Associated Truck Lines, Inc.

ASSOCIATED TRUCK LINES, INC. Associated Truck Lines, Inc., and Robert Wayne Langeland, Jr. Case 7-CA-7640 February 2, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On September 21, 1970, Trial Examiner Josephine H. Klein issued her Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There fter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exa mer's Decision and a supporting brief. Pu uant 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 brief, 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 Respondent, Associated Truck Lines, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.4 ' Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opin- ion, the record, including the exceptions and brief, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties 2 Under the established policy not to overrule a Trial Examiners credibili- ty findings unless a clear preponderance of all relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect, we find no basis for disturbing the credibility findings in this case . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). 3 Respondent's Motion To Reopen the Record to adduce testimony by a witness allegedly available only since the close of the hearing is hereby denied. The witness allegedly would contradict testimony credited by the Trial Examiner. However, Respondent was afforded full opportunity at the hearing to adduce such testimony but failed to do so Nor did Respondent advise the Trial Examiner that it desired a subpena or a continuance in order to secure the attendance of the witness at the hearing 4 In footnote 10 of the Trial Examiner 's Decision, substitute "20" for "10" days. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 313 JOSEPHINE H. KLEIN, Trial Examiner: This case was tried in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on June 17, 1970, on It com- plaint issued on March 30, 1970, against Associated Truck Lines, Inc., Respondent, pursuant to a charge filed on No- vember 19, 1969, by Robert Wayne Langeland, Jr., Charg- ing Party. At the hearing the General Counsel and Respondent were represented by counsel. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to present oral and written evidence, and to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses. Short oral arguments were made on behalf of the General Counsel and Respondent. Respondent subsequent- ly filed a memorandum. Upon the entire record, observation of the witnesses, and consideration of Respondent's posthearing memorandum, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS A. Respondent, a Michigan corporation with its principal office and place of business in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and with other places of business in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, is engaged in the business of motor transportation of goods for hire in interstate and intrastate commerce. During the calendar year 1969, a representative period, Re- spondent, in the course and conduct of its business , received gross revenue in excess of $500 ,000 and transported and delivered goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 in interstate commerce to and from its terminal in Grand Rapids, the only facility here involved. Respondent is now and has been at all times material herein an employer enga ed in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.' B. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Inc., and its Local Union No . 406 are, and have been at all times material herein, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 11 THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE A. The Issue The Charging Party was employed by Respondent as a warehouseman (or loader) on or about March 25,1969. On or about March 31, 1969, he was let go because he was overweight. Around the middle of April, having reduced his weight to the prescribed permissible maximum, he sought reemployment. He was not reemployed at that time and persistent further requests for reemployment have been fruitless. The complaint alleges that since May 19, 1969, Respondent has refused to employ 2 the Charging Party because of his father's longstanding and prominent activi- ties for the Teamsters Union. Respondent maintains that its i National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat 136, 73 Stat. 519, 29 U S C Sec 151 el seq ) 2 The complaint refers to employment as a truckdriver However, the record is clear that he was originally hired as a warehouseman and it is in such capacity that he has sought reemployment. 188 NLRB No. 46 314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD refusal to employ the Char g' g Part is based solely on the fact that he was discharged during his original 30-day pro- bationary period and Respondent-has a policy of not reem- ployinp anybody who has been discharged during his probationary period. B. The Facts Robert J. Langeland, Sr., the Charging Party's father, worked for Respondent for about 14 years , until 1966, when he became disabled by a lung ailment . He then filed a workmen's compensation claim, which was settled at a com- pensation hearing in 1967. While employed by Respondent, Langeland Sr. was a chief shop steward for Teamsters Local No. 406, which represents the emplo ees at the Grand Rap- ids terminal. When he ceased work for Respondent, Lange- land Sr. was elected president of the Local and served in that office until July 1969. Sometime in March 1969 Langeland Sr. spoke to Gordon J. Bylsma, service coordinator at Respondent's Grand Rap- ids terminal, concerning possible employment for Lange- land Jr., who was then 19 years old.3 Pursuant to Bylsma's suggestion, the younger Langeland visited the terminal on March 25, was sent to a doctor for a physical examination, and then hired as a warehouseman, commencing work on March 26. The physician who examined him at Respondent's re- quest on March 25, 1969, certified that Langeland Jr. was qualified under the procedure prescribed by the Federal Highway Administration . The physical examination report shows the employee's height as 5'9" and his weight as 220 pounds. The report is stamped as having been received in Respondent's personnel department on March 27. On the report are written the words : "No. Overweight." Loren J. Krug, Respondent's manager of safety and compliance, tes- tified that he wrote those words on the form when it reached him, pursuant to Respondent's usual practice. Daniel A. Packard, Respondent's vice president of per- sonnel and labor relations , testified that when he saw the physical examination report covering youn Langeland and observed Krug's notation concerning wei t , he instructed Bylsma to release Langeland. On Marc 31 , Bylsma in- formed Langeland that he was being let go because he was overweight. Langeland was given an employee notice on which was typed : "Released under the 30-day clause- Reason-Failure to meet physical requirement standard." The printed form used contains three boxes designated "Warning Noti ce," "Lay-Off Notice," and "Discharge No- tice," under which is printed "Check one." On the notice given young Langeland none of the three boxes was checked. According to Krug, the specific weight standards had been adopted in 1966 and were applied by Respondent's personneldepartment in reviewing job applications for- warded from the individual terminals, which were operating under instructions which simply called for a "reasonable relationship of height to weight . Krug further testified that in the latter part of 1969 (which was after young Langeland had been hired and released) the specific weight standards were written into the Company's manual, apparently for use at the terminals . No portion of the manual was introduced into evidence. Krug testified that the maximum permissible weight for a man 5'9" tall was 199 pounds . However, Respondent in- 7 Young Langeland had apparently applied for work with Respondent sometime earlier Between his original application and his hiring in March 1969, he had worked for another trucking company , which he left for employ- ment with Respondent. troduced a handwritten chart showing a maximum weight of 190 pounds for a height of 5'9". Krug testified that e pers-ado-p-6-d- nay d written that cart. He said the standards he had were "based on-- Metropolitan Life Insurance Tables, the recommendations of a group of doctors, plus twenty percent override on the insurance tables." The insu- rance table introduced prescribes a maximum weight of 170 pounds for males 5'9" tall. Adding 20% to that figure would give a permissible maximum of 204 pounds . The "rec- ommendations of a group of doctors " referred to by Krug consists of an article entitled "Recommendations for Medi- cal Standards for Motor Vehicle Drivers." Its main thrust is the lesson th at "good health is essential to safe driving." Krug testified that Respondent applied the same standards to a# employees, both drivers anwarehousemen or load- ers, because "for most of our medium sized terminals we want everyone that we hire to meet driving standards be- cause we run our own driving schools and develop the driv- ers." But he thereafter testified that warehousemen are reexamined physically "when they are applying for drivers' school." Respondent submitted evidence concerning three per- sons rejected as employees because they were overweight. However, it does not appear whether they were apply' g for work as drivers or as warehousemen. Further, it does not appear whether any of them had commenced work and been terminated thereafter. There is no question that em- ployees who have passed their probationary periods are not discharged for failure to meet any weight standards.4 The record as a whole leaves considerable room for doubt as to whether Respondent did actually have and uniformly apply weight standards in the hiring of employees such as the Charging Party. However, his release on March 31, 1969, has not been alleged as violative of the Act. He did not seriously question the action at the time, but rather, as discussed below, set about to meet the weight requirement said to be applicable to him . Thus, for present purposes, it will be assumed that, as maintained by Respondent , Lange- land Jr. was released because the report of his physical examination disclosed that he was overweight when he was hired. According to young Langeland , when B lsma announced the termination he assured Langeland of reinstatement to the first vacancy that arose after the young man had brought his weight down to 200 pounds or less. Langeland Sr. also spoke to Bylsma and was similarly told that the son would be given the first available opening after he had brought his weight down to the permissible maximum. Young Langeland immediately enrolled at a health studio and purchased a set of barbells. Within 2 or 3 weeks the young man's weight was down to 199 pounds. At that time, on his own initiative, he was reexamined by the doctor to whom Respondent had previously sent him . The doctor again reported to Respondent that the young man was phys- ically qualified for employment . The second report, which was furnished to Respondent, included a statement of Langeland's then current weight. Young Langeland reported to Bylsma, who said that, because Respondent had recently hired some employees, there were no immediate vacancies ; but Bylsma assured the young man of employment as soon as a job became availa- ble. Bylsma contemplated that there would be openings within the near future, since it is customary for Respondent to take people on at the beginning of the summer as replace- 4 Krug testified "If a man on the senointy list who is over our weight standards we cannot take any action on account of his weight standards. Once he gets on the seniority list this is not a cause for release ... these are basically pre-hire standards here." ASSOCIATED TRUCK LINES, INC. 315 ments for vacationing employees . Young Langeland there- after reported to Bylsma about once a week and each time Bylsma said that there were still no vacancies. As time went on, the Langelands became somewhat un- easy. Sometime around the end of May, the elder Lange- land, who, as president of the Union , had access to Respondent's premises, checked the timecards and learned that there were two or three new employees at the terminal. Thereafter, apparently commencing around the beginning of June, both father and son made persistent efforts to secure immediate employment of the son by Respondent. Although the testimony of both the Langelands is somewhat confused as to the precise chronology of their numerous meetings and conversations with company officials during the summer of 1969, such details are essentially unimpor- tant in resolving the controlling issues. So far as appears, the two Langelands did not ever togeth- er talk to any company officials. Both, however, specifically quoted Bylsma as having attributed Respondent 's failure to reemploy the son to the lather's union activities . For exam- ple, young Langeland testified that after he learned that some employees had been hired he questioned Bylsma, who said they had been taken on because they had acquired seniority through previous employment with Respondent. Langeland's testimony then continued: I kept on going back and getting the same answer. Finally I asked hum what was the real reason, if it wasn't because of my dad being in the union activities and he came out and said it was. The elder Langeland testified that after learning that some new employees had been taken on he spoke to Bylsma, who said he was under orders "to hold off" on hiring the son. According to Langeland Sr., Bylsma at that time said: "Somebody upstairs is angered at you [the father] and I am just told to hold off and I will see." Langeland Sr. then testified as follows concerning a subsequent conversation with Bylsma later in the summer: I says "I want to know is he going to be hired or what is the score here." Then he told me that now they had another ruling that because of my connection di- rectly with the Teamsters Local 406 that they were not hiring him. First it was in connection with regard to my union activity as a union steward they weren't going to hire him, and then they came up with the idea that they are not going to hire him because of my connection as president of the Teamsters Union . I said we don't know that there is any such ruling as this unless there has been something by the board of directors . There is nothing down at the hall about this, such a ruling as this. He says this is the powers that be and there is not a damn thing I can do about it .... It is admitted that Bylsma is a supervisor . He -did not testify and Respondent's failure to call him was unex- plained. The Langelands' testimony concerning Bylsma's statements thus stands as admissions by Respondent.5 The Langelands also quoted Packard as having stated that the elder Langeland's union activities were the motivat- 5 In its posttrial memorandum, Respondent argues that because the Gener- al Counsel did not subpena Bylsma, "Mr. Bylsma' absence during the hearing was equally the responsibility of General Counsel . Respondent Employer's position is that Packard was respondible for the decision to release as well as not to reemploy the Charging Party and therefore , witnesses other than him were unnecessary for a proper presentation of its position." Since the statements attributed to Bylsma were admissible and probative as admissions by Respondent, obviously it was not incumbent upon the General Counsel to subpena Bylsma , presumptively an adverse witness. ing factor in Respondent's failure to reemploy the young man. It is undisputed that on or about June 23, 1969, young Langeland met with Packard and Charles H. Helder, then manager of Respondent's Grand Rapids terminal . Accord- ing to young Langeland , at that meeting Packard referred to the father as a "controversial figure' and said that the father's connection with the Union had been a factor in the son's release. Packard admitted that he had referred to the father as a "controversial figure" but maintained that he did so in answer to young Langeland's question as to whether he might have difficulty securing employment with other trucking companies in the area. Young Langeland, howev- er, specifically denied that his father had been discussed in connection with job possibilities in other companies .6 Held- er, the third person present at the meeting , testified as fol- lows: Q. Did Mr. Packard tell Langeland that he would not be reemployed because of his relationship with his fa- ther? A. To the best of my recollection he did. 4 t $ 0 Q. Did Mr. Packard tell Mr. Langeland that his fa- ther was a controversial figure in the trucking industry? A. All I remember is the words controversial figure. Q. You don't remember how he used the word? A. Only that it was in relationship to his father. Thus Helder, also a company official, corroborated young Langeland's testimony that Packard had related the young man s plight to his father's disfavor with the company. Langeland Jr. testified concerning another meeting he had with Packard and Gordon H. I3uiter, who during the period here involved was apparently Respondent's execu- tive vice president and then president. According to young Langeland, both Packard and Buiter indicated that the young man's employment history had been influenced by his father's position. Young Langeland testified, in part, that Packard- said that I probably wouldn't have ever got in there at my age if it wasn't for my dad and that's the way it has been, so I got out because of his political matters in the Teamsters Union. Buiter did not testify. Packard testified that "to the best of [his] knowledge" the father's status was not discussed at that meeting. The Trial Examiner, however, credits the Charging Party's testimony concerning Packard's statements at the meeting attended by Buiter. Langeland Sr. testified that he had several personal meet- ings as well as telephone conversations with Packard in which the son's employment was discussed. The first such conversation described took place apparently toward the end of May 1969, when, according to Langeland, Packard said "that there was another problem developed inside the Company and [Packard) did not want to divulge the individual's name but to hold off hiring" young Langeland. Langeland Sr. testified that he again spoke to Packard around the end of June and Packard then said that he would instruct Bylsma to rehire the son, but Bylsma thereafter said he had received no such instruction. Langeland then testi- fied that in August he visited Packard's office again and that Packard said the matter "was out of his hands and ... that he heard it was because of [the father's] connection with the 6 Q. Did [Packard] say anything in connection with your father and your being hired by other terminals or by Associated? A. Not concerning other ternunals. There wasn't nothing discussed about my father and other terminals. 316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD union." Respondent contends that Packard's testimony es- tablishes that he was not in his office at the time Langeland claimed to have had this meeting. Packard testified that he could recall only one face-to-face discussion with the father about the matter. Respondent seeks to discredit Langeland Sr.'s testimony primarily on the basis of the vagueness of his recollection as to dates of the various conversations. How- ever, his lack of precision as to dates is insufficient reason for discrediting his testimony. Based on the witnesses' de- meanor, the Trial Examiner credits the substance of Lange- land Sr.'s testimony concerning statements made by Packard. C. Discussion and Conclusion As set forth above, both Langelands credibly quoted Bylsma as having said that Respondent's failure or refusal to reemploy the son was motivated by the father's union activities. Bylsma did not testify and Respondent's failure to call him as a witness was unexplained. In addition, Held- er, an admitted supervisor, confirmed young Langeland's testimony that Packard attributed the Company's refusal to reemploy youn Langeland to the fact that his father was a "controversial figure." Respondent maintains that the refusal to reemploy young Langeland was due solely to the fact that he had been discharged under the "30-day" clause, i.e., during this pro- bationary period, and the Company has a general policy against reemploying anybody so discharged. Langeland Jr. conceded that as early as June 1969 Pack- ard on two occasions said that he was not being reemployed because he had been released during his original probation- ary period. However, Packard's having made such state- ments does not, as Respondent apparently contends, prove that the company policy referred to was the actual or sole factor dictating Respondent's conduct. The record as a whole does not support Respondent's contention. First, it should be noted that the employee no- tice given to the employee on March 31 was silent as to the nature of the personnel action; although the form contains three boxes (warning notice, layoff notice, and discharge notice), none had been checked. The typewritten text con- tained the word "released" rather than "discharged." Sec- ond, Bylsma was credibly quoted as having said at the time that youn Langeland would be reemployed if he lost suffi- cient weit. Thereafter, although Langeland reported reg- ularly to ylsma, so far as appears, Bylsma never referred to any rule or policy against reemploying a person dis- charged during his probationary period. Had the Company had any such policy applicable in situations like the present, presumably Bylsma would have known about it and so stated. While neither the Trial Examiner nor the Board can pass on the wisdom or reasonableness of Respondent's employ- ment practices or policies, such consideration may be illu- minating in determining the Company's true motivation. It would seem reasonable to consider ineligible for future em- ployment any person who had been discharged for cause, such as misconduct or inefficiency, during his probationary period. On the other hand, different considerations would appear apropos to a situation like the present, where an employee was released promptly upon the employer's learn- ing that he had been imprerly hired. On cross-examina- tion, Langeland Sr. testified to a common sense view as follows: Q. Apparently the cause of the company' s dismissal was the fact that your son had been found overweight, is that correct? A. They did not dismiss him. Q. They did not? A. I would not call it a dismissal when they told him to compl with a command and if he met the demand he would be immediately be put back to work. Q. In the normal case in the application of the thirty day clause did it mean dismissal? A. It meant dismissal to a point ... I had no official power as far as under the contract to protest a person's dismissal for whatever reason. In most cases of course it was because of lack of performance because the com- pany demands a day's work for a day's pay. However, in many circumstances I went to the company in regard to a person when I felt the company officials were not fully aware of what or why the person was dismissed. On many occasions they put him back to work. Failure to meet Respondent's weight standards was a re- ason for refusal to hire but not a ground for discharge. Realistically viewed, young Langeland's release within a few days after being hired was more akin to a retroactive refusal to employ than to a discharge. Packard testified that Buiter said "that he reviewed the facts of the case and he could see no deviation from estab- lished policy, no reason to waive them." No explanation was given. On all the evidence, the Trial Examiner finds that the G:neral Counsel has established by a clear preponderance of the evidence that, as alleged in the complaint, "Respon- dent has refused to employ the Charging Party . because of his father's past and long time Teamster stew- ardship ... past Presidency of Local 406 Teamsters and . close association with and assiduous activity on behalf of Teamsters."7 To discriminate in employment because of the employee's relationship to this union activity violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Hoffman Beverage Co., 163 NLRB 981, 987-988.8 CONCLUSION OF LAW By failing and refusing to employ Robert Wayne Lange- land, Jr., on and after May 19, 1969, because of his father's union affiliation and activities, Respondent has engaged in and is en aging in an unfair labor practice affecting com- merce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and 1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 7 In testifying, Langeland Sr. volunteered that he had recently learned that Respondent's "real reason" for not reemploymg his son was the displeasure of some company officials because of the father's assertion of a workmen's compensation claim. Neither Respondent nor the General Counsel appears to attach any significance to Langeland Sr.'s unsupported conclusory state- ment in this connection It may well be that the workmen's compensation case was itself protected activity. Cf Moss Planing Mill Co, 103 NLRB 414, enfd., 206 F.2d 557 (C.A. 4). In any event, the father's gratuitous statement would at most suggest that the compensation claim may have been a contributing factor in Respondent's antipathy. A wealth of affirmative evidence establishes his union position and activities as the major basis. 9 Although Respondent did not plead the limitation period of Section 10(b) of the Act in defense to the present complaint, the General Counsel at the hearing discussed the possibility of such a contention. It is not alleged that the release of Langeland Jr. in March 1969 was violative of the Act. He accepted that action at face value and did not again seek employment by Respondent until he had met the announced weight requirement. He did not seek reinstatement based on a claim of unlawful discharge ; rather, he sought new employment. He repeated such request many times , at least as late as August or September, well within the 6 months preceding the filing of the charge Accordingly, it is clear that the complaint is not barred under Section 10(b) Piasecki Aircraft Corp v N.LR B., 280 F 2d 575, 590-591 (C.A. 3); N LR B v. Albritton Engineering Corp, 340 F 2d 281, 285 (C.A. 5); Textile Machine Works, Inc, 105 NLRB 618, affd in part and reversed in part 214 F 2d 929 (C A 3) ASSOCIATED TRUCK LINES, INC. 317 THE REMEDY em to went or any term or condition of employment. The customary affirmative remedy for a continuing dis- criminatory refusal to employ is a requirement that the employer offer the job applicant immediate employment and pay backpay for the period since the date of the original unlawful refusal to hire or since 6 months prior to the filing of the charge, whichever date is later. Application of such remedy to the present case, however, requires special con- sideration. As previously stated, it is assumed that Respondent does maintain maximum weight standards for hiring and that the maximum permissible weight for the Charging Party is 200 pounds. He testified that on June 17, 1970, the date of the hearing in this case, he weighed about 216 pounds. Thus, presumably he would not be presently eligible for initial hire by Respondent. It is undisputed that he weighed 199 pounds and thus was eligible for employment around the middle of April 1969, approximately 7 month before the limitation period under Section 10(b). There is no evidence as to the course of his weight between April 1969 and June 1970 or since the hearing. It is clear that Respondent does not consider overweight to be of sufficient gravity to prevent a person's performing the work safely, since there are possibly more than 100 overweight men in Respondent's employ. Young Langeland has once demonstrated his ability to lose weight rapidly. There is no reason to believe that he did not maintain a permissible weight during the summer of 1969, when he was repeatedly and actively seeking reemployment by Respon- dent. Had he been reemployed in May 1969, he would not have been subject to discharge for being overweight in June 1970. (It might be safe to conjecture that his weight would not have increased had he been performing the heavy labor required of a warehouseman.) Considering the record as a whole, the Trial Examiner believes that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the Charging Part and against Respon- dent, which has been found guilty ofyan unfair labor prac- tice. Accordingly, the Examiner will recommend that Respondent be required to offer Robert Wayne Langeland, Jr., immediate employment as a warehouseman at Respondent's Grand Rapids terminal with the same seniori- ty and other rights and privileges he would have enjoyed if he had been hired on May 20, 1969, together with backpay from the period since May 20, 1969, until the date of the offer of reemployment. Backpay is to be co;P uted in ac- cordance with the formula prescribed in F. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with 6-percent-per-annum interest as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con- clusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that the Respondent, Associated Truck Lines, Inc., its agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, Ind., and/or its Local Union No. 406, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by discrim- inatorily refusing to employ or reemploy, or by discriminat- ing in any other manner in regard to hire and tenure of (b) In any other like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form or join labor organiza- tions, and to engage in any other concerted activity Tor the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(aX3) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Robert Wayne Langeland, Jr., immediate em- ployment as a warehouseman (or loader) at its terminal in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The employment offered shall carry the same seniority and other rights and privileges as the employee would have enjoyed had he been employed on May 20, 1969. (b) Notify Robert Wayne Langeland, Jr., if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his right to employment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train- ing and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (c) Make Robert Wayne Langeland, Jr., whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respondent s refusal to employ him on May 20, 1969, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (d) Preserve and upon request make available to the Na- tional Labor Relations Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all records necessary for the determinations of the amount of backpay due under the Order herein. (e) Post at its terminal in Grand Rapids, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, shall, after being signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said no- tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- rial. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision and Recom- mended Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.10 9 In the event no exceptions be filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board , the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein, shall, as provided in Se 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclu- sions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event that the Board's Order be enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Realtions 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" 10 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respon- dent has taken to comply herewith " 318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX WE WILL notify Robert Wayne Langeland, Jr., if he is serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES right to employment, upon application, after discharge from the armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective -Service POSTED BY ORDER OF THE Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a full trial, in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we, Associated Truck Lines, Inc., violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post this notice; and we intend to abide by the follow- in : WE WILL NOT discourage membership in International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., or its Local Union No. 406, or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily refusing to em- ploy or reemploy any person or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL offer immediate employment to Robert Wayne Langeland, Jr., and will make him whole for any loss suf- fered by him as a result of our failure and refusal to employ him on and after May 20, 2969. ASSOCIATED TRUCK LINES, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Mich- igan 48226. Telephone 313-226-3200.