Spiegel Trucking Co.

178 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Spiegel Trucking Company and William J. Lucas and Spiegel Trucking Company Drivers Committee, Party to the Contract. Case 22-CA-6550 June 24, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On March 30, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Jennie M. Sarrica issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. 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 brief I and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge as modified below and to adopt her recommended Or- der, as also modified herein. Procedural Issues Prior to the opening of the hearing herein, Respon- dent filed motions seeking to take the depositions of the two alleged discriminatees, for a bill of particu- lars, and for a postponement of the hearing, all of which were denied. Such motions were renewed at the opening of the hearing and were again denied by the Administrative Law Judge.' Thereafter, Re- spondent's counsel absented himself from the court- room for the remainder of the hearing in an unsuc- cessful attempt to stop the hearing through injunctive proceedings in Federal district court.' Respondent presented no witnesses in its behalf but, following the close of the hearing, filed a motion with the Adminis- trative Law Judge to reopen the record, which she denied. The Respondent now moves to reopen the record or for a hearing de novo. In support of such motion Respondent's counsel argues that he was not proper- ly apprised of the issues prior to the opening of the hearing and that a continuance should have been granted to allow him to investigate the matters re- vealed by General Counsel's opening statement and to procure witnesses in support of Respondent's po- sition. A review of the complaint herein reflects that it was sufficiently specific to apprise Respondent of the violations with which it was charged. The com- plaint clearly meets the requirements of Section 102.15 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, which provides in part that: "The complaint shall contain a clear and concise description of the acts which are claimed to constitute unfair labor practices, in- cluding, where known, the approximate dates and places of such acts and the names of Respondent's agents or other representatives by whom commit- ted." General Counsel was not required to go further and supply Respondent's attorney with a detailed analysis of his proof prior to the opening of the hear- ing.' In support of its current motions, Respondent sub- mits the affidavits of Spiegel, a dispatcher-supervisor, and several employees, all of which were secured af- ter the close of the hearing.' Respondent asserts that the testimony of these affiants contradicts that of the witnesses presented by General Counsel and requires a different result from that reached by the Adminis- trative Law Judge. However, there is no showing by Respondent that any of the individuals from whom it secured post- hearing affidavits were unavailable to testify at the time of the hearing.' We see no reason why Respon- i Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and Respondent's brief adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties 2 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, 9: 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 3 Respondent asserts that in an off-the -record discussion the Administra- tive Law Judge stated that she wanted to conclude the hearing that day in order to continue her vacation Respondent argues that this comment indi- cates prejudicial motivation on the part of the Administrative Law Judge in denying his motion for a continuance While we deem such a comment, if made, inappropriate , it is not a reversible error , since we are of the opinion that Respondent was not entitled to a continuance in any event Moreover, there is no evidence that the Administrative Law Judge in fact denied Re- spondent the opportunity to present any witnesses it desired and otherwise to litigate the case fully during the hearing 4 Respondent 's president , Isadore Spiegel, was present throughout the hearing, except during the time General Counsel's last witness testified 5 The information sought by Respondent in its bill of particulars appears to be more in the nature of preheating discovery than an inquiry necessary for the filing of an answer It is well settled that there is no preheating discovery in a Board proceeding Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 100, affiliated with the United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the U S and Canada, AFL-CIO (Beard Plumbing Company), 128 NLRB 398, 400 (1960) See also Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc, 130 NLRB 1313, In 1 (1961) Although Chairman Murphy accepts this as the Board 's longstanding rule and adheres to it for that reason , she favors some form of preheating disclosure and would prefer, at an appropriate time, to have the Board revise its procedures to provide for such disclosure 6 Respondent also submits affidavits dated September 16, 1975, from James Morrison , a dispatcher for the Respondent, and affidavits dated De- cember 8 and 9, 1975, from its counsel r In fact the individual to whom a majority of the allegations pertained (i e , Respondent's president , Isadore Spiegel ) was present during most of 225 NLRB No. 26 SPIEGEL TRUCKING COMPANY dent, prompted by the information supplied by the complaint as to the alleged violations, could not have presented such testimony at the hearing. The fact that additional time for the investigation of matters revealed by General Counsel's opening statement might well have been advantageous to Respondent's counsel 8 did not automatically entitle him to a con- tinuance nor did it relieve him of the burden of going forward with this proof.' Respondent's counsel ig- nored this duty when he absented himself from the hearing and cannot now reopen the record to present evidence which should have been presented during the hearing.10 In the absence of evidence which is in fact newly discovered or previously unavailable, Respondent's motions to reopen the record or for a hearing de novo are denied. Substantive Issues We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding, for the reasons stated by her, that Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by the dis- charge of employees William J. Lucas and Joseph Parker. We further agree with her finding that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the solicitation of grievances and by offering and prom- ising benefits to employees to discourage member- ship in local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. However, we disagree in part with her findings in regard to Respondent's alleged violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. As set out in the Administrative Law Judge's De- cision, the evidence establishes that Respondent was the moving force in the organization of the Spiegel Trucking Company Drivers Committee and that such committee subsequently entered into a collec- tive-bargaining agreement with Respondent. Clearly such proof establishes that Respondent interfered with the formation and administration of the Drivers Committee in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.l' However, it does not automatically follow that Respondent was also guilty of illegal domination of the hearing He voluntarily left the hearing when General Counsel's last witness was called 8 We note that the Administrative Law Judge recessed the hearing after this opening statement to give Respondent's attorney additional time within which to discuss the matters therein with his client , Isadore Spiegel, who was designated in the complaint and by counsel for General Counsel 's prel- iminary remarks as the agent of Respondent who committed the alleged unfair labor practices 9 It is well settled that the matter of continuance is one which rests in the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge Dal-Tex Optical Comp any Inc. supra, and Plumbers & Steamfitters Union Local 100, supra See also Sec 102 43 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended We find no abuse of such discretion here to Allen H Kraft, Alex Kraft and Sarah Kraft Ellenson, Co-Partners, d/b/a Restonaire Bedding Company, 164 NLRB 729, fn 2 (1967) 11 See Lenape Manufacturing Corp, 196 NLRB 931 (1972) 179 the Union. There is no evidence to show the exact relationship of Respondent with the Drivers Com- mittee following its initial establishment; the nature of collective-bargaining negotiations between the parties; what control, if any, Respondent had over committee membership; whether the committee had constitution and bylaws; the nature and place of sub- sequent meetings of the committee; whether employ- ees were compensated for time and attendance at such meetings; or whether supervisory personnel at- tended such meetings and, if so, what part they played therein. In the absence of any proof with re- spect to these matters, we find that General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evi- dence that Respondent dominated the Drivers com- mittee in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.12 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 as modified below and hereby orders that the Respondent, Spie- gel Trucking Company, Harrison, New Jersey, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(1): "(a) Interfering in the formation or administration of Spiegel Trucking Company Drivers Committee, or any other labor organization of its employees, or giv- ing support to such labor organization." 2. Insert the following as paragraph 1(d) and relet- ter the subsequent paragraph accordingly: "(d) Maintaining in effect the existing collective- bargaining agreement with the Spiegel Trucking Company Drivers Committee; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed as requiring it to rescind, abandon, or vary any economic benefits or any terms and conditions of employment granted the employees thereunder." 3. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a): "(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Spiegel Trucking Company Drivers Committee, as the representative of Respondent's employees for the purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment unless and until said labor organization shall have been certified as such representative by the Board." 12 See, e g, Rensselaer Polytechnic institute, 219 NLRB 712 (1975), Graf- ton Boat Co, Inc, 173 NLRB 999, 1002 (1968), Federal Mogul Corporation, Coldwater Distribution Center Division, 163 NLRB 927 (1967), and Modern Plastics Corporation, 155 NLRB 1126 (1965) 180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. APPENDIX dice to their seniority and other rights and privi- leges, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of pay, with interest, incurred because of our unlawful discharge of them. NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT interfere in the formation or administration of Spiegel Trucking Company Drivers Committee, or any other labor organiza- tion of our employees, or give support to such labor organization. WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, by discriminatorily discharging any of our employees or discriminating in any other manner in respect to their hire or tenure of em- ployment or any term or condition of employ- ment. WE WILL NOT solicit employee grievances and dissatisfactions and offer and promise benefits for the purpose of discouraging membership in or adherence to Local 560, International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT maintain in effect our existing collective-bargaining agreement with Spiegel Trucking Company Drivers Committee without, however, disturbing present benefits. WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recogni- tion from Spiegel Trucking Company Drivers Committee as a bargaining representative of any of our employees unless and until the committee has been certified as such by the Board. WE WILL reimburse our employees for any moneys they paid said Drivers Committee as dues or lawyers' fees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to join or assist Local 560, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor or- ganization, and to engage in other concerted ac- tivities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. WE WILL offer William J. Lucas and Joseph G. Parker immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without preju- SPIEGEL TRUCKING COMPANY DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JENNIE M. SARRICA, Administrative Law Judge: This is a proceeding under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C 151, et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Based on charges filed on August 25, 1975,1 as amended on October 8, a complaint was issued on October 30, presenting allegations that Spiegel Trucking Company hereinafter referred to as Respondent, commit- ted unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent filed an answer denying that it committed the violations of the Act as alleged. Upon due notice, the case was heard before me at Newark, New Jersey, on December 9. A representative of Respondent entered an appearance and had an opportunity to participate in the proceeding. Based on the entire record, including my observations of the witnesses, and after due consideration of oral argu- ment, presented by Counsel for the General Counsel, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1 JURISDICTION Respondent, an individual proprietor doing business under the trade name and style of Spiegel Trucking Com- pany with principal offices in Harrison, New Jersey, is en- gaged in the business of providing and performing trans- portation and related services at the Harrison location, the facility involved herein. During the year preceding is- suance of the complaint, a representative period , Respon- dent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, provided and performed trucking services valued in excess of $50,000 which it performed within States of the United States other than the State of New Jersey. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is now, and has been at all times material herein, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, here- inafter referred to as Local 560 or the Union, and Spiegel Trucking Company Drivers Committee, herein called Driv- ers Committee, are now, and have been during all times 1 Unless otherwise indicated , all dates are in 1975 SPIEGEL TRUCKING COMPANY 181 material herein, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. PROCEDURAL MATTERS failure to verify that this was the action intended or to follow through with a written withdrawal and his stated intention to seek a restraining order , were deemed to be indications that his statement set forth above was intended merely as another threat to withdraw , but not a withdraw- After having attempted to present his arguments therefor at length to me before the record in this proceeding was opened, at the outset of the hearing herein Respondent's attorney renewed motions for a bill of particulars, for an opportunity to take depositions, and for a postponement of the hearing, each of which had previously been considered and denied by appropriate officials of the National Labor Relations Board. After counsel for the General Counsel presented a detailed opening statement of what he pro- posed to prove in support of the complaint, including spe- cific information as to which individuals were involved in each detail, and including his response to questions by the attorney for Respondent for clarification, the latter agreed that his need for a bill of particulars was thereby obviated. The renewed motion to take depositions was denied and, it appearing that all of the assertedly unlawful conduct was allegedly committed personally by Isadore Spiegel, sole proprietor of Respondent, and that he was present in the courtroom with his counsel , a recess was permitted to ena- ble Respondent's attorney to confer with his client con- cerning the matters detailed in the General Counsel's open- ing statement, to be followed by another designated period of time for the purpose of discussing settlement with the General Counsel. The latter conference was unfruitful. The request for a postponement to investigate the matters pre- sented in the General Counsel's opening statement was de- nied, and these matters having taken the whole morning, it was announced by me that a lunch recess would be taken, and that the hearing would resume at 1 p.m., at which time it was anticipated that evidence supporting the complaint should be presented Respondent thereupon moved for an adjournment for the purpose of seeking an order from the United States District Court to enjoin the proceeding. This motion was denied, whereupon the following exchange oc- curred between Respondent's attorney and me: MR. TELTSER: I will withdraw from the proceedings respectfully. I think this proceeding has been conduct- ed by you in fine fashion, I believe that for me to engage in a situation where I cannot adequately repre- sent a client that is depending upon me , what I would regard as even a minimum standard of what is re- quired by him with the further knowledge that this is the original jurisdiction and the only one that we are entitled to something that I can't participate in JUDGE SARRICA: You have stated your withdrawal from the case on the record. Do you stand on your withdrawal from the case? MR. TELTSER: I am going to my office to prepare papers to go into the United States District Court. JUDGE SARRICA• Are you withdrawing from the case? MR. TELTSER: I have stated everything that I care to state at this point. JUDGE SARRICA• We will resume at 1:00 o'clock. As Mr. Teltser had, on several occasions during periods off the record, threatened to withdraw from the case, his al. Respondent's attorney did not appear at the designated time after the lunch recess. Isadore Spiegel entered the courtroom shortly thereafter, however, and approached the bench with a request that resumption of the hearing be deferred pending the action being taken by his attorney in the United States District Court. The General Counsel op- posed any adjournment to accommodate Respondent's at- torney, pointing out that there were associated with Mr. Teltser two individuals, his partner, Michael R. Perle and one Bruce Tyler, both of whom had taken some action in this case on Respondent's behalf and to whom Mr . Teltser could have turned for any ancillary proceeding he desired to pursue while this hearing was in progress , that subpe- naed witnesses were present in the courtroom prepared to testify, and that he stood prepared to go forward with his evidence of proof. In view of the fact that Respondent's attorney had will- fully chosen to absent himself, it was announced to those present that Mr. Teltser, although absent, was still regard- ed as attorney of record . Mr. Spiegel was invited, in the absence of his attorney, to cross-examine the first witness. The following exchange resulted: MR. SPIEGEL: I don't know, your Honor, I don't know how I would bring forth anything because I am not legally inclined, you know, I am not talented, that is not my business, that is not my profession. I wouldn't know what questions to ask , I am not legally inclined. You are asking me something to ask him questions, I don't know, I don't know, I am not an attorney, your Honor. JUDGE SARRICA. You have an attorney, is that right? MR. SPIEGEL: Unfortunately he isn't here. I think I am being taken advantage of because my attorney isn't present. JUDGE SARRICA: By your attorney. MR. SPIEGEL: By this Court of Law because my at- torney isn't present. JUDGE SARRICA: Do you intend to retain your attor- ney? MR. SPIEGEL: I am not walking out of this Court of Law. I am not saying that I am admitting guilt or whatever have you, I don't know any better, that's what I am saying to you. JUDGE SARRICA: Do you wish to obtain a substitute for this attorney? MR. SPIEGEL: I can't make a decision at this point. I would like time to make a decision. JUDGE SARRICA: You are excused. (Referring to the witness.) The General Counsel was invited to proceed with his next witness. Mr. Spiegel did not cross-examine any of the witnesses but remained for the testimony of all but the last witness presented by the General Counsel, at the end of 182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which the General Counsel rested and then presented oral argument on the merits of the case. There being no indica- tion that briefs were desired, the hearing was then closed. Thereafter Respondent's attorney filed a motion to re- open the hearing on the basis of allegedly newly discovered evidence and for the purpose of taking the testimony of certain named individuals, and, in the alternative or in ad- dition, to reopen the proceeding for the purpose of receiv- ing into the record certain affidavits and for permission to file a brief. The evidence designated, consisting primarily of affidavits or testimony of employees, including two who testified under subpena for the General Counsel, and of Isadore Spiegel who was present through most of the hear- ing, plus documents from Respondent's own files or those of its attorney, does not qualify as newly discovered evi- dence? There appears no valid reason to reopen the record on the basis of Respondent's posthearing motion. Having reviewed the circumstances under which the hearing pro- ceeded without the presence of Respondent's attorney, and noting Respondent's refusal to seek substitute legal repre- sentation, I find no other basis warranting a reopening of the record. Respondent's motion is therefore denied in its entirety.3 IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues 1. Whether Respondent discharged two of its truckdriv- ers because they solicited authorization cards for the Union. 2. Whether Respondent initiated, formed, sponsored, and promoted, and therefore dominated and interfered in the administration of, the Drivers Committee 3. Whether in the process thereof Respondent commit- ted independent violations of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. B. Background Witnesses for the General Counsel testified that in Janu- ary a driver named Frank Johnson distributed union cards and there was some activity on the part of employees to obtain union representation of Respondent's employees. A meeting was called by Isadore Spiegel and a notice was posted indicating that anyone interested in his fob had bet- ter be there. Spiegel advised his employees that their prob- lems could be worked out among themselves. He told em- ployees to form a committee of four representatives who would present employee grievances and demands to him and with whom he would work out any differences and reach an agreement. John A. Pritchett and William J. Lu- cas were among those elected to this committee Thereafter the committee met with Spiegel who outlined an agreement listing what he would give employees. One of the Commit- tee members took notes which were later typed by Lucas' 2 See Sec 102 25 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board )See Sec 10243 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board Also see Hyos de Ricardo Vela, Inc, and Veto Distributing Corp, 194 NLRB 377, enfd 475 F 2d 58 (CA I. 1973) wife and, thereafter, a copy was supplied to each Commit- tee representative and one was posted on the bulletin board. From time to time Spiegel changed the document by crossing out and signing specific portions of it. After about 60 days the Committee dissolved because it had no power. C The Union Activity William J. Lucas was employed by Respondent from July 1974 until his discharge on the morning of August 22, 1975. Lucas placed a telephone call to Local 560 on August 14 or 15, inviting the Union to organize the employees of Respondent. He received authorization cards for the Union in the mail on August 16. That Saturday night Lu- cas called Joseph G. Parker, another truckdriver employed by Respondent, and went to the latter's home with the cards on Sunday, at which time he gave some of the cards to Parker to distribute among employees. On Monday, Au- gust 18, both men began distributing union cards among fellow employees primarily in the parking lot. More were distributed on August 19, 20, and 21, at which time they had received signed authorization cards from 17 of Respondent's 25 employees. D Discharge of William J. Lucas When Lucas reported to work on August 22, Spiegel came out of the main office, handed him a check, and told him he was fired Lucas asked for the reason but Spiegel refused to give him one. Instead Spiegel ordered Lucas off the property and told him never to set foot on the property again or park his car in the vicinity Spiegel stated that if he did so Spiegel would have it removed by police. The first check handed Lucas was not his complete pay so Spiegel returned to the office for the other check, handed it to Lucas, and stated "that is your complete pay, you are fin- ished, get out of here." The only warning Spiegel ever gave Lucas related to a proposal Lucas advanced as a Committee member at a meeting when Spiegel had brought in an insurance repre- sentative. On that occasion Spiegel told Lucas, who brought up some information he had obtained from a friend, that if Lucas did not like what Spiegel was doing he could look for another job. There was never any work per- formance warning. E. Discharge of Joseph G. Parker Parker had worked for Spiegel from July 1972 until his discharge on August 22, 1975, when he returned to the facility at the end of a trip and walked into the dispatcher's office to turn in his reports and papers for the day. Spiegel asked Parker whether he had a company credit card and keys to the gate. Parker did and turned these over to Spie- gel, then turned in his papers to the dispatcher. Spiegel handed Parker two checks and accompanied Parker to re- trieve his personal belongings from the parked truck trac- tor. On the way back Spiegel told Parker he did not want to see Parker or his car on Spiegel's property or any place near. He gave Parker no reason, but merely told Parker to SPIEGEL TRUCKING COMPANY 183 get off the property Parker had obtained seven or nine of the signed union authorization cards. He had never re- ceived from Spiegel any warning regarding his work per- formance. F The Drivers Committee John A. Pritchett and Joseph Stevens, both drivers for Respondent, testified that on a Saturday during the latter part of August, within a week after the union authorization cards were signed and after Lucas and Parker were dis- charged, a notice was posted on the bulletin board which said that "if you are interested in the fob you will be there at the meeting." The bulletin board is in the dispatcher's room. It is customarily used for memoranda from Spiegel. It was estimated that 80 percent of the drivers attended the meeting including two dispatchers. The chief dispatcher was in the backroom. At this meeting Spiegel spoke, questioning employees in- dividually about complaints and dealing or commenting on each matter raised. Spiegel stated what he could do and what he could not do and what he would try to do in relation to specific working conditions. At the conclusion of the meeting Spiegel told the drivers to form a Drivers Committee to represent the group, and he would sit down and make an agreement with them that he felt was reason- able; they could make it perfectly legal by getting an attor- ney and have him meet with Spiegel's attorney, that two attorneys could put it in a contract and sign it, and it would be legal. The Committee was formed by the men who were pres- ent at the meeting and four of their number were chosen as representatives. While the drivers voted, Spiegel left the room. Later the drivers paid $12.50 each to the Committee toward the lawyer's fee. Also $5 a month dues were "taken out" for the Drivers Committee. About a week after the Committee was formed Robert Young, a driver and one of the committeemen, solicited from employees their signatures on a document which stat- ed that those who signed agreed not to join any outside labor organization to speak in their behalf insofar as con- tracts and things of that nature were involved Both Pritch- ett and Stevens refused to sign. A contract was later signed and displayed by Robert Young to employee Pritchett. Re- spondent, in its answer, admits that on September 30, 1975, it executed a 3-year collective-bargaining agreement and since October 1, 1975, together with the Drivers Commit- tee, has maintained and enforced said agreement. G. Analysts and Conclusions Respondent's failure to give a reason for the discharges of Lucas and Parker either at the time of their discharges or as an affirmative pleading, the lack of pnor reprimand or warning concerning any job-related conduct, the small size of the work force, the precipitousness of the discharges of the two union activists upon the heels of their solicita- tion of employee signatures on union authorization cards, and the immediate action taken by Respondent after their discharge to counteract the effect of their efforts for self- organization and to obtain representation of the employees by the Union, considered together, support the conclusion that Respondent knew of the union sponsorship and activi- ty by Lucas and Parker and discharged them for that rea- son. I find that by such actions Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. Respondent's sponsorship of the employee meeting the following Saturday , Spiegel's solicitation of employees' grievances and dissatisfactions , and his offers and promises of benefits were clear efforts to interfere with employees' union activities which violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Respondent's suggestion to the employees gathered at the summoning of Spiegel that they should form a Drivers Committee to represent them , Spiegel's promise to deal with such a committee and to sign a contract , his specifica- tion as to how the committee should be formed and the number of representatives that should be elected, his ab- senting himself from the gathered employees while they proceeded to follow his directions , as well as his direction that they should engage an attorney to participate in draft- ing and executing a contract encompassing the agreement which he would reach with the committee , his follow- through on these promises, and the fact that this pattern of conduct substantially followed that which occurred when a previous effort to obtain representation by a union was undertaken by the employees demonstrate that the Drivers Committee was formed under the specifications and direc- tions of Respondent and that Respondent dominated and assisted the Drivers Committee , thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (I) of the Act.' I find that the General Counsel has present- ed evidence which supports the foregoing allegations of the complaint. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Spiegel Trucking Company is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Spiegel Trucking Company Drivers Committee are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging William J. Lucas and Joseph Parker because of their activities on behalf of Local 560, Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By soliciting employee grievances and dissatisfactions and offering and promising benefits for the purpose of dis- couraging membership in or adherence to Local 560, Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. 5. By forming, assisting, and dominating the Spiegel Trucking Company Drivers Committee, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute, 219 NLRB 712 (1975), is cited by the General Counsel as support for this allegation of the complaint 184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent violated the statute, it is recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action designed to effec- tuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respon- dent participated in the formation of Spiegel Trucking Company Dnvers Committee and thereafter assisted and dominated said organization, it will be recommended that Respondent be ordered to disestablish the Drivers Com- mittee. I shall also adopt the General Counsel's recommen- dation that Respondent be required to reimburse employ- ees for any moneys paid to the Drivers Committee for dues and lawyers' fees. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 5 ORDER The Respondent, Spiegel Trucking Company of Harri- son, New Jersey, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Dominating or interfering in the formation or ad- ministration of Spiegel Trucking Company Drivers Com- mittee or any other labor organization of its employees, or giving support to such labor organization. (b) Discouraging membership in Local 560, Internation- al Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, by discriminatorily discharging any of its employees or discriminating in any other manner in respect to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment (c) Soliciting employee grievances and dissatisfaction, and offering and promising benefits for the purpose of dis- couraging membership in or adherence to Local 560, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self- 5 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, 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 organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, 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 deemed neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Completely disestablish the Spiegel Trucking Com- pany Drivers Committee as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with it with respect to wages or any other condition of employment, and reim- burse employeee for moneys paid said Drivers Committee for dues and lawyers' fees (b) Offer William J Lucas and Joseph G Parker imme- diate and full reinstatement to their former Jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay, to- gether with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum, in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records relevant and nec- essary to determine the backpay due and to the reinstate- ment and related rights provided under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Harrison, New Jersey, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 22, after being duly signed by Respondent's represen- tative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other matenal. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 6In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor 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 "