System 99

SYSTEM 99 D/B/A INTERLINES BLANKENSHIP MOTOR EXPRESS System 99, a California Corporation (previously Gilardy, Preston & Dore D/B/A Interlines Blankenship Motor Express) and Dean K. Buckley, Line Drivers Local No. 468 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America and Dean K. Buckley. Cases 20-CA-4635 and 20-CB-1722 June 30, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On August 14, 1968, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that they cease and desist -therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and finds merit in Respondents' exceptions. Accordingly, the Board adopts only those findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner consistent with this Decision and Order. The complaint alleged and the Trial Examiner found that Buckley, the Charging Party, was discriminatorily discharged by Respondent Company in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, and that such discharge was caused by the Union in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. We are not satisfied that the General Counsel has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Buckley's employment was terminated in violation of the Act. Respondent Company, engaged in the business of intrastate trucking in the State of California, has a contract with two Teamster Union locals. A contract with Local 70 covers local drivers, and a contract with Respondent Local 468 covers over-the-road, or line, drivers. We are concerned here only with the line driving aspect of Respondent's operations. It is the Respondent Company's practice to classify its regular employees who are line drivers as either "Regular bid" or "extra board." Regular bid drivers have greater seniority and bid on the run of 689 their choice. They regularly drive that run. Extra board drivers receive assignments from day to day and work only if there is work available. When there is a shortage of work, the extra board drivers are rotated in order of their seniority. If the earnings of the extra board drivers fall below a certain level, the Respondent Union is entitled under its contract to require the employer to reduce the number of men on the extra board. The extra board drivers are considered to be employed, and are therefore not entitled to use the union hiring hall when they are not working. Respondent Company also maintains a list of men who have indicated their availability and desire to work for the Company. These men have no permanent relationship with any trucking company and are employed on a trip basis when the available work exceeds the capacity of the extra board drivers. Respondent Company refers to them as "casual drivers." Casual drivers are terminated after each trip, and gain no seniority. There is no obligation on the part of the Company to call any individual on the casual list or for the individual called to accept a particular trip. Respondent Company attempts to maintain a policy of giving first preference to those casuals its considers the best drivers who would be good prospects for permanent employment. It also gives preference to new drivers in an effort to evaluate their ability against the casual drivers already on Respondent Company's list. The list of casual drivers is maintained through use of the union hiring hall, personal recommendations of regular drivers, or through an individual seeking his own employment. Normally, a person who proves to be a satisfactory casual driver is offered regular employment as an extra board driver when a vacancy occurs. The Company has a contract with Respondent Union which provides that: When the Employer needs additional men he shall give the local Union equal opportunity with all other sources to provide suitable applicants, but the Employer shall not be required to hire those referred by the Local Union. In July 1967, Buckley sought a job with Respondent Company as a supervisor at its San Jose terminal. He spoke with the Emeryville terminal manager, Tudisco, and was informed that the San Jose job had been filled. A few days later, Buckley contacted Sorenson, dispatcher at Emeryville, and asked for employment as a casual driver. Sorenson then asked Buckley if he was a member of "the union" and Buckley, a member of Local 70, replied that he was. Sorensen then added Buckley's name to the list of casual drivers. Buckley was employed by Respondent as a casual driver on July 13, 22, 29, and August 1, 1967. After each trip he was issued a termination slip, a copy of which was forwarded to the Respondent Union as was customary. 177 NLRB No. 105 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD During the latter part of July 1967, Buckley informed Sorensen that he was interested in steady employment. When Buckley reported to work to make the trip of August 1, Sorensen's assistant, Gardner, inquired as to whether Buckley was still interested in steady employment, and upon receiving an affirmative response, gave Buckley an application blank to be completed and returned. Gardner indicated Buckley would be called to work the following day, at which time he would return the completed application. On the afternoon of August 2, 1967, Manny Joseph, president of Respondent Local 468, having seen Buckley's termination slip, telephoned Tudisco. Joseph informed Tudisco that he had union men out of work, Buckley was not a member of the Union, and the Company's contract with the Union provided the Union with an "equal opportunity with all other sources to provide suitable applicants." Tudisco was unaware that the Company was employing nonunion drivers and was under the impression that Buckely was a member of Local 468. After being informed Buckley was not a member of Local 468, Tudisco agreed to accept names from the Union's out-of-work list, which were added to the list of casual drivers for the Company. Some men were used, some were unavailable, and some, previously known to the Company, were considered unsatisfactory and were not called. Respondent Company did not use any casual drivers from August 1 through August 7, 1967. When Buckley did not receive a call to report to work on August 2 as he had expected, he telephoned Gardner to ask if things were slow. According to Buckley, Gardner informed him that Joseph had told the Respondent that Buckley was not a member of Local 468, and therefore he could not be used.' Buckley filed a charge with the Board on August 3, 1967, and did not thereafter complete and return his application for employment to Respondent Company. In late August 1967, Respondent Company received information indicating that Buckley was a poor driver. Two tachograph records of Buckley's showed that he had caused the truck motor to exceed the proper number of revolutions and had driven the truck in excess of the maximum speed limit. On November 10, 1967, Buckley notified Respondent Company that he was again available for employment, and by a letter of the same date Sorensen informed Buckley that his name was being added "to the list of drivers whom we call for casual employment as needed." Gardner was not called as a witness Both Respondents objected to any testimony concerning what he said There is also serious question as to whether Gardner is a supervisor and as to whether anything he said would bind Respondent Company . Therefore, we, like the Trial Exammer,do not rely on Gardner's statements In the latter part of November 1967, Respondent Company received a Department of Motor Vehicles report which indicated Buckley had four speeding violations from August 3, 1967, to August 9, 1967. Respondent did not thereafter employ Buckley as a driver. Tudisco testified that no specific instructions were given not to hire Buckley, and at least two attempts had been made to contact Buckley, one on or about August 15 or 16 and again on August 29, 1967. Buckley was not home on either occasion, but on August 29 a message was left with his wife. When Buckley returned the call, he informed Sorensen that he was employed as a working supervisor at night for Clipper Carloading Company and would be unable to work for Respondent Company except weekends. Despite the fact that the Trial Examiner did not discredit Tudisco's testimony, and despite the fact that he found that with one possible exception, no weekend work would have been available to Buckley after August 29, he gave the testimony "no weight because it is too vague, because it is not clear that a specific job would have been offered . . ." We reach the opposite conclusion, Respondent's list of casual drivers employed during the month of August 1967 shows that casual drivers were used on August 15, 16, and 29. Absent any other explanation, we can see no purpose for calling an individual listed as a casual driver, at a time during which casual drivers are needed, other than to offer employment to the individual called. Under all the facts presented, we find the allegation that Respondent Company discriminatorily discharged Buckley in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act because of his lack of membership in Local 468 has not been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. We therefore dismiss the charge as to Respondent Company. The remaining issue to be determined is whether or not the Respondent Union attempted to cause the Company to discriminate against Buckley within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. At this point, the purpose of Joseph's phone call to Tudisco becomes important. If the call was made to seek the discharge of a nonunion man so that members of the union could be employed in his place, the Act has been violated. It is established from the record that the Company had not called the union hiring hall for a list of drivers for some time. The Union alleges it was only seeking to enforce its contract with the Company which allows it an "equal opportunity with all other sources to provide suitable applicants." The Trial Examiner finds this argument unsupportable on the evidence and concludes "that Local 468 attempted to cause, and did cause Interlines to cease using Buckley as a casual driver SYSTEM 99 D/B/A INTERLINES BLANKENSHIP MOTOR EXPRESS 691 because he was not a member of the Union." The Trial Examiner supports his finding by stating that although the contract only gave the Union the right to furnish names of applicants, Joseph 'was not satisfied with merely furnishing names because he "complained of having members out of0, work while Interlines was employing non-members." The Trial Examiner further finds that "Joseph appears to have spoken in a tone of voice which conveyed his purpose to require the employment of members of Local 468 as casual drivers in preference to non-members." We are not convinced. The record indicates that the list of applicants was not requested by Tudisco until after Joseph complained of having members out of work. There is no evidence in the record that Joseph was requesting Tudisco to use union members to the exclusion of Buckley based on the testimony of Tudisco, to whom the call was made, and Union Business Agent Vercessi, who was in the union office when Joseph called Tudisco. Joseph was not called upon to testify at the hearing. Since Joseph did not testify at the hearing, and the Trial Examiner did not overhear the conversation between Joseph and Tudisco, we cannot rely on the tone of voice used by Joseph as a basis for finding that Joseph intended that union members be used to the exclusion of, or even in preference to, nonunion employees. Neither can we overlook the fact that the testimony of Tudisco in relating the events after the phone call, indicates otherwise. When asked if he instructed Gardner not to use Buckley anymore, Tudisco replied, "I didn't instruct him that way. That was not the purpose of Manny Joseph's call." The plain meaning of Joseph's words was that he wanted only the equal opportunity the concededly valid contract gave him. That being so, we shall dismiss the complaint as to the Union. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the complaint in the instant case be, and the same hereby is, dismissed in its entitety as to both Respondents. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION cause, and had caused, Interlines to refuse to hire the Charging Party, Buckley, because of his lack of membership in Local 468, and that Interlines had, on about August 2, 1967, refused to hire said Buckley because of his lack of membership in that Union. On October 27, 1967, Local 468 filed an answer denying the alleged unfair labor practices. On April 22, 1968, Interlines filed what was entitled, "First Amended Answer to Complaint."' Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at San Francisco, California, on May 22 and 23, 1968, before me. At the opening of the hearing, the Union orally amended its answer to cover the allegations of the amendment to the complaint. At the close of the hearing, Interlines moved to strike all testimony with regard to conversations between Buckley and Donald Gardner (the latter having been alleged in the amendment to the complaint to be an agent and supervisor of Interlines) on the ground that Gardner had not been proved to be an agent and supervisor of Interlines. Ruling was reserved. The motion is now denied for reasons hereinafter stated. On July 2, 1968, I received from Interlines a motion to reopen the record to permit the introduction of additional documentary evidence. The General Counsel on July 10, 1968, filed an opposition to Interlines' motion, and on July 15, 1968, Interlines' motion was denied. Briefs were received from each of the parties hereto on July 12, 1968. From my observation of the witnesses and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: Findings of Fact 1. THE BUSINESS OF INTERLINES (SYSTEM 99) At the time of the occurrences herein set out, Respondent Interlines was a partnership with an office and principal place of business located at Emeryville, California, where it has been engaged in trucking operations with terminal facilities throughout the State of California. It is now a California corporation known as System 99. During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, Interlines, in the course and conduct of its business operations, performed for customers outside the State of California services valued in excess of $50,000. During the same period of time, Interlines performed services for the United States Military Services valued in excess of $400,000, admittedly having a substantial impact on the national defense. Interlines admits the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint. I find that the Board has jurisdiction and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction. STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES R. HEMINGWAY, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge filed on August 3, 1967, by Dean K. Buckley, an individual, against the Respondent employer, named above in the caption, herein called Interlines,' alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., herein called the Act, and upon a charge filed the same day by Buckley against the Respondent Union named above in the caption, herein called interchangeably the Union and Local 468, alleging violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, a complaint issued on October 18, 1967, which alleged in substance that Local 468 had attempted to II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION AND ITS CONTRACT Local 468, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is composed exclusively of line drivers, as distinguished from local truckdrivers. Local 468 and 'Counsel for Interlines at the hearing represented that the name of the company had recently been changed to System 99, which he stated is a corporation By letter dated July 18, 1968 , I requested that the caption be corrected. The General Counsel, by letter to the undersigned, dated July 30, 1968 , agreed to this change. In the hearing, System 99 was usually referred to as Interlines and this will most frequently be used herein. 'The formal exhibits do not include any earlier answer. 692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Interlines are parties to the National Master Freight Agreement,' having a term from April 1, 1967, to March 31, 1970. This contract contains a valid union shop clause but no exclusive hiring hall clause . Instead of the latter type of clause, the contract contains a provision which reads: When the Employer needs additional' men he shall give the Local Union equal opportunity with. all other sources to provide suitable applicants, but the Employer shall not be required to hire those referred by the Local Union. Local 468 maintains two out-of-work lists - an A list for members, and a B list for nonmembers . When an employer requests names of applicants to put on his list, Local 468 reads a number of names from the A list so long as there are any names on that list before it furnishes names from the B list. The contract provides for a 30-day trial period for drivers, after which if retained, the driver is placed at the bottom of the regular seniority list. A provision of the contract covers seasonal, casual and part-time employees. The facts here are concerned only with the second of these three classes of non-regular employees. The contract explains that "casual or part-time" are terms intended to cover situations such as replacements for absenteeism and vacations. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Employment Practices of Interlines Interlines employs about 70 local drivers and 21 regular line drivers. The latter are divided into two classes - regular bid drivers and extra-board drivers. Bid drivers, because of their greater seniority are entitled to bid for the run of their choice, and their work is steady and remunerative. The drivers on the extra board have less seniority and take assignments as work is available. An employer in the trucking business would prefer to have a long list of extra-board drivers so that one would always be on hand when needed, but a long list of extra-board drivers often results in less work per man, and this situation creates dissatisfaction among the men. These men cannot, when not assigned a run , sign up on their union's out-of-work list, because they are considered employed. However, under the contract, if the weekly earnings of the drivers on the extra board falls to a certain level, the local union may require the employer to reduce the number of men on the extra board. To avoid a low average of earnings for extra-board drivers, Interlines carries a limited number of extra-board drivers and takes care of periodic fluctuations in business by hiring casual drivers when additional drivers are needed. To be assured of getting a driver on short notice, Interlines maintains a list of casual drivers that it wishes to use. In August 1967 it had between 14 and 20 names on that list. In that month, however, Interlines used only seven casual drivers.' Names for this list were obtained by Interlines either by calling Local 468, by taking names of men calling in on their own behalf, or by references from other drivers or other employers. Casual drivers have no seniority and are not rotated . Interlines first calls for work 'The title states that the agreement covers over-the-road and local cartage employees of private, common, contract, and local cartage carriers. The employer signing the agreement, the National Over-thc-Road and City Cartage Policy and Negotiating Committee, and the signing local are the described as parties thereto. casual drivers whom it has found to be good drivers, who cooperate with the dispatcher and with other personnel, and who appear likely to be drivers that Interlines would like to hire permanently when it fills vacancies in its lists of permanent drivers. If the best drivers are unavailable or are already assigned a run, the dispatcher will call others who are less highly regarded. B. Employment History of Buckley Dean Buckley is a member of Local 70 of the Teamsters. Interlines obtains local drivers from that local. Early in July 1967, Buckley heard that Interlines was looking for a "supervisor" for its San Jose terminal.' Buckley inquired about this at the Emeryville terminal where he spoke with Joseph Tudisco , the terminal manager . Tudisco told Buckley that the San Jose job had been filled. A few days later, Buckley telephoned Chris Sorensen (Central Line Dispatcher and a supervisor within the meaning of the Act) of Interlines in Emeryville and said he was interested in employment as a casual driver. Sorensen asked if he was a member of "the Union" and Buckley said he was . Whether or not Sorensen took it for granted that "the Union" meant Local 468 or whether Sorenson was only interested in knowing whether Buckley had a union card is not established since Sorensen did not testify. Tudisco sought to make it appear that Sorensen was asking if Buckley was a member of Local 468 since that would show that Buckley had experience as a line driver. However, Sorensen could have learned of Buckley's experience from the latter's answer to Sorensen's next question , which was where Buckley had worked (as a line driver); Buckley named two places where he had been so employed . Sorensen then said he would add Buckley's name to the list of casuals. On July 13, 1967, Don Gardner, the dispatcher at Interlines' Emeryville terminal, telephoned Buckley at 1 a.m. and said he needed a driver for a trip to Fresno, where Buckley would have to lay over, and asked if Buckley was interested. Buckley said he was and he reported for work at 3 a.m. When he arrived, Sorensen and Gardner introduced themselves.' They asked for his driver's license and his ICC card. Buckley produced these, and Sorensen made photo copies of them . Gardner then told Buckley that the trip was via the San Jose terminal and gave Buckley written instructions. When Buckley returned from his trip to Fresno , Sorensen and Gardner thanked him, told him that his check would be mailed to him, gave him a termination slip (customary after each employment of a casual because otherwise the driver would get seniority after 30 days whether or not he worked) and told him that they would call him again. A copy of each termination slip is sent by Interlines to Local 468 as a matter of routine . This qualifies the driver for registration on the out-of-work list. On July 22, 1967,' Gardner telephoned Buckley and told him he had a trip to Redding , California, and asked if he would like to take it. Buckley agreed and made the trip. Again, on July 29, 1967, Gardner called Buckley for another trip to Redding and Buckley took it. 'One of the 7 was used 11 times; the others were called, respectively, 6, times, 5 times, 4 times, 3 times, 2, and I 'There is no explanation of this classification 'Sorensen's normal hours were from 3 p.m. to about midnight. 'In each instance of Buckley's employment, the Respondent's records show it as one day earlier than that which Buckley gave in his testimony I infer that Interlines' records start in the evening of the date shown and run into the next morning without change of date. SYSTEM 99 D/B/A INTERLINES BLANKENSHIP MOTOR EXPRESS During the latter part of July, Buckley told Sorensen that he : was interested in steady employment . Sorensen told him that if a job opened up he would consider Buckley, On August 1, 1967, Gardner telephoned Buckley to take another trip to Redding, this time by way of Sacramento. When Buckley arrived at the dispatch office, Gardner was alone, because Sorensen was off sick. Gardner told Buckley that Interlines was going to add a couple of men to the extra board and asked if he was still interested in steady employment . Buckley said that he was. Gardner handed Buckley an application blank and told him to fill it out and return it on the next night when Gardner would call him to work . Buckley made the trip to Redding on August 1 but did not fill out the application blank or work thereafter for the reason set forth herein below. On the afternoon of August 2, 1967, Manny Joseph, then president of Local 468, having seen Buckley's termination slip, telephoned Joseph Tudisco , Interlines' terminal, manager . Tudisco testified that the purpose of Joseph's call was to complain that Interlines was not using members of Local 468 and he testified that Joseph was upset because he had union members who were out of work and Interlines was hiring men who were not members of Local 468.' Tudisco said he did not think that was so, and Joseph (who had the termination slips of Buckley and Dare before him) said , "Don't tell me you haven't been using any." Tudisco asked, "Who are you talking about?" Joseph named Buckley and a man named Dare. Joseph asked Tudisco how long it was since he had obtained any names from Local 468 and called Tudisco's attention to the portion of the contract which obliged the employer to give the Union equal opportunity to provide suitable applicants. Tudisco told Joseph to have his secretary read a few names off the out-of-work list. Joseph gave his secretary the A list (union members) to read from. Counsel for the General Counsel asked Tudisco if he had instructed Gardner or Sorensen, after Joseph's call, not to hire Buckley again as a casual until he had been cleared by the Union. Tudisco replied : "Not just that way, it was not that specific . I said that Mr. Joseph called and complained of the fact that we were using casuals without calling the hall, and there were a couple of drivers, mainly two, Mr. Buckley is one, and a man by the name of Dare is the other, and he said that we have men out of work and you know the contract, according to the contract you are supposed to give us an equal opportunity to provide help. We have guys out of work, we want you to call the hall.' I told Mr . Gardner this, and I said, `I thought you told me Mr. Buckley was a member of 468, because Manny Joseph said he was not.' "10 Tudisco gave Gardner 'The findings herein as to Joseph's conversation with Tudisco and the latter's subsequent action are based primarily on testimony of Tudisco given when he was called as an adverse witness by the General Counsel and on corroborative evidence given by Louis Vercessi , the Union's business agent who overheard Joseph's side of the conversation. No explanation was offered by the Union for its failure to call Joseph as a witness to relate his conversation with Tudisco , himself, and I infer that Local 468 feared a revelation that might have been made if Joseph testified. Because of errors in the transcript when Tudisco was testifying on direct examination for Interlines (at p. 245), 1 have not based my findings on certain disputed portions of Tudisco's testimony appearing there, since the Respondents objected to the corrections proposed by the Trial Examiner and, instead, suggested corrections which the General Counsel did not agree to. The record remains uncorrected , therefore, as to the disputed portion of Tudisco's testimony , although, as shown, it lacks continuity and consistency with other portions of the record. 693 the list of names he had obtained from Local 468 to put on Interlines' list of casuals . Some of these men were used thereafter to the exclusion of Buckley, who was never employed again by Interlines. Asked by counsel for Interlines why Buckley had not been "used during . . . the first and second week in August," Tudisco answered, "Well, Manny Joseph called, and the Union had complained, probably rightfully, that we had not called the hall for a period of time to give him an opportunity to provide help, so we thought we would redress this balance by using some of his men along with the ones we had on file." Tudisco testified that it was Interlines' intention to use Buckley again and that attempts had been made (he did not testify by whom) on two occasions, one being on about August 15 or 16, when, Tudisco testified, there was no answer. I give this testimony no weight because it is too vague, because it is not clear that a specific job would have been offered and because other evidence indicated that Buckley's name was removed from the list of casuals until Sorensen offered to put it back on when he called Buckley on August 29, 1967, as hereinafter related. Since the latter call was not a specific offer of work but a mere statement of possible future employment that could well have been made for tactical reasons, my inference that any attempted communication on August 15 or 16 would not have been to offer a specific job is fortified. When Buckley received no call for work on August 2 as he had expected, he telephoned Gardner to ask if things were slow. According to Buckley, Gardner replied that Manny Joseph had called and said that Buckley was not a member of Local 468 and that Interlines could not use Buckley." Buckley protested that he did not have to be a member of Local 468 under the terms of that union's contract. Later that night, Buckley, accompanied by another driver who worked elsewhere , went to Interlines' dispatch office. Sorensen was still off sick. Buckley told Gardner that he had been given an application for steady employment and asked Gardner to reconsider employing him. Buckley quoted Gardner as saying that the matter was out of his hands but that if Gardner could get into Local 468, Interlines would reconsider.12 The man Buckley had taken with him as a witness (Donald Armour) 'Testimony adduced by Local 468 of what was said by Joseph , as given by Louis Vercessi, the business agent, is that Joseph said - "We have men out of work, why don ' t you give us a call . Don't tell me you haven't been using any [nonmembers]. I have a couple of termination notices here, one from Dare, one from Buckley ... We want an equal opportunity." "When Tudisco was testifying as a witness for Interlines, and was being taken over much • the same ground, Tudisco omitted all reference to his statements to Gardner at this point Instead, he testified that he had telephoned Sorensen that night and told Sorensen of Joseph's telephone call. "Both Respondents objected to all testimony of conversations between Gardner and Buckley. I received it subject to proof that Gardner was a supervisor. Interlines took special pains to portray Gardner as having no supervisory functions and to refrain from revealing anything that might suggest that Gardner had supervisory functions Despite this effort some evidence could be the basis of an inference that Gardner had some duties and functions that would bring him within the statutory definition of supervisor. But I find it unnecessary to rely on Gardner's statements to' Buckley in reaching my conclusions herein, as the conclusions which I reach are supported by other evidence. I relate Buckley 's conversation with Gardner therefore, only to explain Buckley's failure to fill in or file the applications he had been given by Gardner and to explain why he was so quick to file a charge on August 3, 1967 "Gardner, himself, could not have made Buckley a regular employee. There were several steps that preceded actual employment as a regular driver. 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD testified that Buckley had asked Gardner why he was not hired and that Gardner had replied that Manny Joseph of Local 468 had called and said "being he was not a member of Local 468, that he couldn't be hired," and that Buckley had asked Gardner if Interlines was still going to hire a couple of men and that Gardner had replied that there was still an opening. After Buckley had filed charges with the Board and after Tudisco had been interviewed by Board agents, Sorensen , on August 29, 1967, telephoned Buckley at his home and told Buckley, according to the latter, that Interlines was willing to put Buckley back on the list of casuals maintained by Interlines. Buckley told Sorensen that he was then employed as a working supervisor at Clipper Carloading Company at night and that he would be unavailable for work except on weekends. According to Buckley, Sorensen told him that things had been slow." Buckley' s name was therefore not replaced on the list of casuals again unless it was done in November 1967, as hereinafter related. On November 10, 1967, having left his job at Clipper Carloading, Buckley sent Interlines a telegram reading, "This is to advise you that I am available for employment on a casual or permanent basis." A few days later, Buckley received a letter from Sorensen saying that Buckley' s name was again being placed on the list of casuals. He was not, however, employed again, and there is reason to doubt that Buckley' s name was, in fact, restored to the list, for on January 16, 1968, Tudisco appeared at a meeting of the California Bay Area Joint Staff Committee and testified: "After Buckley left Clipper Carloading he sent me a telegram and said that he was again available for work. And I thanked him for the call and we just haven't called him. We have not added him to the list of casual drivers that we want to call." Failure to reemploy Buckley after November 10 was claimed by Interlines to have been based on a decision reached after it had made an investigation of Buckley's record with the Department of Motor Vehicles and after it had learned of other unfair labor practice charges and suits filed by Buckley against other employers and had formed an opinion that he was litigious . Since I find that such factors affect only the remedy, I shall discuss them hereinafter. C. Conclusions 1. As to Union's Causing Discrimination Local 468 interposes two arguments in defense: first, that it did not cause or attempt to cause discrimination against Buckley, because it sought only to enforce its contract, which was lawful, and second, that the issue here involved was resolved as a result of a grievance committee decision in a matter submitted to that committee by Buckley, in accordance with the provisions of the Master Contract, and that the Board should now decline to pass on the issue again. Apparently the latter argument is based on the principle laid down in Spielburg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080, and succeeding cases." "Written extracts from Interlines' records show that casual drivers made 32 trips in August (and that two were made on August 29), as compared with 15 in July, 21 in September, 36 in October, and 21 in November. It does not appear that any weekend trips would have been available for Buckley after August 29, however, with one possible exception on September 8 "International Harvester Co , 138 NLRB 923, affd 327 F 2d 784 (C A. 7), Raley's Supermarkets, 143 NLRB 256 See also 67 LRR 149, 67 LRR 114 With respect to the Union's first argument, I find it unsupportable on the evidence. The contract gave the Union the right to provide Interlines with names of applicants for employment only. Interlines was, by the contract, expressly "not . required to hire those referred by the Local Union." But the evidence clearly indicates that Joseph was not satisfied with furnishing only a list of names. He complained of having members out of work while Interlines was employing nonmembers, namely Buckley and Dare. Tudisco testified that this was the purpose of Joseph's call. According to Tudisco, Joseph claimed that the contract gave the Union an equal opportunity to provide help. Vercessi, on behalf of the Union, testified that Joseph said that the contract gave Local 468 the right to provide suitable applicants. In view of Joseph's apparent purpose, I accept Tudisco's version as more consistent. But even if Vercessi's memory was accurate, the language quoted cannot be considered in isolation in determining Joseph's purpose or Tudisco's understanding of Joseph's purpose. Joseph's reference to the contract must be considered in the entire context of the conversation, including Joseph's complaint of Interlines' employment of nonmembers while he had men out of work. Furthermore, Joseph appears to have spoken in a tone of voice which conveyed his purpose to require the employment of members of Local 468 as casual drivers in preference to nonmembers. This can readily be inferred from his statement, "Don't tell me you aren't using any" (meaning nonmembers) and his reference to Buckley and Dare. Since Joseph made no objection to any of the other casual drivers used by Interlines other than Buckley and Dare (Interlines had used five besides Buckley and Dare in July 1967), I infer that the other drivers were members of Local 468. Obviously, on a ratio of five members to two nonmembers Local 468 had no cause to complain of a violation of a contract which gave it the privilege only of an "equal opportunity with all other sources to provide suitable applicants" even if the contract had not contained the additional language that "the Employer shall not be required to hire those referred by the Local Union." The very fact that Joseph mentioned Buckley and Dare as nonmembers being used by Interlines is, in itself, indicative of the fact that he was taking the position that members should be given work in preference to nonmembers, for, if Joseph's sole purpose was merely to supply names of applicants, he could have done that without any mention at all of nonmembers who were working. Also it is a fair inference that any union which maintains an out-of-work list limited to members only, which list takes precedence over another out-of-work list for nonmembers, is not indifferent to employment of nonmembers before members. That Tudisco understood Joseph as demanding that preference be given to members of Local 468 is evident from his subsequent action and from the fact that men whose names were supplied by Local 468 were, in fact, thereafter used in preference to Buckley and Dare. On all the evidence, I conclude and find that Local 468 attempted to cause, and did cause, Interlines to cease using Buckley as a casual driver because he was not a member of the Union." The Union's second argument, that the issue has been settled as a result of a grievance filed by Buckley and decided by the Bay Area Joint Committee must be "See Walsh and Kelly, 137 NLRB 1559, Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 100, 128 NLRB 398, Sully-Miller Contracting Company, 152 NLRB 1623 SYSTEM 99 D/B/A INTERLINES BLANKENSHIP MOTOR EXPRESS dismissed as untenable. The grievance was stated: Violatlions of Article 3, Sections 1 and 2 and Article 5, Section 1 of NMFA [National Master Freight Agreement] On August 2 - 1967 Interlines-Blankenship refused to hire Dean K. Buckley because of non membership in Line Drivers Local 468 in violation of The National Labor Relations Act. Seniority is claimed by Buckley from August 2, 1967. Union asks for complete list of all casuals used from 8-2-67 to hearing date ftom respondent Employer. In the first place, it will be noted that the Union was representing Buckley on a grievance against Interlines. Hence, the unfair labor aspect of the conduct of Local 468 was not involved, and this, alone, would exclude the Union from any possible advantage under the Spielburg rule. In the second place, it does not appear that the issue decided in the grievance proceeding was the same as that presented here. Although mention was made, in the statement of the grievance, of the National Labor Relations Act, the portion of the grievance statement where that appears is, in essence, a statement of background, followed by particulars of the grievance which was, as stated in the first paragraph, thereof violation's of article 3, sections 1 and 2, and article 5, section 1 , of the collective-bargaining agreement. Article 5, section 1, deals with seniority rights. Article 3, section 1, deals with "Recognition, Union Shop, and Check-Off." There is nothing therein that covers the issue here involved. Section 2 of article 3, among other things, provides that casual and part-time employees shall be given first opportunity to qualify as regular employees. There is nothing therein that relates to the problem here involved. Tudisco testified that, in the grievance proceeding, Buckley claimed seniority under the contract, and he testified that the issue decided by the committee was that Buckley had worked strictly as a casual employee, had been terminated after each trip, and that he had not -acquired seniority while working for Interlines. This had nothing to do with the unfair labor practice here involved. The transcript of the grievance proceedings, although available and actually used for refreshing witnesses' recollection with portions of testimony taken therefrom which were deemed inconsistent with testimony given in the hearing herein, was not put in evidence in the instant case . Although counsel for Respondents sought to show, by conclusionary answers of witnesses who attended such grievance hearing, that the grievance hearing was full, fair, and regular, the Board is entitled to draw its own conclusions regarding such matters after a revelation of all the facts from which the Board might reach such a conclusion, and it cannot do so here without the transcript of such proceedings. In the third place, it may be observed that from the standpoint of the Union, any showing of an unfair labor practice by Interlines might also be detrimental to the Union since the same facts might disclose that the Union had caused such unfair labor practices by Interlines. I cannot presume, therefore, that the Union would have been impartial in presenting such a grievance against Interlines if the question presented actually had been one of discrimination in violation of the Act. 2. As to discrimination by Interlines Without pressure from the Union, Interlines would, I am satisfied, not have discriminated against Buckley because he was not a member of Local 468. That Interlines, without pressure from the Union , would not 695 have discriminated against Buckley does not, of course, justify its discriminatory conduct." I do, however, consider Interlines' favorable regard for Buckley during July 1967, as a factor to be considered in determining what caused Interlines to remove Buckley' s name from its list of casual drivers. That Interlines did favorably regard Buckley is apparent from the fact that Buckley was called for casual jobs on four different occasions between July 12 and August 1, 1967," a period of less that 3 weeks. The only casual driver given more trips than Buckley during the same period was a driver named Busk, with five trips. The latter became a regular employee on April 15, 1968. Of the remaining five casual drivers used in July 1967, none was used more than twice. Also demonstrating Interlines' favor of Buckley before Joseph' s call was the fact that, through Gardner, it offered Buckley an application form to fill out as a first step.to becoming a regular employee. I observe that Interlines did not offer Buckley an application when he first spoke of his interest in becoming a permanent employee but it did do so on its own later, on August 1. Offering an application is not, I appreciate, the same as offering permanent employment, but it does indicate that Buckley was favorably regarded. There is no evidence that Gardner expressed dissatisfaction with Buckley's work on his last trip on August 1. The Respondent offered in evidence two tachograph records of Buckley' s, one for a portion of his trip between Oakland and Fresno on July 13 and the other for the round trip between Oakland and Redding on July 22 and contended that they showed that Buckley had caused the motor to exceed a proper number of revolutions per minute, indicating (according to Interlines' contention) that he had exceeded the speed limit. For a number of reasons, I find that this evidence does not show a reason for ceasing to use Buckley as a casual employee after August 1, 1967. In the first place, it would have been the responsibility of Sorensen and Gardner to check Buckley's tachograph after his first trip (July 12-13) before deciding to use Buckley again as a casual driver. I conclude that this first tachograph record (between Oakland and Fresno) was, therefore, found satisfactory, especially since nothing was said to Buckley about it. The other tachograph record introduced in evidence is no worse than the first.18 Even if it were assumed that Sorensen and Gardner had not even seen the tachograph for July 22, they admittedly did not have their attention called to either tachograph chart again before the end of August 1967. So this could not have accounted for the failure of Interlines to employ Buckley between August 1 and the end of the month. In fact, there is no credible explanation for Interlines' failure to call Buckley for work after August 1 other than Joseph's objection to his employment in preference to members of Local 468. "N L R B v. Fry Roofing Co, 193 F.2d 324 (C.A. 9). "Interlines sought to discredit Buckley by showing that, in a statement to the Board , Buckley had said that he had made ten trips. No explanation was sought, however, as to why he so stated , and I find that the word "trip" might be subject to more than one meaning . It could mean each leg of a total trip If you consider Buckley's first trip as to San Jose and his second trip as from there to Fresno, etc., one can count up ten such trips. But if you consider a trip as one complete round trip from Emeryville to other point or points and return to Emeryville, then there were only four trips "I note that, at times, the tachograph bore lines coming to a sharp point above the line for 2300 r.p in These points indicate that , at intervals, Buckley's engine exceeded 2300 r.p in. on each tachograph, but these lines occurred only very briefly and at intervals that suggest that they were 696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Even though Tudisco might not expressly have told Gardner or Sorensen not to use Buckley again after Tudisco's conversation with Joseph on August 2, 1967, his testimony clearly shows that he conveyed this idea to Gardner. Asked by Counsel for the General Counsel if he had instructed Gardner or Sorensen that Buckley was not to be employed again as a casual until he had been cleared by the Union, Tudisco answered: "Not just that way, it was not that specific." This implies that Tudisco intended to convey that impression although not in specific language. Taking this evidence along with the evidence that Buckley was not again called for work and the absence of any other credible reason therefor except Joseph' s call, it is an inescapable conclusion (even excluding all consideration of Gardner' s conversation with Buckley, which I do) that the reason Buckley was removed from the list of casual drivers who would be called thereafter was Buckley's lack of membership in Local 468 and Joseph's call to Tudisco about Interlines' use of nonmembers instead of members of Local 468 as casual drivers. At the hearing, Interlines adduced evidence designed to show that Buckley was not a desirable employee. However, even if such evidence were found to be true, it had no bearing on Interlines' discrimination against Buckley by discontinuing his services on August 2, 1967, because, admittedly, it had gained its information no earlier than the end of August 1967, and much of it later than that, most likely after November 10, 1967, when Sorensen wrote to Buckley to say that Interlines was again placing his name on its list of casual drivers, for, if it had gained information by that time that Buckley was not a desirable employee, it could have so stated and closed the matter right then . If such evidence has any value, therefore, it would be only to affect the remedy. Hence, any discussion of such evidence will be deferred and- will be discussed in the section below entitled "The Remedy." I dismiss Interlines' argument based on the Spielburg decision for reasons applicable to Interlines which are included in the preceding section hereof with respect to contentions of Local 468. On all the evidence, therefore, I find that Interlines discriminated in regard to the hire of Dean Buckley because of his nonmembership in Local 468 in violation of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operation of Interlines described 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 burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Interlines is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 468 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. made at times of shifting of gears rather than on sustained driving. No conclusion can fairly be drawn from these marks that Buckley exceeded the speed limit 3. By discriminated against Dean K. Buckley in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, Interlines has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By attempting to cause, and by causing Interlines to discriminate against Dean K. Buckley, Local 468 has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY I have found that Interlines discriminated against Buckley on and after August 2 , 1962. I shall therefore recommend that he be reinstated and made whole by payment of a sum of money equal to that which he would have been paid absent the discrimination and shall recommend that other action be taken by both Respondents. It is the argument of ,Interlines that in late August 1967 it learned of Buckley's record at the Department of Motor Vehicles and that this revealed facts which would have justified its refusal to employ Buckley as a line driver at all after that date because he had a record for speeding and other traffic violations . On its face, Buckley's record with the Department of Motor Vehicles was not good, but Buckley offered an explanation which would materially improve this record by testifying that, through a failure of an insurance company to report the facts, he had been shown as having caused an accident for which he was not responsible. He claimed to have straightened his record out with the Department of Motor Vehicles." In any event, the evidence showed the Interlines has had drivers whose licenses were suspended by the Department of Motor Vehicles and who had been reinstated by Interlines when their suspended licenses had been again validated . Buckley testified that whatever citations showed on his record as speeding violations were issued while he was driving his personal automobile and not a truck . Beyond all this, the evidence shows that Interlines customarily hires casual drivers without checking their record with the Department of Motor Vehicles and normally makes such a check only after an application for regular status has been filed . I see no reason to apply a different rule to Buckley as a casual driver. At the hearing, Interlines, by questions of Buckley asked on cross-examination , elicited information to show that Buckley had filed charges with the Board on several occasions and had successfully sued a supervisor for assault and battery . A witness for Interlines testified that "A letter dated May 7 , 1968, from a Driver Improvement Analyst for The Department of Motor Vehicles Division of Drivers Licenses reads Your letter of April 27 , 1968 has been brought to my attention for reply. All previous unpaid citations were cleared, in August 1967, as you state. However, even though these traffic violations occurred in 1964, 1965, 1966 and early 1967, the convictions are not entered to your record until the release certificates were cleared by the respective courts. All of these clearances show conviction date of August 1967 and therefore we must report these as August 1967 convictions (not earlier dates.) The revocation of your driving privilege was set aside as explained to you in my letter of 11 August 1967 [not in evidence]. After discussing your financial responsibility suspension with a Departmental Representative, your file was completely cleared, in an order dated 10 January 1968. What the order "completely cleared " is not plain Whether the words mean that something was expunged or was merely straightened out to validate Buckley's driver's license is obscure. SYSTEM 99 D/ B / A INTERLINES BLANKENSHIP MOTOR EXPRESS it had concluded that Buckley was of a disputatious and litigious nature . It was contended that this was an added reason - for not again employing him while better employees were available. But all this information came to Respondent long after Buckley had been taken off the list of casuals. Tudisco's testimony reveals that in August 1967 he had . telephoned two former employers of Buckley and had asked , if Buckley had filed any charge against them . Pne answered negatively, according to Tudisco, and the other answered that Buckley had not filed a charge but had filed a civil suit (presumably against the supervisor) which it was unwilling to discuss . There is no indication that , before cross-examining Buckley at the hearing, Interlines had any information about other charges filed by Buckley, and I conclude that the filing of charges against other employers had nothing to do with the reason Interlines failed to call Buckley for work after Joseph's telephone call to Tudisco on August 2, 1967. Nor would such charges, in themselves, disqualify Buckley for a position of a line driver. Since Buckley, as a casual driver, demonstrated that his services were satisfactory to Interlines , I conclude that he ought to be restored to the position of a casual driver with an opportunity to file an application for permanent employment, to satisfy the Respondent that his record with the Department of Motor Vehicles has been cleared up, and to be given honest and unbiased consideration as a regular driver when an opening shall occur . I shall, therefore, recommend that he be reinstated by Interlines (System 99) to the list of casual drivers and be given employment periodically , as Interlines had done prior to August 2, 1967, and that he be made whole by each Respondent in the manner hereinafter explained. I shall recommend that Interlines make Buckley whole for any loss he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination by paying him a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned in Interline's employ but for the discrimination . Since Interlines purported to have restored Buckley' s name to its list of casual drivers but did not call him for work as it had in July , I find that restoration to the list of casual drivers will not, alone, restore the status quo existing on August 1, 1967. I shall, therefore , recommend that the period for which backpay shall be computed be from August 2, 1967, to the date not only when Buckley's name is placed on the list of casual drivers but when he is given employment on a schedule comparative to that on which he was called by Interlines in July 1967 , with variations allowed for seasonal fluctuations in volume of business on a comparative basis. The General Counsel contends that Buckley should, without more ado, be reinstated as a regular , rather than a casual, driver, because, he contends, Buckley had proved himself to be a satisfactory driver and had been given an application to fill out for regular employment, thus demonstrating that he had been found to be satisfactory. I do not agree with the General Counsel with respect to this portion of the remedy . It is true that Buckley had been given such an application , but he did not fill it out or return it to Interlines, and even the filing of such an application would not have been equivalent to employment as a regular employee, since Interlines did not necessarily hire all applicants. It is customary for Interlines to make inquiries concerning the applicant's former employment and his driver's record before deciding to accept the application . In any event it appears that casual drivers who were employed at about the same time as Buckley, actually did not become permanent employees until March -or April 1968 , so I cannot presume that Buckley 697 would have been hired as a regular employee any earlier." Since the others, in effect, worked a trial period of 7 or more months it is not unreasonable that Buckley be required to do so likewise. Except in succumbing to the pressure of Local 468 to discriminate against Buckley, Interlines has shown no disposition generally to violate the provisions of the Act. I shall, therefore , not recommend a broad cease and desist order. Since I have found that Local 468 attempted to, and did, cause Interlines to discriminate in regard to Buckley's employment as a casual driver in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, I shall recommend that Local 468 take appropriate action to dissipate the effect of its unlawful conduct. This will include, among other things, a notification to Interlines (System 99) that Local 468 has no objection to the employment of Buckley as either a casual or regular driver and payment by Local 468, jointly and severally with Interlines, of an appropriate amount of back pay as hereinafter specified. Local 468 contends that it had already withdrawn its objection to the employment of Buckley during an attempt to settle the case . Such an offer would be conditional upon acceptance of the full offer of settlement and there appears to have been no settlement reached. The withdrawal of objection must be unconditional. Local 468 told Buckley that if he procured a job as a line driver and got a letter from his employer to the Union so stating, it would take him in as a member, and Local 468 also contends that it assisted Buckley to secure a position as a line driver with another company but that Buckley had turned this job down. Buckley went to the employer named by Local 468 and inquired about a line driver's job. Buckley testified that he was told there was no opening for a line driver but that the employer needed a night supervisor . This was the kind of job which Buckley already had with another company; so he declined it. Local 468 offered only hearsay evidence that Buckley had turned down a job as a line driver; it did not call a representative of the employer who allegedly offered Buckley such a job . I credit Buckley's denial that he was offered a job as a line driver. I find, therefore, no evidence that would establish an earlier cutoff date for the obligation of Local 468 for backpay. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the entire record in the case , I recommend that: 1. System 99, as successor to Gilardy, Preston & Dore, doing business as Interlines Blankenship Motor Express, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discriminating against Dean K. Buckley or any other employee in regard to his hire or tenure of employment because he is not a member of Line Drivers Local 468, or of any other union, except to the extent that membership in a labor organization may be required as a condition of continued employment under the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement made as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (b) In any other like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. "Decker Truck Lines, 139 NLRB 65 at 68. 698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action, which, I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Dean K. Buckley immediate reinstatement to the list of casual drivers and offer him periodic employment as a casual line driver, giving him a fair opportunity to become a regular driver. (b) Jointly and severally with Respondent Line Drivers Local 468, make said Buckley whole for any loss he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination herein found by paying him a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as a line driver in the employ of Interlines or System 99 between August 2, 1967, and the date it lists him as a casual driver and offers him specific employment as a casual line driver on a schedule as described in the section entitled "The Remedy", above, less his net earnings elsewhere during said period, the said sum to be computed on a quarterly basis in accordance with the Board's customary practice," and to be paid with interest on said net sum at the rate of 6 percent per annum until paid." (c) Give said Buckley fair opportunity to become a regular line driver and make an unbiased appraisal when he applies for regular status. (d) Post at its dispatch office in Emeryville, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20 of the Board, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent Interlines (System 99) or its authorized agent, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to line-driver employees are customarily posted, and be maintained as posted for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, taking reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered, folded under, defaced, or covered by any other material. H. Line Drivers Local 468, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, its officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing, or attempting to cause, Interlines, its successor, System 99, or any other employer within its jurisdiction, to discriminate against Dean K. Buckley, or any other employee, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Notify Gilardy, Preston & Dore, doing business as Interlines Blankenship Motor Express and System 99, in writing, that it has no objection to the employment of Dean K. Buckley as a casual or as a regular line driver and that it will not cause or attempt to cause said employer to discriminate against said Buckley or any other employee because he is not a member of Local 468, except to the extent that membership may be required as a condition of employment under the terms of a "F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 "Isis Plumbing & Healing Co, 138 NLRB 716 "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " collective-bargaining agreement made as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (b) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Interlines (System 99), make whole said Buckley for any loss he may have suffered between August 2, 1967, and the date Local 468 unconditionally notifies said employer that it has no objection to the employment of said Buckley as either a casual or regular line driver, by paying him a sum of money equal to that which said Buckley would have earned during said period in said employer's employ absent the discrimination herein found to have been caused, less his net earnings elsewhere during said period, computing the said amount on a quarterly basis, said sum to be computed with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum in the same manner as required of said employer hereinabove. (c) Post at its meeting hall and dispatch office the notice attached hereto and marked "Appendix B." 2° Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20 of the Board, shall, after being duly signed by its authorized officer or representative, be posted in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted and be maintained as posted for 60 consecutive days thereafter, taking reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered, folded under, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Furnish signed copies of said notice to the said Regional Director for posting (System 99 being willing) at the places where notices of System 99 to its employees are posted. III. Each Respondent shall notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date hereof of, what steps each has taken to comply herewith." "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT encourage or discourage membership in Line Drivers Local 468, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America or in any other labor organization by discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of any employee. WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization to form , join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to SYSTEM 99 D/B/A INTERLINES BLANKENSHIP MOTOR EXPRESS refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiting membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL reinstate Dean K. Buckley to the list of casual line drivers, will offer him periodic work as such, and will give him an opportunity to qualify as a regular line driver. WE WILL also make said Buckley whole for any loss he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him by paying him a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned in our employ absent the discrimination. SYSTEM 99 (FORMERLY GILARDY, PRESTON & DORE ) D/B/A INTERLINES BLANKENSHIP MOTOR EXPRESS (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San Francisco, California, Telephone 556-0335 APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in 699 order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause System 99, formerly Gilardy, Preston & Dore, doing business as Interlines Blankenship Motor Express, or any other employer in our jurisdiction, to discriminate against Dean K. Buckley or any other employee because he is not a member of this local except to the extent that membership in a labor organization may be a condition of continued employment by the terms of a contract made as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of said Act. WE WILL, jointly and severally with Stem 99, make said Buckley whole for any loss he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination caused. Dated By LINE DRIVERS LOCAL No. 468, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA (Labor Organization) (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, -San Francisco, California, Telephone 556-0335.