Edward G. Partin, Bus. Agent, Local No. 5, Etc.

EDWARD G. PARTIN, BUS. AGENT, LOCAL NO. 5, ETC. 819 men. On the only two occasions when a working foreman has re- quested the removal of an employee from his crew, the requests were granted. As there appears to be no difference between the authority and re- sponsibility exercised by the foremen and that exercised by the work- ing foremen, other than what may be attributable to the size of their crews, we find that the status of the working foremen is not signifi- cantly distinguishable from the status of the exempt foremen. As the latter are excluded from the certified unit as supervisors, we see no reason why the former should not also be excluded. [The Board clarified the certification issued herein on October 12, 1943, by specifying that working foremen in the transmission and distribution department are excluded from the unit as supervisors.] Edward G. Partin, Business Agent, General, Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 5, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind. [Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.] and Calvin C. Clary. Case No. 15-CB-69?. September 4, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On April 30, 1964, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that he cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's De- cision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to portions of the Trial Examiner's Decision, and the General Counsel filed a brief in answer thereto. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers Leedom and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the General Counsel's brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 148 NLRB No. 88. 820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom- mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,' with the following additions : Add the following sentence to paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Exam- iner's Recommended Order: Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstate- ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. The following is added as -the third indented paragraph, in Ap- pendix A attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision : I WILL notify Ryder Truck Lines that I have no objection to the reinstatement of Calvin C. Clary. Add the following immediately below the signature line in Ap- pendix A : I WILL notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full re- instatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. i In the absence of exceptions thereto, the Board adopts the Trial Examiner 's recom- mendation that Respondent make 'Calvin C. Clary whole for any loss suffered as a result of Respondent's violations of the Act. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat.. 163, 73 Stat. 519), was heard at Baton Rouge , Louisiana, on March 17 and 25, 1964, pursuant to due notice . The complaint, issued on August 13, -1963, by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on a charge dated January 12, 1963 , alleged in substance that Respondent Partin engaged in un- fair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2 ) of the Act by attempt- ing to cause and by causing Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., herein called Ryder, to discharge Calvin C. Clary for reasons unrelated to his failure to tender or pay the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining mem- bership in Local No. 5, herein called the Union. By its answer filed on August 28, Respondent denied the allegations of unfair labor practices.' - i Respondent's answer was filed by victor H. Hess, Jr., Esq., of the firm of Jackson & Hess , of New Orleans , Louisiana, who withdrew as counsel on February 18, 1964. Upon the opening of the hearing on March 17, William C. Bradley , Esq., entered his appearance as counsel for Respondent, and upon his motion, a continuance was granted to March 25 in order to enable Bradley to prepare for the hearing . When the hearing was resumed on March 25 , no one appeared for Respondent. On April 1 , George Bokat, Chief Trial Examiner, wrote Bradley ( see Appendix B hereto ) seeking an explanation of his failure EDWARD G. PARTIN, BUS. AGENT, LOCAL NO. 5, ETC. 821 The only issue is whether, as alleged in the complaint, Respondent caused and attempted to cause Ryder to discharge Clary for some reason other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required by the Union. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Ryder, a Florida corporation with its principal office in Jacksonville, Florida, is a certificated common carrier of general commodities in interstate commerce by motor vehicle. It maintains a truck terminal in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the only terminal involved in this proceeding. During the 12 months prior to this proceeding, Ryder derived from its Baton Rouge terminal gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for serv- ices performed in interstate commerce. Ryder is therefore engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local No. 5 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The evidence Calvin C. Clary was formerly employed by Herrin Transportation of Baton Rouge, but went with Ryder in May 1961 as a city pickup and delivery driver in Baton Rouge. There was no break in his employment between the two jobs. He joined Local No. 5 in January 1959 while with Herrin, and his dues were deducted from the payroll. Ryder was a party with the Southern Conference of Teamsters to a local freight forwarding pickup and delivery agreement which was in effect from February 1, 1961, to January 31, 1964, and which contained the following union-shop provision: All present employees who are members of the Local Union on the effective date of this subsection or on the date of execution of this agreement whichever is later, shall remain members of the Local Union in good standing as a condi- tion of employment. All present employees who are not members of the Local Union and all employees who are hired hereafter shall become and remain mem- bers in good standing of the Local Union as a condition of employment on and after the 31st day following the beginning of their employment or on and after the 31st day following the date of execution of this subsection, whichever is the later ... . The contract also contained a checkoff clause under which the employer agreed to deduct the union dues of employees upon written authorization, signed by the em- ployee, to be delivered to the employer by the Union and upon a certified list, to be furnished to the employer each month by the Union, of such of its members who had signed authorizations. Though Clary's dues were not under a checkoff authorization when he first went with Ryder, he signed such an authorization at Ryder's office on June 1, 1961, on forms which were supplied by the Union, and the original was forwarded, along with Clary's employment application, to Ryder's Houston office. Under the normal prac- tice which the Union followed, the job steward would bring two copies of the signed forms back to the Union's office. In addition to signing the required number of authorization forms, Clary also gave the Union on May 31 his personal check for $5, covering a month's dues. to appear in view of the fact that the continuance was granted on his motion. On April 28, when this Decision was being typed, Chief Trial Examiner Bokat received a reply from Bradley, dated April 25 (see Appendix C hereto), representing that he did not appear at the reconvened hearing because he received some message (from an unverified and undisclosed source) that the hearing had been canceled and would be rescheduled and in which he requested that the matter be continued so as to permit Respondent to present its evidence and file a brief That request, referred to me by the Chief Trial Examiner, is now hereby denied as I find that Bradley's letter lays no adequate basis for his request, whether it be considered as- a motion for a continuance or as a motion to reopen the hearing 822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD So far as Ryder was concerned, all that an employee was required to do in order to have his dues deducted was to sign the authorization certificate. However, under the practice which Ryder and the Union followed, Ryder made the deductions of union dues only from a monthly checkoff list when furnished by the Union, and it never challenged either the names or the amounts listed by the Union. When Clary learned that his dues were not being checked off, he spoke to Partin about it some month and a half after May 31, explaining that he had signed an authorization form but that evidently either the Company or the Union had lost it. Partin assured Clary that if he had proof (concerning the authorization) he need not worry about it and the matter would be taken care of. It was not taken care of, how- ever, and Clary went to the union office on October 4, 1961, to pay his arrearages (then $20), but the clerical employee on duty refused to accept his check, stating that it would have to be okayed by Partin, because after 3 months Clary was auto- matically suspended from the Union. In the meantime, and sometime after going with Ryder, Clary had been the first signatory on a petition which a former business agent or assistant business agent was circulating and which sought the investigation by "authorities" of Partin's alleged mishandling of union funds and ill treatment of union members. Sometime after October 4, Clary again spoke to, Partin;, showing Partin his, check for $20 and ex- plaining that his dues were still not being deducted despite the authorization. Partin asked Clary about the petition which Clary had signed, expressed disappointment that Clary had signed, and requested Clary-to sign a counterpetition which Union Steward Efferson was circulating in Partin's behalf. Partin also told Clary in the presence of Assistant Business Agent Crow Peele that if he would keep his mouth shut Partin would take care of Clary's union book and Clary could go,-back to work and need not worry about the matter. Peele testified that he was aware of the ani- mosity and ill feelings between Partin and Clary and knew that it arose because Clary opposed Partin's activities in the Union. Sometime before Christmas 1961, Clary's wife, Patricia, was called first by Peele and later by Partin. Partin told her that he was very disappointed about Clary turn- ing against him by signing the petition, that he wanted Clary to withdraw his name, that Clary should come by the union hall and talk with him, that he could pick up his union book and everything would be straightened out, but that if Clary did not with- draw (from the petition), he would never work for a freight line in Baton Rouge again and would probably be hurt In January 1962, Partin informed Bert L. Rooker, Ryder's terminal manager, that Clary was not a union member and suggested that Rooker replace him. Rooker in turn informed Clary of the pressure being put upon him to replace Clary with a union member and recommended that Clary see Partin and get his dues straightened out. Rooker also suggested that Clary take along Don Partin, Partin's brother, also a Ryder employee, and allowed Don Partin to accompany Clary to Partin's office. Clary showed Partin his own signed copy of the dues authorization form, and Partin said, "This is what I've been waiting for. I'll fix it up. Don't worry about anything." Nothing further was done, however, and on June 21 Partin wrote Rooker as follows: Please be advised that Calvin Clary has been' suspended for months from Local Union #5. Local #5 requests that Ryder Truck Lines terminate the service of Calvin Clary, according to our contract with your company immediately. Rooker acknowledged. receipt of that letter on June 25, but questioned its authen- ticity because it did not appear to bear Partin's personal signature and because it was not sent in the customary mailing manner for communications between them. Rooker also showed Partin's letter to Clary and recommended that Clary pay the reinstatement fee of $50. Although Clary felt that he did not owe the reinstatement fee, he obtained from his bank a certified check for $50 and sent it to Partin on July 18 by certified mail, return receipt requested. Clary's letter was receipted for on July 25 in Partin's behalf by Earl Jones, an assistant business agent of Local 5. However, the envelope was later returned to Clary, unopened, in a larger envelope, and Clary subsequently removed the check and cashed it himself. On July 20, Partin wired Ryder as follows: THIS IS TO ADVISE YOU THAT WE WISH TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHT UNDER THE CONTRACT WITH YOUR COMPANY AND ASK YOU TO REPLACE CALVIN CLARY WITH A MEMBER THAT WILL COINCIDE WITH OUR CONTRACT WITH YOU HE HAS BEEN SUSPENDED SINCE JUNE 1961 AS YOU REMEMBER I HAVE ALREADY SENT YOU ONE EDWARD G. PARTIN, BUS. AGENT, LOCAL NO. 5 , ETC. 823 LETTER DATED JUNE 21 1962 IN REGARDS TO THIS MATTER PLEASE REFER TO THIS LETTER HE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO PAY HIS DUES UNTIL IT BECAME KNOWN THAT WE WERE ASKING HIS TERMINATION. HE STILL HAS NOT OFFERED TO PAY HIS DUES THAT WE KNOW OF. Rooker delayed compliance with Partin's demand and on July 30, received a fur- ther letter from Partin as follows: This is to advise you for the third time that we wish to exercise our rights under the Contract with your company and ask that you replace Calvin Clary with an employee that will coincide with our Contract with your company. As we told you before, he has not paid his dues since June, 1961. We had numerous conversations with you regarding this matter before and each time you said you would talk to Clary, but nothing ever came of it. On June 21 , 1962, we sent you a letter regarding the matter at your request. Again on July 20, 1962 we sent you a telegram. This all came about after all efforts to get him to pay his dues had failed and he only offered to pay his dues after he thought that he was in jeopardy under the contract for non-payment of dues. He had knowledge of the entire situation surrounding this matter as he had made remarks several times on the dock concerning the matter. Rooker called Clary in, informed him of Partin's demand, and told him that Ryder had no alterantive except to honor it,or else to be faced with a strike. Clary in turn told Rooker of his attempts to obtain reinstatement . During the course of that con- ference, Rooker placed a call to Partin, who asked to speak to Union Steward Effer- son. In that conversation, which Clary overheard (apparently over a conference telephone hookup), Partin told Efferson he had gone as far as he was going and that if Clary punched the timecard the next morning the Union would strike Ryder at 9 o'clock. Rooker again informed Clary he had no alternative but to discharge him and handed Clary a formal dismissal letter along with his final check.2 Other relevant evidence concerned the practices which Partin and the Union fol- lowed in handling the collection of arrearages and the reinstatement of delinquent members. Ann Smith, a secretary in the office of Local No. 5 from 1959 to 1961, testified that the customary reinstatement fee at that time was $50, but she gave some four examples of members who had been out of membership for periods from 1 to 2 years and who were reinstated with Partin's approval for a fee of $5 each. One of those was Prentiss Moak, whose membership was terminated during the period from September 1959 to June 1961 . Moak, who was assistant business agent of the local from October 1951 until October 1958, and vice president for some 4 years until 1958 under Partin, testified that during his term in office there were several occa- sions when members who_ had been dropped from the Union were reinstated without payment of a reinstatement fee. Finally, Rooker testified that Clary's name never appeared on any checkoff list which Partin submitted and that though other employees were sometimes shown as in arrears from 1 month up to and including 4 months, no request for discharge was made by Local 5 . Indeed, as late as February 8, 1963, Partin wrote Rooker as follows: Due and error [sic ] in our records, several of your employees did not have their union dues taken out for several months. It has been brought to my atten- tion that most of them have been neither terminated nor laid off during the past three ( 3) or four (4) months. The men that were left off of the check-off list shall be billed for partial payments on the regular monthly check-off list until they have caught up. B. Concluding findings The foregoing evidence plainly established the complaint allegations . Although Clary became delinquent in the payment of his union dues shortly after going with Ryder, he had done all that was required of an employee to insure the payment of his dues by payroll deductions under his signed checkoff authorization (see Ferro Stamping and Manufacturing Co., 93 NLRB 1459, 1461-1462, 1506, 1508); and 2 Although Rooker testified that on April 4 and 13 he issued warning letters to Clary concerning two separate "preventable accidents " and that on July 5 he issued a third warning concerning "agitation or controversial conversation" with other employees, there is no indication from the record that those warnings formed any part of the basis for Clary's discharge or of Partin's demand for his discharge 824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD under the practices which is employer and the Union followed, it was the Union's failure to include Clary 's name on the monthly checkoff list which alone accounted for the delinquency. But that fact might not alone have negated the possibility of a valid request for Clary's discharge after the termination of his membership if it were truly based on the ground of Clary's failure to pay or to tender his dues. The evidence shows, however, that such was not the case; that Clary was in fact in disfavor with Partin (Shear's Pharmacy, Inc., 128 NLRB 1417, 1419; 137 NLRB 451, 452-453 (Supplemental Decisions )) because Clary had openly aligned himself with other members of Local 5 in opposition to Partin and to his management of the affairs of the Local; and that Partin repeatedly sought to have Clary withdraw from such opposition, both by promises to straighten out his dues arrearages and by threats made to Clary's wife of blacklisting and other harm to befall Clary, meanwhile re- fusing to accept Clary's tender of his back dues When those efforts failed, Partin began a persistent campaign to cause Ryder to discharge Clary, still refusing to permit Clary's reinstatement despite Clary 's tender of a fee which it had not been the Union's practice uniformly to require of delin- quent members. Furthermore, even were it assumed that Clary 's delinquency had its origin in error, it was the Union's error, and, most significantly, one of the same type as that which Partin acknowledged in his letter of February 8, 1963, to Rooker and which he corrected by directing partial payments on simple arrearages without requiring a reinstatement fee or any other penalty.' Under the foregoing circumstances , and particularly in view of Partin's repeated assurances that he would straighten out the matter of the dues checkoff , it would be grossly inequitable and contrary to the spirit of the Act to permit Partin to lawfully request Clary's discharge. Cf. Philadelphia Sheraton Corp., 136 NLRB 888, 896. The holding in General Motors Corporation , Packard Electric Division, 134 NLRB 1107, also supports the conclusions here reached . Initially, it is to be noted that contrary to the situation there , Clary had tendered a full reinstatement fee prior to any operative or lawful request for his discharge .3 But even assuming arguendo that Clary's tender were untimely, the question to be determined , as the Board held in General Motors, is the reason underlying the discharge . In that case the Board found that the request for discharge was made solely because of the dues delinquency of the employee and that there was absent any other evidence of unlawful purpose warranting an inference that the request was for some undisclosed reason other than the delinquency . Concluding that a belated tender after a lawful request is insuffi- cient standing alone to warrant such an inference , the Board stated that in all such cases it will . look to the record to determine the real reason for the parties' sub- sequent conduct. The present record contained the.evidence of unlawful purpose which was absent from General Motors, i.e., that Partin caused Ryder to discharge Clary because Clary was aligned with members of the Union who opposed Partin . I conclude and find that that was the real reason for Partin's conduct and that it was unrelated to the fact of Clary's dues delinquencies . I therefore conclude and find that Partin, by attempting to cause on July 20 and 30 ,4 and by causing Ryder on July 30, to dis- charge Clary for the aforesaid reason , engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that he cease and' desist therefrom and that be take certain affirmative action which is conventionally ordered in such cases, as provided in the Recom- mended Order below, which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and 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 Lines, Inc., the employer herein, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act. 2. Respondent Edward G. Partin is business agent of General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 5, affiliated with Inter- 3 The envelope addressed to Partin contained a post office stamp showing that the addressee was given a first notice of the letter on July 19 4I make no finding concerning an earlier attempt to cause on June 21, as alleged In the complaint, for that date was outside the limitation period provided in Section 10(b). EDWARD G. PARTIN, BUS. AGENT, LOCAL NO. 5, ETC. 825 national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., which local is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By causing and attempting to cause Ryder to discharge Calvin C. Clary, whose membership had been terminated on a ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership in Local No. 5, Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondent, Edward G. Partin, Business Agent, General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America, Local No. 5, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., his agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, or to discriminate against any employee with respect to whom membership in' Local No. 5 has been denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retain- ing membership. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees of Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in accordance with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Notify Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., in writing, that he has no objection to the reinstatement of Calvin C. Clary. (b) Make whole Calvin C. Clary for any loss of pay which he may have suffered by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have earned from July 30, 1962, to the date of Respondent's notice to the Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., as provided in the foregoing paragraph, less his net earnings during said period (Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 240, said backpay to be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W.=Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. (c) Post in his office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Di- rector for Region 15, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by him for 60 consecutive days there- after, in conspicuous places, including all places where he customarily posts notices to members of Local No. 5. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to in- sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 15, signed copies of said notice in sufficient number to be posted by Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., the Company being willing. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within-20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith .6 51n the event that this Recommended Order' be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order 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, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 6In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." 826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- MEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 5, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS; WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, IND. Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, I hereby notify you that: I WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., to discriminate against any employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, or to discriminate against any employee with respect to whom membership in Local No. 5 has been denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership. I WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in accordance with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I WILL make whole Calvin C. Clary for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against him. EDWARD G. PARTIN, BUSINESS AGENT, GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 5, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, IND. Dated-------- ------- This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone No. 529-2411, Extension 6396, if they have any question concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions., APPENDIX B April 1, 1964 Re: Edward G. Partin, et al. William C. Bradley, Esq. Case No. 15-CB-622 3010- Ray Weiland Drive Baker, Louisiana - Dear Mr. Bradley: At the convening of this hearing on March 17, 1964, at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, you appeared for the Respondent , Edward G. Partin, represented to the Trial Exam- iner that you had just been retained as Counsel for Mr. Partin , and asked for and was granted a continuance in order to have more time to prepare your defense. The stenographic transcript of hearing of March 17 reflects your statement that you would be prepared upon reconvening to go forward with the matter , whether Mr. Partin was present or not. (Tr. p. 14). You did not appear when the case was reconvened on March 25 after another trip by the Trial Examiner from Washington, D.C., to Baton Rouge; nor did your client or anyone else on his behalf. No explanation was offered for your non-appearance; no notification was given to the prosecutor or the Trial Examiner of your with- drawal from the case, or of your client's intention not to appear. In the circumstances it is felt that an explanation is in order. cc: David L. McComb, Esq. T-6024, Federal Building 701 Loyola Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana Roy Maughan and J . H. Bankston, Esqs. Maughan and Bankston 4539 Plank Road Baton Rouge, Louisiana Very truly yours, George Bokat Chief Trial Examiner THE COLSON CORPORATION APPENDIX C WILLIAM C. BRADLEY Attorney at Law 3010 Ray Weiland Drive Baker, Louisiana April 25, 1964 AIR MAIL Honorable George Bokat, Chief Trial Examiner National Labor Relations Board Washington 25, D.C. Re: Edward G. Partin, et al. Case No. 15-CB-622 827 Dear Mr. Bokat: I desire to reply to your recent favor concerning the above captioned, and further to request an opportunity for my client, Edward G. Partin, Business Agent General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 5, Affili- ated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., to be given an opportunity to present evidence and further to extend the time accordingly in which we might present our briefs in this matter. When this case was re-convened on March 24, 1964, I did not appear and did not present any evidence nor give any explanation for this non-appearance at that time, nor ask for a continuance for the reason that on the morning of the re-convened hear- ing, March 24, 1964, a message was left at my office stating that this hearing had been cancelled and passed without date and would be re-scheduled. I had no reason to doubt the veracity of this message, and accordingly, I did not appear. As you are aware, the hearing was held with the complainant, Calvin C. Clary, presenting testimony through his witnesses. I did not have an opportunity to cross- examine any of these witnesses. Although I appreciate it to be impossible for these witnesses to be recalled in order that I might cross-examine them, I consider it only fair that we be permitted to at least be given an opportunity to adduce testimony of our own in support of our position. I will appreciate your good offices in allowing this matter to be continued so as to permit us to present our evidence, and further to be continued a reasonable time thereafter in order that we might submit a brief covering our position. With all best wishes, I am Yours very truly, /s/ William C. Bradley WILLIAM C. BRADLEY WCB:jfd cc: David L. McComb, Esq. Mr. Edward G. Partin, T-6024, Federal Building Business Agent 701 Loyola Avenue Teamster Local Union No. 5 New Orleans, Louisiana 1675 Airways Drive Roy Maughan and J. H. Bankston, Esqs. Baton Rouge, Louisiana Maughan and Bankston 4539 Plank Road Baton Rouge, Louisiana The Colson Corporation and International Brotherhood of Boiler- makers, Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 14-CA-3075. September 4, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On April 20, 1964, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his De- cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and 148 NLRB No. 89.