Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling Co.

In the Matter of GREENSBORO COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 1 and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., LOCAL 391 Case No. 34-CA--J.Decided March 31, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER On July 22, 1948, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) 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 Respond- ent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended dismissal of these allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.2 On December 15, 1948, the Board 3 remanded the proceeding to the Division of Trial Examiners for consideration of a brief submitted by the Respondent to the Trial Examiner after issuance of the Interme- diate Report. On January 10, 1949, the Trial Examiner issued an Order Correcting Intermediate Report, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which, except for a minor modification, he affirmed his In- termediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent advised the Board that it adopted its exceptions and brief as having been filed to the In- termediate Report as amended. The Respondent's request for oral ' The name of this company is sometimes referred to in the record as the Greensboro Coca Cola Company. The company's records indicate, however , that the correct name is as it appears in the caption. 2 No exception was filed to the Trial Examiner 's finding that the discharge of Samuel Mencey was not discriminatory. 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this pro- ceeding to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members [ Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray]. 82 N. L R_ B., No. 67. 543 544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD argument is hereby denied, as the record and brief in our opinion ade- quately present the issues and the positions of the parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report as amended, the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, con- clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as they are inconsistent herewith .4 1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that James Hodge's discharge was discriminatory within the meaning of the Act. We have carefully considered all the testimony given by President Paul Carter and Manager A. H. Parker, as well as the entire record, and are convinced, as was the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent was aware, before the discharge, of Hodge's outstanding organizational activities. Based on the Trial Examiner's general credibility find- ings, which we find no reason to disturb, we also credit Hodge's testimony that when he called for his severance pay after the discharge and expressed regret over the discharge of the other drivers, Parker said : "We cannot afford to have a union here." 5 2. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent violated the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union as the rep- resentative of its truck drivers. When Jones first told Parker on the morning of October 27, 1947, that the strikers wished to return to their jobs, he also requested recognition of the Union. Although Parker was unequivocal in his rejection of the application to return to work, he did not finally refuse recognition but replied that that matter must await President Carter's return. On the following day, however, President Carter not only affirmed Parker's rejection of the drivers' application for reinstatement, but also refused to accord recognition to the Union on the ground that the strikers were no longer employees of the Respondent. This position, taken again in the Respondent's letter to the Union dated November 5, 1947, clearly establishes the Respondent's fixed determination not to bargain with the Union regardless of its majority status. It is thus clear that at 4 The Trial Examiner erroneously found that on October 28, 1947 , it was Carter who again asked the Respondent to let the employees return to work . The record shows, and we find , that it was Jones, the Union's business agent, who voiced the offer to return on behalf of the employees . The Trial Examiner also found , erroneously , that the Respond- ent violated Section 8 ( 1), (3), and ( 5), rather than Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5), as alleged. The Intermediate Report contains a number of other inaccuracies , which we believe are sufficiently minor as not to require further comment here. 5 We attach no significance to the disappearance of signed union application cards from Hodge's truck, as there is no evidence linking the Respondent or its agents to that incident. GREENSBORO COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 545 least on and after October 28, 1947, if not on October 27, the Respond- ent refused to bargain with the Union. 3. Without adopting the Trial Examiner's analysis of the effect of Section 8 (c) of the Act, we, like the Trial Examiner, do not rely upon President Carter's speech for any of the unfair labor practice findings made herein. 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, Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling Company, Greensboro, North Carolina, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Local 391, as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all its drivers and drivers' helpers, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act; (b) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Local 391, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of their employment; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc- ing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, A. F. of L., Local 391, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en- gage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con- dition 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 policies of the Act : (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, A. F. of L., Local 391, as the exclusive representative of all drivers and drivers' helpers, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement; (b) Offer all employees whose names appear on "Appendix A," at- tached hereto, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges ; 6 (c) Make whole all employees whose names appear on "Appendix A," attached hereto, for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he nor- mally would have earned as wages during the period from the date of his discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during such period; (d) Post at its plant in Greensboro, North Carolina, copies of the notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 7 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty '(60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Samuel Mencey, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 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 National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, , In accordance with the Board 's consistent interpretation of the term , the expression "former or substantially equivalent positions " is intended to mean "former positions wher- ever possible but if such positions are no longer in existence, then to substantially equiva- lent positions " See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York , San Juan, Puerto Rico Branch, 65 N. L. It. B. 827. 7In the event that this Order is enforced by a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted , before the words • "DECISION AND ORDER," the words : "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING." GREENSBORO COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 547 to form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. of L., LOCAL 391, 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 and all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem- bership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi- tions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privi- leges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination. The employees are : John P. Carter J. R. Tuttle Winfred G. Medlin George W. Purcell Willis A. Morton Collier S. Smith William M. Holt Dan L. Thomas Charles T. Williams Grady M. Greene James M. Current D. L. Brewer Luther A. Morton A. Lee Phillips George B. Ballard M. J. Huffman Ennis H. Little L. H. Ross Phillip J. Kasey Hall W. Kirk Merlin S. Boyles Aaron Angle Howard L. Stack James Hodge WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above- named Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All drivers and drivers' helpers, excluding all other employees and supervisors. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. GREENSBORO COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, Employer. Dated-------------------------- By-------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) NOTE : Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement 548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. 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 Messrs. George L. Weasler and Miles J. McCormick, for the General Counsel. Mr. L. P. McLendon, of Brooks, McLendon, Brim and Holderness, of Greensboro, N. C., Mr. Thomas D. Cooper, of Cooper, Saunders, and Holt, of Burlington, N. C.; and Mr. Benjamin T. Ward, of Greensboro, N. C., for the Respondent. Mr. S. C. Jones, of Burlington, N. C., for the Union. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed February 17, 1948, by International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Local 391, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called respectively the General Counsel' and the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region ( Baltimore, Maryland), issued a complaint dated April 23, 1948, against Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, subsections (a) (1) (3) and (5), and Section 2, subsections (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, Stat. 449, as amended June 23, 1947, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and the Union. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged, in substance, that the Respondent (1) from on or about September 15, 1947, to the date of the complaint, urged and warned its employees by threats of reprisal or promise of benefits, to refrain from joining the Union, questioned them concerning their membership and activity in it, and threatened them with discharge if they joined or assisted it; (2) on October 25, 1947, discharged James A. Hodge and Sam Mencey because of their membership in and activity on behalf of the Union, and on or about October 27 of the same year refused to employ and restore to their former positions 23 other named employees who went on strike as a result of the discharge of Hodge and Mencey; and (3) on or about October 27, 1947, and thereafter, refused to recognize the Union and to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive representative of the Respondent's employees in an appropriate unit. On April 29, 1948, the Respondent filed a motion for a bill of particulars which was referred to a Trial Examiner and in part granted by him on May 5. The bill of particulars was filed on May 10. The Respondent filed an answer dated May 29, 1948, admitting some of the allegations of the complaint with respect to the nature of the Respondent's business but denying that the Respondent had engaged in any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Greensboro, North Carolina, on June 8, 9, and 10, 1948, before Horace A. Ruckel, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly appointed by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The Union was I The term as used herein includes particularly the General Counsel's representative at the hearing. GREENSBORO COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 549 represented by a business representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to exam- ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues, was afforded all parties. At the conclusion of the hearing the General Counsel moved to conform the pleadings to the proof on formal matters. The motion was granted without objec- tion. The undersigned reserved ruling on a motion by counsel for the Respondent to dismiss the complaint. The motion is disposed of by the recommendations hereinafter made. The undersigned advised the parties that they might argue orally before him, and that they might file briefs with him by June 25, 1948. No oral argument was had. Subsequently, the time to file briefs was extended to July 15. No briefs were filed. Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged at Greensboro, North Carolina, in the bottling and selling of Coca Cola under a franchise granted by the Coca Cola Bottling Company of Atlanta, Georgia. The franchise territory of the Respondent consists of Guilford County, Randolph County, parts of Forsyth County, and parts of Chatham County, North Carolina. In addition to the bottling plant at Greensboro, the Respondent operates warehouses at High Point, Asheboro, and Siler City, North Carolina. During its fiscal year ending November 30, 1947, the Respondent purchased materials consisting principally of syrup, bottle crowns, and paper cartons, to the value of approximately $418,000, all of which was received from States other than the State of North Carolina. During the same period it purchased other mate- rials, including carbonic gas and water, to the value of approximately $8,000, within the State of North Carolina. The Respondent's products are distributed entirely within the franchise territory described above, wholly within the State of North Carolina. The Respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, as amended. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, A. F. of L, Local 391, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The discharges 1. James Hodge and the strikers Organization of the Respondent's employees into the Union began in early October 1947, when James Hodge, a route salesman, who had been employed since 1930, and whose discharge is hereinafter discussed, obtained membership application cards at the Union hall in Greensboro where he customarily delivered Coca Cola, and distributed them among the other salesmen 2 A. H. Parker, 2 The salesmen, or drivers, as they are alternately referred to in the record, deliver Coca Cola to customers on their routes. Each salesman was assisted, until October 24, 1947, by a keeper who rode on the truck with him. 838914-50--vo1 82 36 550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD manager of the Greensboro plant, testified that information that the employees were interested in the Union first came to him about Wednesday, October 22, from Greeson, one of the Respondent's officials at High Point, and that he thereupon communicated with Paul Carter, president of the Respondent, with headquarters at Chattanooga. About the same time, according to Parker's testi- mony, he received a call from an official at Armour and Company, who said that he understood that the Respondent's employees were on strike. Parker accepted this as a rumor which might have some significance as to the future, and promptly communicated it to Carter. On Saturday morning, October 25, Parker again discussed the employees' attempts at self-organization with Carter over the telephone. Both Parker and Carter testified that the name of Hodge was brought up during their conversa- tion. According to Parker, he told Carter that he was going to have to discharge Hodge because of his "lack of cooperation" in connection with a new route set-up which is hereinafter discussed. The close connection between Hodge's activity in organizing the employees and his asserted lack of "cooperation," is shown in Carter's account of the conversation. Q As nearly as you can recall what did he (Parker) tell you then. A. He stated over the 'phone that things were getting hot. I asked what he meant by hot and he said, "The rumors reported to you over the 'phone a few days ago that Mr. Greeson had advised me about and also about the Armour report," he said, "Those two things together with the fact that one man in particular was acting as one of our old employees shouldn't act and looks like it might cause trouble over his action unless we fire him." * * * * * * * Q. Did he make any statement in that telephone conversation as to any decisions reached by him and Small with reference to any particular individual? * * * * * A. Yes, sir. He said, "It hurts me very badly and I know it will hurt you, but we are going to have to fire Bill Hodge." . . . "I am very much dis- turbed due to the reports I have heard from Mr. Greeson and these other reports from Armour & Company. It is not a very opportune moment to fire anybody, but what shall we do?" Carter decided to come immediately to Greensboro and Parker held up dis- charging Hodge until his arrival. Parker met Carter at the Greensboro airport at 3: 30 that afternoon, and the two went to the plant where Carter instructed Parker to gather the men together in a meeting. When the employees were assembled Carter read a speech. A copy of this speech is in evidence, but the undersigned is proscribed from considering it as evidence of an unfair labor practice, inasmuch as, although it made it clear that the Respondent was opposed to Unions, it contained no "threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." * Immediately Carter had finished, and as the employees were leaving the plant, Hodge was called to the office where Parker and Small, the Respondent's sales manager, were present. Parker, without more ado, told Hodge that although he disliked doing so he was going to have to ask him for his resignation. When Hodge asked why he was being discharged, and if his work had not been satis- 3 Section 8 (c) of the Act, as amended, reads: "The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." GREENSBORO COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 551 factory, Parker replied that his work was satisfactory but that Hodge himself was "dissatisfied," and that he would be better content elsewhere. Hodge re- sponded that he was being discharged because Parker thought he was the ring leader in the union movement. Parker, according to Hodge, denied this allega- tion but asked Hodge who the ring leader was if Hodge was not, to which Hodge replied that there was no ring leader but that the organizing was spontaneous. Parker told Hodge to come in the following Monday, October 27, and he would be given his regular pay and an extra 4 weeks' wages, approval for the payment of which had been obtained from Carter. The foregoing findings as to the conversation at the time of Hodge's discharge, is based principally upon the testimony of Hodge himself, which does not differ in any important respect from the account given by Parker and Small, except that the testimony of the latter two omits any mention of Parker's questioning of Hodge as to who the leader of the Union was if he was not. Neither Parker nor Small was questioned specifically on this point. The undersigned accepts the testimony of Hodge in this respect as being in accord with the fact. On Sunday, October 26, the employees met at the home of one of their number and a letter protesting Hodge's discharge was drafted in the following form and signed by most of, if not all, the salesmen : This is to certify that as the result of the dismissal of J. A. Hodge from his position as employee of the Coca Cola Bottling Company for reason of said "dissatisfaction" the other employees as listed below also wish to express dissatisfaction to the same extent as used for the dismissal. The employees as listed refuse to move trucks to usual routes Monday, October 27, 1947, unless the said J. A. Hodge be put back to work on his usual route. Upon reporting to work on the following Monday lhorning, October 27, the sales- men gathered as usual in the room where they received their instructions and handed Small the above letter. Small took it to Parker who came out and spoke to the employees. There is no substantial contradiction in the record as to the conversation which ensued between Parker, small, and the assembled salesmen. Parker asked the men to reconsider their decision and to take their trucks out, stating that if they did not do so he would consider that their signatures to the letter constituted their resignation Parker then left the group for a few minutes, and upon his return again asked them to take their trucks out, telling them that he would be glad to discuss any grievance with any of the employees individually. Melvin Hoffman, one of the drivers speaking for the group, said that he did not under- stand why Hodge had been discharged. Parker answered that the employees would have to trust him, and that the reason Hodge was let go was because he was not a "fit" employee for the others to work with. Parker then ordered the striking employees to leave the Respondent's premises. The salesmen gathered across the street from the plant and sent several of their number to the Union hall in Greensboro to report that they were on strike. Sherrill Jones, business agent for the Union who was in a neighboring town, ar- rived in Greensboro later the same morning and went to the plant where he spoke to the striking employees. They informed him that they had signed up member- ship application cards in the Union but that they had disappeared,4 whereupon 4 Hodge testified credibly that be kept the signed application cards which he had received back from the employees in the glove compartment of his truck, along with receipt books and similar equipment which he used in his route ; that these cards were in the glove compart- ment when he was called to the Saturday afternoon meeting ; and that when he went back to his truck to get them after his discharge, they were gone. 552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Jones and John Carter, another of the salesmen, distributed other cards which the strikers signed. Jones, together with a committee of strikers composed of Carter and W. Al. Holt, then went to Parker's office. Jones introduced himself as business agent for the Union, told him that the majority of the drivers and helpers had signed membership application cards in the Union, and asked that the Union be recognized as collective bargaining agent for the employee. He was told that recognition of the Union was a matter for discussion with Carter. When questioned by the committee with respect to Hodge's discharge, Parker gave the same answer he had made to Hodge, viz, that Hodge was "dissatisfied" and that he would live longer and be better content in some other job. Jones told Parker that the strike which had taken place that morning was a mistake and asked that Parker let the men go back to work, leaving the matter of the discharge of Hodge and Mencey to the Board. Parker replied that the men had "resigned" their jobs that morning and that he would have to take up the matter of their reinstatement with Carter. Jones and the committee left, Jones stating that he was going to request the men to report back to work the next morning at the usual time. Jones reported the results of the above conference to the group of strikers and they agreed to go back to work. On the following day, Tuesday, Jones and the committee of strikers again met with Carter and Parker. Carter again asked that the employees be permitted to resume work, to which Parker replied that Jones represented only the Respond- ent's "former employees" because they had "resigned" the previous morning. Carter and Parker stated, according to the credible testimony of Jones, uncon- tradicted in this essential either by Carter or Parker, that it would be a waste of time for the strikers to report back to work. The committee left the Respondent's office and later that day wrote the Respond- ent as follows : Please be advised that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Local #391, rep- resent a majority of your drivers and helpers for purposes of collective bar- gaining. It is accordingly requested that you set a time for a meeting between us for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. On behalf of those of your employees who were locked out by your Com- pany this morning, I advise you that they are ready and willing to return to work. Respondent replied to this letter on November 5 as follows : We acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 28. We take exception to your statement that any of our former employees were locked out. Twenty-one of them quit work on the 27th of October 1947. By no means do we consider that your Union represent any of our employees. The defense to the discharge of Hodge and the strikers For sometime past the Respondent has distributed its product by means of trucks, the truck drivers, or salesmen, being assisted by helpers. Shortly after the end of sugar rationing, about September 1, 1947, the Respondent announced that it was dispensing with helpers and instituting a system of one man routes, except in two or three industrial areas. There would be more work for the sales- man in making deliveries under such an arrangement, so their compensation was to be increased from 3 to 5 cents a case. According to the tesimony of Parker and GREENSBORO COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 553 Small, it was anticipated that the take home pay of the salesmen would increase from 40 dollars a week, which had previously been the guaranteed salary, to about 50 dollars , with no guarantees attached. Small was brought to Greensboro from Macon, Georgia, where he had had experi- ence with the new system , and instructed to set it up in Greensboro . He arrived in early October and the system was put into operation on October 24. Formal announcement of the inauguration of the new system was made to the employees by Small at a meeting on that date , and previously to that it had been discussed in individual conferences with the salesmen , beginning about Tuesday, October 21. It is clear from the record that the new one man route system, particularly because it did away with the guaranteed salary, was viewed by the salesmen generally with considerable disquiet . There is no question but what Hodge shared this uneasiness , although there is nothing in the record to indicate , nor is it charged, that he was instrumental in stirring up dissatisfaction with the innova- tion among the other salesmen. Small explained the new system to Hodge personally on the evening of October 21, and during this discussion Hodge declared that the employees were not going to take a cut, and that he didn't believe that he could make a living off the route as it was to be reorganized . Small replied that it was not the intention of the Respondent to have the employees take a cut , and that if any route was proving to have that result an adjustment could be made. Crediting in full the testimony of Small concerning this interview with Hodge, the undersign( d finds nothing in his account to indicate insubordination or hos- tility on Hodge's part. Nevertheless , immediately afterward Small reported to Parker that he had almost discharged Hodge, and Parker responded that it might have been better had he done so. Small testified that it was only the fact that he had been sales manager only a short while that stopped him from getting rid of Hodge on the spot. Small had no further conversation with Hodge on the subject of the one man routes, although Parker discussed it with him on three different occasions, the first before Small's conversation with him, related above. On this occasion, about a week before the route change went into effect, Parker went up to Hodge on the loading platform and asked him to give the new system a fair trial. Parker testi- fied that the reason for his approaching Hodge was that he had heard that Hodge was distrustful of the proposed set up. Hodge, according to Parker , made no reply of any kind. Parker next discussed the matter with Hodge on the day fol- lowing Hodge's interview with Small . This conversation took place in the yard -where Parker called Hodge aside and asked him not to condemn the new plan until the employees had had some experience with it. According to Parker, Hodge's only reply was "We ain't going to take a cut." Parker's third conversation with Hodge was on Friday afternoon , October 24, after Hodge had come in from working his new route . Parker again approached Hodge and asked him as he had previously, not to condemn the new route until it had been given a fair trial. According to Parker, Hodge said nothing, but when Parker put his hand on Hodge 's shoulder the latter pulled away and gave Parker what the latter testified was a "snarling" look. Following this conversation Parker told Small that he had definitely made up his mind to discharge Hodge. The next, and last , interview with Hodge was on Saturday evening, October 25 , when he was discharged , as related above. Hodge's efficiency as a salesman is not in question . Parker, however, testified as to various factors which he stated contributed to his decision to let Hodge go. For example, according to Parker, sometime after his taking over his duties at the Greensboro plant be was told by Greeson at the High Point plant, where Hodge 554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bad once worked, that at an unspecified time in the past Hodge had been involved in an automobile accident "after having been drinking beer," when the car in which he was riding backed into another. On cross-examination, Parker admitted that the incident occurred after work hours, that the automobile in question was not that of the Respondent, and that the incident was trivial except that Hodge was wearing one of the Respondent's uniforms at the time. He further admitted, that a rule against wearing uniforms after working hours was not then being enforced. Parker also testified that he had also been informed by Greeson, on another occasion that a customer, unidentified so far as this record goes,' did not want Hodge to continue to call upon him. Parker admitted on cross-examination that he made no attempt to find out the reason for this. Still another complaint cited by Parker was that on one occasion the Respond- ent had received an anonymous telephone call to the effect that Hodge was selling liquor on his route. Parker testified that he instructed Conrad, then sales man- ager, to have Hodge's truck followed and to report to him if he found any indi- cations at all that Hodge was doing this. Parker admitted that he did not check with Conrad to ascertain whether he had carried out this instruction, and that the matter was never mentioned again. It does not appear that Parker ever spoke to Hodge about any of these complaints. Parker further testified that Hodge was sometimes not as neat in his appearance as he should have been. Conclusions as to the discharge of Hodge Inasmuch as Hodge was discharged by Parker after obtaining approval from Carter, and immediately upon the conclusion of Carter's talk to the employees, it would normally be presumed that Carter's speech might throw some light on Hodge's discharge, and help to clarify Parker's charge that Hodge was "dissatis- fied," a term which, without clarification, is vague and ambiguous. If, for example, and as the General Counsel contends, this "dissatisfaction" amounted to nothing more nor less than his activity in organizing the employees, it should be helpful in determining the Respondent's motivation-the thing at issue-to know whether Carter expressed a dislike of unions or of union activity. Reasonable as this course might seem, and firmly rooted in legal precedent as it is, the undersigned is prohibited from following it by the language of Section 8 (c) of the Act. Not that he may not examine the speech and construe it. In fact he has done so. He has been impelled to do so because if it had appeared that its declarations were favorable to union organization, that the Respondent, for example, preferred to deal with a collective bargaining agent rather than with all its employees individually, that would be persuasive evidence that Hodge's discharge was not connected with his union activity and that the term "dissatis- fied" had reference to something else. And there would be no difficulty in using the evidence for such a finding. For Section 8 (c) forbids only the use of views, arguments or opinions, not associated with threats of reprisal, or force, or promise or benefit, as evidence of an unfair labor practice. In other words, the under- signed may use Carter's words for the Respondent but not against the Respondent, odd as such a result may appear to the lay mind. Actually, Carter's speech strongly opposed unions and the undersigned may not, therefore, use it in making a finding that Hodge was discharged immediately afterwards, and without perceptible change of pace, in violation of the Act. 6 Greeson was not called as a witness GREENSBORO COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 555 The finding hereinafter made, that Hodge was discharged because of his union activity, is based on other evidence entirely. There is nothing in the record, for example , to indicate that Hodge was in fact dissatisfied with his job. Nor is there any evidence whatever that he was in- strumental in stirring up dissatisfaction among the other employees ; nor is it so contended . Hodge's trepidation concerning the new system was natural, was widely shared by the other salesmen, and could have been foreseen by the Re- spondent. No incident is alleged of insubordination other than Hodge's state- ment, when pinned down with respect to his views of the one man route , that the employees did not intend to have their wages reduced. This was a sentiment which the Respondent 's officials shared, according to their testimony , so it is a little difficult to see why the Respondent should have resented its expression to the extent that it should discharge an employee of some 17 years standing. Hodge was discharged after he had been on the route 2 days , although, according to Parker 's admission while testifying, at least 2 we.ks were necessary for anyone to decide whether or not the new system would result in any loss of wages. The undersigned has some difficulty in understanding why, on three different occasions , Parker should implore Hodge to "give it a fair trial," and then on October 25, after 2 days trial , and before the results could possibly be determined either by the Respondent or Hodge, discharge Hodge, unless some other factor was operating. The lack of substance to the reason given Hodge for his discharge at the time it occurred, coupled with the triviality of the several incidents which it is now claimed entered into the decision to discharge him, coupled with the length of Hodge's service with the Respondent , lead the undersigned to conclude that the real reason for Hodge's discharge must be found in his union activity. It is admitted that the Respondent obtained knowledge of its employees' efforts toward self-organization during the week of Hodge's discharge. Hodge was the prime mover in this organizing . Although Parker denied that he knew that Hodge was active in the Union, the undersigned has not accepted his denial as credible. Parker admitted that he promptly reported to Carter his discovery of union activity among the employees, that he had several conversations with Carter respecting the matter , and that in one or more of them the discharge of Hodge was discussed . Parker discussed Hodge's discharge in the same con- text in which he discussed union organization . Prior to that time there is nothing to indicate that the Respondent was in any way dissatisfied with Hodge's work or his attitude toward his employment . On the contrary he was recog- nized as one of the respondent 's best salesmen. The undersigned finds that Hodge's discharge was in no way connected with the performance of his duties as a salesman , but was occasioned by his member- ship in and activity on behalf of the Union. Conclusions as to the discharge of the striking employees It is clear from the record , and the undersigned finds, that the strike of Hodge's fellow salesmen on October 27 was occasioned by the Respondent's unfair labor practice in discharging Hodge himself on October 25. There is no merit to the Respondent's construction of the strike as a "resignation" of the strikers. The employees made it amply clear that they were on strike because of Hodge's discharge. Moreover, the same day, and again on the next, Jones, although making it clear to the Respondent that the men were then on strike and had not "resigned ," offered them for work, leaving the question of the discharge of Hodge and Mencey to the Board. It is not contended that 556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Jones attached any condition to this offer. A day or so later this was empha- sized by a formal letter from the Union to the Respondent making the same offer, again without condition. The Respondent's refusal to reinstate the strikers upon their unconditional application, and its insistence that they had resigned and were no longer em- ployees, constituted a discharge of the strikers in violation of the Act,' and thereby, and by the discharge of Hodge, the Respondent discouraged member- ship in the Union, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Samuel Mencey Mencey came to work for the Respondent in July 1947, as a helper on one of the trucks, first for a driver named Medlin, then for one Holt, and lastly for Hodge. About 2 weeks before his discharge along with Hodge on October 25, he requested Maddox, superintendent in charge of the bottling employees inside the plant, as distinguished from the salesmen, to have him transferred from his job as a salesman's helper to work on the bottling unit. This was done. Mencey's activity on behalf of the Union has previously been related in connection with that of Hodge. Mencey testified that Hodge solicited the sales- men while Mencey solicited the employees inside. On Saturday, October 25, as Mencey was reporting for work, Small called him aside and told him that the Respondent was going to discontinue the second shift bottling and that inasmuch as he was one of the last hired he was being selected for lay-off. Mencey asked if he could be put back as a helper on the truck, but was told by Small that he had not proved satisfactory at that work. Mencey was not transferred from the truck to the inside by the Respondent because he had been found unsatisfactory on the truck, but at his own request. Small, however, testified that transfer from the job of .a sales- man's helper to work inside the bottling plant was generally considered to be a demotion, and that he himself considered anyone, including Mencey, who re- quested such a transfer, to be lacking in ambition. Mencey gave as his reason for wishing to transfer from the outside to the inside on the second shift, that his wife worked inside on the first shift and that it was necessary for them to stagger their work so that one of them could remain at home with the children. Small testified on cross-examination that even assuming this to be the case, he still believed that to request a transfer from the outside to the inside evidenced lack of the ambition which Small de- manded of a salesman. At the time of Mencey's discharge, as has been found, the Respondent had discontinued the use of helpers except on industrial routes. If Mencey's request was to be granted, it meant that he was to take over a one-man truck as a salesman, a position in which he had no previous experience, as well as one which, for the reasons related above, Small testified he did not believe Mencey qualified. As to the Respondent's reason for laying Mencey off the bottling unit, Parker testified credibly that, although prior to October 25 the Respondent had been operating two bottling units in the day shift and two on the night shift, the "The strikers so discharged, and who are named in "Appendix A" attached to the com- plaint, were : John Carter, George Purcell, William Holt, Grady Greene, Luther Morton. M. J. Huffman, Phillip Kasey, J. R. Tuttle, Willis Morton, Dan Thomas, James Current, A. Lee Phillips, Ennis Little, Hall Kirk, Winfred Medlin, Collier Smith, Charles Williams. D. L. Brewer, George Ballard, L. H. Ross, Merlin Boyles, Aaron Angle, and Howard Stack. GREENSBORO COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 557 demand for Coca Cola which had increased immediately upon abandonment of sugar rationing, had begun to fall off. As a result it was determined to operate only one bottling unit on the night shift instead of two. At this time the Respondent employed 12 men on the night shift, including Mencey. It was desired, according to Parker, to cut the crew down to 9 men, which was a normal complement. Accordingly, the Respondent laid off Mencey and McCullough, who were the last ones hired in the bottling room. In addition to these two, one other employee had indicated that he was voluntarily quitting within a few days. This gave, or would give, the Respondent its complement of 9 men on the bottling unit. Although according to Mencey's testimony, he had been more active on behalf of the Union than any of the employees excepting Hodge, there is no substantial evidence in the record that the Respondent was aware of Mencey's role, or regarded him as more active than a number of others. Although the matter is not free from doubt, this fact, taken together with the fact that Mencey was one of the two youngest men inside, in respect to his employment, and in the absence of any evidence that the Respondent did away with one of the bottling units on the night shift so as to put Mencey in line of discharge, leads the under- signed to Conclude, and he finds, that Mencey was laid off for legitimate business reasons and not because of his union activity. B. The refusal to bargain 1. The appropriate unit The complaint alleges that all drivers and drivers' helpers, excluding all other employees and all supervisory employees, as defined by the Act, as amended, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. The Respondent at no time disputed the appropriateness of this unit, or proposed any other unit. The undersigned finds that this unit insures to em- ployees of the Respondent the full benefit of their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining, and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act. 2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit The Respondent's pay roll for October 25, 1947 , lists 25 salesmen and sales- men's helpers. As previously stated, when Jones arrived at the Respondent's plant on the morning of October 27 he and John Carter distributed membership application cards among the striking employees . Jones and Carter testified with- out contradiction, and the undersigned finds, that the applications of 19 of the 25 employees in the appropriate unit were obtained at this time. Jones further testified that 5 additional applications were obtained the following day. The cards were received in evidence without objection. The undersigned finds that on October 27, 1947, and at all times thereafter, the Union was the duly designated representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, and that by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act, was on that date, and at all times thereafter, the exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with'respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. 3. The refusal to bargain It has already been related that on October 27, shortly after Jones had ap- peared at the plant and obtained the signatures of the striking employees as above- described, he. together with a committee of two of the striker& called upon the 558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent's representatives, and, in addition to protesting the discharge of Hodge and Mencey, asked for recognition of the Union and offered to return the striking employees to work. As has been related, the Respondent denied that the .Union represented any of its striking employees, contending that they had resigned their employment. It has been found above that this contention is without merit, and that the Re- spondent discriminatorily discharged Hodge and the strikers, and thereafter refused to reinstate them. The further testimony of Jones, supported by that of Carter, is to the effect that Jones offered to let Carter and Small examine the membership application cards, but that the latter said, in effect, that they were not interested in them nor in the Union's claim to represent its employees, reiterating the respondent's contention that the strikers were no longer in its employ. Both Carter and Small, while testifying, denied that Jones exhibited any membership application cards to them, or offered to do so. The undersigned credits the testimony of Jones and Carter as against that of Parker and Small in this respect. It is consistent with the Respondent's contention that the strikers were no longer its employees, that it should refuse to consider evidence that the Union represented them. Furthermore, Jones and Carter had just come from obtaining the signa- tures of the strikers across the street from the plant, and it is probable on this ground, as well as on the basis of Jones' and Carter's testimony, that they still had the signed application cards in their possession. In view of the Respondent's denial of the employee status of the strikers, its failure to question the representative capacity of the Union on any other grounds, or to request or suggest any other means of ascertaining the Union's majority than the one suggested by Jones, and which he made available to the Respondent, the undersigned finds that the Respondent's rejection of the Union's representa- tion claim not to have been in good faith, and constituted a failure to bargain collectively with the Union. Thereby, the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. TRR REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac- tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that on October 27, 1947, and at all times thereafter, Re- spondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre- sentative of its employees in an appropriate unit. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that, upon request, the Respondent bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. It has been found that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged James Hodge on October 25 and those employees named in "Appendix A," attached to GREENSBORO COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 559 the complaint, on October 27, 1947, and thereafter refused to reinstate them, thereby discouraging concerted activity by its employees. In order to effectuate the policies of the Act it will be recommended that the Respondent offer Hodge and the employees named in "Appendix A," immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and that the Respondent make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the Re- spondent's discrimination against them by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his discriminatory discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstate- ment, less his net earnings 7 during said period. Finally, because of its widespread hostility to the efforts of its employees to organize, as demonstrated by this record, indicating an attempt to interfere generally with the rights of the employees as guaranteed by the Act, the under- signed will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in their rights to self-organization.' 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. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Local 391, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. All drivers and drivers' helpers, excluding all other employees and all super- visory employees as defined in the amended Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9, subsection (b) of the Act. 3. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Local 391, was on October 27, 1947, and at all times since has been, the exclusive representative of all employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing to bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Local 391, as exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 5. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of James Hodge and the other employees whose names appear on "Appendix A," attached to the complaint, the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 6. 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 unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Respondent did not engage in an unfair labor practice by discharging Sam Mencey. See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N. L. R. B. 440. s See May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S . 376, affirming as modified 146 F. ( 2d) 66, (C. C. A. 8) enforcing 53 N. L. R. B. 1366. 560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent, Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling Company, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Local 391, as the exclusive representative of all drivers and drivers' helpers, excluding all other employees and all supervisory employees, as defined in the amended Act ; (b) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Local 391, by discriminatorily discharging and by refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment ; and (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Local 391, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds wilt effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, A. F. of L., Local 391, as the exclusive representative of all drivers and drivers' helpers, excluding all other employees and all supervisory employees as defined in the amended Act, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and con- ditions of employment ; (b) Offer James Hodge and those employees whose names appear on "Ap- pendix A," attached to the complaint, immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges ; (c) Make whole the said James Hodge and the other employees whose names appear on "Appendix A," attached to the complaint, and on the notice attached hereto, for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the Respond- ent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages, in the manner set forth above in the Section entitled "The remedy" ; (d) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its Greensboro, North Carolina, plant, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, after being duly signed by the Respondent's representatives shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of not less than sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places , including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps should be taken by the Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material ; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith. GREENSBORO COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 561 It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notify said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda- tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an Order requiring the Respond- ent to take the action of foresaid. It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to Sam Mencey. As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board. In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations and recom- mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions and order, and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. HORACE A. RUCKEL, Trial Examiner. Dated July 22,1948. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES . Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employs that : WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor or- ganizations , to join or assist INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN , AND HELPERS, A. F. of L., Local 391, 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. WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and full re- instatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimi- nation. We WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit de- scribed herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other 562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is' All drivers and drivers' helpers, excluding all other employees, and all supervisory employees. The employees to be reinstated are: John P. Carter J. R. Tuttle Winfred G Medlin George W. Purcell Willis A. Morton Collier S. Smith William M. Holt Dan L. Thomas Charles T. Williams Grady M. Greene James M. Current D. L. Brewer Luther A Morton A. Lee Phillips George B. Ballard M. J. Huffman Ennis H. Little L H. Ross Phillip J. Kasey Hall W. Kirk Merlin S. Boyles Aaron Angle Howard L. Stack All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above- named union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization. -------------------------------------- Employer. Dated ------------------------ By ------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) NOTE. Any of the above-named employees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States will be offered full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. ORDER CORRECTING INTERMEDIATE REPORT On December 15, 1948, the Board remanded the above proceeding to the Division of Trial Examiners for reconsideration of the Intermediate Report in light of the Respondent's brief; filed subsequent to the issuance of the Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner has reconsidered the Intermediate Report on the basis of the entire record, including the Respondent's brief, and hereby affirms the Intermediate Report in all respects, except that the first three lines of the first complete paragraph on page 12 thereof are corrected to read as follows: The further testimony of Jones, supported in part by that of John Carter, is to the effect that on October 27, and again on October 28, Jones offered to let Parker and President Carter examine the membership application cards, but that Parker on the 27th and Carter on the 28th said, in effect, that they were not interested in the cards nor in the Union's claim to rep- resent the respondent's employees , reiterating on each occasion the respond- ent's contention that the strikers were no longer in its employ. Both Pres- ident Carter and Parker denied that Jones exhibited any membership application cards to them, or offered to do so. The undersigned credits the testimony of Jones and John Carter as against that of Parker and President Carter in this respect. HORACE RUCKEL, January 7, 1949. Trial Examiner.