Safety Tank Lines, Inc.

144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Safety Tank Lines, Inc and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No 22 affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America Cases 5-CA-7455 and 5-RC-9430 May 26, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On April 29, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Pla- tonia P Kirkwood issued the attached Decision in this proceeding Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex- ceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering briefs to the Respondent's excep- tions 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 has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu- sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt her recommended Order ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Safety Tank Lines, Inc, Danville, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Case 5-RC-9430 be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for Region 5 for further proceedings consistent with the recommendations of the Administrative Law Judge i 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 her findings DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PLATONIA P KIRKWOOD, Administrative Law Judge These consolidated cases were heard in Danville, Virginia, on November 18, 1975 1 In the unfair labor practice case, the complaint, dated October 21, was based upon charges filed by the Union, Charging Party herein, on August 11 It alleges, and Respondent's answer denies, that Respondent committed certain conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, and discriminatorily discharged two employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act In the representation case, initiated by a petition in Case 5-RC-9430 filed by the Union on August 7, objections to an election conducted October 10 and the challenges to two ballots which affect the election results 2 were found by the Regional Director for Region 5 to raise issues of fact and law parallel to those presented by the complaint and requiring the conduct of a hearing The Re- gional Director for Region 5 accordingly consolidated both cases for purposes of hearing, ruling, and disposition by an Administrative Law Judge Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed with me by General Counsel, Respondent, and the Charging Party, I make the following FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I JURISDICTION Respondent, a Virginia corporation, with its principal place of business in Danville, Virginia, is engaged in the interstate and intrastate transportation and delivery of gas- oline and other petroleum products During the preceding 12 months, a representative period, Respondent received gross revenues in excess of $50,000 from these operations Although Respondent disputes the Board's jurisdiction, I find, contrary to its position, that it is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act and that its oper- ations are of sufficient magnitude to warrant the Board's assertion of its jurisdiction See HPO Service Co, Inc, 122 NLRB 394 (1958) II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Lo- cal Union No 22, affiliated with International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act i Unless otherwise mentioned all dates in this Decision will be for the year 1975 2 The record shows that all eligible voters-I I in number-cast ballots in the election that 9 of these II ballots have been opened that the 2 ballots cast by Farthing and Skiles the alleged discnmmatees in the complaint case remain in a challenged ballot status and that of the 9 voters whose ballots had been counted 5 voted against and 4 voted for the Union 224 NLRB No 31 SAFETY TANK LINES 145 III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Statement of the Violation Issues, the Supervisory Status of Individuals named as Respondent's Agents by the Complaint The complaint asserts, and Respondent's answer denies, that Respondent (a) interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with plant shutdown or plant relocation in the event the Union was selected as the employees' representative, and (b) discriminated within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act against two employees-Larry Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles-when it discharged them on August 8 The complaint attributes the alleged unlawful conduct to two individuals named as Respondent's agents therein Charles Taylor, vice presi- dent of Respondent and general manager of Respondent's Danville, Virginia, terminal, and Clara Gravely, the dis- patcher at the Danville terminal Respondent's answer ad- mits the supervisory status of Taylor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, but denies the supervisory status of Clara Gravely The record evidence bearing on the issue of Gravely's status as a supervisor shows that she has no authority to hire, fire, or establish the wage rates of any employees That authority is vested solely in Taylor Taylor, however, is required to divide his time between two other locations, is frequently "on the road," and does not get to the termi- nal at all for several days during each month In Taylor's absence, Gravely alone mans the terminal office and at such times she possesses and exercises the authority to make trip assignments 3 to employees, to approve or deny requests for time off, and otherwise to conduct the day-to- day business of the terminal She also regularly cosigns payroll checks, and has authority to sign truck leases and give out credit cards to the drivers From all of the above, I find that Gravely actively super- vises and directs the work of employees and does so in a manner requiring independent judgment at least for the substantial periods of time during which Taylor is absent from the terminal I therefore conclude, contrary to Respondent's contention, that Gravely is a supervisor with- in the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act 4 B The Union's Advent Organizational activity among the Respondent's previ- ously unorganized employees at the Danville, Virginia, ter- minal was initiated in July 1975 by two of Respondent's truckdrivers, Larry Farthing and Larry Dodson Farthing and Dodson discussed the idea with the remaining five drivers and obtained a consensus from all of them that the Union should be contacted On August 2, an initial organi- 3 The pay which drivers receive depends upon the mileage covered by their driving assignments 4 Compare the responsibilities of dispatchers found to be supervisory by the Board in Consolidated Freight Ways Corporation of Delaware, 196 NLRB 807, 809 (1972) And see also the portion of the Board s decision in Board Ford, Inc, 222 NLRB 922 (1976), dealing with the supervisory or manageri al status of dispatcher Mitchell zational union meeting was held and attended by six of seven drivers Joseph Webb, the union business agent con- ducting the meeting, obtained signed authorization cards from all six of the drivers who attended the meeting The seventh driver signed a card that same night on the solicita- tion of Bobby Joe Skiles and Larry Dodson By letters dated August 4, the Union notified the Re- spondent that it was in the process of organizing the em- ployees, that a majority of the truckdrivers had signed union authorization cards, and that a representation peti- tion was being filed with the National Labor Relations Board Respondent admittedly received these letters on August 6 On August 7, the Union filed a petition in Case 5-RC- 9430, and, in accord with normal practice, notice of that petition was sent to Respondent on that date by the Board's Regional Office C The Alleged Independent 8(a)(1) Conduct On the morning of August 8, General Manager Taylor discharged the two drivers named as discriminatees in the complaint On the same day, Taylor discussed with each of the remaining drivers, in private conferences he held with each in his office, Respondent's opposition to the Union It is conceded that he referred to written notes he had before him and told each of the employees why he believed they should not select the Union as their representative General Counsel claims, however, that in the course of these confer- ences Taylor threatened one or more of the drivers with closure of the Danville terminal and its relocation to Mar- tinsville, and that Gravely later made a similar threat With respect to what was said by Taylor at the confer- ences of August 8, four of the drivers with whom Taylor conferred at the time were called by General Counsels They mutually testified that Taylor described the Union as having connections with "organized crime", that members of the organized crime group would spend the Union's dues for their own illicit purposes However, Darrell Van Dillion, one of the drivers, testified that, in addition, Tay- lor told him that if the Union were selected the Respon- dent was prepared to close its Danville terminal and to move it to a site owned by the Respondent at Martinsville, Virginia, a city located about 25 or 30 miles away With respect to the alleged unlawful threat by Gravely, Kenneth Scearce, one of the drivers that Respondent em- ployed at times here relevant,6 testified that about a week after the Taylor conferences supra, Gravely, in a discussion with him about the Union, told him that Taylor had said "he might have to move the operation to Martinsville if the Union were to come in " Respondent called Taylor and Gravely in rebuttal Gravely, who testified before Taylor, reported that "one day" when Scearce and another former driver of Respon- dent named Meadows visited her in her office, one of them asked her whether "Mr Taylor was going to move the busi- s Darrell Van Dillion, Kenneth Scearce, Larry Dodson, and George Sex ton Dodson and Scearce had voluntarily quit their jobs as of the date they testified 6 Scearce had terminated his employment with Respondent before testify- ing at the hearing 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ness to Martinsville", and that she responded "Well it was a possibility that he might, some time, that the Company owned land in Martinsville, and the people that owned it also lived in Martinsville " She claimed no recollection that any mention of the Union was made at that time Further, in response to a question put to her by Respondent's coun- sel as to whether she had ever told any member of the work force that if the Union came in the terminal would be moved, she answered "no " Gravely also testified that Re- spondent owns a terminal site in Martinsville and that the site on which the Danville terminal is now located is leased on a year-to-year basis, with the terms of the lease being negotiated annually towards the end of November Taylor, in his testimony, denied making any threats to any employee He affirmed Gravely's report concerning the ownership of property in Martinsville and the facts concerning Respondent's year-to-year lease arrangements He further testified that Respondent's board of directors had given consideration to moving the terminal to Martins- ville at some future date and had indicated it would do so if at any time the lease arrangement at Danville were can- celed or could not favorably be renegotiated With specific reference to his August 8 conferences with the drivers, Taylor testified that, upon receipt of the Union's August 4 letters, he consulted with Respondent's counsel and with the latter's assistance prepared certain written remarks he later read to the employees at private conferences Admittedly, these remarks explained Respondent's opposition to the Union and mentioned, in- ter aka, the Union's connections with organized crime I But, according to Taylor, the written remarks did not in any way refer to the Respondent's Martinsville site or to the possibility that the Danville terminal might be relocat- ed to the site any time, and he made no remarks apart from those contained in the material which counsel had assisted him in preparing 8 I do not credit the testimony of Taylor and Gravely where it conflicts with that of Dlllion and Scearce, supra Both of the latter witnesses impressed me, while testifying, as making a sincere effort to give a fair and impartial ac- count of what was said to them by the Respondent's agents at times here relevant, and their testimony on the subject was not only mutually consistent and inherently plausible but was lent corroborative strength, it seems to me, by (a) Gravely's admission that relocation of the terminal by Tay- lor was in fact discussed by her with employees at this important point in the union organizational campaign, and (b) Taylor's admission that he knew that the subject of terminal relocation had been under discussion by the Respondent's board of directors Conclusions as to the Alleged 8(a)(l) Violations Based on the evidence I find credible here, I am con- 7 In October and just before the election he sent the employees a letter urging them not to vote for the Union and setting forth certain reasons why they should not do so This letter (Resp Exh 1) is the subject of one of the objections to the election which the Union filed Respondent did not adduce the written material to which Taylor re- ferred in talking to the employees on August 8 vinced and find that, in seeking to persuade employees to disavow and reject the Union, Taylor deliberately used the known fact that the Respondent had a Martinsville locale suitable for a terminal so as to communicate to the em- ployees the idea that Respondent not only could, but would, move the Danville terminal to Martinsville if the Union were selected as the employee representative I fur- ther find that Gravely later conveyed the same idea to em- ployees Therefore, and in accord with relevant Board precedent, I further conclude and find that by these im- plied threats of relocation Respondent unlawfully inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights and thereby violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint 9 D The Facts Bearing on the Alleged Discriminatory Discharge of Farthing and Skiles Taylor discharged Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles, the two senior drivers in Respondent's employ at times here material, on the morning of August 8-the same day on which he conducted with other of the drivers then em- ployed by the Respondent the private antiunion discus- sions earlier described in this Decision It is undisputed that, in the respective termination interviews Taylor con- ducted with each of the men, Taylor told each that he had followed them on the prior day while driving company trucks on the highway between Martinsville and Danville and had observed that both had been operating their trucks in a reckless and dangerous manner and that he was discharging them for that reason He specified that he saw them tailgating and passing each other while operating their respective trucks at speeds in excess of 60 to 65 miles per hour Both Farthing and Skiles told Taylor his accusa- tions were untrue, and both indicated they believed that he was discharging them for Union related causes The ques- tion presented by the complaint is whether the reasons giv- en by Taylor were pretextual and the true reason was in fact union related and hence discriminatory In support of the complaint' s allegations of discrimina- tion, General Counsel relied, in part, on the testimony of Farthing and Skiles respectively denying the dangerous driving performance attributed to them, and describing what happened on August 7, on the day that Taylor had allegedly observed them as follows Both of them testified that after they had completed their deliveries on August 7 they had met by happenstance at the location of a customer-Davis Oil Company-near Martinsville and had driven each of their trucks the 25 to 30 miles to that terminal, one behind the other, with Skiles ahead of Farthing Both maintained that Farthing's truck was never closer than 200 feet behind that of Skiles, that they did not exceed 60 miles per hour, and that, although they passed some passenger cars during this trip, including a police car, they never passed each other When they returned to the Respondent's Danville termi- nal both saw Taylor drive in to the terminal in a company 9 See for example Glasgow Industries Inc 204 NLRB 625 627 (1973) and compare Roselyn Bakeries Inc 192 NLRB 1165 (1972), and the opin- ion of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, enforcing the Board s order in the latter case at 471 F 2d 165 (1972) SAFETY TANK LINES 147 truck about 5 or 10 minutes behind them Taylor parked his truck and proceeded to go towards the office and both men greeted Taylor at the time Taylor made no response to Farthing's greeting, but he did respond to Skiles with a "Hi " The two men then logged in, made their work re- ports, and asked Gravely about the next scheduled trips Gravely told them she had no scheduled trips to then as- sign them to for the following day, but that she would put them on standby status Both then went home Both re- turned to the terminal the morning of the following day to report for standby call Shortly after their arrival, each was summoned by Taylor to the office and discharged for the asserted reasons earlier noted Testifying in rebuttal, Taylor reported that, on the morn- ing of August 7, while he was about 5 miles outside of Martinsville and on his way back to Danville, he observed two trucks far down on the highway, wondered if one or both of them belonged to Safety Tank He was then travel- ing about 55 miles per hour, but proceeded to go faster to see if he could get close enough to identify the trucks, but could not get closer than a quarter of a mile from the vehi- cles despite speeding up to between 65 to 70 miles per hour Nonetheless, he was able to tell that the two trucks were in fact company trucks, and he followed them for a distance of about 20 miles to the terminal During this period he saw one of the two trucks following each other about 50 feet apart, and observed one pass the other at one time but he wasn't close enough to see which of the two trucks had done this He considered the actions he had observed to be extremely dangerous because, in the event of a collision, the two trucks were likely to explode, and the attendant loss to the Company would involve not only the replace- ment of vehicles worth $60,000 a piece but also the possi- bility of personal injury suits by members of the public He therefore decided that the drivers should be fired, and al- though he found out who they were on returning to the terminal, he did not mention his decision to them at that time because he was "too upset" to do so, but waited until the next day 10 He expressly denied that the union activity had anything to do with his decision to fire the men n E Discussion and Analysis of the Evidence Bearing on the Discharge of Farthing and Skiles The issue raised by the discharge of Farthing and Skiles presents, as a threshold matter, a credibility question posed by the conflicts between the testimony of Farthing and Skiles, on the one hand, and that of Taylor, on the other, 10I quote his testimony on this point I believe they were about the two oldest men I had and they know the danger in our work, and to see those two fellows which I had all the confidence in the world in, commit an act like that on the highway, which in my terms is like a loaded gun, to do that, I was so upset I was afraid to talk to them the morning it happened So I thought about it that afternoon and that night and I decided the next morning that I should terminate those people if they were going to drive my equipment like that Taylor admitted that, in light of the Union s letter of August 4 he believed that all seven of his drivers had joined the Union But he testified had he been interested in effecting a discharge for union reasons he would have picked the two youngest men he had and not the two oldest about the critical events of August 7 Based in part on my impressions of the witnesses while they were giving their testimony and in part on other reasons explicated below, I have concluded that, where in conflict, the testimony of Farthing and Skiles should be credited and that of Taylor rejected as unbelievable The account given by Farthing and Skiles as to their work performance on the day in question was mutually corroborative and not implausible The absence of any past record of serious violations and the admission of Tay- lor that both had enjoyed a reputation as capable drivers during their tenure as Respondent's employees lends cre- dence to their mutual disclaimer of (1) having committed any of the dangerous and reckless acts of tailgating or pass- ing each other of which Taylor accused them when he dis- charged them, and (2) having operated at a speed in excess of 60 miles per hour Moreover, my confidence that their testimony as a whole was reliable, was reinforced by the manner and content of their responses to questions about their overall work record Neither of them sought to por- tray himself as a model employee Each forthrightly admit- ted to flaws-Skiles, to having gotten a violation ticket for driving in excess of a 55-mile legal limit during the course of his employment, and Farthing, to tardy work-reporting habits for which he had been called to task and threatened with discharge if not corrected And both, in their testimo- ny credibly reported that, under normal conditions, they did not customarily adhere to the legal limit of 55 in driv- ing over the highways, and that they had not done so on the day here in question I find, accordingly, that Farthing and Skiles had not operated their trucks in the dangerous manner claimed by Taylor It is, of course, possible that even though Farthing and Skiles did not in fact engage in the dangerous and reckless driving actions attributed to them by Taylor, Taylor might have in truth gotten a different impression if, as he said, he had been following them But I have difficulty in believing the truth of Taylor's representations on the matters here in issue He was not an impressive witness and his testimony, as a whole, did not have the ring of truth I note, inter aha, that, although he admittedly saw the two drivers when he came in to the terminal on August 8, he made absolutely no comment indicating either that he had been following them, or was displeased in any way by them His silence at that point is difficult to understand if the events to which he testified had actually occurred Taking everything into account, and having resolved the credibility issue in favor of Farthing and Skiles, I find the reasons advanced by Respondent for discharging these two employees to be pretextual, 12 and I agree with General 12 Although I note that the employees were operating their vehicles at or about 60 miles per hour on the day in question and hence over the 55 mile per hour legal limit I also note that Respondent does not claim this type of offense of the legal limit as per se cause for discharge Indeed there is affirmative evidence of uncontradicted character that Respondent has not disciplined employees who have been ticketed for speeding violations de- spite knowledge of the ticketing I have also considered the fact that the two drivers were denied unem ployment compensation by the state agency involved on findings that Re spondent had valid cause for their discharge I do not know what evidence the state agency had before it But, in any event, it is my obligation to arrive at the decision of the issues here presented on the basis of my independent Continued 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Counsel that Taylor's decision to discharge these two em- ployees on August 8 can only be explained as being rooted in Respondent's opposition to the Union Both were known union adherents, and one-Farthing-shared with another employee the responsibility for initiating the Union's campaign The discharge was effected but 2 days after Respondent received a union letter advising it that all its drivers had joined the Union and that the Union there- fore claimed majority status Furthermore, the discharge action was taken on the same day that the Respondent committed other unlawful conduct in furtherance of its avowed desire to suppress the employees' continuation of prounion activity and to insure the defeat of the Union's campaign All of the circumstances, taken together with the Respondent's advancement of a pretextual reason for the discharge, clearly warrant the finding that Respondent was moved by unlawful considerations in discharging Far- thing and Skiles on August 8 It follows, and I conclude, that by discharging Farthing and Skiles, to further antiun- ion objectives, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act as alleged V THE REMEDY Respondent shall be required to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices here found, and, in light of the serious character of its unfair labor practices, to desist also from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act As affirmative action, Respondent shall be required to offer Larry Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles immediate rein- statement to their former jobs discharging, if necessary, any employees hired to fill their jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights, and to make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against them, with interest to be computed in the customary manner 14 Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommend- ed ORDER 15 IV DISPOSITION OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REPRESENTATION CASE The basic issues raised by the representation case are (1) whether the Company's challenge to the ballots cast by Farthing and Skiles in the election conducted on October 10 (both of which are determinative of the election results) should be overruled and the ballots hence opened and counted, and (2) whether, in the event the final results of the election indicate that the Union lost, the election should be set aside because of the Respondent's commis- sion of objectionable preelection conduct following the date (August 7) on which the petition was filed The sole basis in which the ballots of Farthing and Skiles were challenged was that they had been terminated on Au- gust 8 However, as their termination was unlawfully ef- fected, the challenges to their ballots must necessarily be overruled, and their ballots opened and counted I shall so recommend I shall also recommend that, in the event the revised tally of ballots indicates that the Union lost the election then the election should be set aside The conduct here found to be violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act was also alleged in some of the objections filed by the Union to be objectionable preelection conduct That part of its objec- tions should therefore be sustained 13 consideration of the evidence before me Compare N L R B v Tennessee Packers, Inc, Frosty Morn Division 339 F 2d 203 204 (CA 6 1964) N L R B v Pacific Intermountain Express Co, 228 F 2d 170 (C A 8) and Supreme Dyeing and Finishing Corporation 147 NLRB 1094 1095 In I (1964) 13 The union also presented and litigated in this case an additional objec- tion based on statements contained in a letter issued by the Respondent on October 2, in which it urged the employees not to vote for the Union As the conduct I have here found unlawful is in itself sufficient to warrant setting aside the election, I need not and do not dispose of the merits of this addi- tional objection I also reject the Union's request, in which the General Counsel did not join, that in the event the Union loses the election and it is set aside the Board should not direct the conduct of a new election but should rely on The Respondent, Safety Tank Lines, Inc, Danville, Vir- ginia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Threatening employees either impliedly or expressly that, in the event the Union is selected as the employees' representative at the Danville, Virginia, terminal, Respon- dent would shut down the Danville terminal and relocate its operations to Martinsville, Virginia (b) Discouraging membership in Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No 22, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization of its employees by discharging or in any other manner discriminating against employees with regard to hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities 2 Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer Larry Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles full rein- statement to their former jobs, discharging, if necessary, the cards as proof of majority and issue a bargaining order under the princi- ples enunciated in N L R B v Gissel Packing Co 395 U S 575 (1969) 1 deny the Union s request In so doing I note inter aha that nothing in the litigation of this case by the proponents of the complaint put Respondent on notice sufficient to permit its litigation of any questions it might wish to raise with respect to the validity of the cards as proof of the Union s status 14 F W Woolworth Company 90 NLRB 289 (1950) Isis Plumbing & Heating Co 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 15 In the event that no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board the find- ings conclusions and recommended Order herein shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and Order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes SAFETY TANK LINES any employees hired to fill such jobs, or if their jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights (b) Make whole Larry Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of their discharge, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy " (c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents, upon request, for examination and copying, all rec- ords necessary for the determination of the amount of backpay due and the right to employment (d) Post at its terminal at Danville, Virginia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix " 16 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, after being duly signed by Respondent's author- ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are custom- arily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon- dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proceedings in Case 5- RC-9430 be and they hereby are severed, transferred, and continued before the Board 16 In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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" APPENDIX 149 NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing in which all sides presented evidence, it has been found that we have violated the National Labor Rela- tions Act in certain respects To correct and remedy these violations, we have been directed to take certain actions and to post this notice WE WILL NOT threaten employees with the closure of the Danville, Virginia, terminal and its relocation to Martinsville, Virginia, because of union membership or activity WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No 22 affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organization of our employees, by discharging, or in any other manner discriminating against employees with regard to hire and tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities WE WILL offer Larry Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles full reinstatement to their former jobs, discharging if necessary any employees hired to fill their jobs, or if their jobs no longer exist,'to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights WE WILL make Larry Farthing and Bobby Joe Skiles whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against them All of our employees are free to become and remain members of the above-named Union or any other labor organization or to refrain from doing so SAFETY TANK LINES, INC