Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.

RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC. 53 offered many suggestions; their points were discussed and considered. As to some suggestions company representatives agreed to investigate the possibilities they offered. Another meeting was held on January 4 and considerable discussion again took place. At this meeting the company representatives in effect made it clear that certain of the changes which had been discussed would be put into effect in mid- January. Management, however, apparently again delayed putting the changes into effect, when a further meeting was arranged for January 17. At the January 17 meeting the union representatives took the flat position that the Company had no "right to put these changes into effect without first coming to an agreement with the Union." Management insisted that , having followed the "discussions" procedure, set out in the Memorandum of Understanding , it would proceed with the changes . It did so, and the Union filed its charge, claiming that the Respondent had failed to bargain in good faith with it. C. Conclusions Although opposing counsel, in their able and exhaustive briefs, have covered a good deal of disputatious ground, the issue appears to the Trial Examiner to be some- what more simple when lifted from the entanglement of prolonged argument. At most, it seems, there are but two points to the issue : ( 1) Did the procedure followed by the Respondent in making changes violate its collective -bargaining agree- ment; and (2 ) did this procedure violate the provisions of the Act-by not meeting the legal requirements of collective bargaining? In the opinion of the Trial Examiner management met fully , and in good faith, the provisions both parties agreed to in "Memorandum of Understanding 'D."' It not only announced changes, but at many meetings both discussed them and permitted union representatives to propose alternatives . Its willingness to go somewhat beyond the rights defined in the memorandum in no way nullified the language of that document or its right ultimately to effectuate the changes without "agreement." As to point (2), it is equally clear that at no material time did the Respondent fail or refuse to "meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment." It will therefore be recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. and Truckdrivers and Helpers, Local 515, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind. Case No. 10-CA- 4726. January 5, 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On October 24, 1961, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his Intermediate Report herein, finding that Respondent engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the Re- spondent and the General Counsel each filed exceptions with a supporting brief. 135 NLRB No. 8. I 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record. The Board affirms the Trial Ex- aminer's rulings and adopts his findings i and conclusions z ORDER The Board adopts the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner with the modification that provision 2 (b) read : "Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." The Board further orders that the complaint be dismissed to the extent recommended by the Trial Examiner. i Member Brown disagrees with the Trial Examiner's characterization of Earnhardt's remarks at the general meeting of May 26 as a "noncoercive prediction." On that occasion, Earnhardt told the employees that there was a chance that the branch involved would get 40 additional trucks which would mean more work for the branch employees , but that "If word of the union activity were to spread or if the activity itself were to go further" the branch would "very definitely not get those trucks ." Member Brown believes that these remarks were coercive and in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, and would so find 2 The Trial Examiner found that Respondent had discharge Fred Hill for nondiscrimina- tory reasons even though he assumed that Respondent made inquiries among the employees in the unit until it ascertained the identity of all of the union adherents . Although the record indicates that Respondent's branch manager , Earnhardt , knew that employees Varnell and Lamere had joined the Union , the record does not indicate that Respondent's officials, prior to Hill's discharge, also knew that he had joined. For this additional reason, we agree with the Trial Examiner that Hill was not discharged for discriminatory reasons. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed by Truckdrivers and Helpers , Local 515, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board , by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region , issued his complaint dated July 3, 1961 , against Ryder Truck Rental , Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat . 136, herein called the Act. The Respondent's answer to the complaint denies the allegations of statutory violations set forth therein . Copies of the complaint, the charges, and a notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Chattanooga , Tennessee, on August 23, 1961 , before Thomas N. Kessel , the Trial Examiner duly designated to conduct the hearing. All parties were represented by counsel . Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence was afforded all parties. After the close of the hearing the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. PERTINENT COMMERCE FACTS The complaint as amended alleges and the answer as amended admits that the Respondent is a Florida corporation maintaining a place of business in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the truck rental business, and that in the 12-month period preceding issuance of the complaint it performed services outside the State of Tennessee valued in excess of $50,000. From these facts I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that exercise of the Board's jurisdiction over its operations will effectuate the purposes of the Act. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC. 55 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. - HI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Respondent maintains a nationwide truck rental service. Administratively, the Respondent is organized into regions which include districts, and the latter in turn have jurisdiction over branches. The alleged unfair <labor practices occurred in the Chattanooga branch which was part of the Atlanta district in the southeastern region. The headquarters for the southeastern region are in Miami, Florida. The Chattanooga branch manager is Buford Earnhardt. The Atlanta district manager is Louis F. Hunter, Jr., and Robert McClure, Jr., is the Respondent's vice president and regional manager in charge of the southeastern region at Miami. As part of its rental service in Chattanooga the Respondent has at this branch a facility for the repair and maintenance of its rented trucks. At the time of the events in question the Respondent employed five employees with various occupational classifications for the performance of these services. Included in this group of five employees were Alfred W. Lamere, Jr., Allie Raymond Varnell, Jr., and Fred Hill. The last-named person is the employee alleged in this case to have been unlawfully discharged by the Respondent on May 25, 1961. The following facts are established by credited testimony which does not appear to be challenged by either side. About May 11, 1961, Lamere, Varnell, and Hill discussed the desirability of unionizing their shop. Because Hill was acquainted with the business agent of the Union it was decided that he should obtain the neces- sary cards for signature by the employees. This Hill did on May 17. All three signed the Union's authorization cards and Hill returned them to the Union. By letter addressed to Earnhardt dated May 23 the Union notified the Respondent that it represented a majority of its employees and requested recognition of its status and collective bargaining. This letter was received and read by Earnhardt on the morn- ing of May 24. By telegram dated May 24 Earnhardt stated disbelief of the Union's claim and refused to accord recognition or to engage in collective bargaining until the Union's status was determined by a Board election. The telegram further advised the Union to contact the Respondent's attorney with respect to other matters. On May 24 the Respondent's attorney from Atlanta, J. W. Wilcox, Jr., came to Chat- tanooga and addressed the employees. In the course of his remarks he strongly urged them to reject the Union as their representative. The General Counsel does not claim that anything said by Wilcox is violative of the Act. The General Counsel does rely on certain of his comments, to which I advert below, as evidence of the Respondent's strenuous opposition to the Union. Earnhardt also spoke to the employees that day and in the next several days singly and collectively. What he said to them on these occasions is disputed and will be set out later according to the conflicting versions. The General Counsel maintains and the Respondent denies that Earnhardt in his conversations with the employees went beyond permissible limits of free speech in attempting to dissuade them from belonging to the Union. Lamere testified that at the May 24 meeting in Earnhardt's office to which he had been summoned with the other employees, Wilcox said, among other things, referring to the Union, "We are not going to roll over and let them take over. We are going to fight it tooth and nail. We do not aim to let the Union get ahold of Ryder Truck Rental as it had Ryder Truck Lines." To Earnhardt, Lamere attributed on this oc- casion a general interrogation of the employees as to their problems or gripes. Earnhardt, he related, asked the group to speak openly but got no response. Then he addressed each employee individually and only one, Jim Chambers, responded, and he spoke against unionization. When Lamere reported for work in the afternoon of May 25, he learned that Hill had that day either been fired or laid off. His foreman sent him to Earnhardt's office. Earnhardt asked what he or the Respondent had done wrong. According to Lamere, he said "his face was the blackest of any branch manager in the whole southeastern division and that all eyes of the whole region are on this Chattanooga branch because of this union activity." Again Earnhardt asked Lamere to explain what had hap- pened and to enlighten him concerning the reasons for "this union mess." Lamere felt he could say nothing. Lamere recounted another general meeting called by Earnhardt on May 26 at which time he spoke to the employees about the Respondent's stock purchase plan. Once more Earnhardt asked the employees to inform him about what he had done wrong and asserted the Respondent's desire to rectify its mistakes . Then he men- tioned a chance which the branch had "to get forty extra, additional trucks that would give us plenty work and put us on the map." He cautioned that if word of 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the union activity were to spread or if the activity itself were to go further the branch would "very definitely not get those trucks." Lamere acknowledged that in part these remarks were intended to convey the idea that persons renting trucks do not wish their employees to go to places where there are union employees. But, he added, Earnhardt gave him the impression that if the Union were to prevail "we doggone sure worldn't get those trucks" and that there would not be enough work for the employees. In connection with what he said about "getting on the map" Earnhardt further stated, "If we get a union, we will be on the union map." Again Earnhardt asked for an explanation of what had happened and encouraged the employees to tell what had brought on the union activity. There was no response. Earnhardt admonished that if there were an election over the Union "there won't be a winner; there can't be a winner. If it comes to a vote and the Union wins or if the Union loses, I'll guarantee you there cannot be a winner." When Lamere reported for work on May 29 he spoke to Varnell who told him he had conferred with Earnhardt and reported the latter's desire also to speak with Lamere. When he came to the office Earnhardt said, "Al, I've talked to Varnell and I want to talk to you now. I want you to drop this whole union activity, this whole union mess; kill it right now." He added he was going to Miami and wanted to tell Jim Ryder (probably one of the Respondent's high officials) "that this whole thing has been squared away and that it was just a little misunderstanding." Lamere stated he could not speak for the other employees but that he would talk to Varnell who was the only one left who had been involved in the Union. Earnhardt said, "If it goes any further I can't guarantee what will happen." Then he exhibited a piece of paper on which he said he had the names, dates, and information concerning the exact persons who were involved in the union activity and which he was going to mail to Bob McClure if the matter was not killed at that point. Lamere pointed out that Hill had already lost his job on account of the Union and he wanted to know what would happen to himself and Varnell if they did drop the Union. Earnhardt replied, "Al, I know nobody will ever believe it. It's such a coincidence. But Mr. Hunter was down here from Atlanta with orders to lay off a man." He indicated to Lamere that the branch had exceeded its labor budget costs and it was necessary to lay a man off and the person to be selected had to be either Lamere or Hill. Lamere replied he would speak to Vamell and let Earnhardt know their decision. Earnhardt asked for a decision by that night. Following this meeting Lamere spoke to Varnell and both decided that to keep their jobs they had better go along with Earnhardt. They both returned and stated their decision whereupon Earnhardt said, "Fellows, I am overjoyed that you have come to this decision." Then he tore up the paper on which he had told Lamere he had included information concerning the union activities of employees. He shook hands with Lamere and Varnell and they left his office. Lamere conceded during his cross-examination that Earnhardt had not promised him or other employees during the aforementioned meetings anything of value to reject the Union. Asked whether Earnhardt had threatened employees, Lamere testified that he regarded Earnhardt's guarantee that there would be no winner even if the Union were to prevail as a threat to close the shop and of loss of jobs. Varnell substantially confirmed Lamere's account of the May 24 meeting. He differed with Lamere in attributing to Wilcox rather than Earnhardt the importuning of employees to reveal their complaints and to enter immediate discussion to iron out their problems. He related that on May 25 Earnhardt summoned him to his office where he asked why the employees had tried to become unionized and told him "his face was the blackest of any branch in the southeast region because of this union activity." He mentioned the delay in making Varnell a shop foreman and explained it was due to his short tenure. He then asked whether Varnell had anything to say, but the latter had no comment. Earnhardt spoke also about the negotiations for 40 trucks from a certain company and the good chance the Respondent had to get this account. He expressed the fear that the account would not be secured if the word of the union activity were to get around. On May 29. Varnell was again summoned by Earnhardt who revealed that he was going to Miami and that he wished he could tell Mr. Ryder that the union affair had been a misunderstanding. He urged Varnell to drop the Union, that it was a mess. Varnell stated that he could speak only for himself. whereupon Earn- hardt urged him to consult Lamere and to get together with him. Varnell left and spoke to Lamere. The latter then conferred privately with Earnhardt. There- after Varnell and Lamere talked things over and agreed to drop the Union in order to keep their jobs. They returned to Earnhard and reported their decision. They shook hands and parted. Cross-examined, Varnell agreed that he had not heard any threats from Earnhardt, that he had not received from him any promises of benefit to abandon the Union, RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC. 57 and that in effect what he had heard Earnhardt say constituted an appeal to the employees to reject the Union on the ground that it would not serve their interests. Concerning the foregoing accounts of Lamere and Varnell of things said and done by him, Earnhardt testified that in his meetings with employees between May 24 and 29, he had merely urged them to "forget this whole mess and go back and do our jobs and put it behind us." Concededly, he told the employees he did not favor a union for them as they were too small a group and he did not perceive how they could benefit from unionization. He denied any retaliatory threats for their union adherence or promises of benefit if they would reject the Union. Regarding the letter to which he referred in his conversation with Lamere on May 29, Earn- hardt testified that in it he had merely "outlined" the union activity at the branch and that he had not designated the names of the union adherents. Employee James E. Chambers testified categorically that he had occasionally attended meetings with other employees conducted by Earnhardt and had never heard him threaten employees with reprisals or offer them material benefits to induce them to favor or oppose the Union. Hill was hired by the Respondent as a full-time mechanic on October 9, 1960. Before then he had worked for 2 months for the Respondent on a part-time basis. He testified that on May 25 he was told by his foreman, Frank Koplin, in Earnhardt's presence that he was being laid off because there was insufficient work for him.' The following day he requested a formal discharge notice to present to the State unemployment office. The reason given by the Respondent on this form for his termination was "reduction in personnel." Hill related that when he received his regular employment from the Respondent he was designated "night lead man" and for this reason was told by Earnhardt that he would be recognized as a "company man." He claimed Earnhardt also instructed him immediately to let him know what he should hear about anybody being unhappy or about any union activity. Relative to whether Hill's termination was attributable to insufficiency of work at the branch, Lamere testified in substance that four employees who remained after Hill's departure have absorbed the duties formerly performed by him and are now more fully occupied. He acknowledged that part of their heavier workloads is the result of the acquisition by the branch of "quite a few" new vehicles. He claimed to have observed that Foreman Koplin who previously had strictly been a supervisor now spends considerable time working with tools in the shop and on the gas island, and that one of the office employees now does a good part of Koplin's paperwork. Much work which formerly would have been done by daytime em- ployees now is performed by the night workers including himself. There has been a marked increase in the times when he is required to continue work on a job beyond his normal 1 a in. quitting time. This, however, is consistent with the Respondent's policy of keeping a mechanic on the job until it is completed. In these circum- stances Lamere is given compensatory time off the next day so that he actually earns no overtime pay. He still works 40 hours weekly just as he did before Hill's termination. Lamere also noted that certain repair jobs which Hill normally would have performed have been farmed out to other repair companies. He specifically recalled a clutch job on a tractor which was sent out for which the Respondent was charged approximately $250. On one occasion a truck broke down on the road and it was necessary to send a man who was not even employed by the Respondent to the truck. Another time one of the Respondent's trucks had to be picked up in Augusta, Georgia, and it was necessary to send an employee, apparently at extra pay, to bring back the truck. Additionally, the Respondent no longer uses its em- ployees at the branch to wash its trucks and now pays an independent firm, of which employee Chambers is one of the owners, to perform this service. The monthly costs incurred by the branch for so-called outside services are posted by the Respondent on its bulletin board where they may be inspected by the employees. Lamere claimed that after Hill's separation these costs increased materially. He re- lated that the Respondent's normal allowance for outside service costs are $8 daily or approximately $240 monthly. The only specific monthly costs he could recall were for the first 21 days in August. For this period the costs had already come to $433. Varnell also testified that the branch employees are busier than before Hill's de- parture. This he attributes to the absorption by them of Hill's duties ,and an in- crease in business. He, too, noted that more work that used to be performed in the shop is being farmed out. He recalled the clutch job to which Lamere had ad- The Union's Business agent, George E. Hicks, Jr., testified that when he learned from Hill on May 26 that he had been terminated he called Earnhardt who referred him to Attorney Wilcox Hicks stated that he was informed, apparently by Earnhardt, that Hill had been discharged for lack of work 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD verted as an instance where normal shopwork was performed by an outside com- pany and he observed that bodywork which formerly had been done in the shop was also farmed out. He could, however, express no opinion as to how much more work was done outside the shop than previously. To establish motive for Hill's discharge the General Counsel presented as a wit- ness a former supervisor from the Chattanooga branch named Novis B. Mitchell who testified that in December 1959 he attended a meeting called by Earnhardt at which a zone maintenance supervisor for the Respondent was also present. At this meeting Earnhardt sought to determine who were the leaders of a movement to form a union at the branch concerning which he had acquired information. In response to his inquiry Mitchell named employees Terry, Highfield, and Batty as the leaders. Thereupon, according to Mitchell, he and Earnhardt decided to lay off Batty and Highfield the next day and to make Terry a salaried supervisor. High- field was told his layoff was due to lack of work, whereas in fact this was not true. The reason given Batty for his termination was the infirmity of one of his eyes. Ac- tually, Mitchell testified, Batty's physical defect had not interfered with his shopwork. Both men were replaced about 2 weeks after their terminations. The Respondent explained that Hill was not discharged for union activities but that he was terminated for economic reasons. Hunter, the Atlanta district manager, testified that in recent months the Respondent had encountered a serious drop in revenues and profits. In May he had been told by Vice President McClure and others in the southeastern region that the labor costs of the branches in the Atlanta district would have to be brought in line with the Respondent's 12-percent ratio of labor costs to revenue. Accordingly, he had initiated manpower reductions in two branches in Atlanta with six terminations to be effective on May 24 and 25. Upon study of the fiscal reports from the Chattanooga branch he decided that one em- ployee should be eliminated there to bring its costs in line with the 12-percent norm. The Chattanooga records revealed the labor cost percentages for January through April 1961 were 15.8, 12.83, 14.67, and 13.66. Because Hunter visits this branch about twice monthly he delayed informing Earnhardt of this decision until he saw him personally on May 24 on a trip to Chattanooga. He arrived there shortly before 8 a.m. that day and soon thereafter met with Earnhardt. Hunter related that when he first saw Earnhardt he observed that he was reading a letter which he had just received in the mail which turned out to be the communication from the Union giving notice of its majority status and requesting recognition. He discussed the matter with Earnhardt who claimed surprise. Subsequently, Hunter apprised Earn- hardt of the reason for his visit, and gave instruction to eliminate one employee. He had no voice in the selection of this employee. Earnhardt confirmed Hunter's account of his visit to his office on May 24 and the matter considered by them. He testified that pursuant to Hunter's instruction he discussed with Foreman Koplin the selection of an appropriate employee and that afternoon decided to eliminate Hill. Explaining the reasons for this choice, Earn- hardt pointed out that among the five employees in the branch shop there was one bodyman, one night lead mechanic, and one major engine overhaul man. Each of these was indispensable. There were, however, two preventive maintenance me- chanics. One of these was expendable. The employees in this classification were Lamere and Hill. The latter was chosen because of his lesser service and because Lamere was regarded as more competent. Hill was not notified until May 25 because he did not work on May 24. Earnhardt maintained that he and Koplin had revealed to Hill when they termi- nated him that the action stemmed from Hunter's visit and the consequent necessity for reducing the shop's labor costs. He denied that he had known of Hill's union activities at the time or that the Union's May 24 letter had anything to do with Hill's termination. The shop employees, according to Earnhardt, have not been overworked since Hill's departure. All except Varnell, whose variable schedule ranges from 40 to 45 hours weekly, work only a 40-hour week. The total operation, Earnhardt insisted, is more efficient now than before, and this without the hiring of any re- placement for Hill. Labor costs for June dropped to 11.2 percent. He did not have with him the fiscal data for July and ventured no opinion concerning it. Regarding outside labor costs, Earnhardt testified that the only available data consisted of figures in which the costs of the Chattanooga branch were grouped with those of a suboperation at Cleveland, Tennessee. These, combined figures show costs for March 1961 to have been $260, for April $584, for May $175, for June $301 and for July approximately $600., Earnhardt could only estimate the portion of these costs chargeable to Chattanooga. He estimated that most of the $175 ex- pended in May was incurred by Chattanooga, of the $301 in June about $150 by Chattanooga, and of the approximately $600 in July about $350. In explanation of the marked increase in the July costs for Chattanooga, he testified that a customer RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC. 59 had required the repainting and relettering of eight trucks and that two or three units had cost the Respondent $60 to $80 each in that month. Similar costs were incurred for one or two units in August and about one-half of the entire group still remains to be completed. Earnhardt conceded that the shop employees no longer had time to wash vehicles. He testified that the washing of trucks had been an uneconomical procedure in the past because a part-time employee had to be hired to drive them from the customers to the shop and then back to the customers. Sometimes the trucks could not get their weekly washings. As a result the Respondent had checked with various service stations to determine whether they could wash the trucks at customer premises. The cost figures for this operation were unsatisfactory. Finally, employee Chambers and his father arranged to wash the trucks at customer premises with portable equipment-for an amount Earnhardt described as nominal? Outside labor costs include this charge for washing trucks. No part of these outside costs is included in computing the ratio of the Chattanooga branch labor costs to total revenues. Concerning former Supervisor Mitchell's account of the December 1959 incidents involving the discharge of two employees for union activities, Earnhardt maintained that one had been discharged for failure to report for work because of intoxication, and that the other had been discharged for violating an order not to drive the Respondent's equipment and because he was replaced by a man needed to perform other services. Findings From the credited testimony of Lamere and Varnell, I find that Earnhardt (a) interrogated employees concerning their union sympathies and activities in a context of declarations of extreme hostility to unionization and the commission of other coercive conduct hereinafter specified; (b) solicited the withdrawal by em- ployees from the Union; (c) created the impression of surveillance of employees while engaging in union activities by stating to an employee that he had detailed in a letter the specific union activities of the employees involved in such activities; and (d) threatened employees with retaliatory reprisals for unionizing their shop. In this connection, I rely on Earnhardt's guarantee that there would be no winner even if the Union were to prevail. I regard Lamere's interpretation of these words in con- text as a threat of job loss as reasonable. I rely also on Earnhardt's threat to mail the letter to McClure. I do not rely on the comments of loss of the 40 trucks from a customer as a threat, but regard it only as a noncoercive prediction of what a customer, not the Respondent, might do in the event the Respondent's employees were to become unionized. All the foregoing conduct interfered with, coerced, and restrained employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a) (1) thereof. I find no evidence of promises of material benefits to employees to induce rejec- tion of the Union. Earnhardt's explanation to Varnell of the delay in making him a foreman was not an offer of a benefit. The matter was undoubtedly raised because Earnhardt felt that Varnell had turned to the Union because of failure to obtain the foremanship which had been promised him before the advent of the Union. There is no evidence that a definite promise to make him a foreman was now given as an inducement for his abandonment of the Union. The General Counsel's reli- ance on this incident to support the Section 8(a)(1) allegation of the complaint is misplaced. Concerning Hill's discharge, the record shows that this event followed directly on the heels of the Union's letter to the Respondent demanding recognition and collective bargaining. In fact the decision to release him was made the very day of the letter's arrival. It followed expressions of uncompromising hostility to the Union by the Respondent's attorney and by Earnhardt and unlawful interrogation of employees concerning their union sympathies and activities. It occurred in a context of unlawful threats, solicitations, and continued interrogation of employees by Earnhardt to defeat the Union. The discharge was decided upon by the Re- spondent's agent, Earnhardt, who had in the past discharged employees for their union activities and who admittedly was fearful that unionization of this branch would harm his position within the Respondent's organization. In this connection, I have credited Mitchell's account of the 1959 discharges because on this record he was a totally disinterested witness who had nothing to gain from the outcome of the proceeding. By contrast, Earnhardt's future with the Respondent, at least in his 2 Tile Respondent presented no evidence as to the costs now incurred for washing trucks. Lamere, however, testified without refutation that he had seen a June 11 authorization from the Respondent to the J. C. Truck Laundry Company of $25 for washing 11 trucks and a washrack, and that he had recently seen another such authorization in the amount of $21 for washing 10 trucks. 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mind, was involved with the Union's success or failure . As to the Respondent's knowledge of Hill's union activities, I am satisfied that Earnhardt quickly learned which of his five shop employees were union adherents. He knew that employee Chambers was against the Union because of his expressed opposition to it at the May 24 meeting. Earnhardt obviously learned that Lamere and Varnell were for the Union as his contacts with them so conclusively show. That left for his determination only which other employee was for the Union. I assume that his interrogations did not begin or end with Lamere and Varnell, and that in the course ,of them, he easily determined which of the two remaining employees was not a union adherent leaving only Hill as the third member of the union triumvirate comprising the Union's claimed majority. While the foregoing circumstances reasonably permit the inference that Hill's discharge sprang from the Respondent's avowed threat to fight the Union "tooth and nail" and that it was intended to prevent unionization of the Respondent's employees, I am persuaded by the Respondent's explanation that Hill was lawfully terminated for reasons unrelated to his union activities. The keystone on which the Respondent's defense rests is Hunter's testimony that on May 24 he directed Earnhardt to reduce the labor costs of the Chattanooga branch to the required 12-percent standard by the dismissal of one employee. I believe Hunter's testimony. He impressed me as a truthful person, and the record furnishes no compelling reason for rejecting his testimony. Granted that the coin- cidence of his business in Chattanooga raises suspicions which gave me pause, there is no basis for belief that his visit was influenced by the union activities going on there. I am satisfied that the Respondent knew nothing about these activities until the May 24 letter was read that day by Earnhardt. Hunter could, therefore, not possibly have known of these affairs before his arrival. Nor is there any convincing reason to cause disbelief of Hunter's testimony that he had been directed on or about May 11 by his superiors to bring the labor costs of the branches under his jurisdiction in line with the Respondent's 12-percent standard. In view of the Respondent's substantial losses described by Hunter, it is wholly believable that he had received such directive and I am not deterred from this belief because the Respondent did not present for the record written documentation thereof. This being so, I am per- suaded by Hunter's testimony that upon review of the Chattanooga records he con- cluded that this branch should meet the requirements of his superiors by dropping one employee from its rolls. That similar action had not been taken in previous months when the Chattanooga costs exceeded the 12 percent standard does not ,convince me that the May action was contrived to provide a pretext for Hill's dis- missal. Fiscal belts are tightened and standards of efficiency which have been long ignored ofttimes are taken more seriously in lean periods. I am convinced this is what happened in the Respondent's organization in May 1961 and that this explains Hill's termination. I carefully scrutinized Hunter's testimony in the light of evidence tending to show that by dropping Hill the Respondent did not actually incur a saving in labor costs. Lamere's and Varnell's testimony that they worked harder after Hill left, or that other personnel, including Foreman Koplin, took on added duties does not prove that Hill's elimination brought no savings. Actually, it shows the reverse to be true and supports a conclusion that the Respondent is now running a more efficient operation by fuller utilization of its personnel. Testimony indicating that more work is now being farmed out which would have been performed in the shop had Hill remained more meaningfully supports the argument that Hill was not dropped just to save labor cost. But Lamere's and Varnell's testimony is too scant. The actual outside labor cost figures supplied by Earnhardt in his testimony are more meaningful. They could have shed far greater light on the question had they been fully itemized so that an objective determination could have been made that specific costs would or would not have been incurred if Hill had remained in the shop. The record did not go that far. All that can be done is to compare the total amount of these costs incurred after May with the cost of these services before Hill's termi- nation. On that basis, I perceive no significant difference particularly when con- sideration is given to the special expense for painting and lettering trucks included in the July and August figures. Having found that Hunter had directed Earnhardt to eliminate an employee from his branch, a finding that Hill's termination was unlawful could be reached only if the record showed that he, rather than some other employee, had been selected for dismissal because of his union activities. Such finding is not warranted. Earnhardt's explanation for Hill's selection is unassailable. The decision logically boiled down to a choice between Lamere and Hill. Lamere's greater seniority and competence provide plausible reason for his retention. Whether Earnhardt might have sought some other means of discrimination against Hill had not Hunter's visit providently RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC. 61 furnished a means for escaping his dilemma is of no concern to this proceeding. The fact is that Hill was not discharged for his union activities and the complaint allegation that his discharge was violative of the Act is therefore not sustained. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section II, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Truckdrivers and Helpers, Local 515, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By the commission of acts of interference, restraint, and coercion of its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as hereinabove related, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The allegations of the complaint with respect to the unlawful discharge of Fred Hill in violation of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act have not been sustained. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, it is recommended that Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees engaging in union activities by interrogating them concerning their union sympathes and activities, by soliciting their withdrawal from the Union, by creating the impression of surveillance of their union activities, and by threatening them with retaliatory reprisals if they were to become unionized. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Truckdrivers and Helpers, Local 515, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., or any other labor organi- zation, to bargain collectively with 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 engaging in such activities, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 3 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized repre- sentative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in " In the event that these recommendations be adopted by the Board, the words "A Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pur- suant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region , in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply therewith. 3. It is recommend that the allegations of the complaint with respect to the un- lawful discharge of Fred Hill be dismissed. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re- lations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights to engage in or to refrain from engaging in union activities by interrogating them concerning their union sympathies and activities , by soliciting their withdrawal from Truckdrivers and Helpers , Local 515, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., or any other labor organization , creating the impression of surveillance of employees while engaging in union activities , and my threatening employees with retaliatory reprisals for becoming unionized. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, or to join or assist Truckdrivers and Helpers , Local 515, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from engaging in such activities as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. All our employees are free to become or remain , or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 745 and - Macatee, Inc. Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 745, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Macatee, Inc. Cases Nos. 16-CB-158 and 16-CP-1. January 5, 1962 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION GRANTING MOTION AND MODIFYING ORDER On May 11, 1960, the Board issued a Decision and Order in this pro- ceeding, finding that the Respondent had violated Section 8 (b) (7) (B) of the Act.' In its Order, the Board directed Respondent to cease and 1 127 NLRB 683. 135 NLRB No. 11.