Hochstetler & Sons, Inc.

HOCHSTETLER & SONS Hochstetler & Sons, Inc and Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local Union 414 , a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America . Case 25-CA-7128 May 24, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND WALTHER On December 2, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Ivar H Peterson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge only to the extent consistent herewith Respondent is engaged in the business of storing and transporting grain, fertilizer, and gravel by truck It employs 12 drivers, of whom 6 are over-the-road drivers making long-distance hauls, and 6 are yard- men who make local deliveries and pickups The present proceeding involves only the over-the-road drivers On March 7, 1975,2 the six over-the-road drivers signed authorization cards on behalf of the Union On March 10, the Union wrote Respondent request- ing recognition On March 13, the Union filed a rep- resentation petition with the Board requesting an election in a unit of over-the-road drivers On May 30, an election was held which the Union won On June 19, it was certified as bargaining representative of the unit employees We find that Respondent interfered with, coerced, and restrained employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) by the following conduct engaged in after re- ceiving the Union's request for recognition ' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products Inc 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings 2 All dates mentioned hereinafter are in 1975 39 I On March 15, Respondent's president, Hoch- stetler, held a meeting in which he told the drivers, in substance, that he was thinking of turning Respondent's hauling business over to owner-opera- tors thereby eliminating any need for the services of the drivers In the context of the commenced union activity and subsequent unlawful conduct, we find that this statement constituted a threat of reprisal 2 On March 22, Hochstetler held another meeting with the drivers at which he "asked them what I had done wrong that they want someone else for their boss " He also suggested to the drivers that they join the Union individually, but apparently make no de- mand upon Respondent 3 On May 28, two days before the election, Re- spondent held a meeting of the drivers which was addressed by Ray Blankenship, its attorney Accord- ing to the credited testimony, Blankenship told the drivers what would happen if the Union got in and how much more it would cost the Respondent He further stated that in the past Respondent had made work for the employees, but if theyjoined the Union there "would be no work made for us, but they would protect the yard help " We further find that by the following conduct Re- spondent discriminated against employees in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) 1 Over-the-road drivers were customarily paid a bonus if they kept their trucks serviced properly and kept proper records of their hauls According to the credited testimony of employee Cripe, this bonus was withheld from the drivers for the week ending March 22, following the Union's organizing activity No ex- planation for this action suggests itself except that it was taken in retaliation for the employees' union ac- tivity 2 Prior to the election, it was customary for the drivers to service their own trucks, thereby increasing their earnings On election day, May 30, Hochstetler refused to allow employee Cripe to service his truck saying, "No, you guys are damn union now You ain't going to service your trucks no more " Thereaf- ter, the yard help serviced the trucks When Cripe asked Hochstetler why he was not allowed to service his truck, Hochstetler replied, "You guys are going to pay for it You brought it on yourself " 3 After the election, the over-the-road drivers re- ceived fewer long-distance hauling assignments so that their earnings dropped substantially Mean- while, the yardmen were assigned long-distance hauls Thus, the nonunion yardmen benefited at the expense of the unionized over-the-road drivers The Administrative Law Judge rejected the economic de- fense of Respondent and found that the drop in earnings of the over-the-road drivers was the result of 224 NLRB No 7 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD retaliation directed at them because of their organiz- ing activities We agree 3 AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 3 of the Administrative Law Judge "3 By taking away the over-the-road drivers' earned bonuses for the week of March 22, 1975, by refusing to allow its drivers to perform service work on vehicles driven by them, and by curtailing the assignments of over-the-road drivers to long-distance hauls, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act " THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent has en- gaged in unfair labor practices, it will be ordered that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir- mative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Inasmuch as it has been found that the Respon- dent discriminatorily deprived its over-the-road driv- ers of long-distance runs and earned bonuses, we shall order that they be offered such assignments and bonuses on a nondiscriminatory basis and, in addi- tion, be made whole for any loss of wages and bonus- es suffered by reason of the Respondent's unlawful conduct in accordance with the Board's formula set forth in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Hochstetler & Sons, Inc, Topeka, Indiana, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Making threats to its over-the-road drivers and questioning them concerning their activities on be- half of the Union, Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Help- ers Local Union 414, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America (b) Discriminating against any of its over-the-road drivers in the assignment of long-distance hauls, in the payment to them of earned bonuses, in the per- formance of service work on vehicles driven by them, or in any other manner with regard to any term or condition of employment (c) In any other manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer its over-the-road drivers long-distance hauls and earned bonuses on a nondiscriminatory basis (b) Make its over-the-road drivers whole for any loss of earnings and bonuses they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's unlawful discrimination against them in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy " (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Order (d) Post at its offices and place of business in Topeka, Indiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix " 4 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre- sentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re- ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecu- tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here- with IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein 3 The complaint alleges that on or about April 1 and 2 Respondent pro- vided driver John Troyer with less employment than he normally would have received because of his union activity in violation of Sec 8(a)(3) Troy- er did not testify The only testimony as to Troyer was offered by Hochstet- ler who denied that any discrimination had been practiced against Troyer The General Counsel apparently argued that Respondent was required to prove by its business records that Troyer was not discriminated against The Administrative Law Judge , through inadvertence, failed to make any find- ing as to whether Respondent had discriminated against Troyer We shall dismiss this allegation of the complaint The General Counsel has the bur- den of proving a prima facie case of discrimination, but has not done so here The mere allegation of a violation is not proof and cannot serve to shift the burden to a respondent to introduce any evidence 4In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " HOCHSTETLER & SONS 41 APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT make threats to and question our over-the-road drivers concerning their activ- ities on behalf of the Union WE WILL NOT discriminate against any of our over-the-road drivers in the assignment of long- distance hauls, the payment of earned bonuses, and the servicing of trucks or otherwise discrimi- nate against any employee because of member- ship in or activity on behalf of Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local Union 414, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or for engaging in protected union activity or exercising rights guaranteed by the National La- bor Relations Act WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec- tion 7 of the Act WE WILL offer our over-the-road drivers long- haul assignments, earned bonuses and truck ser- vicing on a nondiscriminatory basis and WE WILL make them whole for any wages and earned bonuses lost as a result of our discrimi- nation against them HOCHSTETLER & SONS, INC DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE reprisals if they became union members or gave the Union any assistance, on or about May 28, threatened employees with less hours of employment, discharge, or other reprisals on account of their union membership or assistance to the Union, commencing on or about May 30, provided its over-the-road drivers with less employment than they nor- mally would have received and refused to allow employees to perform service work on Respondent's trucks and changed the locks on the doors in order to prevent employ- ees from performing such work, and, on or about April 1 and 2, provided employee John Troyer with less employ- ment than he normally would have received By the fore- going conduct, the complaint alleged that the Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce with- in the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act In its answer, dated July 21, the Respondent admitted the jurisdictional allegations as well as the status of the Union as a labor organization, but denied thai it had engaged in any unfair labor practices Upon the entire record in the case, including consider- ation of the briefs filed with me by counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent on November 5, and my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT i JURISDICTION The Respondent, an Indiana corporation, has at all ma- terial times maintained its principal office and place of business in Topeka, Indiana, where it is engaged in storing and the interstate transportation by motor vehicle of grain, fertilizer, and gravel, and the custom application of fertiliz- er It is admitted and I find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and comes within the Board's jurisdictional stan- dards It is further admitted that the Union is a labor orga- nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES IVAR H PETERSON, Administrative Law Judge The hear- ing in this case was held in Kendallville and Fort Wayne, Indiana, on September 22 and 30 and October 1, 1975, based on the complaint issued by the Acting Regional Di- rector for Region 25 on July 16, which in turn was based on the charge filed on June 6 by Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local Union 414, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union Briefly stated, the complaint alleged that since on or about De- cember 7, 1974, the Respondent, Hochstetler & Sons, Inc, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees by questioning them concerning their own and other employ- ees' union membership, activities, and desires by William Hochstetler, president of the Respondent, warning its em- ployees that it would close its facility if they did not refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union or giv- ing it any assistance or support, on various dates threat- ened its employees with subcontracting, discharge, or other A Introduction Early in March, Richard Cripe, one of Respondent's truckdrivers, went to the Union's hall in Fort Wayne and secured a supply of authorization cards On March 7, Cripe and five other drivers signed authorization cards which Cripe took to the union hall and gave to Business Agent Robert Warnock Sometime between March 10 and 16, President Hochstetler received a letter from the Union re- questing that it be recognized as the bargaining agent for the truckdrivers Within a week, Hochstetler had a meeting with the six drivers who had signed cards Of the total of 12 drivers, the 6 with whom he met were the men who ran long hauls and who were paid on a percentage basis On March 13, the Union filed a petition requesting that it be designated as the exclusive representative of the truck- drivers On March 22, Hochstetler met with the six driv- ers, after receiving the Union's letter, and, as he testified, "asked them what I had done wrong that they want some- 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD one else for their boss " On April 25, the Regional Director directed an election in a unit consisting of all over-the-road drivers employed at the Topeka facility, excluding all other employees and supervisors Out of approximately 25 eligi- ble voters, 5 votes were cast for the Union and none against, while 11 ballots were challenged Upon investiga- tion, the Regional Director concluded that nine challenged voters were ineligible and that the remaining two chal- lenges were not determinative and thus found it unneces- sary to pass on their eligibility Accordingly, he certified the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit on June 19 The Regional Director, in his decision, noted that the drivers operate runs lasting between 6 to 10 hours and cover up to 250 miles in dis- tance, and that 6 of the yardmen performed an unspecified amount of local pickup and delivery driving generally within a radius of 25 to 50 miles of the plant As stated above, the Union, on June 19, was certified as the exclusive representative of the drivers B Changes in Working Conditions Union Representative Warnock telephoned Hochstetler during the last week in March or the first week in April, and testified that he had received phone calls from Cripe, Troyer, and Hollar to the effect that Hochstetler had threatened to bring in brokers and get rid of the trucks On cross-examination, Hochstetler admitted that he had met with the six drivers and had told them that he was consid- ering going owner-operator Warnock stated that Cripe told him that one truck had been picked up in the yard and repossessed, a fact which Cnpe also related Warnock also stated that the drivers told him that Hochstetler had said that he was going to take away their bonus and that it was costing him $2,000 to $3,000 to beat the Union and that that sum was going to come out of the drivers' checks and he did not need them and that he would replace them Hochstetler testified that, at one of the meetings, he told the drivers they were not supposed to get the bonus when they did not do things right He also acknowledged that a truck had been pulled out of his yard because the engine needed to be repaired, but denied that the truck was repos- sessed or that he had so informed Cripe He admitted that the drivers had been told that they weren't supposed to get the bonus when they did not do things right but that they were, nonetheless, paid the bonus He denied that he made the statement that the money to fight the Union was com- ing out of the employees' pockets in the event the Union came in He further denied having made the statement at- tributed to him by Cripe to the effect that he would replace the drivers either with brokers or owner-operators, or that he would not "have a bunch of dumb union truckdrivers in here " Hochstetler testified that at one of the meetings with the drivers before March 1 they were told that "they wasn't supposed to get the bonus when they didn't do things right," but that, nevertheless, "we was good-hearted and give it to them anyways just trying to get them to do the right thing " On the other hand, Cripe answered, on cross-examination, when asked by Respondent's counsel whether "bonuses were not taken away for more than a week" "one week" and, on redirect, stated that that was the week of March 22 In view of Respondent counsel's ques- tion to Cnpe, and since no business records were submit- ted, I credit Cripe Warnock testified that, in speaking to Hochstetler, he endeavored to assure Hochstetler that he and the Union could work together He related that Hochstetler said, "I'm not going to have some Union goon telling me how to run my business," and that "a bunch of dumb truckdrivers aren't going to tell me how to run this operation It's my business " Further, Warnock related that Hochstetler said he was not going to talk to him without a lawyer present and then hung up Hochstetler denied that he said any- thing to the effect that he was going to fight the Union and keep it out of his business Hochstetler testified that at the July 15 meeting with the drivers, which was also attended by Respondent's representative Blankenship, Cripe "said if we put any local yard drivers on the truck at Yoder Ready Mix that they wouldn't come back," and that Warnock said, "Now, calm it Let's keep this under control " Ac- cording to Hochstetler, at a meeting with the drivers on March 15 he told them that he was thinking of going into the owner-operator business Paragraph 6(d) of the complaint alleged that on or about April 1 and 2 the Respondent "provided its employee John Troyer with less employment than he normally would have received " Troyer was not called as a witness and, so far as I can ascertain, the only testimony concerning him was given by Hochstetler who stated that he was lowest in se- mority and had the oldest truck which had a motor prob- lem, and was also off on occasion These circumstances, so Hochstetler testified, accounted for the fact that Troyer had fewer trips than the other drivers A compilation of his earnings was placed in the record and this document con- tained the statement that Troyer "was one hundred percent honest, always kept perfect records as required, tried hard- er than any other driver to do a good job, and he was always clean " Counsel for the General Counsel, in her brief, argues that the Respondent deprived Troyer of mak- ing a run on or about April 1 and 2 and contends that the Respondent's "denial of such action is insufficient since the best evidence of the run is the daily log sheets of the drivers, which the Respondent failed to put in evidence" and, inasmuch as I sustained her objection to Hochstetler's "conclusionary oral denial of refusing to run Troyer on April 1 and 2, 1975," her contention is that the Respondent "has failed to rebut the allegation that it refused to run Troyer because of his union activity " Thus, she argues that the Respondent, by "refusing to give him job assignments" retaliated against him for his union activities, thereby vio- lating Section 8(a)(3) of the Act On Wednesday, May 28, 2 days before the election, Hochstetler called a meeting of the employees at the home of Elizabeth Hochstetler, his mother and the Respondent's secretary-treasurer Hochstetler introduced Ray Blanken- ship as his representative and the latter spoke to employees about their rights in connection with the election Accord- ing to Cripe, Blankenship "told us what would happen if we got the Union and how much more it would cost the corporation if we got the Union," and, further, stated that in the past Hochstetler had made work for the employees HOCHSTETLER & SONS 43 and that, in the event they joined the Union, there "would be no work made for us, but they would protect the yard help." He further related that Blankenship "said that if we did get the Union in we was going to have to live with it." Blankenship was in attendance at the hearing but neither he nor any other witness produced by the Respondent de- nied that he made the foregoing statements. In conse- quence, counsel for the General Counsel argues that "these statements must be taken to be admitted" and that the testimony of Cripe and another employee witness, Keith Hollar, to the same effect, stands uncontradicted and, in consequence, "the threat to employees constitutes still an- other violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act." Prior to the election, it had been customary for the driv- ers to service their trucks. On the day of the election Cripe told Hochstetler, or his brother James, an official of the Respondent, that his truck was due for service and he was told that he should service it after he was through voting. However, he was not allowed to do so as the Respondent's representative "came out and pulled the keys." Cripe spoke to Respondent Hochstetler on the intercom, asking wheth- er it would be all right to service his truck. Hochstetler answered, "No, you guys are damn union now. You ain't going to service your trucks no more." Thereafter, the yard help, so Cripe testified, serviced the trucks. Cripe also stat- ed that he asked Respondent Hochstetler why he was not allowed to service his truck and received the following re- ply: "You guys are going to pay for it. You brought it on yourself." Hochstetler testified that before May the mechanics and "once in a while" a driver serviced the trucks but that after May 30 mechanics serviced the trucks and drivers did so only if a mechanic was not on duty. Hochstetler also ad- mitted that he changed the locks on the garage door and that thereafter the drivers could not service the trucks un- less he or his brother "opened the gates" on which he had changed the locks. Thereafter, the mechanic, Tony Andrea, serviced the trucks. Hochstetler admitted that he changed the locks in order to keep the drivers out, as they had keys to the lock that had been on the door theretofore. Andrea and Hochstetler testified that parts had been taken without permission from the parts cage in the garage area and that the decision to change the locks was made in October 1974. The record shows that parts had been missing since 1965. Counsel for the General Counsel points out that the change Hochstetler made in October consisted of putting a lock on the parts cage and not on the garage area in which the drivers serviced their trucks, and that changing the lock on the garage door was not an economic measure but caused by the Union. Counsel for the General Counsel contends that in doing this Hochstetler "had altered the condition of employment of his drivers, and thereby violat- ed Section 8(a)(3) of the Act." It is contended by the Government that the Respondent's "ultimate retaliatory move" against the em- ployees occurred after the May 30 election. In support, counsel points out that the week after the election Cripe worked only 1 day, his truck remaining in the yard. Hollar was called in from running a load by James Hochstetler for the reason that Hollar was using Cripe's tractor. The fact is that it had been common practice for the drivers to change equipment in the past. Following the election, the drivers obtained fewer job assignments and, in consequence, their earnings were less. Customarily Cripe drove over 1,000 miles a week and had been earning a gross of $200 each week before the election. After the election he drove 400 to 500 miles a week and at best grossed $85 a week. Feight- ner, before the election, made five to six trips to Toledo and netted $170 a week but, after the election, he netted $25. Hollar's earnings dropped to between $44 and $75 a week. The other drivers experienced similar losses in earn- ings. Although Hochstetler claimed that business was slow, this seems not to be the case, inasmuch as grain was being hauled over long distances by the yardmen. Thus, John Galloway took a load to Long Jack, Michigan, and Ro- mayne Bender went to Anderson, Ohio. Hollar, as the Union's steward, kept records of each long-distance run. Although the Respondent submitted a table comparing the gross pay of the drivers and yardmen for the first 6 months of 1974 and 1975, this seems not particularly significant since the allegation concerning loss of runs dates from May. Thus, the figures produced by the Respondent are not particularly relevant to the period in which the alleged discrimination occurred. It is contended by the Respondent that truckdrivers made short hauls for May and thereafter and worked as much as the yard help. The Respondent pays the short- haul drivers by the hour, while the long-distance drivers are paid a percentage of the load. It follows, therefore, that they received more pay when longer distances were driven. The record demonstrates that the high-paying load hauls went to the yardmen after May 30. Counsel for the General Counsel, pointing to the testimony of drivers as to their loss of earnings after May 30, which they attributed to their union activities, asserts that the Respondent "has failed to give any credible explanation as to why such losses oc- curred," and that, in the absence of any plausible explana- tion, "the Respondent has failed to rebut the testimony of the drivers which consequently must be deemed true." Thus, she asserts, Hochstetler ' kept his promise, he was protecting his yardmen, and striking out at the over-the- road drivers," employees "who brought the Union in." In consequence, she concludes that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. C. Concluding Findings In my opinion, the record in this case amply demon- strates that the Respondent made threats to and ques- tioned its over-the-road truckdrivers because of their activ- ities on behalf of the Union. Moreover, the locking of the garage door, the refusal to allow the drivers to service their trucks, and the denial of long-distance hauls to the drivers constitute conduct of a discriminatory nature and, in my view, is a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. In sum, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by the conduct detailed above. Before coming to this conclusion I have considered the contentions made by counsel for the Respondent in his brief, to the effect that "careful analysis of all the testimo- ny and after considering it with all its reasonable inferenc- 44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD es, the Government has failed to make a prima facie case here " In this regard, he asserts that the earnings of the drivers, as reflected by the payroll records, do not indicate "any reprisals such as taking trips or work away from the drivers", moreover, he points out that the Respondent "has the same number of trucks, employees, and destinations driven to," in spite of the fact that there was a substantial decrease in the amount of grain in 1974 as against 1973, a decrease from 282,600 bushels as against 96,940 He there- fore argues that the Respondent "made work for his men to enable them to take home a paycheck " However, the records of the Respondent demonstrate that on the whole the yardmen benefited at the expense of the truckdrivers, who had been active in support of the Union Counsel fur- ther contends that the method of truck maintenance was changed in September 1974, not on the following May 30, "as alleged by the hiring of Tony Andrea due to thefts and improper maintenance and the reduction of expenses of maintenance " But the fact is that thefts had occurred since 1965, and, after the change, the drivers had to secure per- mission to service their trucks, in contrast to the situation prevailing for years prior to the election III THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- fic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW the Act and Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local Union 414, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 2 By making threats to and questioning its over-the- road drivers concerning their activities in behalf of the Union, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 3 By locking the door to its garage, thereby refusing to allow and depriving its drivers from performing service work on vehicles driven by them, and refusing to assign or curtailing the assignments of over-the-road drivers to long- distance hauls, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act 4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac- tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Inasmuch as it has been found that the Respondent dis- criminatorily deprived its over-the-road drivers, named above, of long-distance runs, it will be recommended that they be offered such assignments on a nondiscriminatory basis and, in addition, be made whole for any loss of wages suffered by reason of the Respondent's unlawful conduct, in accordance with the Board's formula set forth in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) [Recommended Order omitted from publication I 1 Hochstetler & Sons, Inc, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of