Kent Brothers Transportation Co.

KENT BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION CO. Kent Brothers Transportation Co. and Richard B. Green. Case 19-CA-4622 January 25, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN AND JENKINS On August 14, 1970, Trial Examiner Stanley Gil- bert issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed- ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Re- spondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's De- cision and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. 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 preju- dicial 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 recommendations of the Trial Examiner. 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 and hereby orders that the Respondent, Kent Brothers Transportation Co., American Falls, Idaho, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.' 1 In footnote 15 of the Trial Examiner's Decision, substitute "20" for "10" days. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE STANLEY GILBERT, Trial Examiner: Based on a charge filed January 30, 1970,' as amended March 23, 1970, by Richard 1 The date of January 30 is alleged in the complaint , which allegation is admitted in Respondent's answer. Although it is indicated in the original charge, an exhibit herein, that it was filed on January 13 , 1970, it is immateri- al in the disposition of this case which of the dates is correct. 53 B. Green, an individual, the complaint herein was issued March 26, 1970. The complaint, as amended,2 alleges that Kent Brothers Transportation Co., hereinafter referred to as the Company or the Respondent, engaged in conduct viola- tive of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Respondent, by its answer, denies that it committed the unfair labor prac- tices alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Pocatello, Ida- ho, on April 21 and 22, 1970, before the duly designated Trial Examiner. Appearances were entered on behalf of General Counsel and Respondent, but no appearance was entered on behalf of the Charging Party. Briefs were re- ceived from General Counsel and Respondent within the time designated therefor. Upon the entire record in this proceeding and my obser- vation of the witnesses as they testified, I make the follow- ing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent is a proprietorship solely owned by Gilbert Kent which maintains its principal office and place of bus- iness at American Falls, Idaho, where it is engaged in the intrastate and interstate transportation of farm products by trucks. In the course of its business operations , Respondent annually realizes gross revenues in excess of $500,000 of which more than $50,000 is derived from sales or services directly to customers located outside the State of Idaho. As is admitted by the Respondent, it is, and at all times material herein has been , an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. fI THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED As is admitted by Respondent, Local Union No. 983, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Independent, hereinaf- ter referred to as the Union, is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Background and Summary of Events Respondent owns about 30 trucks and maintains a staff of from 12 to 15 regular employees of whom several are on a part-time basis. Respondent entered into a contract dur- ing the 1969-70 beet-Hauling season to load and deliver beets to a U & I Sugar Company plant in Idaho Falls, Idaho, from dumps located at West River, Pleasant Valley, and Schiller. The beet-hauling season commenced about November 6, 1969. Respondent finished hauling beets from West River on November 28, and moved to hauling beets from Pleasant Valley which task was finished about 11 a.m. on the morning of January 7. Respondent then turned to hauling beets from the third location in the afternoon of January 7 and on January 24 its beet-hauling operations were concluded. Respondent hired about 20 temporary employees during the beet-hauling season. Among them were Richard B. 2 The complaint was amended during the course of the hearing, principally to recite that Respondent is a proprietorship owned by Gilbert Kent rather than a partnership (as originally alleged) 188 NLRB No. 6 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Green and Edward L. Robinson, as well as five others, who were employees of Garrett Freight Lines on layoff status therefrom. It was common knowledge that Garrett dnvers are members of the Union. In December 1969 and early January 1970, a number of Respondent's employees ques- tioned Green and Robinson about union representation. Both Green ..d Robinson contacted union representatives, Dewey Doss and Alvin Hill, and discussed with them the matter of organizing Respondent's employees. Green ob- tained authorization cards which he passed out among the drivers and solicited them to sign the cards. Robinson dis- cussed with a number of the employees the desirability of having union representation. Both of them signed cards as did a number of the other employees during the first week of January. In the afternoon of January 6, Hill and Doss met with Kent and, claiming majority representation, demanded that the Respondent recognize the Union as the bargaining rep- resentative of Respondent's employees. It is inferred that the demand was refused. On the previous day, January 5, both Green and Robinson were discharged by Kent.' Doss and Hill also discussed with Kent the matter of the dis- charge of Robinson and Green and urged their reinstate- ment, to which Kent agreed. In the course of the conversation Kent stated that he had had no trouble with his employees wanting a union until the Garrett drivers came to work for him. It is noted that besides Green and Robinson the five other Garrett drivers who were tempo- rarily employed by Respondent were discharged or laid off by Respondent. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Respondent had in its employ any other laid-o'f Gar- rett drivers. Altogether there were 10 temporary employees who were discharged or laid off on January 5 and on or about January 8. According to the uncontradicted testimo- ny of Kent said 10 employees had the lowest seniority among Respondent's employees. Although it appears that one of them, K. C. Henry, was hired at the very beginning of the beet-hauling season, since Kent's testimony is uncon- tradicted, it is credited. In the period extending from the night of January 7 to the evening of January 8, Respondent "laid off" nine temporary employees, six of whom had been hired while on layoff from Garrett and three whom were known by Respondent to be union members. (Green, who had been recalled by Respon- dent and had been returned to work on January 7, was among those who were laid off.) The seventh Garrett driver, Robinson, who had been informed by the union representa- tives on January 6 that he would be recalled to work, had made previous arrangements for time off to take a trip to Oklahoma. He apparently proceeded to carry out his planned trip and was never notified directly by Respondent of the decision to reinstate him. Thus, Robinson was not working at the time the other nine above-named drivers were laid off. None of the 10 above-named employees ex- cept 1, K. C. Henry,4 was notified by Respondent to return to work after January 8. The above findings of fact are based on credited testimo- ny which is uncontradicted, except as indicated. 3 Although Kent's testimony is somewhat confused as to whether he did discharge them , and Respondent's counsel, in his opening statement, took the position that Green had not been discharged on January 5 but had voluntar- ily quit on the morning of January 8, it appears from Respondent's brief that it concedes that both were discharged on that date Kent's testimony and that of Green and Robinson are discussed herembelow wherein it is concluded that the testimony of Green and Robinson should be credited that they were discharged on said date 4 Respondent's attempt to recall Henry is set forth hereinbelow in the section entitled "The Remedy " The Issues There is testimony with respect to the questioning of em- ployees by management and to statements made to them commencing during the first week of January 1970. Among the issues in this proceeding are whether or not this testimo- ny sustains the allegations that Respondent engaged in con- duct constituting unlawful interrogation, threats of reprisals for union activity, and unlawful assistance in the circulation of an antiunion petition, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the act. Another issue is whether or not Green and Robinson were unlawfully discharged on January 5 in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. A further issue is whether or not the layoff of nine em- ployees on or about January 8 was discriminatorily motivat- ed in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. Resolution of the Issues of Fact Green testified that in the afternoon of January 5, 1970, Kent climbed into his truck and told him that he had heard some rumors that he (Green) "had been instigating some union activity." Green further testified that he told Kent that some of Respondent's older drivers had asked him about the Union; that Kent explained to him that "in his type of business, in agricultural-hauling agricultural prod- ucts, that he couldn't afford a union"; and that Kent said that he would "close his doors" before he would have a union in his shop, that "in five hours" he could have leased trucks (independently operated) to haul beets, and that he was not making any money from the operation. Also, Green testified that Kent asked him if he "was the one that was having this petition passed around" (ap arently alluding to authorization cards), and that he deniedpit. Green's testimo- ny as to the closing portion of their conversation is as fol- lows: . And then at the end of our conversation-towards the end of our conversation he said that he'd have the back of a man's head tore off; he wouldn't do it himself but he would have it done, and when it was done it would be when whoever was the instigator of this union activity least expected it. All of the above testimony of Green as to his conversation with Kent in the afternoon of January 5 is uncontradicted and is credited. (Kent was not questioned with respect to the subject matter thereof.) Robinson testified that Kent called him about 5:30 p.m., on January 5, and said to him that he had heard "some ugly rumors" that he (Robinson) was "trying to bring the union in," and that he (Kent) would not "put up with it" and "won't have it." Robinson also testified that Kent told him that he would replace him that night. Robinson had been scheduled to work on the evening of January 5 starting at approximately 9 p.m. Green testified that Kent called him at his home about 10 p m., on the same day and told him that he was certain that he (Green) "was the instigator of the union activity," and that "it didn't look like" he liked his job, that he was not doing his job, and that he had "better come on out and pick up" his check. In addition, Green testified that Kent stated to him that "Robinson was the other instigator and he had already been fired," and that Robinson was not "perform- ing his duties" and was "an agitator." Kent testified on direct examination to his telephone con- versations with Green and Robinson on January 5 and his reasons for discharging them . Kent testified that he had a number of complaints about Robinson's not doing his job KENT BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION CO. 55 properly, that he had warned Robinson about it, and that Ralhph Dines, Respondent' s foreman in charge of the beet haul, had also warned Robinson.5 Kent further testified as follows: A. On the same evening, I had called Mr. Green, and I told Mr. Green basically the same thing- TRIAL EXAMINER The same evening? I dont know what you mean by "the same evening." A. This same evening that I had called Mr. Rob- mson. Pardon me, sir-which was January 5th, I think. I tald Mr. Green that the same thing was true in his case.6 I said, "I want to talk to you in the morning." I said, "I'm not going to put you on a truck tonight. I want to talk to you in the morning, or else you can bring your time in the morning, whichever one you want to do, but I am going to talk to you before you go back to work." Q. This was on January 5th? A. This was on January 5th. Mr. Greens said, "I'll be out in the morning," and he didn't show up in the morning. Instead I had a phone call. It is noted that Kent's above testimony as to his conversa- tions with Robinson and Green bears little similarity to their testimony. It is not clear from Kent's testimony on direct examination just what he claims was the substance of his conversation with Robinson except that it might be inferred therefrom that he stated to Robinson that he was dissat- isfied with his work performance. It appears that by his testimony with respect to his conversation with Green that Kent intended to indicate that he did not discharge him, but merely told him that he wanted to speak to him before he went to work.' There is no categorical denial in Kent's testimony, on direct examination, of the testimony of Green and Robinson, but merely an omission of any reference thereto. It is noted that Kent's testimony does not indicate that his version of the conversations was intended to be a representation of the complete conversations. In any event, on cross-examination, Kent testified as follows to his telephone conversation on January 5 with Robinson: A. I told him that it had come to my attention again that he had been stopped with his truck at times when he wasn't authorized to be stopped with it. He had been carrying on b.s. sessions with several of the guys, and tying them and their trucks up, several times . I said, "I know what you're talking about, but that's neither here nor there. I don't care what you're talking about. You'- re spending too much time talking. You've been warned about this several times, Ed. You can bring your time out, and I'll make your check out tomorrow. Q. Did you mention what he had been talking about?-To him? A. -I probably mentioned it. Q. Did you state any words to the effect that-you are out there talking to employees and instigating Un- ion activity? Anything along those lines? A. -This may have been mentioned. What I told him was that he was instigating activity, he was doing all sorts of things on company time when he should be working. ,Q. Where did you hear that he had been instigating any of this Union activity? A. Uh-There was two or three of the dnvers told me. 5 This testimony was not contradicted and is , therefore, credited 6 Apparently that he had received complaints about Green 's work. 7 This is consistent with the position Respondent took in its counsel's opening statement , but, as noted above, in its brief Respondent apparently concedes that Green was discharged on January 5 Q. Who were these drivers? A. -I'd-Do I have to mention their names? MR WESTON Yes. A. Leonard Arant mentioned it to me.-Uh-I'm sure that Vernon Baker mentioned it to me-Uh-I'm sure that-uh-Well, I know Ello Jensen- Q. Didn't Ralph Dines mention it to you? A. Ralph Dines said he heard it Q. Heard what? A. That he was doing this. Q. Doing what? A. Talking. Spent a lot of time talking. Q. About what? A. About the Union. Anything else. He was- Q. Ralph Dines told you that he was doing this? MR. WESTON Would you mind letting him finish his answer. Q. Pardon me. Did I interrupt you, Mr. Kent? A. Yes, I think so. He told me that he knew for a fact that Ed had been tying the truck up. He had heard that he was stopping the other dnvers. He knew that he was stopping other drivers. He had heard that he was stop- ping them getting them to sign Union pledge cards, and all this sort of thing. Based on the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Robinson as to his conversation with Kent later in the eve- ning of January 5, set forth hereinbelow, the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Hill that he persuaded Kent to reinstate Robinson and Green, and the apparent concession of Respondent that the employees were discharged on Janu- ary 5, it is concluded that Kent did discharge them in the course of his conversations with them on January 5. Rob- inson and Green were impressive witnesses with respect to the details of their conversations with Kent. Their versions of their conversations with Kent are consistent with other facts found herein and with Kent's above testimony on cross-examination. Consequently, it is concluded that the above testimony of Robinson and Green should be cred- ited. About 9 p.m., on the same night, January 5, Robinson went to Kent's office and asked him "just what this whole deal is." According to Robinson's testimony, Kent told him that he had it from "pretty reliable sources" that he had been taking time off from his job to discuss union activities and was `trying to bring in the union." Robinson chal- lenged him to prove that he had not been doing his job and admitted that he had discussed the Union with employees who questioned him about it. Robinson further testified that Kent stated that "he would not have the union in," that there was not enough money in the work he was doing. Robinson also testified that Kent said to him that if the question ever arose whether he had discharged him (Rob- inson) for union activity he (Kent) would deny it, that he would state that his reason for discharging Robinson was because he had not been performing his duties. Kent was not questioned with respect to the subject matter of Robinson's above testimony and it is, therefore, uncontra- dicted and is credited. As stated hereinabove, the union representatives talked to Kent in the afternoon of January 6 and persuaded him to reinstate Robinson and Green. Robinson testified that he had previously arranged with Respondent for a few days off to take a trip to Oklahoma and that when he talked to Doss on the morning of January 6 he informed Doss that "rather than go back out there and go to work and work for a day or two and have to take off for three or four, I think I'll just go ahead now and leave and go get her and then come back, and Dewey [Doss] said that might be a pretty good idea." It appears that Respondent knew of Robinson's plan to go 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to Oklahoma and that it made no effort at the time to notify him to come back to work. At no time thereafter did Re- spondent attempt to recall Robinson. It appears that Doss informed Green on the evening of January 6 that he and Robinson would be reinstated and instructed him to call Kent. Green called Kent and Kent stated that he would rehire the two "to haul beets" and told him that he would get in touch with him in the morning. Green received no call from Respondent until the evening of January ^nd was instructed to report to work at 11:4 p m., Janua7. By that time Respondent was hauling beets Prom the Scler dump. Green testified that he was supposed to give a ride to Idaho Falls to Patterson, the driver whom he relieved that night, but that Dines told Patterson to obtain a ride with another driver, that "Kent doesn't want anyone talking with Green." This occurred shortly after midnight of January 7. This testimony of Green is credited and it is inferred there- from that Kent was fearful that Green would proselytize his other drivers. Following is a summary of testimony which was uncon- tradicted and is credited, which testimony relates to the allegations in the complaint of violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act and to the motivation of the discharges on Janu- ary 5 and the layoffs on or about January 8. William Egan, who was one of the Garrett drivers tempo- rarily hired by Respondent, testified as follows as to state- ments Kent made to him and other employees on January 4: A. Well, when I walked in, Mr. Kent and Mr. Harris and Mr. Baker were already talking, and I'd either finished shift or was changing-getting some oil or something-anyway, I happened to be in the shop. And Mr. Kent made the statement that he didn't want no union out at his place and that there were ways to take care of it, or something to that nature, that he could take care of it personally, you'd never know where it came from. Q. (By Mr. Davis) Did he tell you how he was-what this was precisely, taking care of? A. Well, I can t remember his exact words on it, no. Q. During this conversation with Mr. Kent, did he state at that time what action he might take if a labor organization represented his employees? A. Mr. Kent said that his organization wouldn't stand-that wages and one thing wouldn 't stand a un- ion shop over there and that he just wouldn't-they wouldn t have one. He stated he would prefer to sell his trucks and lease his hauls. Egan further testified that on January 4 or 5 8 Dines told him that Green had been fired and that as soon as Robinson came to work he would also be fired. Egan further testified as follows: A. He said that he had found the one agitator and that they would catch the other one as soon as he got in, or they was looking for the other one; and I said who would that be. And he said, well, we figured it's Ed Robinson-or this as near as I can remember the conversation. J. B. McCallister, also a laid-off Garrett driver, testified that on January 6 he saw Green at the Schiller dump and Green asked him to sign a union authorization card which he did. After he returned to his truck, one of the drivers, who Dines later told him was named Jensen , came over and spoke to him. His testimony as to statements made by Jen- sen is as follows: But at this time Mr. Jensen spoke to me and, in fact, he crawled up on the outside of the truck-it's one of these cab-over trucks-and he was standing on the step, and he told me he didn't want me talking to Mr. Green. And he said he didn't want any of us Garrett drivers causing any trouble around there, and he said that he'd worked for Gilbert Kent before I ever came there and he'd be working there after I was gone, and that if I didn't like it, why didn't I just quit. And I didn't know the man, and I didn't knows name, and I asked him to get off the truck, which he did. He further testified that later in the day at the Pleasant Valley dump he saw Dines talking to the driver named Jensen 9 and then Dines came over to his truck and got in with him; that Dines asked him if he had heard of any union activity and he said that he had ; that he had talked to Green in Idaho Falls; that Dines asked him if he had signed a union authorization card ; that he said he had signed one; that Dines stated that "we" do not want a union in Kent Brothers; that he asked Dines who the driver (Jensen) was and that Dines told him his name and informed him that he was a driver who had been with Respondent a long time. McCallister further testified as follows: A. I asked Mr. Dines if he didn't think it was foolish to terminate Mr. Green and Mr . Robinson for union activity and he said we're not going to say that they were terminated for that. Q. What did he say they were terminated for, if he did, in fact? A. He didn't say what they were going to be termi- nated for; he said we are not-we're going to say they were not terminated for this. In addition McCallister testified that about 4 hours later he had a conversation with Kent. His testimony with respect thereto is as follows: A. Mr. Kent asked me if I had signed a authorization card for the union, and I said I had, and he explained to me that he wouldn't have-he didn't want a union. He explained to me, not in monetary terms but in the terms that I had to realize his position ; the union would cost him too much money and he wouldn't have it. And in the course of this conversation, he stated he would shut the doors before he had a union. K. C. Henry, who was hired around the first of November 1969 to haul beets, testified that in the early part of January 1970 in a conversation with Kent he told Kent that he had signed a union authorization card and that Kent said that he could not afford a union and that before he would have his employees represented by a union "he'd lock up the shop and shut her down." Henry further testified to the conversation he had with Dines, some time prior to January 8, as follows: A. He said that me and some of the other guys ought to get together and kick the shit out of Dick Green and Robinson for causing all the trouble that it was about, and I said, well- Q. (By Mr. Davis) That what was about? A. That's what I asked him, I said, "What trouble?" I just assumed that when all of us guys signed these cards that there was going to be a discussion among gentlemen. Q. And what did you-what did he say after you said, "What trouble"? A. Well, he says-he says, "I think there's going to t It appears that this must have occurred on January 5, the day that Green 9 It is noted that Kent testified that Jensen was one of the drivers who told and Robinson were discharged. hun about Robinson's union activities. KENT BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION CO. 57 be some heads roll about this, and , " he says, "1 don't want to see you go." I said, "Me either, especiallZ me. I don't want to go no place. I'm doing all right.' Q. Your saying this now or- A. Yeah, I told this to Dines. And he said, "Well," he says, "something ought to be done to fix them guys up," he says, "cause they're causing you a lot of trou- ble." I said, "Do you mean me because I'm union, too?" And he said, "I guess that's the way it stands." And about that time, why he left. He helped me fuel up and-but I got all checked out, and I left. Virgil Harris, who was also a Garrett driver hired by Respondent to haul beets, testified that on January 4 or 5 he had a conversation with Kent in the presence of several other employees. Kent asked him if he had signed a union authorization card and he informed Kent that he had and that he was a member of the Union , and Kent left for a short while and then came back and stated "I can't stand it. I'll have to close my doors . I can't stand to pay these wages." He further testified as follows: A. Well, he was upset, and he says, I'll tell you what, I can't stand it. He says, I'll tear the back of a man's head off if I find out who's instigating this union prob- lem. And I says, Oh, Gib, you know,- Harris was one of the employees who was laid off on Janu- ary 8 (at or about 3 p.m.).-He testified that the next morning when he went to get his check Dines stated to him "if you guys would square that Dick Green away and that Ed Rob- inson ... you could still have a job ." (It is noted that Kent testified that he would be willin to rehire the employees whom he laid off or discharged g(on a job available basis) except Green and Robinson, that he would not be willing to rehire either of them.) Darwin Blair, who was employed by Kent for almost 3 years except for summers and voluntarily terminated his employment on January 18, 1970, testified that, on January 6, Dines asked him what he thought about the Union to which he made a noncommittal reply . Blair further testified that on January 14 he had a conversation with Kent about the Union in which Kent told him he did not "believe it could work in his operation." He also testified as follows to Kent's further statement: THE WrrNESS• And that he wouldn't havt it in there, that he'd sell his trucks firts; and that he didn't under- stand how come we wanted to go behind his back to be represented by the union. He also testified that on January 16, in another conversation with Kent about the Union, Kent stated that "he couldn't make it work, he'd sell all his trucks and keep his contracts and haul with leased trucks ." He further testified that on January 16 Kent asked him if he had signed an authoriza- tion card and, when he stated that he -had, Kent replied "well, only three or four of you guys have signed authoriza- tion cards." Blair was asked whether Kent stated at that time what action he would take if the employees chose to be represented by a union, and in response thereto Blair testified as follows: A. He just said that he could tie this up in courts or whatever for two or three years, that he could keep the union out for two or three years. During the month of January a petition was circulated among the employees for their signatures indicating that they did not wish to be represented by a union . The only testimony in the record regarding Respondent's action with regard to the circulation of the petition is the testimony of John Wegner who, at the time lie testified, had been em- ployed by the Respondent for 4 years . Wegner testified that he signed the petition but that some time before he signed it Dines jumped up on the side of his truck and told him "there was a petition going around that we didn't need the Union" and that he should sign it. " It appears that this occurred in the first week of January As stated hereinabove, all of the foregoing summarized testimony was uncontradicted and is credited. It is alleged in the complaint as follows : "On or about January 8, 1970, Respondent laid off its employees Leonard Arant, Vernon Baker, Joe Boos, William Egan , Richard Green, V. R. Harris , Myron Henderson, K. C. Henry, and J. B. McCallister, and at all times since has failed and re- fused to reinstate said employees to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions, because of its knowledge or belief that said employees were members of, sympathetic to, or acting on behalf of the Union." In his opening statement counsel for the Respondent stat- ed that it was Respondent's position that Green voluntarily quit when he walked off the job on January 7 and that the other men whose names are set forth in the above allegation had been hired to do a particular job, that of hauling beets, and that the job was finished and the work had ceased and, therefore, their jobs ceased to exist. Green testified that he reported for work shortly before midnight on January 7,10 that he was supposed to make four trips on his shift, that after two trips he needed fuel, that the fuel tank at the Schiller dump was empty, that he waited for 45 minutes for fuel, and that, at approximately 7:45 a.m., on January 8 he got into his car and drove to Pocatello to calk with the "union people." When he arrived at the union hall he found several employees there who said they had been laid off during the night. Kent testified that he called Green in the evening of January 8 and his testimony with respect to the call is as follows: Q. What was the purpose of your call? A. To tell him that we were going to cut down on the beets that we were hauling, and I was going to take advantage of that time to work on some of the trucks that needed work badly . I was going to use the partic- ular truck that he was driving to haul potatoes with- and that I wouldn't need him anymore. Q. Did you mention at that time any other reason for him not being needed? A. No. I didn t. Considerable testimony was introduced as to whether or not the fuel tank at the Schiller dump was dry, as to whether Green needed fuel, as to whether he could have obtained fuel some place else, and as to other matters relating to his leaving the truck at the Schiller dump . It appears from both Green s and Kent's testimony that the matter of Green's leaving the truck at the Schiller dump was never mentioned to Green. Rather, he was told he would not be needed any more because his truck required overhauling and that Re- spondent was cutting down on the amount of beets it would be hauling (which was what was also told to the other men who were laid off on or about January 8). Consequently, it is concluded that Respondent did not consider that Green had voluntarily quit but that it laid him off for the same reason or reasons that it laid off the other men at or about the same time. Boos was notified that he was laid off on the evenin g of January 8. McCallister had been told to report to the Schil- ler dump at 4 p.m., on January 8, after concluding his shift time at midnight on January T. and was called at some time prior to 4 p.m. on January 8 and told not to report. Henry 10 As found heremabove, he was reinstated at that time after having been discharged on January 5. 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was laid off in the evenin of January 8. Harris was notified about the layoff at about p.m., on January 8. As indicated above, Green was notified in the evening of January 8. The record does not disclose when the other four were notified. Kent, in denying that the termination of the employees on or about January 8 had anything to do with the fact that they belonged to the Union , testified as follows: A. I was sure they belonged to- the Union. I mean I-Most of them were working for Garrett's, and it's common knowledge that Garrett operates with a Un- ion contract.-1-Mr. Green had told Garrett operates with a Union contract. -I-Mr. Green had told me at one time that he belonged to the Union. The Union had nothing to do with it, because I knew they were Union when they came to work there. Q. Do you still have Union men working out there for you? A. Yes, sir. Q. If you were to make another agreement to haul beets, would you call these men back that were laid off? A. Most of them. -Yes, sir. Q. What do you mean by "most of them"? A. There's two out of the ten in question that I wouldn't call back. Q. And what two is that? A. One of them is Ed Robinson. I discharged him for just cause. The other one is Richard Green. Q. Was he discharged for just cause? A. He was discharged at the same time the other fellows were, but-before that time, he had been warned about spending a lot of time with the truck and other things-stopping the truck when it shouldn't have been stopped, and- (The last portion of Kent's above-quoted testimony further demonstrates the appropriateness of the above-stated con- clusion that Respondent did not consider that Green had voluntarily quit.) It appears that some of the men had been laid off by the morning of January 8. Hill testified that he called Kent on the morning of January 8 after several of Respondent's employees stated to him that they had been laid off. His testimony with respect to the conversation with Kent is as follows: A. Yes, I telephoned Mr. Kent to ask him why, num- ber one, that he had brought in other trucks to haul his beets thereby laying off these people . His answer to me was that he had to put those trucks in the shop for repairs, and that he had beets to haul to fill his quota at the U & I Sugar Company, and he had to get other trucks from around the area to do this. Q. Where did you receive the information he had leased trucks? A. From the drivers that morning that they had saw that-and this was verified by Mr. Kent in my tele- phone conversation with him the morning of January the the 8th. Q. On the morning of January the 8th then he did acknowledge that at that time he was using leased trucks? A. Yes. The above testimony of Hill is uncontradicted and is cred- ited. Henry testified that, when he was laid off on the evening of January 8, Kent told him that he was laying hull off for a little while, that he was going to do some work on his truck, and that he was going to lease some trucks . When he asked Kent if he could be put into one of the leased trucks, Kent told him that he could not, "that they brought their own people." Henry further testified that at that time he saw some leased trucks at the plant which arrived while he was talking with Kent. Henry s above testimony is credited. Kent testified that, on January 7 about 11 a.m., Respon- dent was finished with transporting beets from Pleasant Valley and that afternoon started transporting beets from Schiller; that the round trip from Pleasant Valley was around 170 miles and the round trip from Schiller was a little over 100 miles. Therefore, it is apparent that, because of the shorter haul, a larger amount of beets could be trans- ported from Schiller than from Pleasant Valley with the same number of trucks . Kent testified that in the evening of January 7 he received a call from U & I that they were going to get too much tonnage from Schiller and that they thought they wanted to keep the tonnage down to about the same level as had been hauled from Pleasant Valley and he told them that he would cut it down. His testimony continues as follows: A. I very definitely needed some work done on some trucks. I took advantage of the situation . I took the trucks off, and started having some work done on some of my trucks. He also told me that-uh-to keep it open. That he might change, but he didn't think that he would. And I didn't know whether he was going to change it or whether he wasn't.-He then called me- Q. Before you get into that What did you do then when he told you this? Did you cut down your crew? A. Yes, I cut down my crew. I took off about 5 or 6 trucks. I don't remember for sure at this time. And I laid-as I remember it-nine men off that day. Q. Did they have less seniority than any of those that stayed on? A. Yes, I'm sure they did. Q. Are those the men that are mentioned in this Complaint? A. Yes. Q. Now, what happened next? A. Uh-Well, almost-Oh, probably some time the next day, Mr. Benscoter called me again, and said we needed to pick it up to around 1800 tons a day, or somewhere thereabouts, and I put on- Q. In other words, he gave you instructions first to cut it d^ppwn, and then later on, he told you to put it back up again A. Right. Q. Now, during this interim, did you hire some inde- pendent contract to haul your beets? A. Yes. At that time, I hired-three trucks. Q. Whose trucks were they? A. I hired one of Harvey Thornton's that da y. I hired one from Darrell Winmill, which is D & B Trucking, and I hired one from Irving Yonke.-At a later date, I hired some more, after I talked to Mr. Benscoter again. Q. Now, was it more economical for you to do that than to hire these other men back? A. Very definitely. If it hadn't have been, I wouldn't have hired them. Q. Explain to us how it was more economical. A. Well, from this particular pile, even thought it is a lesser mileage, the rate is enough lower that by using all my own trucks, paying all the expenses that you incur in these things and everything. r -There was no way that I was even breaking even on the job, really, and by hiring other trucks. -I rented all these other trucks, trailers-I rented trailers to them. I'd charge--- Q. You mean you rented your own trailers to them? A. That's right. Um-hum. KENT BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION CO. 59 Q. And they paid you rental on them. A. They paid me rentals' on the trailers . I charged them for loadingg. By doing this, I can figure a profit into the loading. knew what it was costing me. I could figure a profit into it. I know what it costs me to run a trailer. I can figure a profit into them, when I rent them. But there wasn't any profit in-I mean; it's- There just wasn't as much money in running my. own trucks on the job as there would be in hiring other trucks. It appears from a study of the above outlined and quoted testimony of Kent that he advanced as his reason for laying off the drivers on January 8 the fact that he had been told to cut down on the tonnage and , therefore, would not need some of the trucks and drivers and could have trucks serv- iced. It appears from Hill's' credited testimony that on the morning of January 8 Kent admitted to him he had already leased trucks or planned to lease them. At least five of the drivers were not laid off until the afternoon or evening of that day. That Kent had already arranged to lease trucks before he finished laying off the drivers is confirmed by Henry's credited testimony that he saw,two leased trucks arrive at Respondent's premises in the evening of January 8 at the time he was notified . that he was being laid off. According to Kent's testimony, he was not notified to in- crease the tonnage until January 9. Thus , it appears that not only was he leasing trucks while laying ' off the drivers, but also he started to lease them before he had been told to increase the tonnage. Kent testified that it was more profitable to lease trucks than to have continued operating his own trucks for the remainder of the beet haul. Aside from the fact that this contention was not substantiated , it is the opinion of the Trial Examiner that said contention , even if it were valid, is immaterial to the issue of the motive for the layoffs and cannot be considered more than a mere afterthought: Concluding Findings Based upon the credited testimony and findings of fact set forth hereinabove, the following conclusions are made with respect to the conduct of Respondent: . 1. In the afternoon of January-5, 1970, Kent unlawfully interrogated Green as to his union activity, threatened to close down his plant rather than have the Union. represent his employees, and threatened physical violence against the instigator of union activity among the drivers. Each of said acts constitutes an individual violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 2. On January 5 at or about 5:30 p.m., Kent discharged Robinson in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. -3. About 10 p.m. on January 5, Kent, discharged Green in violation of. Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act and by stating to Green that he had fired Robinson, "the other instigator," Respondent also violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 4. On January 4, Kent stated to Egan and other employ- ees that he could not stand union wages and that rather than have a union represent his employees he would prefer to•sell his trucks and lease his hauls. It is found that this conduct constitutes a threat of reprisal for union activity in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.11 5. On January 5, Dines told Egan that Green had been fired and that Robinson would also be fired because they were agitators (ostensibly on behalf of the Union). It is i 1 The conclusion that this threats found hereinbelow are violative of Seciion found' that this conduct constituted an implied threat to discharge employees who are active on behalf of the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act: • 6 On January 6, Dines asked McCallister about the un- ion activity of his fellow employees and his own union activity which conduct constituted unlawful interrogation within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of. the Act. 7. Also on January 7, Kent asked McCallister if he had signed an authorization card. This constituted unlawful in- terrogation within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Also, at the same time, Kent stated to McCallister that he would shut the doors before he would have a union, that the union : would cost him too much money . Said -statements constituted an unlawful threat in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 8. In the early part of^ January 1970, Kent told Henry that he could not-afford a union and before he would have his employees represented ,by a union he would shut down his plant which constituted a threat in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. ' 9. Shortly - prior to January 8,'Dines told Henry that he and- some of the other drivers should beat up Green and Robinson for "causing all the trouble," ostensibly referring to their union activity, and threatened that he (Henry) and other employees would lose their jobs because of the union activity . This conduct was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 10. On January 4 or 5 , Kent asked Harris in the pres- ence of several other employees if he had signed a union authorization card which constituted unlawful interroga- tion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act., 11. - A short while later, Kent stated to Harris that he could not stand to pay union wages, that he would have to close his doors, and that he would "tear the back of a man's head off" who was responsible for instigating the "problem" with the Union. The. foregoing conduct constitutes threats of reprisal for union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 12. On January 8, Dines stated to Harris "if you guys would square that Dick Green away and that Ed Robinson . you could still have a job. It is evident that by this statement Dines intended to' convey the message that Re spondent would not retain in its employ drivers who. en= gaged in union activity and that such activity on the part of Green and Robinson endangered the jobs of other drivers. It is concluded that this conduct constituted a violation of Secion 8(a)(a)of the Act. - ' 13. On January 6, Dines asked Blair what he thought about the Union which conduct constituted unlawful inter- rogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 14. On January 14 and 16, Kent stated to Blair in effect that he could not afford a union and that rather than have a union represent his employees he would sell his trucks and haul with leased trucks which conduct constituted threats of reprisal in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 15. On7anuary 16, Kent asked Blair if he had signed a union authorization card which conduct constituted ' unlaw- ful interrogation. in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 16. Also on January 1,6, in response to Blair's question as to what he would •do if the employees chose to be repre- sented, by a union, Kent stated. that he could keep the 'un- ion out for two or three years" by tying the matter up in courts. This constituted a threat to refuse to bargain in good. faith with the union selected by his employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Although this conduct is not specifically alleged in - the cofnplaint, it is deemed to be sufficiently related to the allegations therein to permit this S(a)(1) of the Act is based on N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co„ 395 U. S. 575. finding. 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 17. It is alleged in the complaint that the Respondent unlawfully assisted in the circulation of an antiunion peti- tion. The only evidence in support of the allegation is the credited testimony of Wegner that Dines told him the peti- tion was beIing circulated and that he should sign it. Despite the fact that this is the only incident in the record of such conduct, in view of the foregoing findings of violations of Section 8(axl) and (3) of the Act which occurred virtually contemporaneously, it is concluded that Dines conduct constituted restraint, coercion, and interference within the meaning of Section 8(axl) of the Act. 18. Based on the credited testimony with respect to the layoffs and the concluding findings hereinabove, it is con- cluded that Kent laid off the drivers on January 8 in order to get rid of known union men who he knew, or believed, were infecting the other employees with a desire to have the Union represent them. It is evident that Respondent had a strong union animus and, on a number of occasions, stated that he could use the device of leasing trucks to offset union- ization of his drivers. It is noted that 7 of the 10 drivers who were discharged or laid off on January 5 and 8 were Garrett drivers and that it is found hereinabove that Kent com- plained that he had no trouble with his employees wanting a union until the Garrett drivers came to work for him. it is also noted that Kent admitted that he was aware of the fact that all of the said 10 drivers were members of the Union. Furthermore, Kent's explanation that he. laid off the drivers because of the decrease in tonnage requrements, in face of the finding that he was planning or had already leased trucks while he was laying them off, is found to have been merely a pretext. Consequently, it is concluded that the layoffs on or about January 8 of the nine drivers, as stated in the complaint, were discriminatorily motivated in violation of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. N THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The unfair labor practices of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its opera- tions set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V THE REMEDY It will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor prac- tices found herein and take certain affirmative action, as provided in the Recommended Order below, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found that Respondent discriminatorily discharged Richard B. Green on January. 5, 1970, reinstated him on January 7, 1970, and then again discriminatorily discharged him on January 8, 1970, it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to make him whole for any loss of pay he suffered during the period when he was first It having been found that Leonard Arant, Vernon Baker, Joe Boos, William Egan, V. R. Harris, Myron Henderson, K. C. Henry, and J. B. McCallister were discriminatorily laid off or terminated on or about January 8 , 1970, it will be recommended that said employees be made whole for any loss of pay suffered by them during the period between their layoffs and January 24, 1970, the end of the beet- hauling season.13 The Trial Examiner concludes that all of the above- named 10 employees were hired only temporarily for the duration of the beet-hauling season and, therefore, will not recommend reinstatement of any of the above-named em- ployees, as requested by the General Counsel Inasmuch as the Trial Examiner is of the opinion that the record will not support a finding that the employment of any of the above- named employees would have continued beyond the end of the beet-hauling season on January 24, 1970, he has not recommended backpay for them after said date . The afore- said em loyees shall be made whole in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-293, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In view of Kent's statement in the record that he would be willing to rehire (on a job available basis) all of the aforementioned employees except Richard B. Green and Edward L. Robinson, it will be further recommended that he be ordered to rehire any of said employees upon applica- tion if a job is available for them. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record of the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 26) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following conduct: (a) Unlawully interrogating employees as to their union activity or union activity of fellow employees. (b) Threatening to close its plant or to subcontract its hauling operations in the event the employees elected to have the Union represent them. (c) Threatening to discharge employees if they engage in union activity or if their fellow employees do not cease to engage in union activityty. (d) Threatening bodily injury to employees responsible for union activity or recommending to their fellow employ- ees that they inflict bodily injury upon employees who en- g e in such acti vity. (e) Stating to employees or implying that fellow employ- ees have been discharged for union activity. (f) Threatening to refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union should the employees elect to have it serve as their bar aining representative. (g) Unlawfully assisting in the circulation among its em- ployees of a petition expressing p opposition to the -Union. 4. Respondent violated Sectiono8(ax3) and (1) of the Act discharged and subsequent)y reinstated and for the further period between his second discharge on January 8 through It is noted that Robinson took a trip to Oklahoma during the aforesaid the end of the beet-hauling season on January 24, 1970. period and, therefore, the time in which he was absent on said trip should It having been found that Respondent discriminatorily be excluded in the computation of the amount due him. discharged-Edward L. Robinson on January 5, 1970, it will 13 It is noted that on January 18 Respondent attempted to recall Henry, be recommended that Respondent be ordered to make said but he was ill and could not report to work for several days; that later, when whole for any of he suffered for the he reported to Respondent that he had recovered, he was told that he would emplo yee y pay be called when needed; and that apparently he was never called . His inter- pefrom his discharge until the end of the beet-hauling venutg period of illness should be taken into account in computing his season on January 24, 1970.12 backpay KENT BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION CO. 61 by discriminatorily discharging Richard B. Green and Ed- ward L. Robinson on January 5, 1970. 5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily laying off or terminating Leonard Ar- ant, Vernon Baker, Joe Boos, William Egan, Richard B. Green, V. R. Harris, Myron Henderson, K. C. Henry, and J. B. McCallister on or about January 8, 1970. steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said no- tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- rial. In addition, copies of said notice signed by Gilbert Kent shall be mailed by it to the above-named employees. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writin , within 20 days from the receipt of this Trial Examines Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply here- with .15 RECOMMENDED ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, and upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, it is ordered that Kent Brothers Transportation Co., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Unlawfully interrogating employees as to their union activity or union activity of fellow employees. (b) Threatening to close its plant or to subcontract its hauling operations in the event the employees elect to have the Union, or any other labor organization, represent them. (c) Threatening to discharge employees if they engage in union activity, or if their fellow employees do not cease to en age in union activity. (d) Threatening bodily injury to employees responsible for union activity and recommending to their fellow em- ployees that they inflict bodily injury upon employees who en e in such activity. rStating or implying that an employee has been dis- charged for union activity. (f) Threatening to refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union, or any other labor organization, should the employ- ees elect to have it serve as their bargaining representative. (g) Unlawfully assisting in the circulation among its em- ployees of a petition expressing opposition to the Union, or any other labor organization. (h) Discouraging membership in Local Union No. 983, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Independent, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating against them in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (i) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make Leonard Arant, Vernon Baker, Joe Boos, Wil- liam Egan, Richard B. Green, V. R. Harris, Myron Hender- son, K. C. Henry, J. B. McCallister, and Edward L. Robinson whole for any loss of pay suffered by them by reason of the discriminatory terminations of their employ- ment in the manner set forth in the section hereinabove entitled "The Remedy." (b) Employ any of the above-named individuals upon application if jobs are available for them. (pc) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll and other records containing information concerning Respondent's backpay obligation under this Recommended Order. (d) Post at its place of business in American Falls, Idaho, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."14 Copies of said notice, on forms furnished by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by Gilbert Kent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable 14 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 . 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 Rela- tions 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." 15 In the event that the Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in wasting, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respon- dent 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 NOT unlawfully interrogate employees as to their union activity or union activity of fellow employ- ees. WE WILL NOT threaten to close our plant or to subcon- tract our hauling operations in the event the employees elect to have Local Union No. 983, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, Independent, or any oth- er labor organization, represent them. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees if they engage in union activity or if their fellow employees do not cease to engage in union activity. WE WILL NOT threaten bodily injury to employees re- sponsible for union activity or recommend to their fel- low employees that they inflict bodily injury upon employees engaged in such activity. WE WILL NOT state to an employee , or imply, that a fellow employee has been discharged for union activi- ty.WE WILL NOT threaten to refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union, or any other labor organization, should the employees elect to have it serve as their bar aining representative. E WILL NOT unlawfully assist in the circulation among our employees of a petition expressing opposi- tion to the Union, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local Union No. 983, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, or any other labor organization of our employees, by discriminating against them in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any term or condi- tion of employment. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL make Leonard Arant, Vernon Baker, Joe Boos, William Egan, Richard B. Green, V. R. Harris, Myron Henderson, K. C. Henry, J. B. McCallister, and Edward L. Robinson whole for any loss of pay suffered b them by reason of the discriminatory terminations of their employment. WE WILL employ any of the above-named individuals upon application if jobs are available for them. Dated By KENT BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION CO (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not to be defaced by an one. 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, Re- public Building, 10th Floor, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone 583-4532.