Trey Packing, Inc.

TREY PACKING, INC. Trey Packing, Inc.; Gol-Pak Corporation ; National Frosted Food Co., Inc. and International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local No. 182, of Utica and Central New York . Case 3-CA-3259 June 26, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On February 28, 1968 , Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir- mative action , as set forth in the attached Trial Ex- aminer's Decision . Thereafter, the Respondent and General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Ex- aminer 's Decision and supporting briefs and the Respondent filed a brief in answer to the exceptions and brief of the General Counsel. 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 and briefs, and the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings , conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner,' as herein modified. For reasons fully set forth in his Decision, we agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusions that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act by discharging employees Hughes and Robinson and curtailing the trucking operations at Respondent's Oneida , New York, facility for the purpose of depriving the employees of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and to avoid I Exceptions have been taken to some of the credibility findings of the Trial Examiner which were based to a large extent on demeanor of wit- nesses It is the Board 's policy, however, not to overrule a Trial Examiner's resolutions with respect to credibility unless, as is not the case here, the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Product.,, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C A 3). Y On direct examination , Respondent's Secretary Lawerence Goldwasser testified that following the discharges of Robinson and Hughes. .. Instead of one man riding all the way to Boston for a straight eight hours with fifty drops on and coming back three or four days later . [Tl he new change was to do our shipping with common carrier . So 291 dealing with the Union as majority representative of its truckdrivers. In fashioning a remedy for the violations, how- ever, the Trial Examiner recommended that Respondent be permitted to choose between alter- native remedies of restoring the driving jobs eliminated from the Oneida facility and reinstating Robinson and Hughes therein, or reinstating them with travel and moving expenses at its new Quincy facility in Watertown, Massachusetts, discharging if necessary truckdrivers hired subsequent to the dis- crimination. General Counsel has excepted to this remedy and urges the Board to order Respondent to restore the truckdriving jobs at the Oneida facili- ty and offer the discriminatees reinstatement at that facility. Respondent was actively considering expanding and decentralizing the distribution phase of the Oneida operation when the union organizational activities herein began. However, plans had not yet been formalized. In fact, negotiations for the Mas- sachusetts facility were not commenced until after the discharges herein, and the trucking operations at the Qunicy (Watertown), Massachusetts, and Secaucus, New Jersey, facilities did not become operational until 2 or 3 months after the termina- tion of Robinson and Hughes. During the interval Respondent used common carriers and other im- provised arrangements, including utilization of the mechanic and his truck to handle deliveries that normally would have been made by the two discharged employees. Even after the decentraliza- tion was effected, Respondent did not close the Oneida distribution operation but merely shifted to Quincy and Secaucus some of the deliveries for- merly handled by the Oneida facility. Indeed, Respondent testified that the Quincy and Secaucus facilities have taken over only about 50 customer drops that were eliminated from the Oneida opera- tion.2 Respondent still distributes its own products processed at Oneida and relays products received from the Union City, New Jersey, processing plant to the distribution points. While it is possible that Respondent for economic reasons may eventually have curtailed its Oneida truck delivery operations and shifted to common carrier and decentralized deliveries, the we eliminated some fifty drops per truck to two drops per truck and now coming back with a return load going down to Gol-Pak and driv- ing a load back. Goldwasser further testified that due to the operational changes New England drops presently are made out of Boston and an occasional major drop "almost the whole truck" is made out of Oneida. Regarding the changes, neither of Respondent's witnesses testified with clarity When pressed by General Counsel for more details of the eliminated stops, L. Goldwasser stated, "Here's my point, when I say eliminate fifty stops, I mean fifty stops would have been peddled by one of the drivers and is now shipped by common carrier. " (Emphasis supplied.) 172 NLRB No. 42 292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD record clearly establishes that it took the action herein to evade its statutory obligation, which would have included bargaining about the ttansfer of delivery operations and the effects upon em- ployees. Had it done so, the employees not only may have been given an opportunity to transfer to one of the new facilities or to nondriving work at Oneida, but may have retained the work assigned to common carrier. In any event, it must be presumed they would have retained their jobs until Respon- dent's bargaining obligations were fulfilled . Respon- dent offered no testimony of a decline of business at Oneida. In fact, the need for additional storage space which Respondent considered prior to the union demand would seem consistent with Respon- dent's testimony of a general increase in its busi- ness. Nor did Respondent offer any evidence which would tend to show that a resumption of truck delivery operations at Oneida would cause any con- siderable change in its business or subject Respon- dent to undue financial hardship. Respondent still has possession of the rented trucks formerly used at the Oneida facility and there is no evidence that if Respondent ceased using common carriers and other makeshift arrangements , it would not have adequate truckdriving work for Robinson and Hughes at this facility.3 Under these circumstances, redress of the 8(a)(3) and ( 5) violations warrants restoration of the status quo ante . Accordingly, we shall order that Respondent restore the jobs eliminated from its Oneida facility and offer to Robinson and Hughes reinstatement to their former positions,4 and that Respondent fulfill its statutory obligation to bargain with the Union concerning terms and conditions of employment. This order will not preclude effectua- tion of operational changes affecting the jobs, pro- vided Respondent satisfies its obligation to bargain with the Union about such changes and does not make operational changes for a discriminatory mo- tive. ORDER 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 as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent, Trey Packing, Inc.; Gol-Pak Corporation; National Frosted Food Co., Inc., Oneida, New York, their officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Recom- mended Order, as so modified. 1. Insert in paragraph 1(c) of the Recommended Order after the words "conditions of employment" the phrase "and from unilaterally making opera- tional changes which affect the jobs of unit em- ployees without prior bargaining with the above- named Union or any other union its employees may select as their exclusive bargaining representative about such changes and the effects such changes may have on employees ' jobs." 2. In paragraph 2(a) of the Recommended Order, delete the words "Offer to Robert Robinson and Robert B. Hughes" and insert the words "Restore to the Oneida, New York , facility the jobs formerly held by Robert Robinson and Robert B. Hughes and offer them ...." 3. Delete from paragraph 2(e) of the Recom- mended Order the reference to Watertown, Mas- sachusetts. 4. Insert the following paragraph after the sixth indented paragraph of the Notice To All Em- ployees: WE WILL NOT make operational changes which affect the jobs of unit employees without bargaining with the above-named Union or any other union employees have selected as their exclusive bargaining representative about such changes and the effect such changes may have on their jobs. 5. In the next to last indented paragraph of the Notice To All Employees , delete the words "WE WILL offer Robert Robinson and Robert B. Hughes" and insert the words "WE WILL restore to our Oneida, New York, facility the jobs formerly held by Robert Robinson and Robert B. Hughes and offer them . . . . " 6. Add the following immediately below the signature line of the Notice To All Employees: NOTE: We will notify the above -named em- ployees, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement, upon application, in ac- cordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces. Absent a more definitive explanation or evidence to the contrary, the following exchange at the hearing between General Counsel and Gold- wasser tends to show that, in addition to having a need of drivers for trans- porting products from Oneida to its new distribution centers, Respondent is still using common carriers to handle stops eliminated from Oneida 0. (By General Counsel) Which runs were they that were stopped? A New England runs Q. Who makes the deliveries nowt A. Common carrier Q. From where? A. New Jersey Some of the stops are made from the Boston area Preston Feed Corporation , 134 NLRB 629, enfd . 309 F .2d 346 (C.A. 4). Cf. Valley Forge Flag Company, 152 NLRB 1550, 1567 ; William E. Mc- Clain dlbla Dairy Farmers Transfer, 158 NLRB 78. 172 NLRB No. 42-T-28 TREY PACKING, INC. 293 TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION and received goods at its New Jersey facility valued STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN P. VON ROHR, Trial Examiner: Upon charges, duly filed, the General Counsel of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 3 (Buffalo, New York), issued a complaint on August 31, 1967, against Trey Packing, Inc., Gol-Pak Corporation , and National Frosted Food Co., Inc., herein called the Respon- dent or the Company, alleging that it had engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Thereafter the Respondent filed an answer denying the allegations of unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me on November 6 and 7, 1967, in Syracuse, New York. All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent and they have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in this case and from my observation of the witnesses , I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Trey Packing, Inc., is a New York corporation with its principal office and place of business located at Oneida, New York , where it is engaged in the processing, manufacture , sale, and distribu- tion of meat and meat products and related products. During the year preceding the hearing herein, Trey Packing sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its Oneida, New York, facility to points and places outside of the State of New York. During the same period it purchased and received goods at its Oneida, New York, plant valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside of the State of New York. Gol-Pak Corporation is a New Jersey corporation with its principal office and place of business located in Union City, New Jersey, where it is en- gaged in the processing, manufacture , sale, and dis- tribution of meat and meat products and related products. During the year preceding the hearing herein , Gol-Pak sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from its New Jersey facility to points and places outside of the State of New Jersey. During the same period it purchased in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside of the State of New Jersey. National Frosted Food Co., Inc., is a New Jersey corporation with its principal office and place of business located in Union City, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the sale and distribution of meat and meat products and related products. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Gol-Pak, Trey Packing, and National Food are individually and collectively an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 182, of Utica and Central New York, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The issues in this case are: (1) whether the Respondent's refusal on or about June 14, 1967, to recognize the Union and bargain with it as the col- lective-bargaining agent for its truckdrivers em- ployed at Trey Packing was based upon a good- faith doubt of the Union's claimed majority status; (2) whether Respondent engaged in certain con- duct independently violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; and (3) whether it terminated employees Robert Robinson and Robert B. Hughes on June 26, 1967, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion Preliminarily, it should be noted that Trey Packing, Inc., is the only Respondent Company in- volved in the alleged unfair labor practices in this proceeding.' This Company is located in Oneida, New York, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of meat products . During the period rele- vant hereto it employed approximately 75 em- ployees, of whom 5 were truckdriver employees. Two of the truckdrivers were terminated on June 26, 1967, and are the alleged discriminatees herein. In early June 1967, Robert B. Hughes, a truckdriver at Trey Packing, telephoned L. Frank Parks, assistant business agent for the Union, and advised him that the truckdrivers were interested in being organized by the Union. It is undisputed that on June 10, 1967, four of the Trey Packing truckdrivers met at the home of William Trexler, one of the drivers, at which time each of them ' However, as will be noted later in this Decision , Respondent's defense to the 8(a)(3) allegation is predicated on a change in the method of its shipping operations, in which the Gol-Pak Corporation also is involved. 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD signed a union authorization card. The Respon- dent's drivers who signed cards on this date were Robert B. Hughes, William Trexler, Robert E. Robinson, and Donald J. Baker. On June 12, 1967, the Union wrote Joseph Gold- wasser, the president of Trey Packing,' as follows: Dear Mr. Goldwasser: This is to notify you that the drivers at your Oneida, New York branch have become paid up members of the Teamsters Local #182 of Utica, New York to have us represent them and negotiate a union contract covering them. Please contact this office at once to set up a conference to discuss same. Hope to hear from you within one week, I wish to remain, L. Frank Parks, Asst. Bus. Agent This letter, which was postdated June 13, 1967, was received by the Respondent on June 14.3 It is undisputed that the Respondent made no reply to the Union's letter; it merely being the testimony of Lawrence Goldwasser, the son of Joseph Gold- wasser and the secretary of Respondent companies, that he turned the letter over to the Company's at- torney. William Trexler, employed by the Respondent as a truckdriver at its Trey Packing plant for about 18 months, testified that he had a conversation with Lawrence Goldwasser in the office on or about June 17, at which time he went to see Goldwasser about a matter pertaining to his vacation pay. From the testimony of Trexler, which I credit, this con- versation proceeded as follows: After discussing the vacation pay, Trexler asked Goldwasser how he felt about the Union. Goldwasser replied that he had been wondering what grievances the men had and why they joined the Union. Trexler replied that the men were dissatisfied with the trucks and the main- tenance end of the operation. Goldwasser stated that such matters could have been worked out without the Union if the men had come to him first. He then asked who had attended the meeting and who had signed cards.' Trexler replied that "all four drivers" had signed cards" and had given them to Union Representative Parks. Goldwasser then proceeded to say that a new truck was being ob- tained and that this would enable the drivers to make straight runs with a tractor-trailer, a procedure which he said would phase out the "ped- dling end" of the operation.' Further, he stated that the Union's demands would be so high that he would not be able to afford letting the men work over 40 hours, as frequently was their custom; and further, that, if the Union were selected, he would not be able to talk to the employees "man to man" but that he would have to talk to them through the Union. Some time later Goldwasser again spoke to Trexler about the Unions This time he stated that if the Union got in he could ship by gypsy drivers and that he could lay off some of the help. Trexler testified that he had a further conversa- tion with L. Goldwasser on June 23, a Friday. This conversation also occurred in the office. Trexler testified that at this time he asked Goldwasser to speak to the drivers and tell them what he had told him in the June 17 conversation. According to Trexler, Goldwasser replied that he could not speak to the men but asked that he (Trexler) talk to them and "tell them what I have told you and tell them if they back out of the Union, things would be as they was before.` Goldwasser went on to say that his father was worried and would like to know whether the employees planned to stay with the Union or back out of it. He said that his father had started the trucking operations out of Oneida as an experi- ment and "this was enough" for him to pull out the trucks and do away with the drivers. Further, ac- cording to Trexler, he said that the Company had moved to Oneida to get away from the Union in the first place. Goldwasser finally stated that he "would like to let his father know by the following Mon- day." He then requested Trexler to call him at home and let him know which way the men had decided. Concerning the foregoing, Lawrence Goldwasser conceded having a conversation of similar content as testified to by Trexler. However, Goldwasser testified that this conversation occurred on or about June 15 or 16 and that Trexler opened up the subject of the Union by asking him how he felt about the drivers joining the Union. Goldwasser said he told Trexler that he was not for the Union and gave him his reasons for being against it . According to Goldwasser, Trexler thereupon stated, "I didn't know you felt that way. I may re-evaluate the situa- tion." Goldwasser said that at this point he told Trexler, "Why don't you do the-first, call a meet- ing among the other drivers and see if they will re- evaluate their feelings toward the Teamsters now r Joseph Goldwasser is also president of the Gol -Pak Corporation and National Frosted Food Co., Inc ' In accordance with a stipulation entered into by the parties subsequent to the hearing , Resp Exh 9, which reflects the date of mailing and date of receipt by the Respondent of the Union 's June 12 letter, is hereby received in evidence 4 Trexler impressed me as a credible witness who was telling the truth. Although , as Respondent argues in its brief, some of his testimony was prompted by leading questions , the preponderance of this testimony is un- denied Further , the questions were not overly leading, since upon ex- haustion of this witness ' memory the questions merely propounded a sub- ject and the witness testified without further prompting as to the details. I Trexler did not, in this undenied testimony , state whether Goldwasser indicated how the meeting had come to his attention. The record is clear that at this time Bielby, one of the five drivers em- ployed at this time, also performed warehouse work and spent less time driving a truck than did the other four It is apparent that Trexler did not regard Bielby as a full-time driver at this time. ' The term "peddling" refers to deliveries made by the drivers to in- dividual customers en route . Straight runs involve longer runs to a central distribution point with no stops for deliveries en route s Although Trexler was not certain as to the date of this conversation, he testified that it occurred prior to the June 26 layoff Again, Trexler's testimony concerning this conversation is undenied. According to Trexler , he interpreted this to mean that "things [ working conditions ] would stay the same " TREY PACKING, INC. 295 that they know I'm not in favor of it ." According to Goldwasser, Trexler replied that he was a little wor- ried, that "the four drivers made an agreement that whichever one withdraws , the other three would club him ." Goldwasser testified that the conversa- tion ended with his saying to Trexler, " I hate to do this. Look , you know my feelings, see what you can do." Contrary to the testimony of Goldwasser, the logical and credited testimony shows, and I find, that this' conversation occurred on Friday, June 23, rather than on June 15 or 16 , as testified to by him.10 As to the substance of this conversation, it is noted that Goldwasser conceded much of the testimony given by Trexler . However, I also credit the additional statements which Trexler attributed to Goldwasser, as hereinabove set forth. This testimony was not denied by Goldwasser. On Saturday , June 24, Trexler went to the home of John Wands, the plant manager of Respon- dent Trey Packing, and told him that at the behest of Lawrence Goldwasser he was having a meeting with the other truckdrivers on the following day and that Goldwasser had asked him to let him know how the meeting came out. Trexler testified that Wands thereupon stated he had just talked to Joseph Goldwasser on the phone and that Joseph had advised him not to talk to any drivers about the Union because this could get him in trouble. Nevertheless , according to Trexler, Wands went on to say that the Union would never get in ; that, if he (Trexler ) would work with the Company in getting the Union out, he could have his job as long as he wished but that if he did not, the employees would not be driving any longer . Wands was not called as a witness by the Respondent and I credit the foregoing undenied testimony by Trexler. On Monday, June 26, Trexler met Lawrence Goldwasser on the company dock at or about 9 a.m. Trexler testified that Goldwasser at this time asked him to relate the results of the meeting which he had with the drivers over the weekend . Trexler testified that he told Goldwasser "Not very good for you. You have to call Frank Parks." Goldwasser then asked , "In other words you weren 't able to talk them out of the Union?" Trexler replied that he had not. When Goldwasser thereupon asked which employees would not back out, Trexler named employees Robert Robinson and Robert Hughes, stating that "they joined the Union and have been union men and aren 't about to back out of the Union." With this the conversation ended." Donald J. Baker, one of the drivers who signed a card on June 10, testified that on the evening of June 22, 1967, Plant Manager Wands telephoned and asked that he meet him at the Dan Dee Donut Shop in the morning. Baker did so, at which time Wands brought up the subject of the Union and asked Baker to tell him about the grievances of the drivers. With reference to his own situation, Baker replied that he was worried about hospital bills. Wands thereupon stated that the Company was en- deavoring to obtain a better insurance program for the employees. Stating that the Union was nothing but a crook and could be bought off, Wands then asked Baker if he intended to remain with the Union or if he would drop out of it. Baker replied that he was undecided. Wands thereupon declared that if the employees dropped out of the Union they would keep their jobs; but that, if they did not, the Company could ship by common carrier and some of the employees would be laid off. He added that the Company had shipped by common carrier before and that it could do so again. Although Wands did not testify, it is noteworthy that Lawrence Goldwasser testified that he instructed Wands "to go out and find out whether the Team- sters actually had a majority as stated in the letter ... so, John Wands went out on my say so to find out." I credit the unrefuted testimony of Baker con- cerning the foregoing conversation with Plant Manager Wands on June 23. Baker further testified that he had a conversation with Lawrence Goldwasser on or about July 5. Although this occurred after the layoffs of the al- leged discriminatees herein, it may be noted that a representation petition was filed by the Union on June 26, 1967, and was pending at this time. Con- cerning this conversation, Baker credibly testified that Goldwasser at this time asked what the drivers were going to do. Baker said that during the con- versation Goldwasser also told him: (1) that a raise was coming in the first part of August and (2) that, if he did not go Union, he could have a job working inside the plant. Concerning the latter statement, Baker stated that he had previously expressed a desire to be transferred to an inside job.12 Ruth Trexler, the wife of employee William Trexler, testified to a conversation she had with Plant Manager Wands in the first or second week in July as she was waiting outside the plant in her car. According to the credited and undenied testimony of Mrs. Trexler, during this conversation Wands 10 The credited testimony of Union Representative Parks corroborates Trexler 's testimony that this conversation occurred on June 23 Thus, Parks testified that Trexler told him that the drivers planned to hold a meeting over the weekend of June 24-25 to decide if they should withdraw from the Union , this was because the Company had threatened to change its operations if they did not . Parks testified that he thereupon telephoned L Goldwasser on Saturday , June 24 , and asked if he intended to change operations if the men did not withdraw from the Union Parks said that Goldwasser advised that no changes in operations would be made Also establishing that the above conversation occurred on June 23 is the un- disputed fact , as hereinafter noted , that Trexler reported the results of the weekend meeting he had with the employees to Lawrence Goldwasser on Monday, June 26 " The testimony of Lawrence Goldwasser concerning this conversation was substantially the same as that of Trexler Thus, not only did Goldwasser concede asking Trexler about the meeting, but he conceded also that Trexler told him that Hughes and Robinson wanted to remain with the Teamsters Union Although Trexler thus testified concerning the report of the meeting which he gave to Goldwasser, he did not testify as to the meet- ing itself 't In addition to crediting Baker, this testimony by him is undenied 296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD told her that the two Bobs had been given a chance to drop out of the Union and forget about it (this referring to Hughes and Robinson, who had been terminated) but that her husband would have a job as long as he remained loyal to the Company. He also stated that, if driver Don Baker did not drop out of the Union, he would receive the same treat- ment as "the two Bobs." From all of the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that the Respondent engaged in extensive conduct which interfered with , restrained , and coerced its employees in the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. While this conduct is also pertinent to the other unfair labor practices alleged herein, at this point I find and conclude that Respondent, by Lawrence Goldwasser and John Wands, indepen- dently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (1) interrogating its employees concerning their union activities, interests , and desires; (2) requesting an employee to solicit other employees to withdraw from the Union ; ( 3) threatening employees with reprisals for their union activities ;13 (4) stating to employees that the Union would never get in; and (5) promising employees benefits for refraining from union activity. 14 1 find that Respondent likewise violated the Act by Wand's statement to Mrs. Trexler, the wife of employee Trexler, that her husband and another employee would be terminated "just like the two Bobs" if they did not refrain from supporting the Union; and also that employee Baker would receive the same treatment as the two Bobs if he did not withdraw from the Union. C. The Termination of Robert Robinson and Robert B. Hughes As indicated in the preceding section, shortly after reporting to work on June 26, employee Wil- liam Trexler advised Lawrence Goldwasser that he had met with the drivers over the weekend but that they had decided not to withdraw from the Union. At or about 9:30 or 10 a.m., truckdrivers Robert Robinson and Robert Hughes were summoned to the office and were notified by Lawrence Gold- wasser that they were being laid off.15 Goldwasser at this time gave each of these employees a letter which stated as follows: A decrease in the transportation of our products and the products of other companies " These include , as heretofore detailed , threats to layoff or discharge employees , threats to cease or cut down on trucking operations by going common carrier or hiring gypsy drivers, threats to abandon trucking opera- tions in Oneida , and a threat to reduce the working hours of employees "Such promises of benefits include promises of better insurance benefits, promises to eliminate or cut down on peddling and change to straight runs, and promise of a wage increase the first part of August " Although Respondent advised these employees that they were being laid off, it is hereinafter found that in fact they were being discharged i" Hughes testified that when first advised of the layoff in the morning, either he or Robinson asked if they were being laid off because of their union activities . Hughes said that Goldwasser replied no, "it was just what was in the letter " with which we deal forces us to lay you off ef- fective the end of the business week June 30, 1967. This layoff is being made in accordance with your company recognized seniority. At the present time the company is reorganizing its transportation program. In the event that this reorganization results in the need for more drivers within the company, we will recall you. However, the problems of transportation are such that we cannot now reassure you in any way concerning the probability or possibility of a recall. As stated in the above letter, the layoff of Robin- son and Hughes was not to be effective until June 30. However, it is undisputed that in the afternoon of the same day (June 26) these employees again were called into Goldwasser's office and this time were informed by him that the layoff was to take ef- fect immediately. When they asked if they should finish unloading the truck they were working on, Goldwasser stated that they should not, that they should leave immediately. 16 D. Respondent's Defense to the Discharges Preliminarily, it is to be noted that Respondent has two principal manufacturing operations, one consisting of the Gol-Pak plant, which is located in Union City, New Jersey, and the other being the Trey Packing plant, located at Oneida, New York.17 Prior to 1966, distribution and shipment of all products principally were made from Union City, New Jersey, and from a warehouse located in Boston , Massachusetts. In or about latter 1965, Respondent decided that it would be more feasible to make deliveries to customers located in the New England area from its facilities in Oneida, New York, rather than from the Boston warehouse.18 Accordingly, the Company entered into a lease agreement with the Hertz Truck Rental Company which provided that Hertz would build and rent to the Respondent five trucks, including tractor-trailers, for a minimum period of 5 years. The trucks were to be specially constructed to meet Respondent's refrigeration requirements.ta Pursuant to this agreement, the trucks in fact were built and delivered to the Company. The trucks were delivered at various intervals and drivers were hired at such times as the trucks became available. Although the record is not entirely clear as to the i' Although J . Goldwasser testified that Gol-Pak products are manufac- tured in the New York metropolitan area, the Union City plant is the only plant specifically mentioned in the testimony According to the complaint and answer, National Frosted Food Co is not engaged in manufacturing operations. " The Boston warehouse distributed products manufactured by Respon- dent's plants in Oneida and New Jersey This system continued when Oneida was made the distribution point for New England Thus Go[-Pak products manufactured in Union City were shipped to Oneida for distribu. tion to New England along with Oneida's own manufactured products. is Although the lease with Hertz is not in evidence , the arrangement set forth above was testified to by the senior Gol lwusser. TREY PACKING, INC. 297 exact date , the trucking operations from the Trey Packing plant at Oneida , New York, to the New England area began sometime in the early part of 1966.20 Lawrence Goldwasser testified that Robinson and Hughes were laid off due to a change in operations made necessary because the truckdriving opera- tions from the Oneida Trey Packing plant to the New England area had proved to be "costly and chaotic.' 21 The principal reason for this, he said, was due to the fact that the Hertz trucks had become involved in two or three major breakdowns each week , this resulting in "a tremendous expense to the Company and customer service ." However, this testimony given by Goldwasser on his direct ex- amination was of a conclusionary nature. When queried on cross-examination as to the nature and extent of such breakdowns, Goldwasser testified as follows: If you're going to put Mr. Trexler on the stand, he can enumerate . There have been trucks broken down in the past .... I don't have the specifics .... You are asking me to remember specific dates and transfers . I know there was twenty or thirty . I cannot come up with the specifics. I wont be cornered to specifics. The only specifics as to truck breakdowns was adduced from employee witnesses who were called by the General Counsel on rebuttal .22 Thus, em- ployee Trexler testified that he experienced six breakdowns between January and June 1967, and three between June and October 1967. These in- volved a flat tire on one occasion , burned out tail lights on two occasions , a malfunction of the reefer unit on three occasions , a broken fuel pump on one occasion , and serious engine trouble on another oc- casion . Except for the latter two, these breakdowns involved delays of only an hour or two . The fuel pump incident occurred during the noon hour. The following morning the truck was towed to East Hartford, Connecticut. He said that during the in- terim the load was transferred to a common carrier and that he was given another truck when he reached East Hartford , from whence he was directed to proceed to the New Jersey facility. The incident of engine trouble caused him to be towed to Boston where the load was transferred to another of Respondent's trucks . He said this took approximately a day . Employee Robert Hughes testified that he had four breakdowns during the 6- month period prior to his layoff. These included such minor matters as two flat tires , which took 1- 1/2 to 2 hours to be repaired . Another involved a broken steering wheel , this involving a 2-hour delay for repair. Finally , a delay of 1 - 1 /2 to 2 hours was encountered on the occasion of a broken throttle. Robert Robinson testified that he had two break- downs during his employment with the Company. One was a flat tire. The other involved truck lights which were damaged when his truck struck a pillar, this causing a delay of about 1-1 /2 hours for repair. Upon consideration of all the foregoing, and from my observation of the demeanor of Lawrence Goldwasser as he testified, I am convinced and find that Goldwasser's general assertion that the Com- pany had experienced an inordinate amount of truck breakdowns was an exaggeration of fact. As indicated above, the testimony of employee wit- nesses reflect that the majority of the so-called breakdowns were of a routine nature and of a type that could reasonably be anticipated in any exten- sive trucking operations. Moreover, Joseph Gold- wasser conceded that Respondent's rental agree- ment with Hertz provides that Hertz must bear the expense of truck repair and also that Hertz must furnish replacements for trucks which become disa- bled.23 Furthermore, it is significant that Respon- dent did not relinquish the trucks upon curtailment of the Oneida trucking operations, but rather trans- ferred them to other of its facilities where they are still in use. Joseph Goldwasser testified that the telephone expense in connection with the Oneida Trucking operations, which he said amounted to approxi- mately $1,000 per month, was a further reason which necessitated a change in these operations. However, the record affords no basis for determin- ing whether or not this expense was dispropor- tionate to the entire operation. In any event, under all the circumstances of this case, including Respondent's incredible explanation for the discharges of Robinson and Hughes as hereinafter noted, I am satisfied and find that the factor of telephone expense was not a motivating considera- tion in the discharge of these employees. Although Lawrence and Joseph Goldwasser gave additional testimony concerning the alleged need to change the Oneida Trucking operations, the record reflects this testimony to be so utterly confusing and disjointed as to render it incapable of any ra- tionale interpretation . From the testimony as thus adduced by the Respondent from these witnesses when presenting its case, I can only conclude that this confused testimony resulted from an attempt to cover up the real reason for the discharges, as hereinafter found. I turn now to the actual changes which were made in Respondent's trucking operations sub- sequent to the curtailment of the Oneida opera- i0 The record also does not disclose the dates in which the various Hertz trucks were delivered to the Respondent . However, it may be noted that Trexler, who appears to be the senior driver, was hired in or about March 1966 Robert Robinson , who had least seniority among the drivers, was hired on November 6, 1966. Robert Hughes , who stood next to Robinson in seniority , was hired in April 1967 s' The changes in operations which ultimately were made are hereinafter described "These employees refreshed their memories by examination of their logbooks which reflect this information I credit this testimony " However, Hertz does not bear the cost of drivers' pay for any lost time that may be caused by a breakdown 298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions. The evidence of record reflects that there were two such changes. They are as follows: 1. On July 10, 1967, the Gol-Pak Corporation, in a letter signed by Joseph Goldwasser, advised the Quincy Market Cold Storage and Warehouse Com- pany that it "intended" to enter into a lease for 4,624 square feet of freezer space, 950 square feet of platform space, and 600 square feet of office space at the Quincy facility in Watertown, Mas- sachusetts. (Watertown is located within the Boston, Massachusetts, area.) The letter further stated that "you [Quincy] must build a small build- ing and partition the platform and freezer space all as shown on Drawing 2-File 28 a copy of which is in our possession . . ."; and further, "that the rental will be $2000 per month and the term of the lease will be five years starting with the date the premises are made available for our use, about September 1st or October 1 st...." It is undisputed that on July 17, 1967, Gol-Pak entered into a lease with Quincy which in all material respects incorporated the terms proposed in Goldwasser's letter of July 10, 1967. The lease was made effective from October 1, 1967, until Oc- tober 1, 1972, with the proviso that the lessor would endeavor to make the space available by Oc- tober 1 "or as soon thereafter as practical." According to the testimony of Lawrence and Joseph Goldwasser, trucking operations first began from the Quincy facility at Watertown, Mas- sachusetts, in about the latter part of October 1967. Thus, each of the Goldwassers conceded that these trucking operations began upon the hiring of two new truckdrivers, both of whom they said were hired approximately 2 weeks prior to the hearing herein. Lawrence Goldwasser testified that customers located in the New England and Boston area are presently being serviced by the trucking operations now being conducted from the Quincy facility. 2. On or about March 30, 1967, the Gol-Pak Corporation entered into negotiations with the Merchants Refrigerating Company to obtain a com- bined total of 12,514 square feet of freezer space, office space, and platform space at the Merchant's facility in Secaucus, New Jersey. On May 12, 1967, Gol-Pak executed a lease with Merchants for the aforesaid facilities, the lease to be effective from September 1. 1967, to June 20, 1970, at the rate of $53,263 per annum. This facility was completed on time and operations began on September 1, 1967. Although no drivers were hired, four new warehousemen were employed at or about this commencement of the operation. As to the trucking operations conducted from this facility, Joseph Goldwasser merely testified, "Out of Secau- cus by common carrier-both common carrier and our own trucks. We have stated that we have trucks in the Gol-Pak Corporation." He did not elaborate. With respect to the area serviced from the Secau- cus facility, Lawrence Goldwasser testified that 50 customer drops were eliminated from the Oneida operation and that these now are being serviced from Secaucus as well as from the Quincy facility. Thus the facts of record as to the inauguration of the trucking operations at the Quincy (Watertown, Massachusetts ) facility and the Secaucus , New Jer- sey, facility. As noted hereinafter, the fact that neither of these facilities began operations until 2 or 3 months after the termination of Robinson and Hughes has a significant bearing upon the question of alleged discrimination against these employees. However, since Respondent does not claim that it suffered from any diminishment in business, the question arises as to how Respondent's customers were serviced during the 2- or 3-month interval fol- lowing the discharge of these two of Respondent's five truckdrivers. Neither Lawrence or Joseph Goldwasser answered this question with any degree of clarity. The only testimony bearing upon this matter by either of the Goldwassers is the following testimony of Lawrence Goldwasser as adduced through his counsel on direct examination: Q. Following the layoff of Robert Hughes and Robert Robinson, was there a change in the method of operations in the trucks out of Oneida? A. Yes, there was a definite change . Instead of one man riding all the way to Boston for a straight eight hours with some fifty drops on and coming back three or four days later with sixty-five very hard hours and nine out of ten times a breakdown, the new change was to do our shipping with common carrier and to mere- ly put one or two drops on a man . In other words, the drivers would go out and drive to a major customer , one drop, go into the Com- pany and come back. So, we eliminated some fifty drops per truck down to two drops per truck and now coming back with a return load going down to Gol-Pak and driving a load back. [ Emphasis supplied.] From the foregoing, and in the absence of any other explanation by the Respondent, I can only conclude that Respondent in large part utilized the services of common carrier to handle the customer deliveries that normally would have been made by Hughes and Robinson during the interval between their termination on June 26, 1967, and the com- mencement of the Quincy and Secaucus operations in October and September 1967, respectively. That Respondent also resorted to other devices in the servicing of its customers during this period is reflected in the credited and uncontradicted testimony of William Trexler who testified that one Harold Strife, a maintenance man employed by the Respondent at Oneida, utilized his privately owned pickup truck to make a number of deliveries of Respondent 's products from Oneida to the Utica, New York , area. Strife had not conducted any such operation prior to the termination of Robinson and Hughes. TREY PACKING, INC. 299 E. Conclusions as to the Discharges Upon the facts heretofore found, and on the en- tire record in this case , the conclusion is inescapa- ble, and I find, that the discharges of Robert B. Hughes and Robert Robinson and the subsequent curtailment of the Oneida trucking operations were primarily motivated by Respondent's opposition to the Union and to the selection of the Union as the bargaining representative of the truckdriver em- ployees at the Trey Packing plant in Oneida. Singly and in corroboration, the factors which so con- vincingly establish that Respondent discriminated against these employees may be summarized as fol- lows: As heretofore found , the evidence in this case reflects that the Respondent , upon learning of the employees' organization activities and upon receiv- ing a request for recognition from the Union, en- gaged in an extensive course of unlawful conduct designed to defeat the Union. This conduct, inter alia, specifically included threats by Lawrence Goldwasser and Plant Manager Wands that if the employees did not abandon their union activities the Respondent would discharge the truckdrivers, that it would cease or curtail its Oneida trucking operations, and that it would ship by common carri- er or by gypsy drivers. As a last resort, on June 23, 1967, Lawrence Goldwasser requested employee Trexler to meet with the other truckdrivers over the weekend for the purpose of inducing them to withdraw from the Union. Trexler advised Gold- wasser on Monday, June 26 , that the men would not withdraw from the Union. Within an hour after receiving this report , Goldwasser carried out his previous threats and summarily told Robinson and Hughes they were being laid off and they were in fact terminated that same day . Even assuming any legitimate need for eventually terminating these employees, Respondent offered no satisfactory or credible explanation for taking this precipitous ac- tion.24 The timing of the discharges and the fulfill- ment of Respondent's earlier threats are in them- selves sufficient to establish a strong prima facie case of discrimination. Turning to Respondent's defense, Respondent basically asserts that because the Oneida trucking operation allegedly proved to be "costly and chaotic" it became necessary to transfer at least a portion of these operations to new facilities in Watertown, New York, and Secaucus, New Jersey; and that it was by reason of this transfer of opera- tions that Robinson and Hughes were terminated. I find this explanation to be inherently incredible, for the indisputable fact is that while these employees were discharged on June 26, 1967, the Secaucus and Watertown facilities did not commence opera- tions until September and October 1967, respec- tively. Moreover, the evidence does not reflect, nor does Respondent contend, that there was any decline in business in the interval between the layoffs and the opening of the new facilities. In- stead, the gap created by the discharge of Robinson and Hughes was filled by the utilization of common carrier and other devices. For all these reasons the evidence pertaining to Respondent's defense serves but to further establish that the only logical ex- planation for the precipitous discharge of the two employees was based upon antiunion considera- tions and was especially triggered by Trexler's an- nouncement that the employees would not withdraw from the Union. Finally, it is worthy of note that in the discharge letter handed to Hughes and Robinson Respondent cited as a reason for the action the alleged fact that it had suffered "a decrease in the transportation of our products and the products of other compa- nies." As heretofore noted, this alleged reason was not given in Respondent's defense at the hearing. Respondent's witnesses did not mention this reason. Thus, and as further evidence in support of the General Counsel's case, it is apparent that Respon- dent seized upon shifting justifications in order to mask the fact that these employees were being ter- minated for discriminatory reasons. Accordingly, and in view of all the foregoing, I find that Respondent discharged Robinson and Hughes in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.25 F. The Refusal to Bargain The complaint alleges, and I find, that all truckdrivers employed at the Trey Packing Oneida plant exclusive of all other employees, all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining.26 As noted earlier in this Decision , it is undisputed that union authorization cards were signed by four of the five employees in the unit on June 10, 1967. These cards, all of which were introduced in evidence, reflect no deficiencies which would require their disqualification. Nor is there '1 In view of the entire evidence in this case , including my observation of the witness, I do not credit the testimony of Joseph Goldwasser that the layoffs were "planned to be effective a couple of weeks before June 12" but that they were deferred upon advice from his attorney. '" Under the circumstances of this case , I find it immaterial that Robin- son and Hughes had the least seniority of the employees in the unit. Not only was Respondent aware that they were union supporters (from the ad- vice of Trexler ), but the entire purpose of their discharge , as herein found, was to undermine the Union and to defeat the Union's majority status. The fact that Respondent retained other union adherents in its employ does not exculpate it for the discrimination against Robinson and Hughes N L R B v. W C Nabors dlbla W C. Nabors Company, 196 F 2d 272, 276 (C.A 5). '" Although Respondent's answer generally denies the appropriateness of the unit, the answer further states that it "admits" it is willing to submit to an election in the proposed unit. The record reflects that four drivers were hired as over-the-road truckdrivers and that the fifth employee is a com- bination warehouseman-driver. These employees do not interchange or transfer with other employees it is too well established to require citation of authority that a unit of this nature is appropriate for bargaining pur- poses 300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD testimony to show misrepresentation or fraud in the obtaining of such cards . Accordingly , I find that on or about June 10, 1967, a majority of the em- ployees in the appropriate unit designated and selected the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. As also previously noted , the Union 's letter of June 12 , 1967, in which it requested bargaining, was received by the Respondent on or about June 14, 1967. Although Respondent turned this letter over to its attorney , at no time after the bargaining demand did it inform the Union that it doubted its majority status . Where an employer fails without good cause , as here, to respond to the bargaining request of the Union , and instead embarks upon a course of conduct which is calculated to destroy that majority , or to undermine the Union , he does not demonstrate the good faith required to justify its failure to bargain . Cactus Petroleum , Inc., 134 NLRB 1254. There is at this point no need to reiterate the ex- tensive course of unlawful conduct engaged in by the Respondent following the Union 's bargaining demand , all of which has been heretofore set forth. In the light of this conduct, I find and conclude that Respondent 's refusal to recognize the Union on and after June 14 , 1967, was not motivated by a good- faith doubt as to the Union 's majority status, but was "due to a desire to gain time and to take action to dissipate the Union 's majority." Joy Silk Mills, Inc. v . N.L.R.B., 185 F.2d 732, 741 (C.A.D.C.), enfg. 85 NLRB 1263. Accordingly , I find that on or about June 14, 1967, and at all times thereafter, Respondent refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close, in- timate , 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. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1), (3), and ( 5) of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that Respondent offer to Robert Robinson and Robert B. Hughes immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the unlawful discrimina- tion against them, by payment to them of a sum of money equal to that which they normally would have earned, absent said discrimination, from the date of their discharges to the date of offer of rein- statement, less their net earnings during said period. Backpay shall be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289, and with interest thereon as prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In view of the changes in Respondent's trucking operations subsequent to the discharge of these employees, I shall not require it to restore the status quo ante. The Respondent may, of course, offer reinstatement to these employees at its Oneida, New York, facility if it so desires. How- ever, the record establishes that Respondent hired two truckdrivers at its facility in Watertown, Mas- sachusetts, subsequent to the discharge of Robinson and Hughes. Accordingly, it is recommended that in the event the Respondent does not choose to reinstate Robinson and Hughes at its Oneida facili- ty, it offer these employees reinstatement at its Watertown, Massachusetts, facility, discharging, if necessary, the truckdrivers hired subsequent to the discrimination herein found. I shall also recom- mend that Respondent offer to pay Robinson and Hughes the travel and moving expenses entailed in moving their families and household effects to the Watertown, Massachusetts, facility, in the event they accept such offers of reinstatement. Having found that the Respondent has unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union, I shall recom- mend that the Respondent shall bargain with the Union upon demand and, if an agreement is reached, that said agreement be reduced to writing. In view of the serious nature of the unfair labor practices herein found, the commission of similar and other unfair labor practices reasonably may be anticipated. I shall, therefore, recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, Local No. 182, of Utica and Central New York, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has en- gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. TREY PACKING, INC. 301 4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Robert Robinson and Robert B. Hughes, to discourage membership in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is en- gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 5. All truckdrivers employed at the Trey Packing, Oneida, New York, plant exclusive of all other em- ployees, all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 6. At all times, since on or about June 10, 1967, the Union has been and now is the exclusive collec- tive-bargaining representative of all of the em- ployees in the above-described unit for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. 7. By refusing on and after June 14, 1967, to bargain with the Union, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, it is recommended that Respondent Trey Packing, Inc., Gol-Pak Corporation, and Na- tional Frosted Food Co., Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening to discharge or lay off em- ployees because of their union activities; interrogat- ing employees concerning their union activities or those of fellow employees; requesting employees to solicit other employees to withdraw from the Union; threatening to cease or curtail trucking operations by going common carrier or hiring gypsy drivers; and promising employees economic benefits if they discontinue their union activities or their adherence to the Union. (b) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 182, of Utica and Central New York, or in any other labor organization, by discharging employees or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (c) Refusing to bargain, upon request, with said Union as the exclusive representative of its em- ployees in the appropriate unit herein found with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer- cise of the rights of self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively with representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessa- ry to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Robert Robinson and Robert B. Hughes immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of their discharges, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify the above-named employees if presently serving 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. (c) 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 Recommended Order. (d) Bargain, upon request, with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 182, of Utica and Central New York, as the exclu- sive representative of its employees in the ap- propriate unit herein found with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an agreement is reached, reduce the said agreement to writing. (e) Post at its facilities at Oneida, New York, and Watertown, Massachusetts, copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix."2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being duly signed by Respon- dent's representatives, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all 1' 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 " 302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.2" tx In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, 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 Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discharge you or treat you dif- ferently in any way because you joined or favored International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 182, of Utica and Cen- tral New York. WE WILL NOT decrease our trucking opera- tions or contract them out to common carriers because of your union activities. WE WILL NOT ask you to solicit other em- ployees to withdraw from the union. WE WILL NOT question you coercively con- cerning your union sentiments or those of your fellow employees. WE WILL NOT promise you economic benefits for the purpose of inducing you to withdraw from the Union. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 182, of Utica and Central New York, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the appropriate unit described below. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of your rights to organize yourselves to form, join, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or help unions, to bargain as a group with a representative you choose, to act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refuse to do any or all of those things except to the extent permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. WE WILL offer Robert Robinson and Robert B. Hughes reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without loss of seniority or any other rights, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of their discharge. WE WILL bargain, upon request, with the above-named Union as your exclusive representative in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. If agree- ment is reached we will embody it in a signed agreement . The appropriate unit is: All truckdrivers employed at our Trey Packing plant located at Oneida, New York, exclusive of all other employees, all office clerical employees, professional em- ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. You and all our employees are free to become members, or refrain from becoming members, of any organization except to the extent provided in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. TREY PACKING, INC., GOL-PAK CORPORATION, AND NATIONAL FROSTED FOOD Co., INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive 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, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone 842-3112.