Jim Baker Trucking Co.

JIM BAKER TRUCKING COMPANY Jim Baker Trucking Company and General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 980, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Daniel Throm. Cases 20-CA-13704 and 20- CA-13828 March 16, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE On September 6, 1978, Administrative Law Judge David G. Heilbrun issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Decision and in support of cross-exceptions to that Decision. Respondent filed a brief in response to the cross exceptions.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith, to modify his remedy, and to adopt his recommended order as modified herein. 1. The Administrative Law Judge found that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by re- peatedly interrogating its employees about their own and other employees' union activities and by threat- ening them that Respondent would cease its opera- I Respondent asserts that the General Counsel's cross-exceptions ,ere in- timely. We do not agree. Sec 102 46(e) of the Boad', Rules and Regulations states: An) party who has not preiously filed exceptions may. within 10 days, or such further period as the Board may allow, from the last date on which exceptions ind any supporting brief may be filed, file cross- exceptions to any portion of the admninistratie law judge's decision, together with a supporting brief, in accordance with the provisions of subsections () and 0) of this section. The provision for 3 additional days is contained in section 102.114 shall be applicable to this subsec- tion. In accordance with that section. the last da3 for filing exceptions with the Board in this case was September 29. Applying Sec 102 114(a) regarding time conmputations, the 10-day period did not commence to run until Sep- tember 30 and would have ordinarily expired on October 9, a legal holiday Accordingly. the filing period was extended until October 10, plus the 3 days provided for by Sec. 102 114. The General Counsel. therefore, had until October 12 to file the cross-exceptions. Since his cross-exceptions were filed on October 10, it is clear the) were timely. Respondlent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad- ministratise I.aw Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an adminlstratlve law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the car pepionderance of all of the relesant evidence convinces us that the resolutions arc incorrect. Standard D Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (195t). enfd 188 IF2d 362 3d Cr 1951). We have carefully examined the record anid ind no basis for reversing his findings tions if the union activities persisted. We fully agree with these findings. We also agree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging employee Daniel Throm because of his union activities. In doing so, however, we disavow his conclusion that Throm's discharge was only "in part" motivated by his union activities. Rather, we are persuaded by the timing of the dis- charge and the knowledge attributable to Respondent of Throm's union activities, set against the immediate backdrop of Respondent's othec coercive unfair labor practices and the record as a whole, that the sole rea- son for Throm's discharge was his union activities. In reaching our conclusion we also note that the Admin- istrative Law Judge himself characterized Respon- dent's asserted reasons for the discharge as "utterly hollow" and "without legitimate basis." 2. We also find, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, that Respondent unlawfully created the impression of maintaining surveillance of its employ- ees' union activities. Thus, on March 10, 1978, em- ployee Ben Gonzales approached Respondent's owner, Baker, and told Baker that he was resigning because he could not afford a layoff due to the union situation. Baker replied that he did not think it (the Union would "go that far" and said "he knew who had started it." Gonzales asked who he thought had been the instigator. Baker replied: "The fellow (point- ing to Russell O'Neill) that just drove out of the yard." Gonzales asked if he meant Russell. Baker said, "Yes." In our judgment, Respondent, through Baker's conversation with Gonzales. clearly violated Section 8(a)(1) by conduct creating the impression of surveil- lance of employees' union activities. Notwithstandin,. the fact that Gonzales initiated the conversation with respect to the Union, it was Baker who. without piod- ding or questioning by Gonzales, volunteered that he knew who was responsible for the advent of the Union at his company. Gonzales, in an attempt to discover whether Baker really knew who was the prime mover for the Union, asked Baker who he thought it was. Baker's response correctly pinpointed O'Neill as the union instigator. The accuracy of Ba- ker's response reasonably tended to impress upon Gonzales that Baker was maintaining surveillance of the employees' union activities, including possibly his own. Such conduct interferes with, restrains, and co- erces employees in the exercise of their statutor rights and, therefore, violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The General Counsel has excepted to the Ad- ministrative Law Judge's failure to recommend a ba gaining order remedy. For the reasons set forth be- 241 NLRB No. 14 121 II:( ISI()NS O1 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD low, Ae find. in a reenilenlt ith the (General Counsel, tha};lt s II I' l, % 1; ?,Hi!;,,,L Jl. In ,!/ R. f v (. , s1l/ lt kni ('o., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 ( (,9). tile SprellnC ('lour approved the use of iuthori/aliolr cards als an Ilrdication of employee sen- i nlnt't aid tirltilel ;apli-o\ d rcliance on such cards as h fis io isSlmil a haigaining order where there is ';t sho Wi that it Ine point the t [ni11oi had a mlajor- it" aIlldl lthe eriplloel lha;s enlagec in unftir labor practices hich "have a citencv to undermine ma- .ority strength arid irimpede the election processes." 39 I l.S. t 14. In he i1nstlait case. it Is unldispultedI that on Febru- ary 5. 19'78, Ihe I lii il pssCssed valid authorization arids sigliedl hb a mi!oritv o1' espondent's employ- ces. lieslpondent learned of the nion's support anioring its clmplo yee s lIen thle U lion, on February 17, ilc(d a ptition fo anI electioin. Respondent's owner, Ji m iBaker, was adminittedly shocked hb this developmenrit. aid ilillmediatel y thereaftci embarked uipon a ill Iunla1ful coursc of conduct designed to qlalasi fitllerh nior n i activity. I'hus, on February 18 or I], as nird h the Adiniistrative Law Judge Baker repeatedlN telephoned ei rployee Russell O'Neill and qlestlioned hi in egarding his knowledge of card sign- ers and hovw he would vote in an election. Baker's inlcrrogationis wel-c acconipanilid hb statements that he would resist the I nion hb temporarily closing the ('onipail's doors )I bly chaiigilig its name. A similar threat if closure w as inaide during this period by Ba- ker- to cmplo\cc ( iorge ('anleron. who was also ql1 ctitoncdi :iit i iilc til.e lls 01' uniion instigators arid how lie sw iiilId vlte ill an election. A third em- plo ee. Ber (on1Z les, WaIS also (luestioned by Baker Is h, Iii o l!'dec 4 I tile lills ogTialiing eflort. J tes,: ! [' , \Cill te ll cla'ycd to him i' ; ;". i, !; ' i c ~' ' i itiil Wit:l int11 in- ,i . ' :. I, 'l'..S .. . l Ci flrcking opera- li1 1i. Ill I 1i tlh s11lll sI/e ,il Ihe unit, the sevenity of)1 IIT Iihctt, ll Id iliCroigrtoris, and le evidence ii ( !iie- I ,i !Iljdt til i'lceats i i not tunrea- <Tihlc o 'i ihitl [i-cSp))licr'I'S two other employ- . :! i ! I ], I i ii l 1sll \: cli.aughliii, were also i i o' ' I t l II! I r itLi ( _ls [ll Ilil'lO'ga lliolsi ' i<., ,IliCuil' i ; il vl uL a 1 ,l i s iiiwcu eir . diidl not :,T : :.r. " Ml !c i /. k !1: ' I, lIl iewi g l) ilel il ~kil Ii hJ' ,,, ~[ I , VC : ,:! t ,l 11! lPOIi l l t C¢lll;ol(ed no1 Wlh ,f lil;11~ , ' , i i C]4Il' '.11- 1 l(., [~*or,. ihe Actie'C Ilnd regu- i [! ,, 'Fi t t, i l,+',t,,: A !ti] 1 I Fr 1 , 1978, tile date tile * il ii } ' 1 , [ . , IkI.:S ()'Nell, (.dIhltCI., (Oii lrli- , '] ' i / i I ilN f l (;T .,oalcs quil, I'hrorn i' [ l ." '1- "'ldl I ,r F',iL,] I I T II'C ' ll [.I l it lle b lsls ,: 1, 1J. - he Aa , ' 'ldttkL' 1 , t-b', !illdS hittl t til I lo rlellalldcd · ,t '. It I lilt 1 r ll .. ,', lhti ,le he pctitioni foo an eecltion r :itet' (1"1 '~{ ,,d/. .l'~'~liJ ' /~. /]1, 9 1 R BI 1I(9, 1 !1 ( I0 L721 Throm as a possible replacement for Gonzales, who had recently quit, Baker asked Throm how he felt about unions. Later, on April 28, Throm signed an authorization card and openly expressed his prounion sentiments to Respondent's agent, Sandi McLaugh- lin. Four days after signing the authorization card, Throm was precipitately discharged by Baker-a dis- charge we have found, in agreement with the Admin- istrative Law Judge, violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. As the foregoing demonstrates, employees in this small unit were badgered by Respondent's coercive interrogations and threats of imminent job loss al- most from the moment that their support for the Union became known to Respondent. Respondent's demonstrated hostility toward the Union and its sup- porters continued into March and April, culminating in the patently discriminatory discharge of Throm on May 1. Just as the threat of termination is a serious unfair labor practice, the effectuation of such a threat is even more serious and invariably results in a lasting impression on employees.7 Furthermore, the impact of the threats of terminating the trucking operation were made all the more coercive because they were made not by a low level supervisor, but by the owner himself. A warning that an operation will shut down if em- ployees select union representation is considered "one of the most potent instruments of employer interfer- ence with the right of employees to organize."8 Since most employees are dependent on their jobs for their livelihood, threatening to eliminate their place of em- ployment is sufficiently serious to justify a bargaining order, even standing alone. Thus, in Gissel, the Su- preme Court agreed with the Board's finding that an employer's threat of plant closure, couched in the foriti of an economic prediction unsupported by any objective evidence, was "so coercive" that "a bargain- ing order [was] necessary to repair the unlawful effect Here the threats of closure were only one feature of Respondent's pervasive, coercive, antiunion cam- paign. As shown, supra, Respondent's unfair labor practices in a relatively short time span also included coercive interrogations, giving employees the impres- sion otf surveillance and the discharge of Throm. Thus, the very nature and number of Respondent's unfair labor practices were sufficient to create an un- acceptable risk that any election now held would not reflect a choice made free of coercive influence. The coercive effects of Respondent's conduct will invari- ably persist even in the face of turnover of the em- ployee complement and to pay heed to such turnover Freehold M4,C-Jeep Corporation, 230 NLRB 903 (1977). ('here lhaboruories, Inc v N. I..R RB. 497 }.2d 445. 448 (8th Cir. 1974). (;lITS,/F stlpr, 61 . Accord: General Stencds, Inc., supra. I JIM BAKER TRIJCKIN( (OMPANY would only serve to "enable Respondent to benefit from its unlawful conduct."'0 We therefore find, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, that Respondent's unfair labor practices. designed to demonstrate the futility of further union adherence, were sufficiently serious and pervasive in character to preclude the holding of' a fair election and to warrant the issuance of a bargaining order. Under the principles set forth in Trading Port, Inc., 219 NLRB 298 (1975), we will date the order from February 18, 1978, the date upon which Respondent embarked on its unlawful campaign." ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act. as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or- der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be- low, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Jim Baker Trucking Company, Santa Rosa, California. its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Insert the following as paragraph (e): "(e) Creating the impression that the employees' protected concerted activities are being kept under surveillance." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a): "(a) Offer Daniel Throm immediate and full rein- statement to his former job or. if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for his loss of earnings incurred as a result of his discharge on May , 1978, in the manner provided in F. W. Wool- worth Compan'y, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NIRB 651 (1977)." 12 3. Insert the following as paragraph 2(c) and re- letter the subsequent paragraphs accordingly: "(c) Recognize and, upon request, bargain collec- tively and in good faith with the above-named Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em- ployment and, if an understanding is reached, em- body such understanding in a signed agreement. The appropriate unit is: All full-time and regular part-time drivers and helpers employed by the Employer at its Santa Rosa, California, facility excluding office clerical 0 International Manufacturing Copnyany, Inc, 238 NL.RB 1361 (1978) 1t Beasley Energi. Inc.. d/1 /a Ptrlkr Run ('C,a ('rnpylni. Ohls, Diiu,n 228 Nl.RB 93 (1977}. 2 See. generally. Isi Plumhtny & Heirting (. 138 NI.RR 716 (19621 enlplo ees. gulards and spersx i\or .i "r defined in the Act." 4. Substitute the attached notice flt thli;t ol the Administrative I.av .JiudLc. '5\i . i '-Xl t ] II \ ( l()Slli[ ) 11e ()RI)l R 1 1 li NAII() NI [ -\RI)I 1 l \titil\s [/i)\RIl An Agenc o the t nilcd Stltes (o\ crnrirlcn Wi i \\1 N() dichar?' or in i ti\ olie llill- ner discriminate ag.t:inst eniophNc th'e;aisc o1' ilemihership in ; Icli\ltles on tchll 1t' 1f (.cnu.:a, l'-iek 1)rixr,,. \\.rellt:ilelni . rit 1telers tUnion. local 980, lIntlitiiual 3ttrthcrt ihood ,,f Tea msters. ( 'hatlltclrs, nd c'i-lnScnll .1il r lelpers' of AnlcrTic;. or nll: lhcr itb ortlallil- W t \V II I NI ol iceitcl Cx;itiot1 'it i tlI)us because of union aclivit h\ r 11 hcll; ilt of ell- plovees. W l \NVII I () I I tCi t a ItC' C111)Ii\ e C , c TICt'ie lI- ing their union cl i\itties. WF Wi l enNao e i a\ acts which will create in the minds of our cnil' ecs tile ilpres- sion that their prolectcd nactixtieis : Irc hei tl keptr under surveillance N'i 1ii . sNo i an other allnner intertfere with, restrain,. or coerce our eniploeC in the ex- ercise of their rights prote ted h tlhce National labor Relations Act. W' II I recognlize ai, tilpl leIltcst. hrii'gii with the ahove-namied lnion a, the exclusiXe representatie o' all enlploees il t he nit (Ie- scribed helow vith espect to Xvages. horilr. aid other terms and conditions of e! rlnloll nmeit ;ltld. if a;n undersltandinLi i rechlod. embnhods !ui1h uin- derstandini in a silned conlqtIct The aplropri ate unit is: All full-time and regtlar p;irt-tinie dric ers and helpers employedi h us at S;nlal Rs;. (';li- fornia, exludilng r t1icC Cie l t' ll[ l ie\Ct's, guards 1and 111uper is, ors ;1, dcliCned in the -\t. 'VI: \NII I oiler 1 )lCI I h'ror i T l , l'clTe A11i full reinstatement to his ttlnc joh . i tllit 1t no longer exists. t a substa ltill! eqLi\ a cnlt p, sition. without preltjdice to his se1ni0rlit, or lthel rights and privileges. a1rid malke him wnhole for hls loss of eCrnl'1iis. x\ith intelrst t hcr'Coe, disiiss- ing. it' necessar\. :tnx CpIl(r)cc Iht rCd lI a r e- placeentll.t JIN 13AKI R t I I ( KINi, (ul\li'N'u I 1 DE(CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECISION STAIEMENI OF TIHE CASE' DAVID G. HEILBRtIN. Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Santa Rosa, California, on July 5, 6, and 7, based on consolidated complaints alleging that Jim Ba- ker Trucking Company, called Respondent, violated Sec- tion 8(a)( ) and (3) of the Act by discharging Daniel Throm because of his membership or activities on behalf of Gen- eral Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Lo- cal 980, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, called the Union, while interrogating employees concerning their union activities, threatening employees with cessation of operations because of their union activities, and creating the impression of surveillance of employees' union activi- ties. Upon the entire record, my observation of the witnesses, and consideration of post-hearing briefs (that of the Gen- eral Counsel taken in connection with an oral summation), I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND RESULTANT CONCLUSIONS OF LAU'W Respondent employs truckdrivers for contract delivery of automotive parts and mail.' In January driver Russell O'Neill contacted Union Business Representative Al An- drade, and a meeting ensued February 5 at which O'Neill along with drivers Ben Gonzales, George Cameron, and Paul Hudson, signed authorization cards. Following this a representation petition was filed February 17 and received by Respondent in ordinary course. Owner Jim Baker testi- fied to being shocked by this development, and on Febru- ary 18 or 19 repeatedly telephoned O'Neill soliciting infor- mation about card signers voting intentions and who instigators were, while stating he would resist unionization by temporarily closing the doors or changing the company name. A similar call was made to Gonzales, who was ques- tioned as to what he knew of the surfaced organizing effort. Cameron was spoken with privately by Baker at the time, asked who started the effort and how might he vote, while told that unionization would not result even if company doors had to be closed or the name changed to avoid that result. Gonzales soon quit his employment after intimating to Baker in a private conversation as they stood on the grounds of the Santa Rosa trucking facility that O'Neill, just driving out at that moment, was the person who started union activities. Baker's response was that he knew it to be a fact. All dates and named months are in 1978, unless shown otherwise. This is a sole proprietorship of Clarence J. (Jim) Baker engaged at Santa Rosa. California, in the business of transporting such goods and materials, for which he annually provides services valued in excess of $50,000 for enter- prises over each of which the Board would assert jurisdiction under a juris- dictional standard other than nonretail indirect outflow or indirect inflow. I find that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec. 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that the Union, which exists to "deal with companies con- cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment and conditions of work [for participating] employees." is a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Sec. 2(5). On March 17, Daniel Throm was hired as a driver re- placement for Gonzales. His interview and job commitment were handled by Sandie McLaughlin, wife of antiunion driver Bill McLaughlin and a person informally commis- sioned by Baker to recruit for him in the South Bay area. On Throm's first run to the Santa Rosa facility and intro- duction to Baker, the latter conversed with him about pend- ing "labor problems," asking how Throm felt about unions. In the weeks following, O'Neill pressed Throm to support the Union, and he eventually signed an authorization card on April 28 while asking for a blank one to give McLaugh- lin. This was provided to him, and he immediately went to the McLaughlin home, but succeeded only in raching San- die as her husband was unavailable at the time. Throm spoke favorably about unionizing the operations, to which Sandie answered that both she and her husband were op- posed. He again unsuccessfully attempted to reach Bill by telephone on April 30, a Sunday. On May 1, Throm re- turned to the McLaughlin home for the purpose of speak- ing directly to Bill in the afternoon before starting work. However shortly after arriving Baker appeared and, after discussing a recent Sonoma County accident report in which Throm was involved plus incorrect handling of freight bills, terminated Throm on the spot and took back all his keys. I credit the General Counsel's witnesses in regard to both telephone and personal dialogue engaged in with Baker. On demeanor grounds, their testimony is persuasively candid, while that of Baker is contrived and improbable in nature as to variations in testimony. Admittedly. the calls were made while "concerned" over the apparent advent of a union, and I discredit Baker's denial of having uttered threats. Credible testimony showed that Baker had long harbored animus toward unionism. as in August 1977 when he did not repudiate an intermeddler who told Cameron while being hired that Baker would never tolerate being union- ized, and again in December 1977 when Baker directly told Cameron that he would fight the prospect if ever raised by closing down or changing names. Such indication of hostil- ity is pertinent background to the discharge of Throm and the peculiar circumstances under which it occurred. This and the sudden timing of the action permits the inference it was for discriminatory purposes. Throm had just revealed himself to Respondent's agent as a further supporter of the union campaign, which at that point in time had been com- plicated by issuance of a complaint in Case 20-CA-13704 on April 26. The criticism of Throm's driving ability is ut- terly hollow, as matters of acumen in backing double-trail- ered trucks may promptly be evaluated upon hire, and the accidents in which Throm was involved appear not to have been leading toward disciplinary considerations until he signed the Union's authorization card. Baker has labelled Throm below average in terms of a customary 60 day pro- bationary period, complaining too of how estimated load weights were shown by Throm on shipping papers where not intended. As with other criticisms, this is unpersuasive. The inadvertent entry of estimated weight on a pink copy of sensitized, snap-out forms was compliantly corrected by Throm, who showed overall dedication to his work as when offering to pay uninsured vehicle damage he caused at Sun- 124 JIM BAKER TRUCKING COMPANY nyvale. Considering his experience as a commercial driver and the ordinary orientation phase still present after only 6 weeks employment with Respondent, I find no legitimate basis for him to have been discharged and associate it, in part at least, to having identified himself as a further unwel- come supporter of the Union. At the time of demand fbr recognition. Respondent em- ployed no more than seven drivers.' Of this group. four persons clearly evinced their desire for representation by the Union and this was unrepudiated at all material times during February and March. From this the Union's major- ity' status is proven, and should Respondent's conduct be determined as flagrantly pervasive and extensive in charac- ter. a bargaining order imposes to cure any clear tendency that majorit 3 strength of the Union is otherwise under- mined and an election process unalterably impeded. N.L.R.B. . Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575 (1969); McPeak Motor Conpantr, 198 NLRB 179 (1972): Wickes Lumber, d'hiba Home umher & Supply Compan'. 237 NLRB 322 (1978). Baker's initial threats to employees were shrill, and the interrogations not of a menacing nature. Key activists O'Neill, Gonzales, and Cameron were not hounded on the subject. and by June none of these were any longer in Respondent's employ. Throm did repeatedly insinuate himself onto the McLaughlins. and while this very trait is the basis to infer that knowledge had passed to Baker, it is also significant that one's personal wishes deserve respect within one's own household. Controlling doctrine in this area is rooted in value judgments, and I find Respondent's conduct as a whole not so egregious as to warrant the bar- gaining order. All allegations of the consolidated complaints, including, with the exception of paragraph VI(f), those amended at the hearing, have been satisfactorily proven from the evi- dence as a whole. I do not find Respondent has created the impression of surveillance by mere comment to Gonzales that it knew O'Neill was a prime mover for the Union. This conversational exchange falls short of intimating the sort of intensity necessary to believe that actual surveillance of protected activities has occurred. With this sole exception to General Counsel's successful prosecution of the case, I accordingly conclude that Respondent, by interrogating employees concerning their union activities, threatening employees with a cessation of operations because of their union activities, and discharging Daniel Throm, has en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tions 8(a)(l) and (3) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. I3 find that all full-time and regular part-time drivers and helpers em- ployed by Respondent, excluding office clencal employees, guards and su- pervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec. 9(b) of the Act. Baker testi- fied to occasionally employing certain mechanical "apprentices" around the Santa Rosa facility. Without further information as to these and considering the admittedly sporadic nature of their employment. I would not find such individuals to have a sufficient community of interest with dnvers and help- ers as to permit their inclusion in the unit. Further. a dispute exists as to the inclusion of Paul Hudson. who for many months has worked a regular 22- 1/ 2-hour workweek performing the completion of driving routes fully com- parable to those handled hb full-time drivers I therefore find Hudson includ- able in the unit because there is plain regularity to his part-time employment. Disposition Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER' The Respondent. Clarence J. Baker. d/b/a Jim Baker Trucking Co., his agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or in any other manner discriminating against employees to discourage their support for General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 980. International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. (b) Threatening cessation of operations because of em- ployees' union activities. (c) Interrogating employees concerning their union ac- tivities. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Reinstate Daniel Throm to his former position of em- ployment without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole as provided in F. W: 'ool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950). and Florida Steel Corporation. 231 NLRB 651 (1977). for any loss of earnings incurred from being terminated on May 1, 1978. (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards personnel records and reports, and all other records neces- sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post the attached notice marked "Appendix" at its Santa Rosa, California, place of business.5 Copies of this notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 20, after being duly signed by Respondent or an autho- rized representative, shall be conspicuously posted immedi- ately upon receipt and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondent to ensure that such notices are not altered. de- faced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. I In the event no exceptions are filed as provided bh Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings. conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment ot a United States Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted hb Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posled Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States ('ourt of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board" 125