Skaggs Transfer, Inc.

662 DFCISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Skaggs Transfer, Inc. and Local No. 215, Internation- al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America . Cases 25-CA- 3603 and 25-CA-3603-2 September 21, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS On May 7, 1970, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed- ing, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal as to those allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases 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 here- by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and beefs, and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respond- ent interrogated and threatened employees Nancy Folz and James Palmer as to their union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, that it discharged employee Patti Mausey because of her support of the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(3), and that it refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as the representative of the Respondent's Evansville office employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5). ' These findings are based, in part, upon credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has excepted After careful review of the record, we conclude that these credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing these findings Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent by granting increased working hours to Palmer' and pay increases' to its employees shortly after its receipt of notice of the Union's bargaining demand, thereby unlawfully attempted to restrain or coerce them in the exercise of their rights to engage in collective-bargaining activities as guaranteed by Section 7, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall amend the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and the Notice attached to his Decision by inserting therein language proscribing a repetition of such conduct. We shall further amend the Recommended Order and Notice by inserting similar language proscribing a repetition of threats, found by the Trial Examiner, as to the possible closing of the Evansville plant as a consequence of the employ- ees' union activity. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Skaggs Trans- fer, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as modi- fied below: 1. Add to paragraph (c) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order and to the fourth paragraph of the Notice attached to his Decision the words: "or with possible closing of the Evansville terminal if union activities continue." 2. Reletter paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as paragraphs (e), (f), and (g), respectively, and insert, as paragraph (d) therein the following: "(d) Granting increased wages and hours of employ- ment in order to influence employees against union representation." 3. Insert in the Notice attached to the Trial Examin- er's Decision, as the fifth paragraph thereof, the fol- ' Absent a satisfactory explanation, we view the increase in Palmer's working hours to a point beyond the 40-hour workweek demanded by him as a full-time employee as a clear attempt to influence him in his support of the Union, rather than as a lawful attempt to correct an inadvertent inequity in his employment, as does the Trial Examiner ' We note the Respondent's hitherto relatively dormant attitude toward wage increases, Secretary Kettler's hasty preparation of new wage increase schedules the day after receipt of the Union's demand, and pay increases ordered by President Kaelm for Palmer and Folz, and the only employees sought by the Union other than Mausey, which increases substantially exceeded both Kettler's recommendations and those generally received by the employees at the other terminals 185 NLRB No. 91 SKAGGS TRANSFER, INC lowing: "WE WILL NOT grant increased wages or hours of employment to our employees in order to influence them against union representation." TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE FREDERICK U REEL, Trial Examiner. This proceeding, heard at Evansville, Indiana, on March 12 and 13, 1970, pursuant to charges filed the preceding December 11 and January 13, and a complaint issued January 29 and subse- quently amended, presents questions as to whether Respond- ent, herein called the Company, interfered with, restrained, and coerced certain employees in the exercise of their right to select a bargaining representative, unlawfully refused to bargain with the Charging Party, herein called the Union, which represented a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit, and discharged one employee because of her union membership Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the Company and the General Counsel, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY, AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Company, a Kentucky corporation engaged in various states as a motor freight carrier, has its principal office in Louisville, Kentucky, but operates terminals in several states (including one at Evansville, Indiana, the only facility involved in this proceeding), and is admittedly an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. iI. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background-The Evansville Clerical Employees Join the Union Although the Company's truckdrivers are represented for purposes of collective bargaining, none of the office employees at its various terminals were so represented prior to the events in this case. Late in November 1969,' however, the three clerical employees in the Evansville office, Nancy Folz, James Palmer, and Patti Mauzey,2 signed cards applying for membership in the Union (which represented the Evansville Truckdrivers), and authorizing the Union to represent them for purposes of collective bargaining. Union Respresentative Foster, at the time he obtained their signed cards, told these employees that he would promptly write the Company, requesting recognition and bargaining. He did so in a letter dated December ' Unless otherwise indicated all dates hereinafter mentioned refer to the year 1969 ' The name is misspelled "Mauzly" throughout the transcript 663 2, which the Company received in Louisville on December 4. Of the three employees who signed cards, one, Patti Mauzey, was a part-time employee, who had come to work the preceding June, and, upon her return to high school in September, had reduced her workweek to from 7 to 10 hours, arriving at 3 30 in the afternoons Her father was employed as a truckdriver at the Company's Evansville terminal, and was the union steward there. The other two office employees, Folz and Palmer, worked full time. Palmer had achieved full-time status the preceding June when he graduated from high school. He had formerly been employed during the school year on a part-time basis.' Folz had been with the Company since it opened its Evans- ville office in 1967. Until the promotion of Palmer, Folz had been the only full-time employee in the office, but normally had one, and sometimes two, part-time employees to help her. B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion 1. The interviews and dinner on December 4 Promptly upon receiving the Union's request for recogni- tion, Company Vice President Charles Schladand and Com- pany Secretary Bernard Kettler drove from Louisville to Evansville to look into the matter. Upon arriving at Evans- ville they went to a motel and telephoned Folz and Palmer at the Company's Evansville office, requesting them to come to the motel to be interviewed Schladand testified that he and Kettler used the motel rather than the office for these interviews because the former afforded greater privacy.' Folz was the first to be interviewed, and Palmer followed, but apparently the two interviews were similar in pattern and content. In both cases, Schladand opened by saying, "You know why we're here," and both Folz and Palmer replied in the affirmative Folz testified that in response to their questions, she told them her reasons for joining the Union. Her testimony continues: A. He asked me if I knew what I would be getting by joining the union. What I would be giving up. He also asked me who signed the cards for the union. I told him all of us did. Q. When he asked you if you knew what you were going to give up when the union came in did he elaborate on that? A. He said, "You are on retirement now A plan based on your yearly gross pay" and that I would lose that. And sick leave I would not get paid for. He said if it was just us it wouldn't matter, but if we went union then all the other terminals would go union. And if that happened they could just not afford it. They would go in the red and would have to shut their doors. ' After obtaining full-time employment with the Company, Palmer apparently continued his education outside working hours, with the Compa- ny paying his tuition ' The following account is a synthesis of the credited testimony of the four participants Much of the testimony was contradicted. 664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD What else if anything did Mr Schladand talk about? A. Mr`°'Schladand asked us out to dinner. He said, "I want you and Jim to go to dinner with me." I asked him if he wanted to talk to Patti, if he was going to talk to Patti and he said, no, there would be no need to talk to her But he did want for us to go out to dinner. He did ask for me to reconsider it That I would be giving up a good thing or something like that by joining a union. He wanted us to go to dinner and reconsider it I told him I wouldn't give him an answer then. He did not expect it but he did want me to reconsider it and think it over. He did want us to go to dinner with him that night with Mr. Kettler. Palmer's interview proceeded along similar lines. Schla- dand asked him either why he signed a union card or whether he signed. Kettler told him of various company benefits, and Schladand told him that they might make stock in the Company available to employees. When Palmer complained that he had not been receiving health and life insurance benefits available to other full-time employees, Kettler agreed to look into the matter, explaining that some oversight must have occurred. Palmer also complained that he had not been working a full 40-hour week, and Schladand and Kettler told him to correct that by getting at least 8 hours' work each day. In this connection Schladand commented that "he did not understand why a full-time employee wasn't getting his hours and we had a part- time employee " Palmer also recalled some statement, appar- ently by Schladand, that if the Evansville office "went union it would most likely spread through the rest of the Company's terminals." In this connection Palmer, while unable to recall the exact phraseology, remembered "the words being said that they would have to shut the terminal." Also during the Palmer interview, either Kettler or Schla- dand said the employees "were taking an important step and they would like for us [the employees] to think about it.,, That evening Palmer and Folz were the guests of Kettler and Schladand at dinner. The four discussed miscellaneous office matters not related to the Union, but at the close of the evening Schladand asked Palmer and Folz "to think about it and let him know." 2. The antiunion efforts of Company President Kaelin Schladand and Kettler returned to Louisville after their dinner with Palmer and Folz, and the next morning, Decem- ber 5, advised Company President Kaelm of what had transpired in, Evansville. (Also on December 5, apparently later in the' day, Kettler gave Kaehn a list of proposed wage increases for office employees at the several terminals including Evansville, this matter is discussed, infra.) Kaelin telephoned to Folz in Evansville, telling her that he was "hurt, disappointed," and asking her "not to do anything until he got there." He explained that he was unable to come that day (Friday) but would be there Monday and wanted to take her to dinner. The following Monday Kaelin came to Evansville and spoke to Folz in the office of the salesman. Her credited testimony is as follows: He said did I realize I had the retirement benefits. I had been off sick several times, I had always been paid. He said if it was just us few it wouldn't make any difference if we joined the union, but that the rest of them would want to go. He said, the company just cannot operate under that because they would have to close the doors. They can't operate He also said that he had a few complaints about me. That he always admired someone with spunk and I always had my way around there but that was going to quit, too. That was going to stop. Q. To the best of your knowledge would you relate to us the contents of your conversation. A. He told me, he asked me if I had signed a card I said, yes. He shook his head and he said he was disappointed and shocked. And he couldn't understand it. Q. Is there anything else he said to you? Did he ask for anything? * * * * * THE WITNESS Yes, sir, he did. He said he wanted an answer before he left there. And he was going to get one. He said he knew that I would give him a direct answer I would, I told him I would. TRIAL EXAMINER Answer as to what? Did he say? THE WITNESS: Answer if I changed my mind about joining the union, sir. * * * * * Q. Did you have occasion on that day to talk to Mr. Kaelin again A Mr Kaelin and Jim came back from lunch. He asked me if I had my answer. If I would give him an answer or was he going to have to wait all afternoon. * * * * * A I told Mr Kaelin I was going to stick to my original convictions. I was going to stay with the union. Q. Did Mr. Kaelin answer that or make any com- ment? A. He asked Jim then and Jim said and then he said he failed some where or we had failed some where along the way. He did knot know where but he felt we failed him. He thought someone was just giving us sales goods. TRIAL EXAMINER: What did Mr. Palmer tell him? THE WITNESS: Mr. Palmer told him he was going to stay with the union. As just noted, Company President Kaelin took Palmer out to lunch During the lunch, Kaelin attempted to per- suade Palmer to change his mind about supporting the Union In the course of the conversation Kaelin let Palmer know that Palmer's continued support of the Union would adversely affect his chances of becoming a supervisor in the Company. SKAGGS TRANSFER, INC Kaelm left Evansville that afternoon, but that evening Palmer telephoned him in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, to advise that Palmer was withdrawing from the Union. 3. Conclusions with respect to the interviews on December 4 and 8 The atmosphere surrounding the interviews of December 4 and 8 reeked of coercion. Perhaps the baldest example is the pressure applied to young Palmer, a boy barely out of high school, embarked on his first job, and benefiting from special favor in that the Company helped him finance his continuing education outside working hours. This lad was summoned to a motel, closeted there with two highly placed company officials from the home office, subjected to interrogation as to whether or why he joined the Union, told that a possible consequence of union activity among the office employees was the shutting down of the terminal, and then-after being taken out to dinner-told that he was "to think about it" and let the Company know his decision. To cap the climax, 2 working days later the company president came from the home office and took the boy out to lunch where he subjected him to further pressure including a very thinly veiled warning that the boy's future chance of promotion to supervisor would be jeopardized if he adhered to the Union at this time. The interference with Folz' statutory rights is no less evident, ranging from interrogation as to who had joined the Union to threats that her continued adherence to the Union would cost her privileges she had theretofore enjoyed and might lead to a closing of the terminal. She too was interviewed in a coercive setting, was entertained by company officials, and was repeatedly pressed for an "answer" as to whether she would abandon her support of the Union I find that the conduct of Schladand and Kettler on December 4 and of Kaelin on December 8 constituted interference, restraint, and coercion violative of Section 8(a)(1) 4. The granting of benefits As previously noted Palmer had mentioned to Schladand and Kettler that he was not receiving 40 hours' work each week and that he was not enjoying certain insurance benefits to which he was entitled as a full-time employee. These deficiencies were promptly rectified , and Palmer com- menced to receive the hours and insurance he claimed. General Counsel urges that in granting these benefits to Palmer the Company was improperly attempting to affect his support of the Union, and to influence his vote in the event of a representation election I find no violation in correcting such individual inequities merely because they came to management's attention in the course of a union campaign, or indeed while management was committing unfair labor practices . See Champion Pneumatic Machinery Co., 152 NLRB 300, 304 , holding that an employer may lawfully institute safety measures to correct working condi- tions which a company-sponsored labor organization 665 brought to his attention shortly before a representation election. Where an employer corrects deficiencies or errors in a manner and to a degree no different from that he would have employed had they been called to his attention in the absence of union activity, the correction of the deficiencies or errors is not an unfair labor practice See Mock Road Super Duper, Inc., 156 NLRB 983, 994; cf. McCormick Longmeadow Stone Co., Inc., 158 NLRB 1237, 1242. An even closer question is presented by the wage increases granted Palmer and Folz on December 30, 1969. As previ- ously noted, on December 5 Kettler presented Kaelin with a list of proposed wage increases for office employees in the several terminals including Evansville Although in previous years the annual yearend wage adjustments had been in relatively modest amounts of 10 cents per hour, on this occasion Kettler recommended more substantial increases, ranging up to 65 cents, including 35-cent increases for Folz and Palmer, which would have given them hourly rates of $2 50 and $2.25, respectively He also recommended a 40-cent increase for Mauzey ("if we keep on part-time basis") which would have raised her to the new company hourly minimum of $2 I credit Kettler's testimony that the raises he recommend- ed were unrelated to the union movement and reflected a new company policy, recommended some time before by a management consultant firm, but not theretofore imple- mented for reasons unrelated to questions of employee self-organization. Indeed, considering the fact that the first hint of union activity did not reach the Company until December 4 and that Kettler spent a good portion of that day in travel to and from Evansville and in interviews there, he would scarcely have had time to work out on December 5 the full schedule of increases for the approxi- mately 50 office employees at 6 terminals if the matter had not been in his mind before that date About 2 weeks after Kettler gave the recommended changes to Kaelin, the latter made several revisions in the proposals, and in the course of so doing raised Palmer and Folz 60 cents an hour each instead of the 35-cent raise recommended by Kettler. Kaelin made other changes, raising the wages of some employees more and others less than Kettler recommended. The circumstances are high- ly suspicious, for Kaelin must have been keenly aware that he had recently barely reclaimed Palmer from the jaws of union membership, and this substantial raise gave Palmer 50 cents an hour more than was paid to any other "teen-ager" in any of the Company's offices. On the other hand, Palmer's duties were comparable to those of other employees who received smaller raises but whose hourly rate after the raises was the same as his. On the whole, although the matter is not free from doubt, I find that General Counsel did not sustain his burden of proof with respect to the wage increases. Cf. Kern's Bakery, Inc., 154 NLRB 1582, 1587. The matter is somewhat academic, for in the light of the other violations proved on this record, a broad cease-and-desist order is warranted which would restrain any future violations of the type here alleged, and in any event the bargaining order hereinafter recommended would require that furture increases be preceded by bargaining negotiations. 666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. The Discharge of Patti Mauzey As noted above, in December 1969, Patti Mauzey was employed after school hours in the Evansville office. She had been working there since June, assisting Folz. She was apparently one of the most capable part-time employees that office had ever had. During the weeks after school reopened in the fall of 1969 until her discharge on December 11, she averaged 9.7 hours per week, and her weekly earnings averaged $15.50 As we have seen, Palmer's complaint at the December 4 interview that he had not been receiving a full 40 hours of employment each week fell on receptive ears. In point of fact Palmer had been averaging about 39 25 hours per week after Mauzey returned to school, but in the month preceding the interview he had averaged 38.75 hours per week In any event, Schladand and Kettler told Palmer to bring his hours up to 40 per week A few days later, after Palmer renounced his support of the Union, the Company discharged Mauzey. Kettler made a special trip to Evansville for the purpose of discharging her, and explained to her that her work was highly satisfactory but the Company had to increase Palmer's hours and hence had no further need for her services In the first 10 weeks of 1970, Palmer averaged 42 25 hours per week. His overtime rate was $3 75 per hour. The issue as to Mauzey is whether the fact of her union membership played a significant role in the Company's decision to discharge. The Company urges that it owed Palmer the opportunity to work a full 40-hour week, and that it decided to give him additional hours (to bring him up to Folz, who normally worked some overtime) so that it had no further need for Mauzey. The Company further shows that the winter season is a comparatively slack time, and that once before it released a part-time employee from the Evansville office in December. On the other hand General Counsel shows that the Company was opposed to the representation of the office employees by the Union, that it knew Mauzey was a union supporter, that once Palmer had defected from the Union the discharge of Mauzey would destroy the Union's majority, and that the discharge cannot reasonably be explained on economic grounds as Mauzey was paid the Company's minimum wage whereas working Palmer overtime (which he had not requested in his complaint) cost the Company $3.75 for each overtime hour To the Company's claim that it did not regard Mauzey as in the bargaining unit and did not subject her to the coercive interviews, General Counsel rejoins that she was included in the unit in the Company's petition for an election, and that her father's position as union steward explains why the Company con- centrated its campaign on the other employees. On the entire record I think it a reasonable inference that the desire to destroy the Union's majority was a motivating factor in the Company's decision to terminate Mauzey, and I so find.' In making this finding I do not rely on Folz' testimony that she told Schladand and Kettler on December 4 how much she needed Mauzey in the office In general I found Folz to be a reliable witness, and for the most part I have credited her testimony where it conflicts with that of Kettler, Schladand, or Kaelm In this one respect, however, I do not credit her testimony D. The Refusal To Bargain As noted above, the Company received the Union's request for recognition and bargaining on December 4. On December 8, the Company replied, expressing doubt of the Union's majority, and advising that the Company was initiating a representation proceeding with the Board so that the question could be settled by a Board election The Company did in fact file a petition for an election which was received at the Board 's regional office early on December 9, but that proceeding was aborted by the instant litigation . A few days later, after the discharge of Mauzey and the defection of Palmer, the Company and the Union tried to reach agreement on an election to be handled outside the Board 's processes but these negoti- ations foundered on a disagreement as to who was eligible to vote. As of December 4 and 8 , the dates the Company received and rejected the Union 's bargaining request , the Union held valid authorization cards from all three employees in the bargaining unit .' Under these circumstances and in the light of the unfair labor practices in which the Company thereafter engaged , I believe a finding of unlawful refusal to bargain and a bargaining order are appropriate I would have reached this result even if I had found the discharge of Mauzey to be lawful, for the extent of the invasion of Palmer's statutory rights manifestly preclud- ed a fair election . See N.L. R. B. v Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 614-615. The Company raises some question as to the inclusion in the unit of Mauzey and Folz. Mauzey, a part-time employee, who dunng the school year worked every working afternoon after 3:30 p .m., and who had been steadily employed for 6 months, was a member of the bargaining unit. Cf Indianapolis Glove Co. v. N.L. R.B., 400 F.2d 363, 367 (C.A. 6, 1968), and the Board decisions there cited. As to Folz, the Company contends that she was excluded from the unit as a supervisor. Preliminarily it may be noted that the contention as to Folz is something of an afterthought as the Company plainly regarded her as an employee when it sought to dissuade her from continuing in the Union, and included her as one of the employees in the unit in the representation proceeding it initiated. But aside from this, the contention lacks merit . Folz was the most experienced employee in the office , had been there since it opened, and until recently had been the only full-time employee . In the light of her experience, she was the obvious source to whom the younger employees turned for guidance. She also expressed her views to manage- ment on the need for additional help, and there is some evidence that she notified part -time employees of the Compa- ny's decision to hire or discharge them . However, she performed no real supervisory functions and was occupied full time with her own clerical tasks The mere fact that she commented to higher management on the quality of the work performed by the temporary help does not make ' The appropriate unit consists of the office clerical employees at the Evansville terminal, excluding professional employees , guards, and supervisors SKAGGS TRANSFER, INC her a supervisor See Northern Virginia Steel Corp. v N.L.R.B., 300 F 2d 168, 171, 172 (C A. 4, 1962), and the other cases cited in DeKalb Telephone Cooperative, 156 NLRB 1381, 1384. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By interrogating and threatening employees Folz and Palmer with respect to their union activity, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By discharging Patti Mauzey because of her support of the Union, the Company engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 3 By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the representative of the Evansville office employees, the Company engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. THE REMEDY I shall recommend an order directing that the Company cease and desist from its unfair labor practices, that it bargain with the Union upon the latter's request, that it offer Patti Mauzey reinstatement to her former position with backpay computed in accordance with the formulas set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, and that it post appropriate notices The cease-and-desist portion of the order should be sufficiently broad to cover any invasion of employee rights under Section 7 of the Act, as the character of the violations here indicates the need for a broad order. The bargaining order is needed to remedy the violations of Section 8(a)(1), quite apart from the other violations found which furnish further and independent support for it The notice will conform in all major respects to the order, although I shall not include the "Armed Services" provision in the notice, for reasons suggested in B. V.D. Company, Inc., 157 NLRB 978, 982, fn. 6. Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, and upon the entire record, I recommend, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of the following. ORDER' Respondent Skaggs Transfer, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees as to their union membership or activities, or as to that of their fellow employees. ' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 667 (b) Requesting any employee to advise management offi- cials of the employee's decision to support or not to support a union. (c) Threatening employees with reprisals or loss of oppor- tunities for advancement if they support a union. (d) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees because of their union membership or activity (e) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 215, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men, and Helpers of America, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all office clerical employees of Respondent employed at its Evansville, Indiana, terminal, exclusive of all professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request bargain collectively in good faith with the above-named Union as the representative of the employ- ees in the above-described unit. (b) Offer to Patti Mauzey immediate and full reinstate- ment to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, and make her whole, in the manner set forth in the portion of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy," for losses suffered as the result of her discharge in December 1969. (c) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of her 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. (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (e) Post at its office in Evansville, Indiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre- sentative, shall be posted by it immediately 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 the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. ° In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL, at the request of Teamsters Local 215, recognize it as the bargaining representative of our Evansville clerical employees, and engage in bargaining negotiations with it in a good-faith effort to arrive at a contract covering the wages, hours, and working conditions of those employees. WE WILL offer to Patti Mauzey immediate and full reinstatement to the job which she held prior to her discharge in December 1969 or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, and WE WILL pay her for losses she suffered as a result of that discharge. WE WILL NOT question our employees concerning their union membership or activity or that of fellow employees. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reprisals or loss of opportunities for advancement if they adhere to a union. WE WILL NOT discharge any employee for union membership or activity. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise of his right to join or assist a union Dated By SKAGGS TRANSFER, INC (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, Telephone 317-633-8921.