organizations
or engaged in collective bargaining. For the past 9 years, Respondent's terminal
at Houston, Texas, has been operated by Roy Johnson (a white man) in the
capacity of terminal manager, and the unfair labor practices herein are concerned
only with personnel employed at and working out of that place.
L. S. (Skeet) Newbury was first briefly employed by the Respondent in Jan,
uary 1948, and then moved to a farm for a period of about 8 months on account
of his health. He was reinstated by the Respondent as a solicitor about August
1948, and became dock foreman at the Houston terminal approximately 2 months
later. To him as dock foreman, the general manager (Bickford) delegated the
duties of checker, dispatcher, transportation supervisor, maintenance supervisor
for the trucks, and complete authority over the men as to their duties. Mr.
Bickford reserved final authority to hire and fire, but Newbury was authorized
to effectively recommend the hiring and firing of employees.
The Trial Examiner finds that L. S. (Skeet) Newbury was a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.
B. Evidence pertinent to the labor dispute
1. Events prior to September 20, 1949
Several witnesses for the Respondent credibly testified that during the latter
part of 1.948 and during the year 1949 an increasing number of claims and
complaints were received from patrons and customers of Young's Motor Freight
Lines, which were attributable to Negro truck drivers and helpers, primarily
concerned with the unsatisfactory handling of freight, pilferage, and impertinence.
Omitting for the sake of brevity a discussion of their, justification, some of the
complaints were received from McKesson-Robbins Drug Co., Ford Motor Company,
Quiet-Air Corporation, Texas Solvents, Henry F. Parrish, Peaslee-Gaulbert Com-
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pang, Taystee Baking Company, and others. In the early part of 1949 the general
manager made a special trip to Houston to personally investigate the complaint
of Taystee Baking Company and held a meeting of all drivers and helpers to
remonstrate with them concerning the situation. Thereafter, this customer
discontinued its patronage of the Respondent's Motor Lines. Dave Pitman, a
Negro truck driver, was involved in the complaints of Taystee Baking Company
and McKesson-Robbins Drug Company. In midsummer of 1949 another Negro
driver (Ray Hitchens) became involved in a complaint from Ford Motor Company.
Consequentially, both of these truck drivers were fired, but Ray Hitchens was re-
employed a short time thereafter. Complaint was received also during the sum-
mer of 1949 from Gulf Coast Fabricating Company concerning Hosey Hudson for
careless conduct. M. C. Weisner and Robert Lee Carter were the subject of com-
plaints from Peaslee-Gaulbert Company. There were other complaints concern-
ing the Negro truck drivers and helpers in general without mentioning them
specifically by name. Dave Pitman and Ray Hitchens were replaced with white
drivers about July 1949.
In the interest of creating a better relationship with customers and patrons
the general manager and his dock foreman at Houston in July 1949, or earlier,
discussed the possibility of replacing all Negro employees with white men. These
discussions continued over a period of weeks by telephone and in person. The
higher salaries demanded by white men was a deterring factor in reaching any
definite decision in the matter. Finally on September 2, 1949, Respondent's
general manager wrote and dispatched in due course the following letter to the
terminal manager at Houston, including a copy for L. S. (Skeet) Newbury,
the dock foreman :
YOUNG'S MOTOR FREIGHT LINES
General Offices
P. O. Box 3089
Beaumoht, Texas
SEPTEMBER 2, 1949.
Mr. Roy Johnson, Terminal Manager
Young's Motor Freight Lines
0002 Harvey Wilson Drive
Houston, Texas
DEAR Roy:
In the past few weeks, I have encountered several complaints from the
shippers and receivers of Freight in Houston due to the fact that the ma-
jority of our drivers are colored, and it is my thought that we should replace
all of our colored employees in Houston with White men.
It is highly probable that this will work a hardship on your operations
at first until you can find competent drivers to replace them, but from the
complaints that I have received, I feel that it is to our benefit to replace all
these men.
It is my suggestion that you do not replace them one at a time because it
will cause a feeling of unrest and dissatisfaction among those that remain.
I would start immediately contacting competent white men, and as soon as
you can employ enough to replace your five colored men, discharge them
all at once.
YOUNG'S MOTOR FREIGHT LINES 1437
It will take considerable time to replace our Beaumont men if we decide
to do so, Beaumont being a much smaller town and our employees having
had, in most cases , many years of service.
Please advise when you are ready, and I will send final salary checks
to cover.
Yours very truly,
YOUNG'S MOTOR FREIGHT LINES,
/s/ Chas M. Bickford,
CHAS. M. BICKFORD , Gen. Mgr.
cc : L. S . Newbury.
There is no evidence that the Respondent or her agents had any knowledge
of union activity among her employees at the time the aforesaid letter was
written, dispatched , and received by the addressees . - The evidence does not indi-
cate that interest on the part of any of her employees in joining the Union was
overt at that time. As late as September 17, 1949, the general manager inquired
by telephone whether necessary replacements had been obtained to make the
discharges effective.
2. Testimony for the charging union
Witnesses offered by the General Counsel credibly testified that the five Negro
employees , alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged , became interested
in joining the Union during the early part 'of September 1949. The exact date
is not shown by the testimony . At that time Ray Hitchens visited the union
office in Houston , Texas, seeking information and indicated that some of the
Negro employees were interested in joining the Union . Thereupon , an appoint-
ment was arranged to confer with the union organizer on Saturday , September
17, 1949. The meeting was held in an open lot at the rear of a barber shop and
cafe in the general vicinity of Respondent 's terminal at Houston . The meeting
was observed by two or more employees of the Alamo Express Company occupy-
ing dock positions , which were adjacent to and a part of Respondent 's terminal.
At this meeting the five Negroes signed application cards for membership and
designated the Union as their representative for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining. Shortly after 6 p. m. on the following Tuesday, September 20, 1949,
Respondent 's dock foreman , L. S. (Skeet ) Newbury, called the group of five
Negro employees , Hosey Hudson , Ray Hitchens , Vernon L. Baldwin, Robert
Lee Carter , and M. C. Weisner , into the office of the terminal manager, and in
his presence discharged them all. No other persons were present.
Hosey Hudson testified that prior to September 20, 1949, neither the Respond-
ent nor any of her representatives had ever mentioned to him the subject of
labor organizations in any manner whatsoever . On that date in a conversation
near the water fountain on the dock about noon , L. S. (Skeet) Newbury asked him
"what was the meeting about ." The reply was, "Nothing , Mr. Newbury , we just
joined the union. " He said, "That is all." At the time of the discharges that
evening Mr . Newbury said , "Boys, I am going to fire all of you." That is all
he remembered . Mr. Johnson was present , but said nothing.
Vernon L. Baldwin testified that during the summer of 1949, Mr . Newbury
in a conversation on the dock said, "Boys , you will be jumped from time .to
time by the union, but you are not forced to join." At the time of the dis-
charges on September 20, 1949, Mr . Skeet Newbury said, "I want to call you boys
in here to let you know that the reason you are all here, the meeting you all
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had the other day, you are no longer with Young's. We are going to turn the
job from colored to'white." Mr. Johnson was present. That was all that was
said.
Ray Hitchens testified that at the time of the discharges on September 20, 1949,
Mr. Newbury said, "This is to let you all know that you won't be employed by
Young's Motor Freight any longer. The Company has decided to turn the job
around. Instead of hiring all colored, they are going to hire all white men."
Mr. Johnson was present, but did not say anything.
Milton C. Weisner testified that on September 20, 1949, he called in by tele-
phone and during the conversation Mr. Newbury said, "I want to talk with you.
I didn't know you would do me like that." I said, "Do you like what." Then
he said, "Who started the union meeting the other day?" I said, "I don't know
sir. Who told you a union meeting." He said, "I got a way of finding out.
That is all right. Call me back." In' the office at the time of the discharge
Mr. Newbury said, "I want to let you all know that you boys is not with the
Company no longer. We have turned off all colored and taken on all white
from Young." Mr. Johnson was present, but did not say anything.
3. Rebuttal testimony for Respondent
L. S. (Skeet) Newbury, dock foreman for the Respondent at Houston, speci-
fically denied engaging in any conversation at any time with Hosey Hudson,
Vernon L. Baldwin, Ray Hitchens, or Milton C. Weisner in which the Union
was mentioned or that any inquiry or interrogation was made concerning union
activities. He denied any knowledge whatsoever of the meeting on September
17, 1949, and also stated that it was entirely immaterial whether his em-
ployees were members of the Union. In discharging the five Negro workers
on September 20, 1949, he followed instructions from his general manager to
replace all Negroes with white men and gave them no other reason for their
discharge. He had hired sufficient white drivers to take over operations prior
to the discharges.
Roy Johnson, terminal manager for the Respondent at Houston, testified at
length concerning complaints received from customers concerning the Negro
employees. He discussed the situation with the general manager (Bickford)
on several occasions. The decision to discharge all Negroes was made at the
Beaumont office and he was notified by Mr. Bickford's letter of September
2, 1949, to put the discharges into effect. There was no other reason, and he had
no knowledge of union activities when the letter was received. Mr. Newbury
discharged the five men in his presence on September 20, 1949, and he took no
part in the conversation. Mr. Newbury said to them at the time, "Boys, this
is your last day at Young's Motor Freight Lines. We are switching over to
entire white crew. Come by tomorrow and your checks for your salary and
badge deposit will be here." That is entirely all he said. I said nothing.
This witness expressed that his personal views were favorable toward labor
unions, and that his father had been a union leader in Texas during his youth.
4. Events subsequent to September 20, 1949
Following the discharge of the five Negro truck drivers and helpers at Hous-
ton, Ray Hitchens and others visited the Respondent's Negro employees at Beau-
mont and interested them in joining the Union. They were informed concerning
the Respondent's letter of September 2, 1949, in which the Beaumont employees
were mentioned. At a union meeting on the first Thursday night in October
YOUNG'S MOTOR FREIGHT LINES 1439
this letter was discussed by a union representative and orally interpreted to
mean that.the Respondent intended to discharge all Negro employees at Beau-
mont also. Thereupon a majority of the Beaumont employees signed applica-
tion cards to join the Union, and a strike was called to go in effect on the next
day, Friday, at 7 a. m. All Negro employees joined the strike.
On the following Saturday morning (October 8, 1949), a majority of the strik-
ers, including,Ovre Harris and Frank Ballard, went in a group to personally
interview the Respondent, Bess F. Young, and discussed the situation with her.
Ovre Harris, a witness for the Respondent, testified that Mrs. Young said,
"There is nothing I can say. I can't tell you nothing about the union-you
all is grown, you got your own will and own mind, you do what you want to do."
Frank Ballard, a witness for the Respondent testified that Mrs. Young said,
"We could have our own privileges, join a union if we wanted to, whatever we
want to do ; stay with the union, why we could work somewhere else." She said,
"Boys, you do as you all wish. I got nothing against the union. The union
haven't done us. anything." She said, "You join the union, I can't tell you all
to come to work, you are on strike, if you want, I can't afford to sign the union
contract.. I am too small a line."
Thereafter, on Monday, the strikers went in a group to the union office and
withdrew their membership. All of them reported for work on Tuesday and
were reinstated in their jobs. Thereupon, the strike was ended and all union
activity ceased.
The Respondent had already received a copy of the charge by registered mail'
on September 23, 1949. Copy of the complaint was served in the same manner
on March 28, 1950.
IV. ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. The alleged discriminatory discharges
Inasmuch as the testimony of Vernon L. Baldwin is not corroborated by any
one of the other six people present at the time Skeet Newbury notified the men
of their discharges on September 20, 1949, the Trial Examiner discredits that
part of his testimony tending to show that the supervisor mentioned union ac-
tivities as a reason for termination of their employment. Neither can full credit
be given to the denial of Newbury that he had no knowledge or information con-
cerning the union meeting held in an open lot near the dock on the afternoon
of September 17, 1949, or that he at no time mentioned or interrogated his
employees concerning this meeting. It is reasonable to believe and a prepon-
derance of the evidence shows that he did receive some information that union
activity was in progress, but there is no evidence indicating that such information
was communicated to the general manager or Mrs. Young at Beaumont prior
to a final decision and action to put the discharges into effect. Newbury testi-
fied that his copy of the discharge letter of September 2, 1949, disappeared from
his desk on the dock at the Houston terminal shortly after it was received.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to also believe from all the evidence that
the five Negro employees at Houston received some advance information con-
cerning their pending discharges, and that their union activities and desire to
join the Union was inspired thereby; such concerted activity being fully author-
ized by the Act for their mutual aid and protection.
The preponderance of the evidence, and especially Respondent's letter of
September 2, 1949, directing the discharges prior to any union activities, con-
vinces the Trial Examiner that full faith and credit should be given to the-
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contention of the Respondent and testimony offered in its behalf tending to show
that the employment of Hosey Hudson , Ray Hitchens , Vernon L. Baldwin , Robert
Lee Carter, and M. C. Weisner was terminated for cause not proscribed by the
Labor Management Relations Act of 1947.
B. Interference , restraint , and coercion
Independently of the alleged discriminatory discharges, the charge and com-
plaint herein alleges that the Respondent did by other acts and conduct interfere
with, restrain , and coerce its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
1. The warning or instructions,' if any, by Newbury to employees under his,
supervision during the summer of 1949 to the effect that they would not be
forced to join the Union was in the opinion of the Trial Examiner an expression
of free speech and protected under Section 8 (c) of the Act.
That statement contained no threat of reprisal or force or .promise of benefit,
and therefore does not constitute and is not evidence of an unfair labor practice.
The Board has held that an employer is not required to remain neutral by not
indicating his preference with respect to the unionization of his , employees.' The
employer is privileged under Section 8 (c) to advise his employees of some of
their rights under the Act without informing them as to all their rights, so long
as the employer 's expressions contain no threat of reprisal or promise of benefit'
2. From a preponderance of the evidence, the Trial Examiner finds that on
September 20, 1949, Respondent's dock foreman, L. S. (Skeet) Newbury, inter-
rogated his employee, Hosey Hudson, concerning his union activities by asking
him, "What was the meeting about?" Again on the same day in a telephone
conversation Newbury interrogated his employee, Milton C. Weisner, concerning
his union activities by saying, "I want to talk with you. I didn't know you would
do me like that. Who started the union meeting the other day? I got a way
of finding out," or words to that effect.
In accord with past decisions of the Board 3 the Trial Examiner concluded
that the foregoing interrogation of employees concerning union activities was
per se a violation of the Act. Section 8 (a) (1) is violated when an employer
interrogates his employees concerning any aspect of union activity.6 It is as
much an interference with the employee's rights and a violation of the Act for
an employer to inquire about the first union activity of an employee as it is to
inquire about any other. Inquiries of this character have an inherently restrain-
ing effect on employees.' Since interrogation of employees concerning union
activities is per se violative of the Act, absence of threat of reprisals or ,promise
of benefit is immaterial.' Because of the position that supervisors hold as man-
agement representatives, an employer is generally responsible under the Act for
the conduct of its supervisors e
3. As evidenced by the testimony of Ovre Harris and Frank Ballard, the Re-
spondent , Bess F. Young , on Saturday , October 8 , 1949, clearly instructed a
majority group of her Beaumont employees then on strike that they were entirely
free to make their own decision whether to continue their membership in the
2 Testimony of Milton C. Weisner, supra.
3 United Aircraft Corporation, 85 NLRB 1077 ; Louisville Title Agency , 85 NLRB 1344.
t Meier & Frank Co., Inc., 89 NLRB 1016.
6 Jacksonville Motors, Inc., & Redmond Co., Inc., 88 NLRB 181.
e Standard - Coosa-Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358.
4 Meier & Frank Co., Inc. , supra.
8 The Ann Arbor Press , 85 NLRB 58.
9 J. S. Abercrombie Co., 83 NLRB 524.
YOUNG'S MOTOR FREIGHT LINES 1441
Union. She made no promises whether or not they would be reinstated in their
jobs, but stated that she could not afford to sign a contract with the Union,
and that the employees were free to work elsewhere. As a result of this inter-
view, these employees on the following Monday withdrew from the Union and
returned to work. It is not entirely clear whether these employees were im-
pelled to desert the Union for voluntary reasons or whether they were induced
to do so in fear of losing their jobs. Neither is the Trial Examiner convinced
from the evidence that Mrs. Young intended or did convey to them any threat
of discharge from her employment, or promise of benefit, and, therefore, finds no
violation of the Act by the Respondent in this interview.
4. By stipulation of counsel it was shown by written statement of M. M.
Williamson that he was employed by the Respondent at Houston after the
discharge of the five Negro employees on September 20, 1949. When interviewed
for the job "Williamson was asked what he had been doing, and he replied he
had been in the Army. Mr. Johnson then said you never belonged to the union
then. Williamson replied he had never worked under union conditions. This
was the end of the conversation."
It was expressly noted for the record that Williamson was a witness for the
General Counsel, and counsel for the Respondent had no opportunity to cross-
examine him . The statement of Williamson has been given due consideration,
and the Trial Examiner concludes that it does not affect the result reached in
this report.
V. EFFECT. OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of L. S. (Skeet) Newbury, supervisor for the Respondent, in
interrogating the employees of Young's Motor Freight Lines, supra, which oc-
curred in connection with the operation of Respondent's business, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States, and tend to bring about labor disputes, burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
VI. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent by and through one of its supervisory
employees has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and concluding there-
from that such practices are likely to be continued in the future, it will be
recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from the conduct which
has herein been found to he a violation of the Act, and also take certain affirm-
ative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since it has been found that the Respondent did not within the meaning of
the Act discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Hosey
Hudson, Ray Hitchens, Vernon L. Baldwin, Robert Lee Carter, and M. C. Weis-
ner, it will be recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to the alleged
discriminatory discharges of those employees.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local Union No. 968, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within. the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid conduct of the Respondent constitutes unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of the Act by discharging Hosey Hudson, Ray Hitchens, Vernon L.
Baldwin, Robert Lee Carter, and M. C. Weisner.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]