Sequoyah Mills, Inc.

32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sequoyah Mills, Inc. and Carl H. Pyle. Case 16-CA-2865 November 1, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On August 28, 1967, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued his Decision n the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief. 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER complaint on February 27, 1967, on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board, against Sequoyah Mills, Inc., herein called the Respondent, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. ), herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer to the aforesaid complaint, the Respondent, while admitting certain allegations thereof, denied the commission of any unfair labor prac- tices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me in Chickasha, Oklahoma, on April 26, 1967. All parties were represented and afforded full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral ar- gument, and to file briefs. Briefs were filed by counsel for the General Counsel and the Respondent. Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, in- cluding the briefs of the parties, and upon my observation of the demeanor of each of the witnesses testifying before me, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, an Oklahoma corporation, has its principal office and plant at Anadarko, Oklahoma, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of carpets and related products. During the year immediately preceding the issuance of the complaint in this proceeding, a representative period, the Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, purchased goods and materials of a value in excess of $100,000, of which more than $50,000 was shipped directly to Respondent's warehouse from points outside the State of Oklahoma. It is conceded, and I find, that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respondent, Sequoyah Mills, Inc., An- darko, Oklahoma, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. The Trial Examiner found that even if Respondent had no direct knowledge of Walter Taylor's participation in the concerted activity, it, nontheless, discharged Taylor because he was one of the senior drivers and, thus, a possible leader of the dissident employees Since we find that knowledge of Taylor's participation can be inferred under all the circum- stances, we find it unnecessary to consider, and do not adopt, the Trial Examiner's alternative finding that Taylor was discharged because he was one of the senior drivers TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MORTON D. FRIEDMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed on December 15, 1966, and an amended charge filed on February 17, 1967. by Carl H. Pyle, an in- dividual, the Regional Director for Region 16 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, herein the Board, issued a II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Issues As set forth above, the Respondent is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of carpet and related material. Approximately 65 to 70 percent of its products are shipped to its distributors by trucks driven by driver employees of the Respondent. These employees are un- represented and, so far as the record shows, no attempt has been made to organize them. The events with which this proceeding is concerned began when approximately 12 out of the Respondent's 19 truckdrivers met to discuss grievances. As a result of this meeting, four of the most senior drivers were appointed as a committee to approach the Respondent's officials with regard to these matters. The following day, three out of the four men so appointed met with Respondent's director of personnel and traffic and discussed the mat- ters previously reviewed by the drivers. Within a day or so thereafter, all of the drivers who talked with the Respondent's official and the fourth member who did not go to the office of the Respondent's official were on over- the-road trips. As each of these drivers returned he was discharged. In addition to these four individuals, a fifth driver was discharged who was not in any way connected with the presentation of the drivers' grievances to the Respondent. The complaint alleges, in substance, that the four in- 168 NLRB No. 12 SEQUOYAH MILLS 33 dividuals who were appointed to discuss the grievances with the Respondent were thereafter discharged for hav- ing done so and , accordingly , were discharged for engag- ing in protected concerted activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Respondent's answer substantially denies all of the material allegations of the complaint. At the hearing the Respondent sought to establish through its officials that the discharges were for cause and unre- lated to the presentation of grievances. Thus, the issues are: 1. Whether the dischargees were engaged in protected concerted activity. 2. If so , whether they were discharged for engaging in such activity. B. The Facts 1. The events preceding the discharges The Respondent's drivers do not drive the Respond- ent's own trucks in making deliveries for the Respond- ent but drive trucks leased to the Respondent by Public Leasing Company which has a truck lot immediately ad- jacent to the Respondent's property. The Respondent pays a rental rate for the trucks which includes all ser- vices and gasoline. The only contribution of the Respond- ent to the trucking operation is the furnishing of the drivers, all of whom are employed and paid by the Respondent. On Sunday, December 4, 1966,' approximately a dozen of the Respondent's truckdrivers assembled at the Public Leasing lot, above mentioned. The meeting was held for the purpose of discussing matters which con- cerned their employment and relationship with the Respondent. Among the items discussed was the alleged cutting of running time, that is, the hours allowed the drivers on their trips. At the end of the meeting the four oldest employees in point of service with the Respondent were appointed as a committee to discuss the matters with management. These employees are Carl H. Pyle, the Charging Party herein, Raymond Steen, Hosey Kane, and Walter Taylor.2 The following day, Monday, December 5, Pyle, Steen, and Kane spoke to Respondent's assistant director of per- sonnel, Tom Montgomery in the latter's office in Respond- ent's plant. Taylor, who had also been selected as one of the committee to speak to management, had left on the previous evening on an over-the-road driving assignment for the Respondent. The three drivers told Montgomery that there had been a meeting of the drivers and that a number of complaints had been aired. They asked for a meeting with Montgomery, Louis Lemmons, traffic manager, Leon Carver, Respondent's vice president in charge of industrial relations, and Sanford D. Lee, Respondent's executive vice president. Montgomery told the employees that he was certain Lee would not meet with them at that time. Nevertheless, the employees discussed with Montgomery the situation which had brought them to his office. With regard to the reduction in time allowed for the drivers to reach their destination, Montgomery displayed a schedule which he had used when he was dispatcher. The men agreed that the driving time permitted in that schedule was the time they desired and not the time that had been put into effect by Mont- gomery's successor. Montgomery promised them that the time allowed would be restored to its original length and, furthermore, that the shorter period of time which the men found to be hazardous had only been in effect for a few weeks. The men also complained that they often had to report to Respondent's plant to pick up a truck at a certain time and when they arrived the truck was not loaded. This meant that the men had to wait at the Respondent's plant for the truck to be loaded without being paid for such waiting time. Montgomery promised the men that he would see to it that the shipping department did not keep the men waiting in the future. Whether the men appeared satisfied as testified by Montgomery or whether they were still unhappy about developments when the meeting broke up, nevertheless, all parties agree, including Mont- gomery, that at the end of the meeting Montgomery promised the men that he would see what he could do about a meeting with Executive Vice President Lee.3 As related above, Taylor did not attend the meeting because he left on a trip for the Respondent on the night before. The three employees who met with Montgomery within a day or so after the interview also left on trips for the Respondent. As each returned to the Respondent's plant he was discharged: Steen on December 9, Pyle on December 12, Kane on December 16, and Taylor on December 9. Also discharged during that period was another driver, Charles Harrington, who had attended neither the Sunday meeting of the drivers nor the Monday meeting with Montgomery. 2. The discharges On the afternoon of Tuesday, December 6, the day after the meeting, Pyle, who had worked for the Respond- ent for about 2 years, left on an over-the-road run for the Respondent. He returned at II p.m. the following Sun- day, December 11. At approximately 10 a.m. on Mon- day, December 12, Pyle went to the Respondent's office to turn in his trip papers. While there Montgomery called him into his office and told Pyle that he, Montgomery, hated to do it but he had been told to tell Pyle that the latter either quit or resign or Respondent would lay him off. When Pyle asked the reason, Montgomery. stated that there had been a meeting at which it was decided that Pyle was unhappy with his job and that they were going to let him go. This was the only explanation which Pyle received.4 According to both Montgomery and Sanford D. Lee, executive vice president of Respondent who is responsi- ble for all plant operations, Lee made the decision to fire all of the dischargees including Pyle. Lee stated, on the witness stand, that the reason he decided to discharge Pyle was- because the latter was a chronic complainer about his truck being loaded incorrectly; about getting out late, that is leaving the Respondent's plant late after hav- ing reported earlier to take out a truck; about men on runs other than his own having a better deal than Pyle. Lee testified that he said to himself that if this is the type of employee Pyle is, the best thing to do would be to get rid All dates, unless otherwise specified , are in 1966. z All of the foregoing from the uncontroverted testimony of Carl Pyle. J From credited portions of the testimony of Carl Pyle and Tom Mont- gomery a From the credited testimony of Pyle Montgomery, who also testified as to this exit meeting, did not seriously controvert any of Pyle's testimony. 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of him. Lee further testified that at the time he made this decision he had no knowledge whatsoever of the con- certed complaint to Montgomery by Pyle and the other two drivers. Lee further stated that Pyle's discharge and the discharge of the other employees came about after Lee had reviewed the files of all of the Respondent's over-the-road truckdrivers. The reasons Lee claimed the review was made at this time are set forth later herein. a. Hosey Kane Within a day or so after the meeting between Mont- gomery and the three drivers, Kane left on an over-the- road trip for the Respondent. During this trip he called his wife on the telephone from Indianapolis. His wife told him at that time that he was going to be discharged. Then, when he arrived home, Kane was told by Taylor that he would probably be discharged. On Monday night, December 12, Pyle called Mr. Leon Carver, Respond- ent's vice president of industrial relations, on the telephone at Carver's home. Kane listened in on the con- versation and at one time during that conversation Carver actually stated that Kane , among others , was going to be discharged. The next day, December 13, Kane visited the office of the Respondent and spoke to Montgomery who confirmed that Kane was discharged.5 Montgomery, who discharged Kane, testified that he could not give Kane a reason for his discharge inasmuch as Kane told him that he did not want a story that if Kane was going to be discharged just to discharge him. This Montgomery did and there was no exit interview in a for- mal sense. Lee, in testifying, sought to explain why Kane was discharged. According to Lee, when he was reviewing the files of the truckdrivers, Lee found a note in Kane's file from the chairman of the board, Don Greve, about some talking that Kane had done in Chicago. Also, a Mr. Race, of Malcolm Spinning Mills, a supplier of wool to the Respondent, had been a guest at Lee's home on Wed- nesday evening before the discharges. Race told Lee, when the latter said that they were having trouble with some of their truckmen, that a couple of the drivers had made a secret agreement with Race 's shipping foreman at the latter's plant in Pennsylvania, that if they arrived in the afternoon to pick up material, they would leave their trailers at the Spinning Mill plant and then go down to spend some time in Baltimore . The only name which Race could remember was Hosey Kane's. Leaving the trailer behind was a violation of company rules, according to Lee. According to Kane, the only time he had left the trailer behind and had taken the truck from the Spinning Mill dock was when he had to stay overnight and had to use the truck to drive to a motel. The motel did not have ac- comodations for both the truck and the trailer. Kane de- nied he ever went to Baltimore on such an occasion. b. Raymond Steen On Wednesday, December 7, Steen an employee for over 2 years, made his last run for the Respondent. On his return on December 9, Steen was discharged by Mont- gomery and Carver. Either Carver or Montgomery told Steen that the latter was dissatisfied on the job and had expressed this to peo- ple outside the Respondent's mill and also, in doing so, had been running down the Respondent's name. Neither Montgomery nor Carver showed Steen any of the alleged reports that had been received from outsiders to this ef- fect. Steen, on the other hand, denied that he had ever talked to any customers about the Respondent or had run down the Respondent's name. Nor was he dissatisfied with his job.6 In testifying as to the reasons he ordered Steen's discharge, Lee testified that he decided to discharge Steen because Lee had heard that Steen had made derogatory statements about the Respondent. Also, athough admittedly uncommunicated to Steen at his final interview, Lee had found a letter in Steen's file from Public Leasing Corporation, the owners of the trucks which Respondent's drivers used, to the effect that Steen had demanded cash refunds on his credit cards. Lee ad- mitted, on cross-examination, that the letter from Public Leasing had been in the file for about 3 months but that Lee did not know of its existence.7 Lee admitted that no instruction had ever been given to any employee about not taking a cash discount. According to Steen, however, when he had first started to drive Public Leasing's trucks, he was given a Texaco gasoline credit card by Public Leasing. During that time he received but did not ask for cash discounts. Then, Public Leasing collected the Texaco credit card and is- sued instead, a National Trucking Association charge card on which it was specifically forbidden to accept cash discounts or for the oil companies to give such discounts. Thereafter, on one occasion, according to Steen, about a year before the discharges, Steen used the Trucking As- sociation credit card at a gasoline station and was handed a cash refund by the man who attended the pump How- ever, the manager of the station saw this, and realizing that Steen was using an Association credit card, asked for the return of the money, which Steen immediately returned. Steen did not ask for the discount. It was given voluntarily by the pumpman. Steen stated, without hesita- tion, that this was the only time that he had ever been in- volved in a cash discount incident after the Association credit cards were issued. c. Walter Taylor Taylor had been employed by the Respondent for 2 years at the time of his discharge. As noted above, Taylor was one of the four men selected by the drivers to represent them in their grievances with management. However, Taylor did not attend the Monday, December 5, meeting with Montgomery because on the evening be- fore that, Sunday, December 4, about 6 p.m., Taylor left on an over-the-road trip to various points in Texas and Louisiana. According to Taylor, he was given, at the time of his departure, oral instructions by Carrol DeLong, the dispatcher, which provided that Taylor had to be in Fort Worth, Texas, on Monday morning, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on Tuesday morning, and in Houston, Texas, on Wednesday morning. Taylor reached these destina- tions within the times given to him by DeLong. When Taylor returned to Anadarko on Thursday, December 8, Montgomery asked him why he had not been at Ross Carpets, a Houston distributor, on Tuesday 5 From the credited testimony of Kane which was not controverted by Montgomery s From the credited, uncontroverted testimony of Raymond Steen. The letter was not produced at the hearing SEQUOYAH MILLS evening. Taylor explained that DeLong had instructed him to be there on Wednesday morning. Montgomery took Taylor's logbook from him. Montgomery told Taylor that he would have to decide what should be done with Taylor. On Friday, the following day, when Taylor went to the Respondent's plant to pick up his check, Montgomery discharged him, telling Taylor that the latter had not delivered his merchandise to Ross Carpets on schedule and also that Taylor had been talking about the Respondent at various customers and stops over the country. Montgomery said that he had written proof but did not offer to show such proof to Taylor. Nor did Mont- gomery mention any specific names of individuals who had related these alleged complaints concerning Taylor to the Respondent. Taylor denied that he had ever done any talking Taylor admitted however that under normal driving time the distance between Baton Rouge, Loui- siana, which he left on Tuesday afternoon, and Houston was about 300 miles and could be driven in about 6 hours He further admitted that he had falsified his log relative to his arrival time in Houston. The falsification added two extra hours to the trip from Baton Rouge to Houston. Montgomery explained, in testifying, that he discharged Taylor because the latter was late at the dis- tributor, Ross Carpets in Houston. He claimed that Taylor did not make his schedule and it took him approxi- mately 24 hours to make a 6- or 7-hour run. He insisted that Taylor was discharged for being late to Ross Car- pets. According to Lee, on Tuesday, December 6, about 10:30 or 11 p.m., he received a call from Ross Carpets in Houston at his home. Ross informed Lee that he had men waiting from 3 p.m. of that day to unload the truck which had not arrived. The next morning, Lee spoke to Mont- gomery and asked the latter what had happened with re- gard to Taylor and the delivery in Houston. Montgomery told Lee that Taylor's truck was due in Houston at 4 p.m. on Tuesday. Montgomery came to Lee on Wednesday af- ternoon and told Lee that Taylor had not called in, as required, when he had finished at Baton Rouge. Lee then told Montgomery that unless Taylor had a good excuse, Lee wanted him discharged. In connection with these discharges, it should be noted that on November 1, 1966, the local newspaper carried a story and a picture of six drivers, including Taylor and Pyle, who received watches from the Respondent for having driven over 100,000 safe miles without a traffic accident. Also honored, was Charlie Harrington, one of the drivers who was discharged at the same time as the four alleged discriminatees herein, but whose discharge is not a subject of this proceeding. 3. The Respondent's explanation of the timing of the discharges According to the Respondent, the timing of the discharges was coincidental and the discharges them- selves were brought about by a review made by Lee of the files of the Respondent's over-the-road truckdrivers brought on, in turn, by a series of events which began ap- proximately a month or so before the discharges. According to Don Greve, the chairman of the board of the Respondent, one of his duties is to call on customers or to call on the telephone to customers every 60 days to ask, primarily, whether the customer is being treated properly by the Respondent. During his last round of 35 telephone calls prior to the events herein, Greve received a complaint from his Los Angeles distributor that some of the drivers had a bad attitude and were not cooperating. He also received complaints to the same effect from the San Francisco and New York distributors of the Respond- ent's products. Greve also received complaints from others that deliveries were being made late. The Los An- geles complaint was made on November 14 and 15. He received complaints from Phoenix on November 15 and New York and San Francisco on the 18th and 22d. Greve further testified that a result of these complaints, at a corporation executive committee meeting held on November 28, Greve told the staff of these problems. Vice President Lee was instructed to look into the problem, to ferret out information and obtain a true pic- ture of each driver. The reason that the driver is so impor- tant, according to Greve, is that often times he is the good will ambassador of the Respondent inasmuch as 65 to 70 percent of the Respondent's product is delivered by truck and often the driver is the main contact between the Respondent and the customer. In his testimony, Greve admitted that although he made general complaints to Lee at the executive committee meeting on November 28, he did not mention to Lee any specific driver or any specific customer who had complained. According to Lee, following by but a short time the in- struction from Greve at the executive committee meet- ing, the incident occurred involving the complaint from the Houston distributor regarding Taylor's alleged late ar- rival. Also, according to Lee, although he had made stu- dies of all of the hourly employees frequently from time to time, he had neglected to do so with regard to truckdrivers who are salaried. Therefore, the occurrence of Greve's instructions and the matter of Taylor's alleged late delivery brought the entire matter to a head and Lee decided at that time to make a thorough study of the files of all the drivers. He therefore went over the files with Montgomery and with Carver, the vice president in charge of industrial relations. It was only after a thorough review of these files that the employees were discharged as noted above. The foregoing, according to the Respondent, explains the coincidence of the timing of the discharges with re- gard to the date of the grievance meeting between the drivers and Montgomery on December 5. It should be noted in connection therewith that all of the Respondent's officials who testified including Greve and Lee specifi- cally stated that they were unaware of the grievance meeting between Montgomery and the three employees until after the discharges had been completed. Mont- gomery, in turn, testified that he had thought that he had satisfied the employees at that grievance meeting and had therefore not passed the matter on to Vice President Lee. Contrasting sharply with the Respondent's explana- tion, is testimony of Pyle and Kane who stated on the wit- ness stand that on Monday evening, December 12, after the discharges of all but Kane, Pyle called Vice President Carver at the latter's home. The call was made about mid- night according to both Pyle and Kane. Pyle held the earphone in such a way that both Kane and Pyle could hear Carver's end of the conversation. Pyle asked Carver if there was any truth to the rumor that if the drivers would not "group up" anymore the Respondent would rescind the layoffs. Carver answered in the negative and said that the decision was final. Carver admitted that Kane and the others were also getting fired and then 336-845 0 - 70 - 4 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Carver said, "there is a company policy that there will be no grouping of the employees."8 C. Analysis and Concluding Findings The basic contentions of the General Counsel are that the four dischargees engaged in protected concerted ac- tivities and that the Respondent discharged them for en- gaging in these activities as evidenced by (1) the timing of the discharges within a week after the four engaged in these activities, (2) company knowledge of the activities by reason of the grievance meeting with Personnel Director Montgomery, and (3) the fact that no prior warnings were given to any of the dischargees of any behavior which the Respondent might have concluded was inimical to the Respondent's interest. The Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the concerted activity was unknown to Vice President Lee and Board Chairman Greve, who were responsible for the discharges, and that the discharges were for cause. With regard to the question of whether the dischargees had engaged in protected concerted activity, the Respond- ent makes no serious contention. It is well settled that where, as here, employees get together to mutually protest working conditions and speak for themselves, they engage in protected concerted activity. When the drivers held a meeting to protest the driving time allowed between stops and chose Pyle, Steen, Kane, and Taylor as spokesmen, and when Pyle, Steen, and Kane, acting in that capacity, spoke to Montgomery regarding the grievances, they clearly engaged in protected concerted activity. They had a protected right to speak for them- selves as best they could.9 Even accepting Montgomery's explanation that he felt that the employees were satisifed with his handling of the grievance and that the matter was settled, nevertheless, this did not change the nature of the activity engaged in by the employees. Moreover, Montgomery did tell the employees at the conclusion of the meeting that he would see what he could do about arranging a meeting with Vice President Lee, which was the original purpose of their meeting with Montgomery. This would indicate that in Montgomery's mind the activity was still going on. Insofar as company knowledge is concerned, it cannot be controverted that Montgomery, an official of the Respondent, knew of the concerted activity inasmuch as he was interviewed by Pyle, Steen, and Kane. Moreover, although Lee denied knowledge of this activity he did tes- tify that he reviewed the files of these employees with Montgomery within 3 days of the date of the employee meeting. 1, therefore, cannot accept Lee's testimony to the effect that he did not have knowledge of this activity especially in view of the fact that not only did he review the files with Montgomery but Montgomery himself testified that he had promised the employees to inform Lee of their request. 1, therefore, reject Lee's testimony that he did not have knowledge of the concerted activity of the employees and find that as of the date he made his decision to discharge them he, as well as Montgomery, was aware of what had taken place in the preceding days. As noted above, the timing of the discharges is the main element of the General Counsel's case. As heretofore discussed, the three employees presented their group grievances on December 5 and each of the dischargees went upon an over-the-road trip for the Respondent that same week and were each discharged as each returned. Except for this last trip, the employees never worked again after concertedly presenting their grievances to management. The Board has often and consistently held that discharges, which occur soon after the discovery by an employer of his employees, union or concerted protected activity, constitute very strong evidence of discrimina- tion.10 I do not find merit in the Respondent's contention that the timing of the discharges is unimportant because it was only coincidental with the Respondent's determination to survey its employees and ferret out those who were un- satisfactory. Indeed, there is too much coicidence in- volved. Thus, it might well be asked if it was mere for- tuitous circumstance that the discharges followed the air- ing of the grievances within a few days and that the per- sons who were discharged, with but one exception, were the individuals who were in some way involved in the air- ing of the grievances. Moreover, as the General Counsel points out, if Board Chairman Greve speaks to customers every 60 days, is it not rather strange that he never received serious complaints about the drivers from widespread sources except during the crucial period herein. It seems most peculiar to me that suddenly so many of the drivers should have become unsatisfactory to so many widespread customers in so short a period of time whereas for several years prior to that time no com- plaints were registered. As noted above, in addition to all of the foregoing, none of Respondent's officials or supervisors ever spoke to any of the four dischargees regarding their alleged faults. No prior warnings whatsoever were given to any of them. Perhaps this would not seem strange if only one employee had been involved. However, two of the employees in- volved, Pyle and Steen, within a month before their discharges were given gold watches for their unusual safety records as drivers. These two individuals must, in- deed, have been most satisfactory employees with regard to the purpose for which they were hired Moreover, the four employees discharged were the most senior of all the employees in the driver complement. Certainly, under these circumstances, it would seem that some warning would have been given by a reasonable employer. Indeed, it is reasonable to consider that the failure to give warning under such circumstances is most suspicious in view of the timing and the lodging of the grievances. I come now to the Respondent's claim with regard to the individual drivers. Thus, Respondent claims that Pyle was discharged because he was a "chronic complainer." Respondent, neither at the hearing, nor at any other time offered proof that Pyle had run the Company down other than the Respondent's officials' testimony. I was much impressed, on the other hand, with Pyle's denial that he had talked adversely about the Company to any customer 8 From the credited testimony of Pyle and Kane I do not credit Carver's denial of this testimony. Nor do I credit Carver's testimony to the effect that all he told the employees on the telephone was that they should speak to Montgomery His denial that he had no conversation with regard to the discharges and the reasons therefor, together with his demeanor on the witness stand, convince me that Kane and Pyle were the more reliable witnesses 0 Washington Aluminum Company, 370 U S 9, Morrison-Knudsen Company v N L R B, 358 F 2d 411 (C A 9), enfg 149 NLRB 1577, Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, 206 F 2d 325 (C A 9), enfg as modified 99 N LRB 849 10 The Borden Company, 161 NLRB 1271, Pottsville Community Hotel Co., Inc, 140 NLRB 556, 558, Byrds Manufacturing Corp, 140 NLRB 147, 161, Camco, Incorporated, 140 N LR B 361,365-366 SEQUOYAH MILLS 37 or anyone else. The same can be said in the case of Hosey Kane. Moreover, with regard to Steen's discharge, the note in the file with regard to his taking a cash discount was included in the said file for at least 3 months before the discharge. It would seem that if Lee had not seen it someone else, especially the personnel director, would have seen this note. Additionally, I was impressed with Steen's denial. Further, Steen was not given this alleged acceptance of a cash discount as a reason for his discharge. Thus I find in the case of Steen that the Respondent's alleged reasons were afterthoughts used to bolster the explanation for his discharge. Thus with re- gard to Pyle, Kane, and Steen, I find that the reasons given for the discharges were mere pretext. The timing of the discharges, the company knowledge, and the failure to give prior warnings to otherwise satisfactory em- ployees lead me to conclude and find that these em- ployees were discharged in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act for engaging in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection. The case of Walter Taylor presents a more difficult problem. In the first place, Taylor, although chosen by his fellow employees as one of the four individuals to represent them in presenting grievances to the Respond- ent, did not attend the grievance meeting which I have found led to the discharges of the other three drivers. There is nothing in the record from which it can be directly determined that any supervisor or official of the Respondent knew of Taylor's participation. There is no testimony by which it is demonstrated that the committee informed Montgomery that Taylor was to have been one of the spokesmen. Nor is there any other testimony that any one else imparted this knowledge to any of the other Respondent officials. Therefore, if knowledge of Taylor's participation is to be imputed to the Respondent, such knowledge must be implied from all of the circumstances. In addition to the question of knowledge is the admitted fact, by Taylor himself, that he falsified his log to his benefit on the morning on which he made his delivery to Houston. This would give credence to the Respondent's claim that it discharged Taylor because of his failure to make timely delivery to Ross Carpets, the Houston dis- tributor. However, Taylor testified, without contradiction, that he had falsified his log any number of times prior to the in- cident in question for the benefit of the Company because of Interstate Commerce Commission rules that a driver could not drive more than a certain number of hours in any 24-hour period. In his uncontroverted testimony, Taylor explained that Vice President Carver was well aware of this practice and had never expressed his disap- proval. Additionally, Taylor maintained throughout the hear- ing, in all of his testimony, that he arrived at the facility of the Houston distributor at the time assigned to him by DeLong, Respondent's dispatcher. Although the Re- spondent maintained, through Montgomery and Lee, that Taylor had not made timely delivery and had not main- tained his required schedule, Respondent failed to produce, as a witness, dispatcher DeLong, who, as far as the record shows, was still employed by the Respondent and under its control at the time of the hearing. I can only infer from this that had DeLong testified his testimony would have supported Taylor's version of the incident and not the Respondent's. I therefore conclude that under all of the circumstances the Respondent's alleged reasons for discharging Taylor were mere pretext. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the falsifying of the log was not given as a reason to Taylor at the time of his discharge. Moreover, I find that under these circumstances the Respondent included Taylor in the discharge, even if it had no direct knowledge of his participation in the concerted activity, by reason of the fact that Taylor was one of the senior drivers, and thus, a possible leader of the dissident employees. Ac- cordingly, I find and conclude that Taylor was discharged, as were the other employees here, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection with the operations. described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent discharged Raymond Steen, Carl Pyle, Hosey Kane, and Walter Taylor because they engaged in concerted activity for the employees' mutual aid and protection I shall recommend that the usual remedy of reinstatement and backpay be imposed upon Respondent in the same manner as if their discharges constituted unlawful discrimination in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(3).11 Backpay shall be computed in accordance with Board policy as set forth in F.W. Wool- worth Co., 90 NLRB 289, with interest computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent 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. By discharging Raymond Steen, Carl Pyle, Hosey Kane, and Walter Taylor because they engaged in con- certed protected activity for the mutual aid and protection of Respondent's employees , Respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in the case it is recommended that the Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 11 Salt River Valley Water Users' Association , 99 NLRB 849, 853, 857, enfd. 206 F 2d 325 (C.A. 9) 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging its employees for engaging in con- certed activities for the purpose of their mutual aid or pro- tection. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to en- gage in other concerted activities for the purpose of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection and refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis- closure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action: (a) Offer to Raymond Steen, Carl Pyle, Hosey Kane, and Walter Taylor immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions, or to substantially equivalent posi- tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of his discharge, in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy." [Notify the above-named employees if presently serv- ing in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.] (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its plant in Anadarko, Oklahoma, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Re- gion 16, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respondent im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.13 this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em- ployees that: After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this notice and to keep our word about what we say in this notice. WE WILL NOT discourage concerted activity for the mutual aid and the protection of our employees by discharging any of them for engaging in such ac- tivity. Since the Board found that we did so when we fired Raymond Steen, Carl Pyle, Hosey Kane, and Walter Taylor we will offer to them full reinstatement to their old jobs and we will pay each of them for any loss he may have suffered because we fired him. WE WILL respect the rights of our employees to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor or- ganization, or to bargain collectively in respect to terms or conditions of employment through said labor organization, or any representative of their own choosing, and we will not interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of these rights. WE WILL notify the employees to be reinstated, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon appli- cation in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. You and all our employees are free to become mem- bers, or to refrain from becoming members; of any labor organization and are free to engage in any concerted ac- tivity for our employees' mutual aid and protection. SEQUOYAH MILLS, INC. (Employer) Dated By 12 In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 11 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, (Representative) (Title) 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. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 8A24 Federal Office Building, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Telephone 334-2921.