Mathews Ready Mix, Inc.

MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 739 Mathews Ready Mix, Inc. and Bill Callaway and except for the discriminatory transfer to Coring General Teamsters Local No. 137, International Callaway would not have expended either the Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- travel time or money. Accordingly, we shall housemen and Helpers of America. Cases 20- amend the remedy as follows: CA-15262 and 20-CA-15354 December 16, 1981AMENDED REMEDY Having found that Respondent discriminatorily DECISION AND ORDER transferred William Callaway from the Gridley fa- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND cility to the Corning plant on or about May 13, it ZIMMERMAN is recommended that Respondent immediately n Je 1 1 A L transfer Callaway from the Corning facility to the On June 18, 1981, Administrative Law Judge On June 18, 1981, A n Grdley facility and pay Callaway for the time he Leonard N. Cohen issued the attached Decision in fac and ay Callaway for the time he this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- spent commuting o the Coing facility and reim- ceptions and a supporting brief and the General burse him for all travel expenses incurred as a Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions. result of his transfer to that facility. Having further Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the found that Respondent discriminatorily denied Wil- National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- liam Callaway the opportunity to work overtime tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- while employed at the Gridley facility during the thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. period of mid-February to on or about May 12, it The Board has considered the record and the at- is further recommended that Respondent make tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief Callaway whole for any loss of earnings, including and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and overtime, from mid-February 1980 to the date he is conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and transferred back to the Gridley facility with such to adopt his recommended Order as modified earnings to be computed within the meaning of and below. in accordance with the Board's Decision in F. W. The Administrative Law Judge found that Re- Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with in- spondent discriminatorily transferred employee terest as set forth in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 William Callaway from its Gridley facility to its NLRB 651 (1977).2 Corning facility because of his union and other ac- tivities protected concerted activities and refused in ORDER a disparate fashion to allow Callaway to work 2 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor hours' overtime on a daily basis while assigned to Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- the Corning facility to compensate him for travel lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended expenses. Accordingly, he recommended that Re- Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- spondent make Callaway whole for any loss of spondent make Callaway whoe fr ay ls fled below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, earnings, including overtime, suffered as a result of e e i, ., rie, if this discrimination. Mathews Ready Mix, Inc., G nridley, California, its this discrimination. The General Counsel excepts to this remedy officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take contending that the Administrative Law Judge's the acton set forth in said recommended Order, as finding that 2 hours' overtime on a daily basis as so modified compensation for travel expenses is merely specula- 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b): tive, finding its genesis in Respondent's arrange- "(b) Make whole William Callaway for any loss ment with Callaway's vacation replacement. The of earnings and expenses including overtime and General Counsel contends that, since Callaway's travel expenses suffered as a result of the discrimi- transfer was discriminatorily motivated, Respond- nation against him in the manner set forth in the ent should be required to make Callaway whole by section of the Board's Decision and Order entitled paying him for both the time he spent traveling to 'Amended Remedy."' and from the Corning facility and the actual ex- pense of that travel. We agree, for it is clear that Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- See, generally, Isis Plumbing a Heating Ca, 138 NLRB 716 (1962). vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, In accordance with his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. due based on the formula set forth therein. 259 NLRB No. 92 MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 739 Mathews Ready Mix, Inc. and Bill Callaway and except for the discriminatory transfer to Coming General Teamsters Local No. 137, International Callaway would not have expended either the Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- travel time or money. Accordingly, we shall housemen and Helpers of America. Cases 20- am end t he remedy as fo l lo w s : CA-15262 and 20-CA-15354 December 16, 1981AMENDED REMEDY DECISION AND ORDER Having found that Respondent discriminatorily transferred William Callaway from the Gridley fa- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND cility to the Coming plant on or about May 13, it ZIMMERMAN is recommended that Respondent immediately On June 18, 1981, Administrative Law Judge tr an sfer C aw fro m the C o r nin fi 0 the Leonard N. Cohen issued the attached Decision in Gridley facility and Pay Callaway for the time he this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- sp en t commuting to the Coming facility and reim- ceptions and a supporting brief and the General b ur se him fo r all t r av el expenses incurred as a Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions. r e su lt o f h is tr a n sfe r to t h a t fa c ilit y. Having fu r th e r Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the fo u n d th a t Respondent discriminatorily denied Wil- National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- lia m Callaway the opportunity to work overtime tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- w h ile employed at the Gridley facility during the thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. period of mid-February to on or about May 12, it The Board has considered the record and the at- is further recommended that Respondent make tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief Callaway whole for any loss of earnings, including and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and overtime, from mid-February 1980 to the date he is conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and transferred back to the Gridley facility with such to adopt his recommended Order as modified earnings to be computed within the meaning of and below. in accordance with the Board's Decision in F. W. The Administrative Law Judge found that Re- Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with in- spondent discriminatorily transferred employee terest as set forth in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 William Callaway from its Gridley facility to its NLRB 651 (1977). 2 Corning facility because of his union and other ac- tivities protected concerted activities and refused in ORDER a disparate fashion to allow Callaway to work 2 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor hours' overtime on a daily basis while assigned to Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- the Coming facility to compensate him for travel lations Board adopts as its order the recommended expenses. Accordingly, he recommended that Re- Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- spondent make Callaway whole for any loss of -11 i i j i*ii» i spondent make Callaway whole for any loss of fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, earnings, including overtime, suffered as a result of Mh Re Mi In .Gil1 Caifri i this discrimination. M a th e w sagets M s x u In c Gan d le ya California, its The General Counsel excepts to this remedy to ff ic e r s acto e s fh c e sso rs a a n d a ss rc n s me s ne ll ta k e contending that the Administrative Law Judge's th e ac t lo n se t fo rt h ln sald recommended Order, as finding that 2 hours' overtime on a daily basis as SO m o d me d: compensation for travel expenses is merely specula- 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b): tive, finding its genesis in Respondent's arrange- "( b) Make whole William Callaway for any loss ment with Callaway's vacation replacement. The of earnings and expenses including overtime and General Counsel contends that, since Callaway's travel expenses suffered as a result of the discrimi- transfer was discriminatorily motivated, Respond- nation against him in the manner set forth in the ent should be required to make Callaway whole by section of the Board's Decision and Order entitled paying him for both the time he spent traveling to 'Amended Remedy."' and from the Coming facility and the actual ex- pense of that travel. We agree, for it is clear that I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, In accordance with his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. due based on the formula set forth therein. 259 NLRB No. 92 MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 739 Mathews Ready Mix, Inc. and Bill Callaway and except for the discriminatory transfer to Coming General Teamsters Local No. 137, International Callaway would not have expended either the Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- travel time or money. Accordingly, we shall housemen and Helpers of America. Cases 20- am end t he remedy as fo l lo w s : CA-15262 and 20-CA-15354 December 16, 1981AMENDED REMEDY DECISION AND ORDER Having found that Respondent discriminatorily transferred William Callaway from the Gridley fa- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND cility to the Coming plant on or about May 13, it ZIMMERMAN is recommended that Respondent immediately On June 18, 1981, Administrative Law Judge tr an sfer C aw fro m the C o r nin fi 0 the Leonard N. Cohen issued the attached Decision in Gridley facility and Pay Callaway for the time he this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- sp en t commuting to the Coming facility and reim- ceptions and a supporting brief and the General b ur se him fo r all t r av el expenses incurred as a Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions. r e su lt o f h is tr a n sfe r to t h a t fa c ilit y. Having fu r th e r Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the fo u n d th a t Respondent discriminatorily denied Wil- National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- lia m Callaway the opportunity to work overtime tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- w h ile employed at the Gridley facility during the thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. period of mid-February to on or about May 12, it The Board has considered the record and the at- is further recommended that Respondent make tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief Callaway whole for any loss of earnings, including and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and overtime, from mid-February 1980 to the date he is conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and transferred back to the Gridley facility with such to adopt his recommended Order as modified earnings to be computed within the meaning of and below. in accordance with the Board's Decision in F. W. The Administrative Law Judge found that Re- Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with in- spondent discriminatorily transferred employee terest as set forth in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 William Callaway from its Gridley facility to its NLRB 651 (1977). 2 Corning facility because of his union and other ac- tivities protected concerted activities and refused in ORDER a disparate fashion to allow Callaway to work 2 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor hours' overtime on a daily basis while assigned to Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- the Coming facility to compensate him for travel lations Board adopts as its order the recommended expenses. Accordingly, he recommended that Re- Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- spondent make Callaway whole for any loss of -11 i i j i*ii» i spondent make Callaway whole for any loss of fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, earnings, including overtime, suffered as a result of Mh Re Mi In .Gil1 Caifre i this discrimination. M a th e w sagets M s x u In c Gan d le ya California, its The General Counsel excepts to this remedy to ff ic e r s acto e s fh c e sso rs a a n d a ss rc n s me s ne ll ta k e contending that the Administrative Law Judge's th e ac t lo n se t fo rt h ln sald recommended Order, as finding that 2 hours' overtime on a daily basis as SO m o d me d: compensation for travel expenses is merely specula- 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b): tive, finding its genesis in Respondent's arrange- "( b) Make whole William Callaway for any loss ment with Callaway's vacation replacement. The of earnings and expenses including overtime and General Counsel contends that, since Callaway's travel expenses suffered as a result of the discrimi- transfer was discriminatorily motivated, Respond- nation against him in the manner set forth in the ent should be required to make Callaway whole by section of the Board's Decision and Order entitled paying him for both the time he spent traveling to 'Amended Remedy."' and from the Coming facility and the actual ex- pense of that travel. We agree, for it is clear that I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, In accordance with his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. due based on the formula set forth therein. 259 NLRB No. 92 MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 739 Mathews Ready Mix, Inc. and Bill Callaway and except for the discriminatory transfer to Coming General Teamsters Local No. 137, International Callaway would not have expended either the Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- travel time or money. Accordingly, we shall housemen and Helpers of America. Cases 20- am end t he remedy as fo l lo w s : CA-15262 and 20-CA-15354 December 16, 1981AMENDED REMEDY DECISION AND ORDER Having found that Respondent discriminatorily transferred William Callaway from the Gridley fa- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND cility to the Coming plant on or about May 13, it ZIMMERMAN is recommended that Respondent immediately On June 18, 1981, Administrative Law Judge tr an sfer C aw fro m the C o r nin fi 0 the Leonard N. Cohen issued the attached Decision in Gridley facility and Pay Callaway for the time he this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- sp en t commuting to the Coming facility and reim- ceptions and a supporting brief and the General b ur se him fo r all t r av el expenses incurred as a Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions. r e su lt o f h is tr a n sfe r to t h a t fa c ilit y. Having fu r th e r Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the fo u n d th a t Respondent discriminatorily denied Wil- National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- lia m Callaway the opportunity to work overtime tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- w h ile employed at the Gridley facility during the thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. period of mid-February to on or about May 12, it The Board has considered the record and the at- is further recommended that Respondent make tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief Callaway whole for any loss of earnings, including and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and overtime, from mid-February 1980 to the date he is conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and transferred back to the Gridley facility with such to adopt his recommended Order as modified earnings to be computed within the meaning of and below. in accordance with the Board's Decision in F. W. The Administrative Law Judge found that Re- Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with in- spondent discriminatorily transferred employee terest as set forth in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 William Callaway from its Gridley facility to its NLRB 651 (1977). 2 Corning facility because of his union and other ac- tivities protected concerted activities and refused in ORDER a disparate fashion to allow Callaway to work 2 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor hours' overtime on a daily basis while assigned to Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- the Coming facility to compensate him for travel lations Board adopts as its order the recommended expenses. Accordingly, he recommended that Re- Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- spondent make Callaway whole for any loss of -11 i i j i*ii» i spondent make Callaway whole for any loss of fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, earnings, including overtime, suffered as a result of Mh Re Mi In .Gil1 Caifre i this discrimination. M a th e w sagets M s x u In c Gan d le ya California, its The General Counsel excepts to this remedy to ff ic e r s acto e s fh c e sso rs a a n d a ss rc n s me s ne ll ta k e contending that the Administrative Law Judge's th e ac t lo n se t fo rt h ln sald recommended Order, as finding that 2 hours' overtime on a daily basis as SO m o d me d: compensation for travel expenses is merely specula- 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b): tive, finding its genesis in Respondent's arrange- "( b) Make whole William Callaway for any loss ment with Callaway's vacation replacement. The of earnings and expenses including overtime and General Counsel contends that, since Callaway's travel expenses suffered as a result of the discrimi- transfer was discriminatorily motivated, Respond- nation against him in the manner set forth in the ent should be required to make Callaway whole by section of the Board's Decision and Order entitled paying him for both the time he spent traveling to 'Amended Remedy."' and from the Coming facility and the actual ex- pense of that travel. We agree, for it is clear that I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, In accordance with his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. due based on the formula set forth therein. 259 NLRB No. 92 MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 739 Mathews Ready Mix, Inc. and Bill Callaway and except for the discriminatory transfer to Coming General Teamsters Local No. 137, International Callaway would not have expended either the Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- travel time or money. Accordingly, we shall housemen and Helpers of America. Cases 20- am end t he remedy as fo l lo w s : CA-15262 and 20-CA-15354 December 16, 1981AMENDED REMEDY DECISION AND ORDER Having found that Respondent discriminatorily transferred William Callaway from the Gridley fa- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND cility to the Coming plant on or about May 13, it ZIMMERMAN is recommended that Respondent immediately On June 18, 1981, Administrative Law Judge tr an sfer C aw fro m the C o r nin fi 0 the Leonard N. Cohen issued the attached Decision in Gridley facility and Pay Callaway for the time he this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- sp en t commuting to the Coming facility and reim- ceptions and a supporting brief and the General b ur se him fo r all t r av el expenses incurred as a Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions. r e su lt o f h is tr a n sfe r to t h a t fa c ilit y. Having fu r th e r Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the fo u n d th a t Respondent discriminatorily denied Wil- National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- lia m Callaway the opportunity to work overtime tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- w h ile employed at the Gridley facility during the thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. period of mid-February to on or about May 12, it The Board has considered the record and the at- is further recommended that Respondent make tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief Callaway whole for any loss of earnings, including and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and overtime, from mid-February 1980 to the date he is conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and transferred back to the Gridley facility with such to adopt his recommended Order as modified earnings to be computed within the meaning of and below. in accordance with the Board's Decision in F. W. The Administrative Law Judge found that Re- Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with in- spondent discriminatorily transferred employee terest as set forth in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 William Callaway from its Gridley facility to its NLRB 651 (1977). 2 Corning facility because of his union and other ac- tivities protected concerted activities and refused in ORDER a disparate fashion to allow Callaway to work 2 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor hours' overtime on a daily basis while assigned to Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- the Coming facility to compensate him for travel lations Board adopts as its order the recommended expenses. Accordingly, he recommended that Re- Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- spondent make Callaway whole for any loss of -11 i i j i*ii» i spondent make Callaway whole for any loss of fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, earnings, including overtime, suffered as a result of Mh Re Mi In .Gil1 Caifre i this discrimination. M a th e w sagets M s x u In c , an sins California, its The General Counsel excepts to this remedy to ff ic e r s acto e s fh c e sso rs a a n d a ss rc n s me s ne ll ta k e contending that the Administrative Law Judge's th e ac t lo n se t fo rt h ln sald recommended Order, as finding that 2 hours' overtime on a daily basis as SO m o d me d: compensation for travel expenses is merely specula- 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b): tive, finding its genesis in Respondent's arrange- "( b) Make whole William Callaway for any loss ment with Callaway's vacation replacement. The of earnings and expenses including overtime and General Counsel contends that, since Callaway's travel expenses suffered as a result of the discrimi- transfer was discriminatorily motivated, Respond- nation against him in the manner set forth in the ent should be required to make Callaway whole by section of the Board's Decision and Order entitled paying him for both the time he spent traveling to 'Amended Remedy."' and from the Coming facility and the actual ex- pense of that travel. We agree, for it is clear that I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, In accordance with his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. due based on the formula set forth therein. 259 NLRB No. 92 MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 739 Mathews Ready Mix, Inc. and Bill Callaway and except for the discriminatory transfer to Coming General Teamsters Local No. 137, International Callaway would not have expended either the Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- travel time or money. Accordingly, we shall housemen and Helpers of America. Cases 20- am end t he remedy as fo l lo w s : CA-15262 and 20-CA-15354 December 16, 1981AMENDED REMEDY DECISION AND ORDER Having found that Respondent discriminatorily transferred William Callaway from the Gridley fa- BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND cility to the Coming plant on or about May 13, it ZIMMERMAN is recommended that Respondent immediately On June 18, 1981, Administrative Law Judge tr an sfer C aw fro m the C o r nin fi 0 the Leonard N. Cohen issued the attached Decision in Gridley facility and Pay Callaway for the time he this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex- sp en t commuting to the Coming facility and reim- ceptions and a supporting brief and the General b ur se him fo r all t r av el expenses incurred as a Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions. r e su lt o f h is tr a n sfe r to t h a t fa c ilit y. Having fu r th e r Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the fo u n d th a t Respondent discriminatorily denied Wil- National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- lia m Callaway the opportunity to work overtime tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- w h ile employed at the Gridley facility during the thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. period of mid-February to on or about May 12, it The Board has considered the record and the at- is further recommended that Respondent make tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief Callaway whole for any loss of earnings, including and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and overtime, from mid-February 1980 to the date he is conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and transferred back to the Gridley facility with such to adopt his recommended Order as modified earnings to be computed within the meaning of and below. in accordance with the Board's Decision in F. W. The Administrative Law Judge found that Re- Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with in- spondent discriminatorily transferred employee terest as set forth in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 William Callaway from its Gridley facility to its NLRB 651 (1977). 2 Corning facility because of his union and other ac- tivities protected concerted activities and refused in ORDER a disparate fashion to allow Callaway to work 2 Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor hours' overtime on a daily basis while assigned to Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- the Coming facility to compensate him for travel lations Board adopts as its order the recommended expenses. Accordingly, he recommended that Re- Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi- spondent make Callaway whole for any loss of -11 i i j i*ii» i spondent make Callaway whole for any loss of fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, earnings, including overtime, suffered as a result of Mh Re Mi In .Gil1 Caifre i this discrimination. M a th e w sagets M s x u In c Gan d le ya California, its The General Counsel excepts to this remedy to ff ic e r s acto e s fh c e sso rs a a n d a ss rc n s me s ne ll ta k e contending that the Administrative Law Judge's th e ac t lo n se t fo rt h ln sald recommended Order, as finding that 2 hours' overtime on a daily basis as SO m o d me d: compensation for travel expenses is merely specula- 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b): tive, finding its genesis in Respondent's arrange- "( b) Make whole William Callaway for any loss ment with Callaway's vacation replacement. The of earnings and expenses including overtime and General Counsel contends that, since Callaway's travel expenses suffered as a result of the discrimi- transfer was discriminatorily motivated, Respond- nation against him in the manner set forth in the ent should be required to make Callaway whole by section of the Board's Decision and Order entitled paying him for both the time he spent traveling to 'Amended Remedy."' and from the Coming facility and the actual ex- pense of that travel. We agree, for it is clear that I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, In accordance with his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the backpay carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. due based on the formula set forth therein. 259 NLRB No. 92 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX DECISION NOTICE To EMPLOYEES STATEMENT OF THE CASE POSTED BY ORDER OF THE LEONARD N. COHEN, Administrative Law Judge: This NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD matter was heard before me in Oroville, California, on An Agency of the United States Government November 25, 1980.' On July 16, the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu- issued an order consolidating cases and consolidated nity to present evidence and state their positions, complaint and notice of hearing based on unfair labor the National Labor Relations Board found that we practice charges filed on March 31 in Case 20-CA-15262 have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as by Bill Callaway and on May 15 in Case 20-CA-15354 amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. by General Teamsters Local No. 137, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees and Helpers of America, alleging violations of Section concerning their union activities, sympathies, 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as and desires. amended, herein called the Act. WE WILL NOT instruct our employees to fur- The consolidated complaint, as amended at hearing, al- nish the National Labor Relations Board with leges that between November 1979 and May 1980 Re- written statements concerning the protected spondent, through several admitted supervisors and concerted activities of our employees. agents, committed various independent violations of Sec- WE WILL NOT inform our employees that tion 8(a)(l) including, inter alia, creating the impression we have denied overtime and transferred em- of surveillance of its employees' union activities, solicit- ployees because of the employees having en- ing letters of criticism from employees concerning the gaged in union activities or other protected union and/or protected concerted activities of employee concerted activities. Callaway, threatening Callaway with reprimand and WE WILL NOT restrict our employees in other economic reprisals for engaging in union and/or their access to our offices and use of the tele- protected concerted activities, and informing employees phone because of their having engaged in that Callaway was restricted both in his movements and union activities or other protected concerted in the use of the telephone, and subsequently transferred .... 'activities,.te oote rtto an isolated facility because he had engaged in union activities. Wtte WILL NT denyovertimeand/or other protected concerted activity. The consoli- WE WILL NOT deny overtime to our em- dated amended complaint further alleges that Respond- ployees because of their having engaged in ent violated Section 8(a)(3) by denying Callaway the op- union activities or other protected concerted portunity to earn overtime, by discontinuing Callaway's activities. reimbursement for travel expenses, and by transferring WE WILL NOT transfer our employees from Callaway to an isolated facility in retaliation for his one facility to another facility because they en- union and/or other protected concerted activities. gaged in union activities or other protected All parties have been afforded full opportunity to concerted activities. appear, to introduce evidence and to examine and cross- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- Counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent filed ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- entire record of the case and from my observation of tions Act. witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: WE WILL offer to William Callaway imme- FINDINGS OF FACr diate transfer from the Coring facility to the Gridley facility in his former position or, if i. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS that position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his se- Respondent, a California corporation, is engaged in an tos aton owiktheorugt prejudivilegehs se- ;several locations within the State of California in the niority and to any other rights and privieges business of manufacture and retail and nonretail sale of previously enjoyed. WE WILL make William ready mix concrete. Jurisdiction is not in issue. Respond- Callaway whole for any loss of earnings or ent admits and I find and conclude that Respondent is an other benefits, including travel time, travel ex- employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of penses, and overtime, suffered as a result of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. our discrimination against him, with interest thereon. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 'Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter are in 1980. 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX DECISION NOTICE To EMPLOYEES STATEMENT OF THE CASE POSTED BY ORDER OF THE LEONARD N. COHEN, Administrative Law Judge: This NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD matter was heard before me in Oroville, California, on An Agency of the United States Government November 25, 1980.' On July 16, the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu- issued an order consolidating cases and consolidated nity to present evidence and state their positions, complaint and notice of hearing based on unfair labor the National Labor Relations Board found that we practice charges filed on March 31 in Case 20-CA-15262 have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as by Bill Callaway and on May 15 in Case 20-CA-15354 amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. by General Teamsters Local No. 137, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees and Helpers of America, alleging violations of Section concerning their union activities, sympathies, 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as and desires. amended, herein called the Act. WE WILL NOT instruct our employees to fur- The consolidated complaint, as amended at hearing, al- nish the National Labor Relations Board with leges that between November 1979 and May 1980 Re- written statements concerning the protected spondent, through several admitted supervisors and concerted activities of our employees. agents, committed various independent violations of Sec- WE WILL NOT inform our employees that tion 8(a)(l) including, inter alia, creating the impression we have denied overtime and transferred em- of surveillance of its employees' union activities, solicit- ployees because of the employees having en- ing letters of criticism from employees concerning the gaged in union activities or other protected union and/or protected concerted activities of employee concerted activities. Callaway, threatening Callaway with reprimand and WE WILL NOT restrict our employees in o t h er economic reprisals for engaging in union and/or their access to our offices and use of the tele- protected concerted activities, and informing employees phone because of their having engaged in t h at Callaway was restricted both in his movements and union activities or other protected concerted in t h e us e o f t h e telephone, and subsequently transferred activities. to an isolated facility because he had engaged in union activities. WE WILL N ,T deny overtime.to our em- and/or other protected concerted activity. The consoli- WE WILL NOT deny overtime to our em- dated amended complaint further alleges that Respond- ployees because of their having engaged in ent violated Section 8(a)(3) by denying Callaway the op- union activities or other protected concerted portunity to earn overtime, by discontinuing Callaway's activities. reimbursement for travel expenses, and by transferring WE WILL NOT transfer our employees from Callaway to an isolated facility in retaliation for his one facility to another facility because they en- union and/or other protected concerted activities. gaged in union activities or other protected All parties have been afforded full opportunity to concerted activities. appear, to introduce evidence and to examine and cross- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- Counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent filed ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- ent ir e record of the case and from my observation of tions Act. witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: WE WILL offer to William Callaway imme- FINDINGS OF FACT diate transfer from the Coming facility to the Gridley facility in his former position or, if I. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS that position no longer exists, to a substantially _ . equivalent position without prejudice to his se-a Respondent, a California corporation, is engaged in equivalent position. without prejudice to his se- several locations within the State of California in the niority and to any other rights and privileges business of manufacture and retail and nonretail sale of previously enjoyed. WE WILL make William ready mix concrete. Jurisdiction is not in issue. Respond- Callaway whole for any loss of earnings or ent admits and I find and conclude that Respondent is an other benefits, including travel time, travel ex- employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of penses, and overtime, suffered as a result of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. our discrimination against him, with interest thereon. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter are in 1980. 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX DECISION NOTICE To EMPLOYEES STATEMENT OF THE CASE POSTED BY ORDER OF THE LEONARD N. COHEN, Administrative Law Judge: This NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD matter was heard before me in Oroville, California, on An Agency of the United States Government November 25, 1980.' On July 16, the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu- issued an order consolidating cases and consolidated nity to present evidence and state their positions, complaint and notice of hearing based on unfair labor the National Labor Relations Board found that we practice charges filed on March 31 in Case 20-CA-15262 have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as by Bill Callaway and on May 15 in Case 20-CA-15354 amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. by General Teamsters Local No. 137, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees and Helpers of America, alleging violations of Section concerning their union activities, sympathies, 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as and desires. amended, herein called the Act. WE WILL NOT instruct our employees to fur- The consolidated complaint, as amended at hearing, al- nish the National Labor Relations Board with leges that between November 1979 and May 1980 Re- written statements concerning the protected spondent, through several admitted supervisors and concerted activities of our employees. agents, committed various independent violations of Sec- WE WILL NOT inform our employees that tion 8(a)(l) including, inter alia, creating the impression we have denied overtime and transferred em- of surveillance of its employees' union activities, solicit- ployees because of the employees having en- ing letters of criticism from employees concerning the gaged in union activities or other protected union and/or protected concerted activities of employee concerted activities. Callaway, threatening Callaway with reprimand and WE WILL NOT restrict our employees in o t h er economic reprisals for engaging in union and/or their access to our offices and use of the tele- protected concerted activities, and informing employees phone because of their having engaged in t h at Callaway was restricted both in his movements and union activities or other protected concerted in t h e us e o f t h e telephone, and subsequently transferred activities. to an isolated facility because he had engaged in union activities. WE WILL N ,T deny overtime.to our em- and/or other protected concerted activity. The consoli- WE WILL NOT deny overtime to our em- dated amended complaint further alleges that Respond- ployees because of their having engaged in ent violated Section 8(a)(3) by denying Callaway the op- union activities or other protected concerted portunity to earn overtime, by discontinuing Callaway's activities. reimbursement for travel expenses, and by transferring WE WILL NOT transfer our employees from Callaway to an isolated facility in retaliation for his one facility to another facility because they en- union and/or other protected concerted activities. gaged in union activities or other protected All parties have been afforded full opportunity to concerted activities. appear, to introduce evidence and to examine and cross- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- Counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent filed ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- ent ir e record of the case and from my observation of tions Act. witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: WE WILL offer to William Callaway imme- FINDINGS OF FACT diate transfer from the Coming facility to the Gridley facility in his former position or, if I. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS that position no longer exists, to a substantially _ . equivalent position without prejudice to his se-a Respondent, a California corporation, is engaged in equivalent position. without prejudice to his se- several locations within the State of California in the niority and to any other rights and privileges business of manufacture and retail and nonretail sale of previously enjoyed. WE WILL make William ready mix concrete. Jurisdiction is not in issue. Respond- Callaway whole for any loss of earnings or ent admits and I find and conclude that Respondent is an other benefits, including travel time, travel ex- employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of penses, and overtime, suffered as a result of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. our discrimination against him, with interest thereon. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter are in 1980. 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX DECISION NOTICE To EMPLOYEES STATEMENT OF THE CASE POSTED BY ORDER OF THE LEONARD N. COHEN, Administrative Law Judge: This NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD matter was heard before me in Oroville, California, on An Agency of the United States Government November 25, 1980.' On July 16, the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu- issued an order consolidating cases and consolidated nity to present evidence and state their positions, complaint and notice of hearing based on unfair labor the National Labor Relations Board found that we practice charges filed on March 31 in Case 20-CA-15262 have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as by Bill Callaway and on May 15 in Case 20-CA-15354 amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. by General Teamsters Local No. 137, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees and Helpers of America, alleging violations of Section concerning their union activities, sympathies, 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as and desires. amended, herein called the Act. WE WILL NOT instruct our employees to fur- The consolidated complaint, as amended at hearing, al- nish the National Labor Relations Board with leges that between November 1979 and May 1980 Re- written statements concerning the protected spondent, through several admitted supervisors and concerted activities of our employees. agents, committed various independent violations of Sec- WE WILL NOT inform our employees that tion 8(a)(l) including, inter alia, creating the impression we have denied overtime and transferred em- of surveillance of its employees' union activities, solicit- ployees because of the employees having en- ing letters of criticism from employees concerning the gaged in union activities or other protected union and/or protected concerted activities of employee concerted activities. Callaway, threatening Callaway with reprimand and WE WILL NOT restrict our employees in o t h er economic reprisals for engaging in union and/or their access to our offices and use of the tele- protected concerted activities, and informing employees phone because of their having engaged in t h at Callaway was restricted both in his movements and union activities or other protected concerted in t h e us e o f t h e telephone, and subsequently transferred activities. to an isolated facility because he had engaged in union activities. WE WILL N ,T deny overtime.to our em- and/or other protected concerted activity. The consoli- WE WILL NOT deny overtime to our em- dated amended complaint further alleges that Respond- ployees because of their having engaged in ent violated Section 8(a)(3) by denying Callaway the op- union activities or other protected concerted portunity to earn overtime, by discontinuing Callaway's activities. reimbursement for travel expenses, and by transferring WE WILL NOT transfer our employees from Callaway to an isolated facility in retaliation for his one facility to another facility because they en- union and/or other protected concerted activities. gaged in union activities or other protected All parties have been afforded full opportunity to concerted activities. appear, to introduce evidence and to examine and cross- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- Counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent filed ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- ent ire record of the case and from my observation of tions Act. witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: WE WILL offer to William Callaway imme- FINDINGS OF FACT diate transfer from the Coming facility to the Gridley facility in his former position or, if I. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS that position no longer exists, to a substantially _ . equivalent position without prejudice to his se-a Respondent, a California corporation, is engaged in equivalent position. without prejudice to his se- several locations within the State of California in the niority and to any other rights and privileges business of manufacture and retail and nonretail sale of previously enjoyed. WE WILL make William ready mix concrete. Jurisdiction is not in issue. Respond- Callaway whole for any loss of earnings or ent admits and I find and conclude that Respondent is an other benefits, including travel time, travel ex- employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of penses, and overtime, suffered as a result of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. our discrimination against him, with interest thereon. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter are in 1980. 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX DECISION NOTICE To EMPLOYEES STATEMENT OF THE CASE POSTED BY ORDER OF THE LEONARD N. COHEN, Administrative Law Judge: This NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD matter was heard before me in Oroville, California, on An Agency of the United States Government November 25, 1980.' On July 16, the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu- issued an order consolidating cases and consolidated nity to present evidence and state their positions, complaint and notice of hearing based on unfair labor the National Labor Relations Board found that we practice charges filed on March 31 in Case 20-CA-15262 have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as by Bill Callaway and on May 15 in Case 20-CA-15354 amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. by General Teamsters Local No. 137, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees and Helpers of America, alleging violations of Section concerning their union activities, sympathies, 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as and desires. amended, herein called the Act. WE WILL NOT instruct our employees to fur- The consolidated complaint, as amended at hearing, al- nish the National Labor Relations Board with leges that between November 1979 and May 1980 Re- written statements concerning the protected spondent, through several admitted supervisors and concerted activities of our employees. agents, committed various independent violations of Sec- WE WILL NOT inform our employees that tion 8(a)(l) including, inter alia, creating the impression we have denied overtime and transferred em- of surveillance of its employees' union activities, solicit- ployees because of the employees having en- ing letters of criticism from employees concerning the gaged in union activities or other protected union and/or protected concerted activities of employee concerted activities. Callaway, threatening Callaway with reprimand and WE WILL NOT restrict our employees in o t h er economic reprisals for engaging in union and/or their access to our offices and use of the tele- protected concerted activities, and informing employees phone because of their having engaged in t h at Callaway was restricted both in his movements and union activities or other protected concerted in t h e us e o f t h e telephone, and subsequently transferred activities. to an isolated facility because he had engaged in union activities. WE WILL N ,T deny overtime.to our em- and/or other protected concerted activity. The consoli- WE WILL NOT deny overtime to our em- dated amended complaint further alleges that Respond- ployees because of their having engaged in ent violated Section 8(a)(3) by denying Callaway the op- union activities or other protected concerted portunity to earn overtime, by discontinuing Callaway's activities. reimbursement for travel expenses, and by transferring WE WILL NOT transfer our employees from Callaway to an isolated facility in retaliation for his one facility to another facility because they en- union and/or other protected concerted activities. gaged in union activities or other protected All parties have been afforded full opportunity to concerted activities. appear, to introduce evidence and to examine and cross- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- Counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent filed ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- ent ire record of the case and from my observation of tions Act. witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: WE WILL offer to William Callaway imme- FINDINGS OF FACT diate transfer from the Coming facility to the Gridley facility in his former position or, if I. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS that position no longer exists, to a substantially _ . equivalent position without prejudice to his se-a Respondent, a California corporation, is engaged in equivalent position. without prejudice to his se- several locations within the State of California in the niority and to any other rights and privileges business of manufacture and retail and nonretail sale of previously enjoyed. WE WILL make William ready mix concrete. Jurisdiction is not in issue. Respond- Callaway whole for any loss of earnings or ent admits and I find and conclude that Respondent is an other benefits, including travel time, travel ex- employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of penses, and overtime, suffered as a result of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. our discrimination against him, with interest thereon. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter are in 1980. 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX DECISION NOTICE To EMPLOYEES STATEMENT OF THE CASE POSTED BY ORDER OF THE LEONARD N. COHEN, Administrative Law Judge: This NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD matter was heard before me in Oroville, California, on An Agency of the United States Government November 25, 1980.' On July 16, the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu- issued an order consolidating cases and consolidated nity to present evidence and state their positions, complaint and notice of hearing based on unfair labor the National Labor Relations Board found that we practice charges filed on March 31 in Case 20-CA-15262 have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as by Bill Callaway and on May 15 in Case 20-CA-15354 amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. by General Teamsters Local No. 137, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees and Helpers of America, alleging violations of Section concerning their union activities, sympathies, 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as and desires. amended, herein called the Act. WE WILL NOT instruct our employees to fur- The consolidated complaint, as amended at hearing, al- nish the National Labor Relations Board with leges that between November 1979 and May 1980 Re- written statements concerning the protected spondent, through several admitted supervisors and concerted activities of our employees. agents, committed various independent violations of Sec- WE WILL NOT inform our employees that tion 8(a)(l) including, inter alia, creating the impression we have denied overtime and transferred em- of surveillance of its employees' union activities, solicit- ployees because of the employees having en- ing letters of criticism from employees concerning the gaged in union activities or other protected union and/or protected concerted activities of employee concerted activities. Callaway, threatening Callaway with reprimand and WE WILL NOT restrict our employees in o t h er economic reprisals for engaging in union and/or their access to our offices and use of the tele- protected concerted activities, and informing employees phone because of their having engaged in t h at Callaway was restricted both in his movements and union activities or other protected concerted in t h e us e o f t h e telephone, and subsequently transferred activities. to an isolated facility because he had engaged in union activities. WE WILL N ,T deny overtime.to our em- and/or other protected concerted activity. The consoli- WE WILL NOT deny overtime to our em- dated amended complaint further alleges that Respond- ployees because of their having engaged in ent violated Section 8(a)(3) by denying Callaway the op- union activities or other protected concerted portunity to earn overtime, by discontinuing Callaway's activities. reimbursement for travel expenses, and by transferring WE WILL NOT transfer our employees from Callaway to an isolated facility in retaliation for his one facility to another facility because they en- union and/or other protected concerted activities. gaged in union activities or other protected All parties have been afforded full opportunity to concerted activities. appear, to introduce evidence and to examine and cross- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- Counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent filed ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- ent ire record of the case and from my observation of tions Act. witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: WE WILL offer to William Callaway imme- FINDINGS OF FACT diate transfer from the Coming facility to the Gridley facility in his former position or, if I. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS that position no longer exists, to a substantially _ . equivalent position without prejudice to his se-a Respondent, a California corporation, is engaged in equivalent position. without prejudice to his se- several locations within the State of California in the niority and to any other rights and privileges business of manufacture and retail and nonretail sale of previously enjoyed. WE WILL make William ready mix concrete. Jurisdiction is not in issue. Respond- Callaway whole for any loss of earnings or ent admits and I find and conclude that Respondent is an other benefits, including travel time, travel ex- employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of penses, and overtime, suffered as a result of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. our discrimination against him, with interest thereon. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter are in 1980. 740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX DECISION NOTICE To EMPLOYEES STATEMENT OF THE CASE POSTED BY ORDER OF THE LEONARD N. COHEN, Administrative Law Judge: This NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD matter was heard before me in Oroville, California, on An Agency of the United States Government November 25, 1980.' On July 16, the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu- issued an order consolidating cases and consolidated nity to present evidence and state their positions, complaint and notice of hearing based on unfair labor the National Labor Relations Board found that we practice charges filed on March 31 in Case 20-CA-15262 have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as by Bill Callaway and on May 15 in Case 20-CA-15354 amended, and has ordered us to post this notice. by General Teamsters Local No. 137, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees and Helpers of America, alleging violations of Section concerning their union activities, sympathies, 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as and desires. amended, herein called the Act. WE WILL NOT instruct our employees to fur- The consolidated complaint, as amended at hearing, al- nish the National Labor Relations Board with leges that between November 1979 and May 1980 Re- written statements concerning the protected spondent, through several admitted supervisors and concerted activities of our employees. agents, committed various independent violations of Sec- WE WILL NOT inform our employees that tion 8(a)(l) including, inter alia, creating the impression we have denied overtime and transferred em- of surveillance of its employees' union activities, solicit- ployees because of the employees having en- ing letters of criticism from employees concerning the gaged in union activities or other protected union and/or protected concerted activities of employee concerted activities. Callaway, threatening Callaway with reprimand and WE WILL NOT restrict our employees in o t h er economic reprisals for engaging in union and/or their access to our offices and use of the tele- protected concerted activities, and informing employees phone because of their having engaged in t h at Callaway was restricted both in his movements and union activities or other protected concerted in t h e us e o f t h e telephone, and subsequently transferred activities. to an isolated facility because he had engaged in union activities. WE WILL N ,T deny overtime.to our em- and/or other protected concerted activity. The consoli- WE WILL NOT deny overtime to our em- dated amended complaint further alleges that Respond- ployees because of their having engaged in ent violated Section 8(a)(3) by denying Callaway the op- union activities or other protected concerted portunity to earn overtime, by discontinuing Callaway's activities. reimbursement for travel expenses, and by transferring WE WILL NOT transfer our employees from Callaway to an isolated facility in retaliation for his one facility to another facility because they en- union and/or other protected concerted activities. gaged in union activities or other protected All parties have been afforded full opportunity to concerted activities. appear, to introduce evidence and to examine and cross- WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ- Counsel for the General Counsel and Respondent filed ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed briefs which have been carefully considered. Upon the them by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- ent ire record of the case and from my observation of tions Act. witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following: WE WILL offer to William Callaway imme- FINDINGS OF FACT diate transfer from the Coming facility to the Gridley facility in his former position or, if I. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS that position no longer exists, to a substantially _ . equivalent position without prejudice to his se-a Respondent, a California corporation, is engaged in equivalent position. without prejudice to his se- several locations within the State of California in the niority and to any other rights and privileges business of manufacture and retail and nonretail sale of previously enjoyed. WE WILL make William ready mix concrete. Jurisdiction is not in issue. Respond- Callaway whole for any loss of earnings or ent admits and I find and conclude that Respondent is an other benefits, including travel time, travel ex- employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of penses, and overtime, suffered as a result of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. our discrimination against him, with interest thereon. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter are in 1980. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 741 11. THE UNION'S LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS viewed Callaway as the employees' union representative, asked what the men were going to ask for in the upcom- Respondent admits and I find and conclude that the ng contract negotiations. Before Callaway had an oppor- Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tunity t o respond, Lovett stated that Respondent was tion 2(5) of the Act. tunity to respond, Lovett stated that Respondent was tion 2(5) of the Act. going to stick to President Carter's guidelines and that . THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICESCallaway should inform the rest of the employees of that III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES fact. s A. Facts2 Two separate and distinct incidents involving Callaway occurred during February and apparently ac- Respondent's manufacturing operations consist of five count for and form the basis of Respondent's subsequent separate facilities or batch plants in north central Califor- treatment of Callaway. The first incident occurred while nia: Gridley, Chico, Oroville, Yuba City, and Corning, Callaway was working at the Chico facility. On this oc- California. The Gridley facility, which sits in the middle casion, Callaway walked into the batchroom9 where ap- of the others, serves as Respondent's headquarters. 3 Each proximately six employees were present and already dis- facility employs both truckdrivers and batch plant opera- cussing the upcoming contract. Callaway was asked for tors. Additionally, Respondent employs approximately his feelings and he responded that the men should seek six mechanics who are responsible for the repair and parity with other similar employees in the area. Callaway maintenance of various trucks as well as batch plant added that although some of the employees at Oroville equipment throughout the entire system. With some rare did not believe that they should seek that much, he sug- exceptions, the mechanics are generally assigned to the gested that the men work together as a group to get a Gridley facility and are then sent out to the other four good contract. Callaway, at some point, relayed Lovett's plants on daily assignments.' earlier message to the group regarding the guidelines. For some years prior to 1977, Respondent's truck- A few days following this meeting, Bill Goggia, a su- drivers and mechanics employed at the Gridley, Oro- pervisor at Chico, approached Leonard Healey, one of ville, Yuba City, and Chico facilities have been repre- the Chico employees who had been present at the lunch- sented in one overall bargaining unit. The collective-bar- time meeting with Callaway. Goggia asked Healey if he gaining agreement in effect at the time the instant con- would write a letter or a statement concerning what was troversy arose was effective from May 1977 to April 30, said at the meeting. Goggia added that in asking for the 1980. statement, he was merely following the instructions of Al In either late 1979 or early 1980,6 Don Lovett, a su- DeMuth, the assistant manager. 0 Healey answered that pervisor directly under Gordon Mathews, Respondent's he would prefer not to prepare such a statement or president, approached Callaway, a mechanic and the "in- letter, and the matter was then dropped. formal" shop steward.' Lovett, after first stating that he The second February incident involved a conversation between Callaway and Steve Landis, a loader-operator at 'The material facts are not in dispute. In support of the complaint, the Respondent's Oroville facility. Callaway informed General Counsel called 10 employee and former employee witnesses. Al- Landis that Landis was receiving $1 an hour less than an though Respondent did not call any witnesses, it did introduce documen- employee performing the same function at the Yuba City tary evidence relating to overtime assignments of mechanics and the in- facility. Callaway then uggested that Landis ask Re- creased output at the Corning facility during 1980. The above account is f . C t s based on the uncontradicted, and in many respects corroborative, testi- spondent for a raise." Then Mechanic Supervisor Tom mony of the General Counsel's witnesses, whom I found to be generally Clark and Oroville's plant manager, Jim Seamon, were trustworthy. In crediting their testimony, which was adverse to Respond- both in the area during the conversation and both may ent, I note that many of these witnesses are still employed by Respond- have been present during all or part of this conversation. ent. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that their testimony would be false. See Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304, 1305 (1961), modified in A few days later, Landis spoke to DeMuth at Oroville other grounds 308 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1962). and asked about the wage differential. DeMuth answered ' The Oroville facility is located approximately 14 miles northeast of that he thought it was true that a Yuba City operator Gridley; the Chico facility approximately 35 miles north of Gridley; was receiving more than he and that DeMuth would get Yuba City facility approximately 20 miles south of Gridley; and Corning wa receivng more than le and that DeMuth would get approximately 70 miles northwest of Gridley. back to Landis. Sometime later, DeMuth in the presence ' One of the exceptions to this practice was Callaway's transfer in May of Seamon informed Landis that he would get $1 an to the Coming facility. This assignment will be discussed in detail below. hour raise. DeMuth then asked if Callaway had told him Sometime prior to May 1979, Respondent built and/or acquired the about the wage differential. When Landis answered that Corning facility. In late May 1979, Respondent and the Union executed a separate collective-bargaining agreement covering the Coring employees employed as truckdrivers, batch operators, and mechanics. This agree- Callaway testified that in March Supervisors DeMuth and Seamon in- ment, like the contract covering the other four facilities, expired on April formed him that they had just spoken to Lovett who denied that he had 30. ever talked to Callaway about the upcoming contract negotiations. On May 16, Respondent and the Union executed new 3-year collec- Callaway was then instructed that he was no longer to be Lovett's tive- bargaining agreements in the two separate bargaining units discussed spokesman. above. Apparently an area where employees customarily ate their lunch. ' Although Callaway originally testified that this conversation oc- '1 While DeMuth was at all times an admitted supervisor of Respond- curred in late November, Callaway later in his testimony stated that it ent, it is not clear prior to April precisely what his title or responsibilities occurred in either late 1979 or early 1980. In view of Callaway's Febru- were. It appears that at all times he worked out of the Gridley facility. In ary discussions with employees regarding this conversation, it appears April, DeMuth was given the responsibility for the ultimate supervision likely that it in fact occurred during the early portion of 1980. of the mechanics. I Callaway's status as informal union steward was apparently acknowl- " As noted earlier, this job classification was not covered by the col- edged as fact by all concerned. lective-bargaining agreement. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 741 ll. THE UNION'S LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS viewed Callaway as the employees' union representative, Respondent admits and I . find and conclude that the asked what the men were going to ask for in the upcom- Respondent admits and I find and conclude that the ing contract negotiations. Before Callaway had an oppor- Ut onis a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tunity to respond, Lovett stated that Respondent was tion 2(5) of the Act. going to stick to President Carter's guidelines and that III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES^Callaway s h o u l d i n f o rm t h e r e s t o f t h e employees o f t h a t fact. 9 A. Facts2 Tw o separate and distinct incidents involving Callaway occurred during February and apparently ac- Respondent's manufacturing operations consist of five count for and form the basis of Respondent's subsequent separate facilities or batch plants in north central Califor- treatment of Callaway. The first incident occurred while nia: Gridley, Chico, Oroville, Yuba City, and Corning, Callaway was working at the Chico facility. On this oc- California. The Gridley facility, which sits in the middle casion, Callaway walked into the batchroom" where ap- of the others, serves as Respondent's headquarters. 3 Each proximately six employees were present and already dis- facility employs both truckdrivers and batch plant opera- cussing the upcoming contract. Callaway was asked for tors. Additionally, Respondent employs approximately his feelings and he responded that the men should seek six mechanics who are responsible for the repair and parity with other similar employees in the area. Callaway maintenance of various trucks as well as batch plant added that although some of the employees at Oroville equipment throughout the entire system. With some rare did not believe that they should seek that much, he sug- exceptions, the mechanics are generally assigned to the gested that the men work together as a group to get a Gridley facility and are then sent out to the other four good contract. Callaway, at some point, relayed Lovett's plants on daily assignments. Iearlier message to the group regarding the guidelines. For some years prior to 1977, Respondent's truck- A few days following this meeting, Bill Goggia, a su- drivers and mechanics employed at the Gridley, Oro- pervisor at Chico, approached Leonard Healey, one of ville, Yuba City, and Chico facilities have been repre- the Chico employees who had been present at the lunch- sented in one overall bargaining unit. The collective-bar- time meeting with Callaway. Goggia asked Healey if he gaining agreement in effect at the time the instant con- would write a letter or a statement concerning what was troversy arose was effective from May 1977 to April 30, said at the meeting. Goggia added that in asking for the 19g0. 5 statement, he was merely following the instructions of Al In either late 1979 or early 1980,1 Don Lovett, a su- DeMuth, the assistant manager. 10 Healey answered that pervisor directly under Gordon Mathews, Respondent's h e w o u ld prefer no t t o prepare s uc h a statement or president, approached Callaway, a mechanic and the "in- l et t e r, a n d th e m at t e r w a s t h en dropped. formal" shop steward.' Lovett, after first stating that he T h e s ec o nd February incident involved a conversation between Callaway and Steve Landis, a loader-operator at 2The material facts are not in dispute. In support of the complaint, the Respondent's Oroville facility. Callaway informed General Counsel called 10 employee and former employee witnesses. Al- Landis that Landis Was receiving $1 an hour less than an though Respondent did not call any witnesses, it did introduce documen- employee performing the same function at the Yuba City tary evidence relating to overtime assignments of mechanics and the in-. facility. Callaway then Suggested that Landis ask Re- creased output at the Coming facility during 1980. The above account is based on the uncontradicted, and in many respects corroborative, testi- spondent for a raise." Then Mechanic Supervisor Tom mony of the General Counsel's witnesses, whom I found to be generally Clark and Oroville's plant manager, Jim Seamon, were trustworthy. In crediting their testimony, which was adverse to Respond- both in the area during the conversation and both may ent, I note that many of these witnesses are still employed by Respond- have been present during all or part of this conversation. ent. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that their testimony would be false. See Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304, 1305 (1961), modified in A few days later, Landis spoke to DeMuth at Oroville other grounds 308 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1962). and asked about the wage differential. DeMuth answered ' The Oroville facility is located approximately 14 miles northeast of that he thought it was true that a Yuba City Operator Gridley; the Chico facility approximately 35 miles north of Gridley; wsrciigmr hnh n htD~ t ol e Yuba City facility approximately20mluth oceiving more than he and that DeMuth would get approximately 70 miles northwest of Gridley. back to Landis. Sometime later, DeMuth in the presence I One of the exceptions to this practice was Callaway's transfer in May of Seamon informed Landis that he would get $1 an to the Coming facility. This assignment will be discussed in detail below. hour raise. DeMuth then asked if Callaway had told him ISometime yto May ^ %£ ^htu^ ied 1': a^ ^ wage differential. When Landis answered that Corning facility. In late May 1979, Respondent and the Union executed a aottewg ifrnil hnLni nwrdta separate collective-bargaining agreement covering the Coming employees employed as truckdrivers, batch operators, and mechanics. This agree- Callaway testified that in March Supervisors DeMuth and Seamon in- ment, like the contract covering the other four facilities, expired on April formed him that they had just spoken to Lovett who denied that he had 30. ever talked to Callaway about the upcoming contract negotiations. On May 16, Respondent and the Union executed new 3-year collec- Callaway was then instructed that he was no longer to be Lovett's tive- bargaining agreements in the two separate bargaining units discussed spokesman. above. IApparently an area where employees customarily ate their lunch. * Although Callaway originally testified that this conversation oc- 10While DeMuth was at all times an admitted supervisor of Respond- cuffed in late November, Callaway later in his testimony stated that it ent, it is not clear prior to April precisely what his title or responsibilities occurred in either late 1979 or early 1980. In view of Callaway's Febru- were. It appears that at all times he worked out of the Gridley facility. In ary discussions with employees regarding this conversation, it appears April, DeMuth was given the responsibility for the ultimate supervision likely that it in fact occurred during the early portion of 1980. of the mechanics. I Callaway's status as informal union steward was apparently acknowl- " As noted earlier, this job classification was not covered by the col- edged as fact by all concerned, lective-bargaining agreement. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 741 ll. THE UNION'S LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS viewed Callaway as the employees' union representative, Respondent admits and I . find and conclude that the asked what the men were going to ask for in the upcom- Respondent admits and I find and conclude that the ing contract negotiations. Before Callaway had an oppor- Ut onis a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tunity to respond, Lovett stated that Respondent was tion 2(5) of the Act. going to stick to President Carter's guidelines and that III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES^Callaway s h o u l d i n f o rm t h e r e s t o f t h e employees o f t h a t fact. 9 A. Facts2 Tw o separate and distinct incidents involving Callaway occurred during February and apparently ac- Respondent's manufacturing operations consist of five count for and form the basis of Respondent's subsequent separate facilities or batch plants in north central Califor- treatment of Callaway. The first incident occurred while nia: Gridley, Chico, Oroville, Yuba City, and Corning, Callaway was working at the Chico facility. On this oc- California. The Gridley facility, which sits in the middle casion, Callaway walked into the batchroom" where ap- of the others, serves as Respondent's headquarters. 3 Each proximately six employees were present and already dis- facility employs both truckdrivers and batch plant opera- cussing the upcoming contract. Callaway was asked for tors. Additionally, Respondent employs approximately his feelings and he responded that the men should seek six mechanics who are responsible for the repair and parity with other similar employees in the area. Callaway maintenance of various trucks as well as batch plant added that although some of the employees at Oroville equipment throughout the entire system. With some rare did not believe that they should seek that much, he sug- exceptions, the mechanics are generally assigned to the gested that the men work together as a group to get a Gridley facility and are then sent out to the other four good contract. Callaway, at some point, relayed Lovett's plants on daily assignments. Iearlier message to the group regarding the guidelines. For some years prior to 1977, Respondent's truck- A few days following this meeting, Bill Goggia, a su- drivers and mechanics employed at the Gridley, Oro- pervisor at Chico, approached Leonard Healey, one of ville, Yuba City, and Chico facilities have been repre- the Chico employees who had been present at the lunch- sented in one overall bargaining unit. The collective-bar- time meeting with Callaway. Goggia asked Healey if he gaining agreement in effect at the time the instant con- would write a letter or a statement concerning what was troversy arose was effective from May 1977 to April 30, said at the meeting. Goggia added that in asking for the 19g0. 5 statement, he was merely following the instructions of Al In either late 1979 or early 1980,1 Don Lovett, a su- DeMuth, the assistant manager. 10 Healey answered that pervisor directly under Gordon Mathews, Respondent's h e w o u ld prefer no t t o prepare s uc h a statement or president, approached Callaway, a mechanic and the "in- l et t e r, a n d th e m at t e r w a s t h en dropped. formal" shop steward.' Lovett, after first stating that he T h e second February incident involved a conversation between Callaway and Steve Landis, a loader-operator at 2The material facts are not in dispute. In support of the complaint, the Respondent's Oroville facility. Callaway informed General Counsel called 10 employee and former employee witnesses. Al- Landis that Landis Was receiving $1 an hour less than an though Respondent did not call any witnesses, it did introduce documen- employee performing the same function at the Yuba City tary evidence relating to overtime assignments of mechanics and the in-. facility. Callaway then Suggested that Landis ask Re- creased output at the Coming facility during 1980. The above account is based on the uncontradicted, and in many respects corroborative, testi- spondent for a raise." Then Mechanic Supervisor Tom mony of the General Counsel's witnesses, whom I found to be generally Clark and Oroville's plant manager, Jim Seamon, were trustworthy. In crediting their testimony, which was adverse to Respond- both in the area during the conversation and both may ent, I note that many of these witnesses are still employed by Respond- have been present during all or part of this conversation. ent. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that their testimony would be false. See Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304, 1305 (1961), modified in A few days later, Landis spoke to DeMuth at Oroville other grounds 308 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1962). and asked about the wage differential. DeMuth answered ' The Oroville facility is located approximately 14 miles northeast of that he thought it was true that a Yuba City Operator Gridley; the Chico facility approximately 35 miles north of Gridley; wsrciigmr hnh n htD~ t ol e Yuba City facility approximately20mluth oceiving more than he and that DeMuth would get approximately 70 miles northwest of Gridley. back to Landis. Sometime later, DeMuth in the presence I One of the exceptions to this practice was Callaway's transfer in May of Seamon informed Landis that he would get $1 an to the Coming facility. This assignment will be discussed in detail below. hour raise. DeMuth then asked if Callaway had told him ISometime yto May ^ %£ ^htu^ ied 1': a^ ^ wage differential. When Landis answered that Corning facility. In late May 1979, Respondent and the Union executed a aottewg ifrnil hnLni nwrdta separate collective-bargaining agreement covering the Coming employees employed as truckdrivers, batch operators, and mechanics. This agree- Callaway testified that in March Supervisors DeMuth and Seamon in- ment, like the contract covering the other four facilities, expired on April formed him that they had just spoken to Lovett who denied that he had 30. ever talked to Callaway about the upcoming contract negotiations. On May 16, Respondent and the Union executed new 3-year collec- Callaway was then instructed that he was no longer to be Lovett's tive- bargaining agreements in the two separate bargaining units discussed spokesman. above. IApparently an area where employees customarily ate their lunch. * Although Callaway originally testified that this conversation oc- 10While DeMuth was at all times an admitted supervisor of Respond- cuffed in late November, Callaway later in his testimony stated that it ent, it is not clear prior to April precisely what his title or responsibilities occurred in either late 1979 or early 1980. In view of Callaway's Febru- were. It appears that at all times he worked out of the Gridley facility. In ary discussions with employees regarding this conversation, it appears April, DeMuth was given the responsibility for the ultimate supervision likely that it in fact occurred during the early portion of 1980. of the mechanics. I Callaway's status as informal union steward was apparently acknowl- " As noted earlier, this job classification was not covered by the col- edged as fact by all concerned, lective-bargaining agreement. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 741 ll. THE UNION'S LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS viewed Callaway as the employees' union representative, Respondent admits and I . find and conclude that the asked what the men were going to ask for in the upcom- Respondent admits and I find and conclude that the ing contract negotiations. Before Callaway had an oppor- Ut onis a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tunity to respond, Lovett stated that Respondent was tion 2(5) of the Act. going to stick to President Carter's guidelines and that III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES^Callaway s h o u l d i n f o rm t h e r e s t o f t h e employees o f t h a t fact. 9 A. Facts2 Tw o separate and distinct incidents involving Callaway occurred during February and apparently ac- Respondent's manufacturing operations consist of five count for and form the basis of Respondent's subsequent separate facilities or batch plants in north central Califor- treatment of Callaway. The first incident occurred while nia: Gridley, Chico, Oroville, Yuba City, and Corning, Callaway was working at the Chico facility. On this oc- California. The Gridley facility, which sits in the middle casion, Callaway walked into the batchroom" where ap- of the others, serves as Respondent's headquarters. 3 Each proximately six employees were present and already dis- facility employs both truckdrivers and batch plant opera- cussing the upcoming contract. Callaway was asked for tors. Additionally, Respondent employs approximately his feelings and he responded that the men should seek six mechanics who are responsible for the repair and parity with other similar employees in the area. Callaway maintenance of various trucks as well as batch plant added that although some of the employees at Oroville equipment throughout the entire system. With some rare did not believe that they should seek that much, he sug- exceptions, the mechanics are generally assigned to the gested that the men work together as a group to get a Gridley facility and are then sent out to the other four good contract. Callaway, at some point, relayed Lovett's plants on daily assignments. Iearlier message to the group regarding the guidelines. For some years prior to 1977, Respondent's truck- A few days following this meeting, Bill Goggia, a su- drivers and mechanics employed at the Gridley, Oro- pervisor at Chico, approached Leonard Healey, one of ville, Yuba City, and Chico facilities have been repre- the Chico employees who had been present at the lunch- sented in one overall bargaining unit. The collective-bar- time meeting with Callaway. Goggia asked Healey if he gaining agreement in effect at the time the instant con- would write a letter or a statement concerning what was troversy arose was effective from May 1977 to April 30, said at the meeting. Goggia added that in asking for the 19g0. 5 statement, he was merely following the instructions of Al In either late 1979 or early 1980,1 Don Lovett, a su- DeMuth, the assistant manager. 10 Healey answered that pervisor directly under Gordon Mathews, Respondent's h e w o u ld prefer no t t o prepare s uc h a statement or president, approached Callaway, a mechanic and the "in- l et t e r, a n d th e m at t e r w a s t h en dropped. formal" shop steward.' Lovett, after first stating that he T h e second February incident involved a conversation between Callaway and Steve Landis, a loader-operator at 2The material facts are not in dispute. In support of the complaint, the Respondent's Oroville facility. Callaway informed General Counsel called 10 employee and former employee witnesses. Al- Landis that Landis Was receiving $1 an hour less than an though Respondent did not call any witnesses, it did introduce documen- employee performing the same function at the Yuba City tary evidence relating to overtime assignments of mechanics and the in-. facility. Callaway then Suggested that Landis ask Re- creased output at the Coming facility during 1980. The above account is based on the uncontradicted, and in many respects corroborative, testi- spondent for a raise." Then Mechanic Supervisor Tom mony of the General Counsel's witnesses, whom I found to be generally Clark and Oroville's plant manager, Jim Seamon, were trustworthy. In crediting their testimony, which was adverse to Respond- both in the area during the conversation and both may ent, I note that many of these witnesses are still employed by Respond- have been present during all or part of this conversation. ent. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that their testimony would be false. See Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304, 1305 (1961), modified in A few days later, Landis spoke to DeMuth at Oroville other grounds 308 F.2d 89 (5th Cir. 1962). and asked about the wage differential. DeMuth answered ' The Oroville facility is located approximately 14 miles northeast of that he thought it was true that a Yuba City Operator Gridley; the Chico facility approximately 35 miles north of Gridley; wsrciigmr hnh n htD~ t ol e Yuba City facility approximately20mluth oceiving more than he and that DeMuth would get approximately 70 miles northwest of Gridley. back to Landis. Sometime later, DeMuth in the presence I One of the exceptions to this practice was Callaway's transfer in May of Seamon informed Landis that he would get $1 an to the Coming facility. This assignment will be discussed in detail below. hour raise. DeMuth then asked if Callaway had told him I Sometime prior to May 1979, Respondent built and/or acquired the aottewg ifrnil hnLni nwrdta Coring facility. In late May 1979, Respondent and the Union executed a differential. When Landis answered that separate collective-bargaining agreement covering the Coming employees employed as truckdrivers, batch operators, and mechanics. This agree- Callaway testified that in March Supervisors DeMuth and Seamon in- ment, like the contract covering the other four facilities, expired on April formed him that they had just spoken to Lovett who denied that he had 30. ever talked to Callaway about the upcoming contract negotiations. On May 16, Respondent and the Union executed new 3-year collec- Callaway was then instructed that he was no longer to be Lovett's tive- bargaining agreements in the two separate bargaining units discussed spokesman. above. IApparently an area where employees customarily ate their lunch. * Although Callaway originally testified that this conversation oc- 10While DeMuth was at all times an admitted supervisor of Respond- cuffed in late November, Callaway later in his testimony stated that it ent, it is not clear prior to April precisely what his title or responsibilities occurred in either late 1979 or early 1980. In view of Callaway's Febru- were. It appears that at all times he worked out of the Gridley facility. In ary discussions with employees regarding this conversation, it appears April, DeMuth was given the responsibility for the ultimate supervision likely that it in fact occurred during the early portion of 1980. of the mechanics. I Callaway's status as informal union steward was apparently acknowl- " As noted earlier, this job classification was not covered by the col- edged as fact by all concerned, lective-bargaining agreement. 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he had, DeMuth asked Landis if he would be willing to when he lost this overtime and also filed a grievance make a written statement saying that. DeMuth added with the Union. 4 that Callaway was causing the Company trouble and In April, Callaway was called into a meeting with they needed a written example. Landis answered that he DeMuth, Gordon Mathews, Al Azevedo, who by then would prepare the statement. A day or two later, Landis had replaced Tom Clark as the supervisor of the me- called DeMuth and informed him that he had changed chanics, and Tom Sanford, Respondent's attorney. At his mind and would not make the written statement. the meeting, Mathews stated that he could not allow DeMuth simply said, "okay," and the matter was Callaway to be filling out timecards for overtime not dropped for the time being. worked and, if Callaway continued to do so, he would A few weeks later, Landis received a paycheck show- receive a pink slip (warning notice). ing that he had in fact been given a 50-cent-an-hour Callaway responded by arguing that overtime assign- raise. Landis called Seamon who said he would check ments were not being made strictly by seniority. into it. A short time later, Seamon called Landis back Callaway then mentioned that fellow mechanic Richard and said that that was all he could do and that he Watson had submitted a similar timecard for work he (Landis) could thank Callaway for it. had been denied and that Watson had in fact been paid That same day Seamon spoke to Callaway about for those hours.'" Respondent's officials indicated that Landis' raise. Seamon told Callaway that Landis had they were not aware of Watson's actions and they then Callaway to thank for getting only half of the promised called Watson into the meeting. Watson confirmed the raise. facts and was then dismissed. As Watson was leaving, he During June, Seamon approached Landis and in- heard DeMuth state to Mathews, "Clark again." The formed him that the National Labor Relations Board group then continued for a short time thereafter to dis- wanted him to make a written statement concerning his cuss overtime. Callaway never received payment for any conversations with Callaway about his raise. Landis pre- overtime he felt he had been denied. pared such a statement and gave it to Seamon. Callaway further testified to three other specific in- Immediately following these February incidents, stances where he felt he had been denied overtime. This Callaway was "grounded" or restricted to the Gridley entire testimony consists of the following questions and facility. 12 These restrictions lasted until Callaway was answers: transferred on May 13 on a permanent basis to Corning. Q. (By Mr. Jemison) Okay. Now, were there oc- Tom Clark, the then immediate supervisor of the me- casions where you would fave received more over- chanics, on several occasions informed both Callaway time than you actually received had you been al- and the other employees that DeMuth had ordered the lowed to leave the Gridley facility; and; if so, can "grounding" because Callaway was causing union prob- you give us examples? lems. A. Yes, I can give you examples. In assigning overtime to mechanics, Respondent fol- Q Would you do so? lowed a well-established practice of making such assign- A. On one occasion when Larry Taber was sent ment wherever practical upon seniority.13 Callaway was to Coming, which it was known it would be about the most senior mechanic in Respondent's employ. The ten hours of work, and I requested to go and I was General Counsel contends that during the period denied that request Callaway was grounded Respondent deviated from this On another occasion, Larry Taber was sent to practice and denied Callaway the opportunity to take nu- Oroville and it was late in the afternoon when it merous overtime assignments both at the Gridley facility was known there would be overtime and I was as well as at the other facilities. In support of these con- denied that request. tentions, the General Counsel relies primarily on the tes- Another occasion Gerald Pounds went to Oro- timony of Callaway. While Callaway's testimony is not vile and done some work on a truck and also it was contradicted, it is, unfortunately, vague and lacking in overtime involved and I was denied that request. details. Plus the time at the plant in Gridley which is al- In this regard, Callaway testified that on several occa- ready on testimony when the batch belt broke. sions between mid-February and mid-April batch belts Q. So it's your testimony that there was other broke at the Gridley facility which required overtime overtime that you could have received, even maybe work by a mechanic. On those occasions, Respondent days that you worked overtime had you been al- sent Callaway home after the completion of his 8-hour lowed to leave the facility? shift and instead assigned a junior mechanic to work A. Yes. overtime. Callaway stated that he filled out a timecard In defense of this allegation, Respondent introduced " As noted earlier, mechanics customarily reported to the Gridley fa- records showing by workweek the number of overtime cility where they were then dispatched to one or more of the other facili- hours worked by each of the six mechanics. These re- ties. " According to Callaway's understanding of the practice, if another more junior mechanic was closer to the overtime work and it was moThe record does not disclose the identity of the junior mechanic economical for the Company to use the junior mechanic, he was sent. given the work. Further, it is not clear from the record whether However, if the overtime required a mechanic to be sent from the plant, Callaway filed more than one timecard and grievance. Copies of the ti- the most senior mechanic available was asked first. The collective-bar- mecards and/or grievances were not offered at hearing. gaining agreement is silent on the subject of overtime assignments. Watsons testimony corroborates that of Callaway's. 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he had, DeMuth asked Landis if he would be willing to when he lost this overtime and also filed a grievance make a written statement saying that. DeMuth added with the Union." that Callaway was causing the Company trouble and In April, Callaway was called into a meeting with they needed a written example. Landis answered that he DeMuth, Gordon Mathews, Al Azevedo, who by then would prepare the statement. A day or two later, Landis had replaced Tom Clark as the supervisor of the me- called DeMuth and informed him that he had changed chanics, and Tom Sanford, Respondent's attorney. At his mind and would not make the written statement. the meeting, Mathews stated that he could not allow DeMuth simply said, "okay," and the matter was Callaway to be filling out timecards for overtime not dropped for the time being. worked and, if Callaway continued to do so, he would A few weeks later, Landis received a paycheck show- receive a pink slip (warning notice). ing that he had in fact been given a 50-cent-an-hour Callaway responded by arguing that overtime assign- raise. Landis called Seamon who said he would check ments were not being made strictly by seniority. into it. A short time later, Seamon called Landis back Callaway then mentioned that fellow mechanic Richard and said that that was all he could do and that he Watson had submitted a similar timecard for work he (Landis) could thank Callaway for it. had been denied and that Watson had in fact been paid That same day Seamon spoke to Callaway about for those hours." Respondent's officials indicated that Landis' raise. Seamon told Callaway that Landis had they were not aware of Watson's actions and they then Callaway to thank for getting only half of the promised called Watson into the meeting. Watson confirmed the raise. facts and was then dismissed. As Watson was leaving, he During June, Seamon approached Landis and in- h ear d DeMuth state to Mathews, "Clark again." The formed him that the National Labor Relations Board group then continued for a short time thereafter to dis- wanted him to make a written statement concerning his c us s overtime. Callaway never received payment for any conversations with Callaway about his raise. Landis pre- overtime he felt he had been denied. pared such a statement and gave it to Seamon. Callaway further testified to three other specific in- Immediately following these February incidents, stances where he felt he had been denied overtime. This Callaway was "grounded" or restricted to the Gridley e nt ir e testimony consists of the following questions and facility." These restrictions lasted until Callaway was answers: transferred on May 13 on a permanent basis to Coming. Q. (By Mr. Jemison) Okay. Now, were there oc- Tom Clark, the then immediate supervisor of the me- casions where you would fave received more over- chanics, on several occasions informed both Callaway time than you actually received had you been al- and the other employees that DeMuth had ordered the,^d to leave the Gridley facility; and; if so, can grounding" because Callaway was causing union prob-lywetoae h G examples? lems.yogieuexmls A. Yes, I can give you examples. In assigning overtime to mechanics, Respondent fol- Q. Would you do so? lowed a well-established practice of making such assign- A. On one occasion when Larry Taber was sent ment wherever practical upon seniority. 13 Callaway was to Coming, which it was known it would be about the most senior mechanic in Respondent's employ. The ten hours of work, and I requested to go and I was General Counsel contends that during the period denied that request. Callaway was grounded Respondent deviated from this On another occasion, Larry Taber was sent to practice and denied Callaway the opportunity to take nu- Oroville and it was late in the afternoon when it merous overtime assignments both at the Gridley facility was known there would be overtime and I was as well as at the other facilities. In support of these con- denied that request. tentions, the General Counsel relies primarily on the tes- Another occasion Gerald Pounds went to Oro- timony of Callaway. While Callaway's testimony is not ville and done some work on a truck and also it was contradicted, it is, unfortunately, vague and lacking in overtime involved and I was denied that request. details. Plus the time at the plant in Gridley which is al- In this regard, Callaway testified that on several occa- ready on testimony when the batch belt broke. sions between mid-February and mid-April batch belts Q. So it's your testimony that there was other broke at the Gridley facility which required overtime overtime that you could have received, even maybe work by a mechanic. On those occasions, Respondent days that you worked overtime had you been al- sent Callaway home after the completion of his 8-hour lowed to leave the facility? shift and instead assigned a junior mechanic to work A. Yes. overtime. Callaway stated that he filled out a timecard In defense of this allegation, Respondent introduced "1 As noted earlier, mechanics customarily reported to the Gridley fa- records showing by workweek the number of overtime cility where they were then dispatched to one or more of the other facili- hours Worked by each of the six mechanics. These re- ties. " According to Callaway's understanding of the practice, if another more junior mechanic was closer to the overtime work and it was more " The record does not disclose the identity of the junior mechanic economical for the Company to use the junior mechanic, he was sent. given the work. Further, it is not clear from the record whether However, if the overtime required a mechanic to be sent from the plant, Callaway filed more than one timecard and grievance. Copies of the ti- the most senior mechanic available was asked first. The collective-bar- mecards and/or grievances were not offered at hearing. gaining agreement is silent on the subject of overtime assignments." Watson's testimony corroborates that of Callaway's. 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he had, DeMuth asked Landis if he would be willing to when he lost this overtime and also filed a grievance make a written statement saying that. DeMuth added with the Union." that Callaway was causing the Company trouble and In April, Callaway was called into a meeting with they needed a written example. Landis answered that he DeMuth, Gordon Mathews, Al Azevedo, who by then would prepare the statement. A day or two later, Landis had replaced Tom Clark as the supervisor of the me- called DeMuth and informed him that he had changed chanics, and Tom Sanford, Respondent's attorney. At his mind and would not make the written statement. the meeting, Mathews stated that he could not allow DeMuth simply said, "okay," and the matter was Callaway to be filling out timecards for overtime not dropped for the time being. worked and, if Callaway continued to do so, he would A few weeks later, Landis received a paycheck show- receive a pink slip (warning notice). ing that he had in fact been given a 50-cent-an-hour Callaway responded by arguing that overtime assign- raise. Landis called Seamon who said he would check ments were not being made strictly by seniority. into it. A short time later, Seamon called Landis back Callaway then mentioned that fellow mechanic Richard and said that that was all he could do and that he Watson had submitted a similar timecard for work he (Landis) could thank Callaway for it. had been denied and that Watson had in fact been paid That same day Seamon spoke to Callaway about for those hours." Respondent's officials indicated that Landis' raise. Seamon told Callaway that Landis had they were not aware of Watson's actions and they then Callaway to thank for getting only half of the promised called Watson into the meeting. Watson confirmed the raise. facts and was then dismissed. As Watson was leaving, he During June, Seamon approached Landis and in- heard DeMuth state to Mathews, "Clark again." The formed him that the National Labor Relations Board group then continued for a short time thereafter to dis- wanted him to make a written statement concerning his c us s overtime. Callaway never received payment for any conversations with Callaway about his raise. Landis pre- overtime he felt he had been denied. pared such a statement and gave it to Seamon. Callaway further testified to three other specific in- Immediately following these February incidents, stances where he felt he had been denied overtime. This Callaway was "grounded" or restricted to the Gridley e nt ir e testimony consists of the following questions and facility." These restrictions lasted until Callaway was answers: transferred on May 13 on a permanent basis to Coming. Q. (By Mr. Jemison) Okay. Now, were there oc- Tom Clark, the then immediate supervisor of the me- casions where you would fave received more over- chanics, on several occasions informed both Callaway time than you actually received had you been al- and the other employees that DeMuth had ordered the,^d to leave the Gridley facility; and; if so, can grounding" because Callaway was causing union prob-lywetoae h G examples? lems.yogieuexmls A. Yes, I can give you examples. In assigning overtime to mechanics, Respondent fol- Q. Would you do so? lowed a well-established practice of making such assign- A. On one occasion when Larry Taber was sent ment wherever practical upon seniority. 13 Callaway was to Coming, which it was known it would be about the most senior mechanic in Respondent's employ. The ten hours of work, and I requested to go and I was General Counsel contends that during the period denied that request. Callaway was grounded Respondent deviated from this On another occasion, Larry Taber was sent to practice and denied Callaway the opportunity to take nu- Oroville and it was late in the afternoon when it merous overtime assignments both at the Gridley facility was known there would be overtime and I was as well as at the other facilities. In support of these con- denied that request. tentions, the General Counsel relies primarily on the tes- Another occasion Gerald Pounds went to Oro- timony of Callaway. While Callaway's testimony is not ville and done some work on a truck and also it was contradicted, it is, unfortunately, vague and lacking in overtime involved and I was denied that request. details. Plus the time at the plant in Gridley which is al- In this regard, Callaway testified that on several occa- ready on testimony when the batch belt broke. sions between mid-February and mid-April batch belts Q. So it's your testimony that there was other broke at the Gridley facility which required overtime overtime that you could have received, even maybe work by a mechanic. On those occasions, Respondent days that you worked overtime had you been al- sent Callaway home after the completion of his 8-hour lowed to leave the facility? shift and instead assigned a junior mechanic to work A. Yes. overtime. Callaway stated that he filled out a timecard In defense of this allegation, Respondent introduced "1 As noted earlier, mechanics customarily reported to the Gridley fa- records showing by workweek the number of overtime cility where they were then dispatched to one or more of the other facili- hours Worked by each of the six mechanics. These re- ties. " According to Callaway's understanding of the practice, if another more junior mechanic was closer to the overtime work and it was more " The record does not disclose the identity of the junior mechanic economical for the Company to use the junior mechanic, he was sent. given the work. Further, it is not clear from the record whether However, if the overtime required a mechanic to be sent from the plant, Callaway filed more than one timecard and grievance. Copies of the ti- the most senior mechanic available was asked first. The collective-bar- mecards and/or grievances were not offered at hearing. gaining agreement is silent on the subject of overtime assignments." Watson's testimony corroborates that of Callaway's. 742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he had, DeMuth asked Landis if he would be willing to when he lost this overtime and also filed a grievance make a written statement saying that. DeMuth added with the Union." that Callaway was causing the Company trouble and In April, Callaway was called into a meeting with they needed a written example. Landis answered that he DeMuth, Gordon Mathews, Al Azevedo, who by then would prepare the statement. A day or two later, Landis had replaced Tom Clark as the supervisor of the me- called DeMuth and informed him that he had changed chanics, and Tom Sanford, Respondent's attorney. At his mind and would not make the written statement. the meeting, Mathews stated that he could not allow DeMuth simply said, "okay," and the matter was Callaway to be filling out timecards for overtime not dropped for the time being. worked and, if Callaway continued to do so, he would A few weeks later, Landis received a paycheck show- receive a pink slip (warning notice). ing that he had in fact been given a 50-cent-an-hour Callaway responded by arguing that overtime assign- raise. Landis called Seamon who said he would check ments were not being made strictly by seniority. into it. A short time later, Seamon called Landis back Callaway then mentioned that fellow mechanic Richard and said that that was all he could do and that he Watson had submitted a similar timecard for work he (Landis) could thank Callaway for it. had been denied and that Watson had in fact been paid That same day Seamon spoke to Callaway about for those hours." Respondent's officials indicated that Landis' raise. Seamon told Callaway that Landis had they were not aware of Watson's actions and they then Callaway to thank for getting only half of the promised called Watson into the meeting. Watson confirmed the raise. facts and was then dismissed. As Watson was leaving, he During June, Seamon approached Landis and in- heard DeMuth state to Mathews, "Clark again." The formed him that the National Labor Relations Board group then continued for a short time thereafter to dis- wanted him to make a written statement concerning his cuss overtime. Callaway never received payment for any conversations with Callaway about his raise. Landis pre- overtime he felt he had been denied. pared such a statement and gave it to Seamon. Callaway further testified to three other specific in- Immediately following these February incidents, stances where he felt he had been denied overtime. This Callaway was "grounded" or restricted to the Gridley e nt ir e testimony consists of the following questions and facility." These restrictions lasted until Callaway was answers: transferred on May 13 on a permanent basis to Coming. Q. (By Mr. Jemison) Okay. Now, were there oc- Tom Clark, the then immediate supervisor of the me- casions where you would fave received more over- chanics, on several occasions informed both Callaway time than you actually received had you been al- and the other employees that DeMuth had ordered the,^d to leave the Gridley facility; and; if so, can grounding" because Callaway was causing union prob-lywetoae h G examples? lems.yogieuexmls A. Yes, I can give you examples. In assigning overtime to mechanics, Respondent fol- Q. Would you do so? lowed a well-established practice of making such assign- A. On one occasion when Larry Taber was sent ment wherever practical upon seniority. 13 Callaway was to Coming, which it was known it would be about the most senior mechanic in Respondent's employ. The ten hours of work, and I requested to go and I was General Counsel contends that during the period denied that request. Callaway was grounded Respondent deviated from this On another occasion, Larry Taber was sent to practice and denied Callaway the opportunity to take nu- Oroville and it was late in the afternoon when it merous overtime assignments both at the Gridley facility was known there would be overtime and I was as well as at the other facilities. In support of these con- denied that request. tentions, the General Counsel relies primarily on the tes- Another occasion Gerald Pounds went to Oro- timony of Callaway. While Callaway's testimony is not ville and done some work on a truck and also it was contradicted, it is, unfortunately, vague and lacking in overtime involved and I was denied that request. details. Plus the time at the plant in Gridley which is al- In this regard, Callaway testified that on several occa- ready on testimony when the batch belt broke. sions between mid-February and mid-April batch belts Q. So it's your testimony that there was other broke at the Gridley facility which required overtime overtime that you could have received, even maybe work by a mechanic. On those occasions, Respondent days that you worked overtime had you been al- sent Callaway home after the completion of his 8-hour lowed to leave the facility? shift and instead assigned a junior mechanic to work A. Yes. overtime. Callaway stated that he filled out a timecard In defense of this allegation, Respondent introduced "1 As noted earlier, mechanics customarily reported to the Gridley fa- records showing by workweek the number of overtime cility where they were then dispatched to one or more of the other facili- hours Worked by each of the six mechanics. These re- ties. " According to Callaway's understanding of the practice, if another more junior mechanic was closer to the overtime work and it was more " The record does not disclose the identity of the junior mechanic economical for the Company to use the junior mechanic, he was sent. given the work. Further, it is not clear from the record whether However, if the overtime required a mechanic to be sent from the plant, Callaway filed more than one timecard and grievance. Copies of the ti- the most senior mechanic available was asked first. The collective-bar- mecards and/or grievances were not offered at hearing. gaining agreement is silent on the subject of overtime assignments." Watson's testimony corroborates that of Callaway's. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 743 cords indicate that, in most of the weeks both prior to should put in a couple hours' overtime every day, even if and during Callaway's grounding, Callaway generally overtime work was not necessary. 2 worked at least as much as, if not more than, any other Timmy Drews, a batch operator and dispatcher at the mechanic. Notwithstanding this factor, it is impossible to Coming facility, testified that at some time after determine solely from a review of this chart that Callaway had been assigned to Corning, DeMuth called Callaway did not indeed lose overtime work to which he him and instructed Drews that he was not to allow was entitled. For example, during the week of February Callaway in the office for any reason and that Callaway 3, Callaway worked 11 hours' overtime while Watson was only permitted to use the telephone when calling worked 16-1/2, and Taber, the most junior mechanic, DeMuth, Azevedo, or Mathews.22 During the same con- worked 11-1/2 hours' overtime. Further, for the week of versation, Drews asked DeMuth how long Callaway March 9, Callaway worked 5 hours' overtime, Watson 6- would be assigned to Corning. DeMuth replied simply 1/2 hours, and Gene George, the next to the most junior that Callaway would be there "until either he quit or mechanic, worked 5 hours. Similar comparisons are other arrangements were made." available for the weeks of March 23 and 30 and April 13. Vern Jackson, a mixer driver employed at the Corning On or about May 12, Callaway was informed by Me- facility, testified that Huddleston instructed him not to chanic Supervisor Azevedo that he was being transferred talk to Callaway. No similar instructions were given re- to the Corning facility. 16 Callaway asked Azevedo if he garding any other employee. would be paid mileage for the daily round trip of ap- Respondent, in defense of the allegation that Callaway proximately 120 miles. Azevedo answered that Callaway was assigned to the Corning facility for unlawful reasons, would have to go at his own expense and on his own points out that the production records clearly establish time. that there was substantial increase in output of concrete at that facility from May on and that the increase re- That same evening, Callaway received a telephone call at that faciit frome e at home from Gary Huddleston, the plant manager at quired the permanent assignment of a mechanic. Like the at home from Gary Huddleston, the plant manager at overtime records discussed above these production re- overtime records discussed above, these production re- Corning. Huddleston stated that he had received a tele- cords are inclusive on the complaint allegation before phone call from Mathews and DeMuth, and was in- me. While they do show a dramatic increase in produc- structed to call them immediately if Callaway had not re- tion commencing in mid-May and lasting for the most ported to work by 7 a.m. the following morning and to part until mid-August, they in no way shed any light on send Callaway home if he arrived late. "I the specific question of why Callaway, the most senior Mechanic Watson testified that in the spring he was mechanic, was selected for this assignment. assigned to the Corning facility to relieve Callaway.'1 During a lunch break that week Watson and some of the B. Analysis and Conclusion other employees asked Huddleston about the fact that i , a D n o W Callaway was forced to drive to Coming every day The Board in Wright Line, a Division of Wright Lmne, Callaway was forced to drive to Corming every day Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), set forth the applicable test without receiving remuneration for mileage and time. in all cases alleging violations of Section 8(a3) and ( Huddleston answered that, because Callaway was "in all cases alleging violations of Section 8(aX3) and (1) Huddleston answered that, because Callaway was which turn on employer's motivation. First, the General making "union troubles," they were making an example maig "uin t " ty we maig an eme Counsel is required to make a prima facie showing suffi- of him. "' -, , .cient to support the inference that the protected conduct In late July or early August, mechanic Lawrence was a "motivating factor" in the employer's decision. Taber was assigned to Coming to replace Callaway who Once this is established, the burden shifts to the employ- was then on vacation. When this assignment was made, er to demonstrate that the same action would have taken Azevedo stated to Taber that, while he could not pay place even in the absence of the protected conduct. Taber mileage and Taber would have to make the trip Here, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent, in on his own time," Taber, in order to defray his expense, retaliation for Callaway's union and/or otherwise pro- tected concerted activities, embarked on an unlawful " As set forth above, it was extremely unusual, although not unprec- campaign aimed at both punishing Callaway for his con- edented, for a mechanic to be assigned on a permanent or semipermanent duct, as well as dissipating, if not totally eliminating, basis to a facility other than Gridley. In fact, Callaway himself had been Callaway's influence with his coworkers. A review of previously assigned to Coring for an unspecified period after Respond- the entire record, including the various admissions by su- ent first acquired the property. ent fir t acquired the property pervisors regarding Respondent's basis for its actions, not " Prior to this assignment, Callaway, as with most of the other me- ervisors regarding Respondent's basis for its actions, not chanics, had the use of the company pickup truck for trips to Coring. only merely convinces me, but also in fact compels me On the occasions prior to February when Callaway was assigned to Cor- to reach the conclusion that the General Counsel has ning on a daily basis, he was "on the clock" during the trip to and from indeed made out an extremely strong prima facie case. his home. " Callaway testified that he normally reported to work 10 to 15 min- Respondent presented little, if any, evidence even tend- utes early and that he had never been reprimanded or warned regarding tardiness. 2" Respondent's overtime records show that Callaway was on vacation " The documentary evidence indicates that Callaway was on vacation the weeks of July 27 and August 3. During those 2 weeks, Taber worked during the week of May 25. 9 and 6 hours' overtime, respectively. During the entire time from May I By memorandum dated April 25, Respondent changed its transit 13 through the time he went on this vacation, Callaway worked only 16- policy to require, inter alia, that personnel who were directed to corn- 1/2 hours' overtime at Coming, with 9 of those hours coming in I work- mence their workday at a given plantsite must get to that site on their week. own time at their own expense. 22 These restrictions were applicable only to Callaway. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 743 cords indicate that, in most of the weeks both prior to should put in a couple hours' overtime every day, even if and during Callaway's grounding, Callaway generally overtime work was not necessary." worked at least as much as, if not more than, any other Timmy Drews, a batch operator and dispatcher at the mechanic. Notwithstanding this factor, it is impossible to Coming facility, testified that at some time after determine solely from a review of this chart that Callaway had been assigned to Coming, DeMuth called Callaway did not indeed lose overtime work to which he him and instructed Drews that he was not to allow was entitled. For example, during the week of February Callaway in the office for any reason and that Callaway 3, Callaway worked 11 hours' overtime while Watson was only permitted to use the telephone when calling worked 16-1/2, and Taber, the most junior mechanic, DeMuth, Azevedo, or Mathews. 1 During the same con- worked 11-1/2 hours' overtime. Further, for the week of versation, Drews asked DeMuth how long Callaway March 9, Callaway worked 5 hours' overtime, Watson 6- would be assigned to Coming. DeMuth replied simply 1/2 hours, and Gene George, the next to the most junior that Callaway would be there "until either he quit or mechanic, worked 5 hours. Similar comparisons are other arrangements were made." available for the weeks of March 23 and 30 and April 13. Ve r n Jackson, a mixer driver employed at the Corning On or about May 12, Callaway was informed by Me- facility, testified that Huddleston instructed him not to chanic Supervisor Azevedo that he was being transferred ta lk t o Callaway. No similar instructions were given re- to the Coming facility."' Callaway asked Azevedo if he garding any other employee. would be paid mileage for the daily round trip of ap- Respondent, in defense of the allegation that Callaway proximately 120 miles. Azevedo answered that Callaway w as assigned to the Coming facility for unlawful reasons, would have to go at his own expense and on his own points out that the production records clearly establish time.7 that there was substantial increase in output of concrete -, . * /*' 11 * j . i i. n~at that facility from May on and that the increase re- That same evening, Callaway received a telephone call atrtha t aysinmentha mehncrease re at hme fom ary uddlsto, th plat mnage at quired the permanent assignment of a mechanic. Like the at home from Gary Huddleston, the plant manager at ^ ^ ^ ^^ pouto e Comig. uddestn sttedtha hehad eceveda tle- overtime records discussed above, these production re- Cormng. Huddleston stated that he had received a tele- cords are inclusive on the complaint allegation before phone call from Mathews and DeMuth, and was in- me. While they do show a dramatic increase in produc- structed to cal them immediately if Callaway had not re- tion commencing in mid-May and lasting for the most ported to work by 7 a.m. the following morning and to part until mid-August, they in no way shed any light on send Callaway home if he arrived late. "I the specific question of why Callaway, the most senior Mechanic Watson testified that in the spring he was mechanic, was selected for this assignment. assigned to the Coming facility to relieve Callaway." 9 During a lunch break that week Watson and some of the B. Analysis and Conclusion other employees asked Huddleston about the fact that T B d Wg L, a D o Wg Ln, Callaway was forced to drive to Coming every day , T h e B o a rd l n W nig h t L ine a Divis ion o f Wn sght L mne Callway as frcedto dive o Coing veryday Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), set forth the applicable test without receiving remuneration for mileage and time. /in 2 al case algn tion o Se t o n 8(a X3)and(1 Huddleston answered that, because Callaway was i"all cases alleging violations of Section 8(aX3) and (1) Huddlstonanswred hat, ecaue Calawa was which turn on employer's motivation. First, the General making "union troubles," they were making an example u ne is e d to me a prima Fie Genesfi ,,hi. ° Counsel is required to make a pnima facie showing suffi- of him. ""' - , , . ,cient to support the inference that the protected conduct In late July or early August, mechanic Lawrence was a "motivating factor" in the employer's decision. Taber was assigned to Coming to replace Callaway who Once this is established, the burden shifts to the employ- was then on vacation. When this assignment was made, er to demonstrate that the same action would have taken Azevedo stated to Taber that, while he could not pay place even in the absence of the protected conduct. Taber mileage and Taber would have to make the trip Here, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent, in on his own time," Taber, in order to defray his expense, retaliation for Callaway's union and/or otherwise pro- tected concerted activities, embarked on an unlawful » As set forth above, it was extremely unusual, although not unprec- campaign aimed at both punishing Callaway for his con- edented, for a mechanic to be assigned on a permanent or semipermanent duct, as well as dissipating, if not totally eliminating, basis to a facility other than Gridley. In fact, Callaway himself had been Callaway's influence with his coworkers. A review of previously assigned to Coming for an unspecified period after Respond- the entire record, including the Various admissions by su- Pritthis asgn Callaway, as with most of the other me- pervisors regarding Respondent's basis for its actions, not chanics, had the use of the company pickup truck for trips to Coming. only merely convinces me, but also in fact compels me On the occasions prior to February when Callaway was assigned to Cor- to reach the conclusion that the General Counsel has ning on a daily basis, he was "on the clock" during the trip to and from indeed made out an extremely strong prima facie case. his home. "cCllaway testified that he normally reported to work 10 to 15 min- Respondent presented little, if any, evidence even tend- utes early and that he had never been reprimanded or warned regarding tardiness. 1" Respondent's overtime records show that Callaway was on vacation " The documentary evidence indicates that Callaway was on vacation the weeks of July 27 and August 3. During those 2 weeks, Taber worked during the week of May 25. 9 and 6 hours' overtime, respectively. During the entire time from May I By memorandum dated April 25, Respondent changed its transit 13 through the time he went on this vacation, Callaway worked only 16- policy to require, inter alia, that personnel who were directed to com- 1/2 hours' overtime at Coming, with 9 of those hours coming in I work- mcnc their workday at a given plantsite must get to that site on their week. own time at their own expense. "1 These restrictions were applicable only to Callaway. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 743 cords indicate that, in most of the weeks both prior to should put in a couple hours' overtime every day, even if and during Callaway's grounding, Callaway generally overtime work was not necessary." worked at least as much as, if not more than, any other Timmy Drews, a batch operator and dispatcher at the mechanic. Notwithstanding this factor, it is impossible to Coming facility, testified that at some time after determine solely from a review of this chart that Callaway had been assigned to Coming, DeMuth called Callaway did not indeed lose overtime work to which he him and instructed Drews that he was not to allow was entitled. For example, during the week of February Callaway in the office for any reason and that Callaway 3, Callaway worked 11 hours' overtime while Watson was only permitted to use the telephone when calling worked 16-1/2, and Taber, the most junior mechanic, DeMuth, Azevedo, or Mathews. 1 During the same con- worked 11-1/2 hours' overtime. Further, for the week of versation, Drews asked DeMuth how long Callaway March 9, Callaway worked 5 hours' overtime, Watson 6- would be assigned to Coming. DeMuth replied simply 1/2 hours, and Gene George, the next to the most junior that Callaway would be there "until either he quit or mechanic, worked 5 hours. Similar comparisons are other arrangements were made." available for the weeks of March 23 and 30 and April 13. Ve r n Jackson, a mixer driver employed at the Corning On or about May 12, Callaway was informed by Me- facility, testified that Huddleston instructed him not to chanic Supervisor Azevedo that he was being transferred ta lk t o Callaway. No similar instructions were given re- to the Coming facility."' Callaway asked Azevedo if he garding any other employee. would be paid mileage for the daily round trip of ap- Respondent, in defense of the allegation that Callaway proximately 120 miles. Azevedo answered that Callaway w as assigned to the Coming facility for unlawful reasons, would have to go at his own expense and on his own points out that the production records clearly establish time.7 that there was substantial increase in output of concrete -, . * /*' 11 * j . i i. n~at that facility from May on and that the increase re- That same evening, Callaway received a telephone call atrtha t aysinmentha tehncrease re at hme fom ary uddlsto, th plat mnage at quired the permanent assignment of a mechanic. Like the at home from Gary Huddleston, the plant manager at ^ ^ ^ ^^ pouto e Coming. Huddleston stated that he had received a tele- overimere ordsdis cu sse complaint allegation before phone call from Mathews and DeMuth, and was in- me. While they do show a dramatic increase in produc- structed to cal them immediately if Callaway had not re- tion commencing in mid-May and lasting for the most ported to work by 7 a.m. the following morning and to part until mid-August, they in no way shed any light on send Callaway home if he arrived late. "I the specific question of why Callaway, the most senior Mechanic Watson testified that in the spring he was mechanic, was selected for this assignment. assigned to the Coming facility to relieve Callaway." 9 During a lunch break that week Watson and some of the B. Analysis and Conclusion other employees asked Huddleston about the fact that T B d Wg L, a D o Wg Ln, Callaway was forced to drive to Coming every day , T h e B o a rd l n W nig h t L ine a Divis ion o f Wn sght L mne Callway as frcedto dive o Coing veryday Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), set forth the applicable test without receiving remuneration for mileage and time. /in 2 al case algn tion o Se t o n 8(a X3) a nd(1 Huddleston answered that, because Callaway was i"all cases alleging violations of Section 8(aX3) and (1) Huddlstonanswred hat, ecaue Calawa was which turn on employer's motivation. First, the General making "union troubles," they were making an example u ne is requioes the suffi- ,,hi. ° Counsel is required to make a pnima facie showing suffi- of him. ""' - , , . ,cient to support the inference that the protected conduct In late July or early August, mechanic Lawrence was a "motivating factor" in the employer's decision. Taber was assigned to Coming to replace Callaway who Once this is established, the burden shifts to the employ- was then on vacation. When this assignment was made, er to demonstrate that the same action would have taken Azevedo stated to Taber that, while he could not pay place even in the absence of the protected conduct. Taber mileage and Taber would have to make the trip Here, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent, in on his own time," Taber, in order to defray his expense, retaliation for Callaway's union and/or otherwise pro- tected concerted activities, embarked on an unlawful » As set forth above, it was extremely unusual, although not unprec- campaign aimed at both punishing Callaway for his con- edented, for a mechanic to be assigned on a permanent or semipermanent duct, as well as dissipating, if not totally eliminating, basis to a facility other than Gridley. In fact, Callaway himself had been Callaway's influence with his coworkers. A review of previously assigned to Coming for an unspecified period after Respond- the entire record, including the Various admissions by su- Pritthis asgn Callaway, as with most of the other me- pervisors regarding Respondent's basis for its actions, not chanics, had the use of the company pickup truck for trips to Coming. only merely convinces me, but also in fact compels me On the occasions prior to February when Callaway was assigned to Cor- to reach the conclusion that the General Counsel has ning on a daily basis, he was "on the clock" during the trip to and from indeed made out an extremely strong prima facie case. his home. "cCllaway testified that he normally reported to work 10 to 15 min- Respondent presented little, if any, evidence even tend- utes early and that he had never been reprimanded or warned regarding tardiness. 1" Respondent's overtime records show that Callaway was on vacation " The documentary evidence indicates that Callaway was on vacation the weeks of July 27 and August 3. During those 2 weeks, Taber worked during the week of May 25. 9 and 6 hours' overtime, respectively. During the entire time from May I By memorandum dated April 25, Respondent changed its transit 13 through the time he went on this vacation, Callaway worked only 16- policy to require, inter alia, that personnel who were directed to com- 1/2 hours' overtime at Coming, with 9 of those hours coming in I work- mence their workday at a given plantsite must get to that site on their week. own time at their own expense. "1 These restrictions were applicable only to Callaway. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 743 cords indicate that, in most of the weeks both prior to should put in a couple hours' overtime every day, even if and during Callaway's grounding, Callaway generally overtime work was not necessary." worked at least as much as, if not more than, any other Timmy Drews, a batch operator and dispatcher at the mechanic. Notwithstanding this factor, it is impossible to Coming facility, testified that at some time after determine solely from a review of this chart that Callaway had been assigned to Coming, DeMuth called Callaway did not indeed lose overtime work to which he him and instructed Drews that he was not to allow was entitled. For example, during the week of February Callaway in the office for any reason and that Callaway 3, Callaway worked 11 hours' overtime while Watson was only permitted to use the telephone when calling worked 16-1/2, and Taber, the most junior mechanic, DeMuth, Azevedo, or Mathews. 1 During the same con- worked 11-1/2 hours' overtime. Further, for the week of versation, Drews asked DeMuth how long Callaway March 9, Callaway worked 5 hours' overtime, Watson 6- would be assigned to Coming. DeMuth replied simply 1/2 hours, and Gene George, the next to the most junior that Callaway would be there "until either he quit or mechanic, worked 5 hours. Similar comparisons are other arrangements were made." available for the weeks of March 23 and 30 and April 13. Ve r n Jackson, a mixer driver employed at the Corning On or about May 12, Callaway was informed by Me- fac i l ity, testified that Huddleston instructed him not to chanic Supervisor Azevedo that he was being transferred ta lk t o Callaway. No similar instructions were given re- to the Coming facility."' Callaway asked Azevedo if he garding any other employee. would be paid mileage for the daily round trip of ap- Respondent, in defense of the allegation that Callaway proximately 120 miles. Azevedo answered that Callaway w as assigned to the Coming facility for unlawful reasons, would have to go at his own expense and on his own points out that the production records clearly establish time.7 that there was substantial increase in output of concrete -, . * /*' 11 * j . i i. n~at that facility from May on and that the increase re- That same evening, Callaway received a telephone call atrtha t aysinmentha tehncrease re at hme fom ary uddlsto, th plat mnage at quired the permanent assignment of a mechanic. Like the at home from Gary Huddleston, the plant manager at ^ ^ ^ ^^ pouto e Coming. Huddleston stated that he had received a tele- overimere ordsdis cu sse complaint allegation before phone call from Mathews and DeMuth, and was in- me. While they do show a dramatic increase in produc- structed to cal them immediately if Callaway had not re- tion commencing in mid-May and lasting for the most ported to work by 7 a.m. the following morning and to part until mid-August, they in no way shed any light on send Callaway home if he arrived late. "I the specific question of why Callaway, the most senior Mechanic Watson testified that in the spring he was mechanic, was selected for this assignment. assigned to the Coming facility to relieve Callaway.'" During a lunch break that week Watson and some of the B. Analysis and Conclusion other employees asked Huddleston about the fact that T B d Wg L, a D o Wg Ln, Callaway was forced to drive to Coming every day , T h e B o a rd l n W nig h t L ine a Divis ion o f Wn sght L mne Callway as frcedto dive o Coing veryday Inc., 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), set forth the applicable test without receiving remuneration for mileage and time. /in 2 al case algn tion o Se t o n 8(a X3) a nd(1 Huddleston answered that, because Callaway was i"all cases alleging violations of Section 8(aX3) and (1) Huddlstonanswred hat, ecaue Calawa was which turn on employer's motivation. First, the General making "union troubles," they were making an example u ne is e d to me a prima Fie Genesfi ,,hi. ° Counsel is required to make a pnima facie showing suffi- of him. ""' - , , . ,cient to support the inference that the protected conduct In late July or early August, mechanic Lawrence was a "motivating factor" in the employer's decision. Taber was assigned to Coming to replace Callaway who Once this is established, the burden shifts to the employ- was then on vacation. When this assignment was made, er to demonstrate that the same action would have taken Azevedo stated to Taber that, while he could not pay place even in the absence of the protected conduct. Taber mileage and Taber would have to make the trip Here, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent, in on his own time," Taber, in order to defray his expense, retaliation for Callaway's union and/or otherwise pro- tected concerted activities, embarked on an unlawful » As set forth above, it was extremely unusual, although not unprec- campaign aimed at both punishing Callaway for his con- edented, for a mechanic to be assigned on a permanent or semipermanent duct, as well as dissipating, if not totally eliminating, basis to a facility other than Gridley. In fact, Callaway himself had been Callaway's influence with his coworkers. A review of previously assigned to Coming for an unspecified period after Respond- the entire record, including the Various admissions by su- Pritthis asgn Callaway, as with most of the other me- pervisors regarding Respondent's basis for its actions, not chanics, had the use of the company pickup truck for trips to Coming. only merely convinces me, but also in fact compels me On the occasions prior to February when Callaway was assigned to Cor- to reach the conclusion that the General Counsel has ning on a daily basis, he was "on the clock" during the trip to and from indeed made out an extremely strong prima facie case. his home. "cCllaway testified that he normally reported to work 10 to 15 min- Respondent presented little, if any, evidence even tend- utes early and that he had never been reprimanded or warned regarding tardiness. 1" Respondent's overtime records show that Callaway was on vacation " The documentary evidence indicates that Callaway was on vacation the weeks of July 27 and August 3. During those 2 weeks, Taber worked during the week of May 25. 9 and 6 hours' overtime, respectively. During the entire time from May I By memorandum dated April 25, Respondent changed its transit 13 through the time he went on this vacation, Callaway worked only 16- policy to require, inter alia, that personnel who were directed to com- 1/2 hours' overtime at Coming, with 9 of those hours coming in I work- mence their workday at a given plantsite must get to that site on their week. own time at their own expense. "1 These restrictions were applicable only to Callaway. 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing to demonstrate that any of its actions would have associate with his coworkers, Respondent affirmatively taken place in the absence of Callaway's protected con- sought to punish him for his past transgressions. Re- duct. spondent deviated from its established practice of assign- In February, Callaway, while at the Chico facility, ing overtime on the basis of seniority and instead as- urged his fellow represented employees to work together signed overtime on several occasions to junior employ- to demand higher wages in the upcoming contract nego- ees. 25 tiations. Callaway took this action with the full knowl- In the mid-April meeting with Respondent's manage- edge that Respondent strongly opposed any increase that ment, Callaway was reprimanded regarding the filing of exceeded the President's wage guidelines. A short time timecards for overtime not worked. The General Coun- following this Chico meeting, Supervisor Giggia, on the sel alleges that this warning violated Section 8(a)(l). As orders of Assistant Manager DeMuth, requested that an noted earlier, the record regarding the procedure employee furnish Respondent with a written statement of Callaway followed in disputing overtime assignments is what was said at the meeting. Clearly, such a request less than clear. It appears that Respondent was not, as constitutes a coercive interrogation of its employees' contended by the General Counsel, warning Callaway union activities, and Respondent is not relieved or ab- over filing grievances, but was merely warning him re- solved of any liability for such conduct by virtue of the garding the method he followed. In these circumstances, fact that the request was not accompanied by any I find that Respondent's conduct does not amount to an threats. 23 unlawful threat. A second event occurred during February which Respondent in its communication with employees added to Respondent's already existing resentment of made no secret of the basis for its actions against Callaway. Callaway informed nonunit employee Landis Callaway. Mechanic Supervisor Clark informed several that he was not receiving the same wage rate as another employees, including Callaway, that Respondent restrict- nonunit employee employed in the same classification at ed Callaway to the Gridley facility because he was caus- another facility. Callaway then suggested that Landis re- ing "union problems." Respondent further informed first quest a raise to bring his salary in line with the other em- Landis and then Callaway himself that, because of ployees. When Landis requested the raise, DeMuth asked Callaway's role in the Landis affair, Landis was receiv- if Callaway had told him of the wage differential. ing only half of his promised raise. Each of these conver- DeMuth then stated that Callaway was causing Respond- sations constitutes unlawful threats in violation of Sec- ent trouble and asked Landis for a written statement. As tion 8(a)(). was the case with Healey above, DeMuth's discussions On May 12, Respondent transferred Callaway to Cor- with Landis constituted unlawful interrogation of em- ning, the most remote facility within Respondent's five- ployees' protected concerted activities."2 plant system.26 Respondent contends that the substantial Respondent's reaction to Callaway's conduct was swift increase in the production output at the Coming facility, and blatant. In short order, it "grounded" Callaway with which commenced in May, warranted the permanent as- the result that it not only prevented him from communi- signment there of a mechanic. While this may well be eating with employees at the four other facilities, but the case, Respondent offered no evidence explaining why also kept him stationed at headquarters under the watch- Callaway, the most senior mechanic, was selected for ful eyes of Respondent's officials. Apparently not satis- this assignment. Once again, the statements and actions fied with merely denying Callaway the opportunity to of the various supervisors remove any reasonable doubt on the question of why Callaway was indeed selected. " The complaint, as amended at hearing, alleges that this incident, as On the evening Callaway received the assignment well as several others, constitutes unlawful creation of the impression of surveillance. I do not agree with this interpretation since the actions of Huddleston called him and warned him that DeMuth Callaway were at all times open and notorious with no attempt on the and Mathews would take immediate action if he reported part of any employee to conduct union business in secret. for work late on the following morning. This warning " Respondent contends that Callaway's conversation with Landis is w given despite the fact that Callaway had never pre- not protected since Callaway was admittedly not acting in his official ca- pacity as union steward and that Landis was not a member of the Union. viously received a warning or reprimand for being tardy This contention, of course, totally ignores the concept of protected con- and in fact had a practice of normally reporting 10 to 15 certed activity as distinct from union activity. On the question of wheth- minutes early for work. er Callaway's first informing Landis that he was not receiving the same wage as a comparable employee and then suggesting that Landis requt Respondent, during the month pror to Callaway's a raise constitutes protected concerted action, I find the Board's decision transfer to Corning, changed its policy regarding both in Richard M. Brown, D. O. and Donald R. Janower. D. 0.. a Co-Partner- the use of the company vehicles and/or compensation ship d/b/a Park General Clinic, 218 NLRB 540, 546-547 (1975), enfd. 546 for the employees' use of private vehicles, as well as its F.2d 690 (1976), as analogous. There, the Board affirmed without com- ment the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that an employee and a policy on compensation for travel tme. The record evi- coworker who joined the employee in meeting with the employer solely to discuss the employee's wage rate were engaged in protected concerted 2 The fact that the record does not disclose with certainty both the activity. See also Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, dates and the amounts of the overtime Callaway lost while "grounded" affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Internation- does not constitute a barrier to reaching the obvious conclusion that al Union. AFL-CIO, 252 NLRB 1124, fn. 2 (1980). In any event, based on Callaway was in fact unlawfully denied overtime. I leave for the compli- the statements of supervisors, it is abundantly clear that Respondent's ance stage resolution of the question of how much overtime Callaway overriding concern was isolating Callaway and thereby diminishing his lost. effectiveness in rallying the other employees into seeking a substantial 1 As set forth above, not only was the Corning facility located some raise in the upcoming negotiations. Respondent merely used this incident 70 miles from Gridley, it was also the one facility that had its own col- with Landis as a possible justification for its unlawful actions. lective-bargaining agreement. 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing to demonstrate that any of its actions would have associate with his coworkers, Respondent affirmatively taken place in the absence of Callaway's protected con- sought to punish him for his past transgressions. Re- duct. spondent deviated from its established practice of assign- In February, Callaway, while at the Chico facility, ing overtime on the basis of seniority and instead as- urged his fellow represented employees to work together signed overtime on several occasions to junior employ- to demand higher wages in the upcoming contract nego- ees.2 5 tiations. Callaway took this action with the full knowl- In the mid-April meeting with Respondent's manage- edge that Respondent strongly opposed any increase that ment, Callaway was reprimanded regarding the filing of exceeded the President's wage guidelines. A short time timecards for overtime not worked. The General Coun- following this Chico meeting, Supervisor Giggia, on the sel alleges that this warning violated Section 8(a)(l). As orders of Assistant Manager DeMuth, requested that an noted earlier, the record regarding the procedure employee furnish Respondent with a written statement of Callaway followed in disputing overtime assignments is what was said at the meeting. Clearly, such a request less than clear. It appears that Respondent was not, as constitutes a coercive interrogation of its employees' contended by the General Counsel, warning Callaway union activities, and Respondent is not relieved or ab- over filing grievances, but was merely warning him re- solved of any liability for such conduct by virtue of the garding the method he followed. In these circumstances, fact that the request was not accompanied by any I find that Respondent's conduct does not amount to an threats. 23 unlawful threat. A second event occurred during February which Respondent in its communication with employees added to Respondent's already existing resentment of made no secret of the basis for its actions against Callaway. Callaway informed nonunit employee Landis Callaway. Mechanic Supervisor Clark informed several that he was not receiving the same wage rate as another employees, including Callaway, that Respondent restrict- nonunit employee employed in the same classification at ed Callaway to the Gridley facility because he was caus- another facility. Callaway then suggested that Landis re- ing "union problems." Respondent further informed first quest a raise to bring his salary in line with the other em- Landis and then Callaway himself that, because of ployees. When Landis requested the raise, DeMuth asked Callaway's role in the Landis affair, Landis was receiv- if Callaway had told him of the wage differential. ing only half of his promised raise. Each of these conver- DeMuth then stated that Callaway was causing Respond- sations constitutes unlawful threats in violation of Sec- ent trouble and asked Landis for a written statement. As tion 8(a)(l). was the case with Healey above, DeMuth's discussions On May 12, Respondent transferred Callaway to Cor- with Landis constituted unlawful interrogation of em- ning, the most remote facility within Respondent's five- ployees' protected concerted activities." plant system. 26 Respondent contends that the substantial Respondent's reaction to Callaway's conduct was swift increase in the production output at the Coming facility, and blatant. In short order, it "grounded" Callaway with which commenced in May, warranted the permanent as- the result that it not only prevented him from communi- signment there of a mechanic. While this may well be eating with employees at the four other facilities, but the case, Respondent offered no evidence explaining why also kept him stationed at headquarters under the watch- Callaway, the most senior mechanic, was selected for ful eyes of Respondent's officials. Apparently not satis- this assignment. Once again, the statements and actions fied with merely denying Callaway the opportunity to of the various supervisors remove any reasonable doubt ------- ~~~~~~~~~~~on the question of why Callaway was indeed selected. " The complaint, as amended at hearing, alleges that this incident, as on the evening Callaway received the assignment, well as several others, constitutes unlawful creation of the impression of On ning C a r iv ignment, surveillance. I do not agree with this interpretation since the actions of Huddleston called him and warned him that DeMuth Callaway were at all times open and notorious with no attempt on the and Mathews would take immediate action if he reported part of any employee to conduct union business in secret. for work late On the following morning. This warning » Respondent contends that Callaway's conversation with Landis is was given despite the fact that Callaway had never pre- not protected since Callaway was admittedly not acting in his official ca-'s pacity as union steward and that Landis was not a member of the Union. ViouSly received a warning or reprimand for being tardy This contention, of course, totally ignores the concept of protected con- and in fact had a practice of normally reporting 10 to 15 certed activity as distinct from union activity. On the question of wheth- minutes early for work. er Callaway's first informing Landis that he was not receiving the same wage as a comparable employee and then suggesting that Landis request Respondent, during the month prior to Callaway's a raise constitutes protected concerted action, I find the Board's decision transfer to Coming, changed Its policy regarding both in Richard M. Brown, D. 0. and Donald R. Janower, D. O.. a Co-Partner- the use of the company vehicles and/Or compensation ship d/b/a Park General Clinic, 218 NLRB 540, 546-547 (1975), enfd. 546 for the employees' use of private vehicles, as Well as its F.2d 690 (1976), as analogous. There, the Board affirmed without com-evi- ment the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that an employee and a poiy ncmesaonfrtvltm.Thrcrdvi coworker who joined the employee in meeting with the employer solely to discuss the employee's wage rate were engaged in protected concerted 2 The fact that the record does not disclose with certainty both the activity. See also Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, dates and the amounts of the overtime Callaway lost while "grounded" affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Internation- does not constitute a barrier to reaching the obvious conclusion that al Union. AFL-CIO, 252 NLRB 1124, fn. 2 (1980). In any event, based on Callaway was in fact unlawfully denied overtime. I leave for the compli- the statements of supervisors, it is abundantly clear that Respondent's ance stage resolution of the question of how much overtime Callaway overriding concern was isolating Callaway and thereby diminishing his lost. effectiveness in rallying the other employees into seeking a substantial 1" As set forth above, not only was the Corning facility located some raise in the upcoming negotiations. Respondent merely used this incident 70 miles from Gridley, it was also the one facility that had its own col- with Landis as a possible justification for its unlawful actions. lective-bargaining agreement. 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing to demonstrate that any of its actions would have associate with his coworkers, Respondent affirmatively taken place in the absence of Callaway's protected con- sought to punish him for his past transgressions. Re- duct. spondent deviated from its established practice of assign- In February, Callaway, while at the Chico facility, ing overtime on the basis of seniority and instead as- urged his fellow represented employees to work together signed overtime on several occasions to junior employ- to demand higher wages in the upcoming contract nego- ees.2 5 tiations. Callaway took this action with the full knowl- In the mid-April meeting with Respondent's manage- edge that Respondent strongly opposed any increase that ment, Callaway was reprimanded regarding the filing of exceeded the President's wage guidelines. A short time timecards for overtime not worked. The General Coun- following this Chico meeting, Supervisor Giggia, on the sel alleges that this warning violated Section 8(a)(l). As orders of Assistant Manager DeMuth, requested that an noted earlier, the record regarding the procedure employee furnish Respondent with a written statement of Callaway followed in disputing overtime assignments is what was said at the meeting. Clearly, such a request less than clear. It appears that Respondent was not, as constitutes a coercive interrogation of its employees' contended by the General Counsel, warning Callaway union activities, and Respondent is not relieved or ab- over filing grievances, but was merely warning him re- solved of any liability for such conduct by virtue of the garding the method he followed. In these circumstances, fact that the request was not accompanied by any I find that Respondent's conduct does not amount to an threats. 23 unlawful threat. A second event occurred during February which Respondent in its communication with employees added to Respondent's already existing resentment of made no secret of the basis for its actions against Callaway. Callaway informed nonunit employee Landis Callaway. Mechanic Supervisor Clark informed several that he was not receiving the same wage rate as another employees, including Callaway, that Respondent restrict- nonunit employee employed in the same classification at ed Callaway to the Gridley facility because he was caus- another facility. Callaway then suggested that Landis re- ing "union problems." Respondent further informed first quest a raise to bring his salary in line with the other em- Landis and then Callaway himself that, because of ployees. When Landis requested the raise, DeMuth asked Callaway's role in the Landis affair, Landis was receiv- if Callaway had told him of the wage differential. ing only half of his promised raise. Each of these conver- DeMuth then stated that Callaway was causing Respond- sations constitutes unlawful threats in violation of Sec- ent trouble and asked Landis for a written statement. As tion 8(a)(l). was the case with Healey above, DeMuth's discussions On May 12, Respondent transferred Callaway to Cor- with Landis constituted unlawful interrogation of em- ning, the most remote facility within Respondent's five- ployees' protected concerted activities." plant system. 26 Respondent contends that the substantial Respondent's reaction to Callaway's conduct was swift increase in the production output at the Coming facility, and blatant. In short order, it "grounded" Callaway with which commenced in May, warranted the permanent as- the result that it not only prevented him from communi- signment there of a mechanic. While this may well be eating with employees at the four other facilities, but the case, Respondent offered no evidence explaining why also kept him stationed at headquarters under the watch- Callaway, the most senior mechanic, was selected for ful eyes of Respondent's officials. Apparently not satis- this assignment. Once again, the statements and actions fied with merely denying Callaway the opportunity to of the various supervisors remove any reasonable doubt ------- ~~~~~~~~~~~on the question of why Callaway was indeed selected. " The complaint, as amended at hearing, alleges that this incident, as on the evening Callaway received the assignment, well as several others, constitutes unlawful creation of the impression of On ning C a r iv ignment, surveillance. I do not agree with this interpretation since the actions of Huddleston called him and warned him that DeMuth Callaway were at all times open and notorious with no attempt on the and Mathews would take immediate action if he reported part of any employee to conduct union business in secret. for work late On the following morning. This warning » Respondent contends that Callaway's conversation with Landis is was given despite the fact that Callaway had never pre- not protected since Callaway was admittedly not acting in his official ca-'s pacity as union steward and that Landis was not a member of the Union. ViouSly received a warning or reprimand for being tardy This contention, of course, totally ignores the concept of protected con- and in fact had a practice of normally reporting 10 to 15 certed activity as distinct from union activity. On the question of wheth- minutes early for work. er Callaway's first informing Landis that he was not receiving the same wage as a comparable employee and then suggesting that Landis request Respondent, during the month prior to Callaway's a raise constitutes protected concerted action, I find the Board's decision transfer to Coming, changed Its policy regarding both in Richard M. Brown, D. 0. and Donald R. Janower. D. O.. a Co-Partner- the use of the company vehicles and/Or compensation ship d/b/a Park General Clinic, 218 NLRB 540, 546-547 (1975), enfd. 546 for the employees' use of private vehicles, as Well as its F.2d 690 (1976), as analogous. There, the Board affirmed without com-evi- ment the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that an employee and a poiy ncmesaonfrtvltm.Thrcrdvi coworker who joined the employee in meeting with the employer solely to discuss the employee's wage rate were engaged in protected concerted 2 The fact that the record does not disclose with certainty both the activity. See also Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, dates and the amounts of the overtime Callaway lost while "grounded" affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Internation- does not constitute a barrier to reaching the obvious conclusion that al Union. AFL-CIO, 252 NLRB 1124, fn. 2 (1980). In any event, based on Callaway was in fact unlawfully denied overtime. I leave for the compli- the statements of supervisors, it is abundantly clear that Respondent's ance stage resolution of the question of how much overtime Callaway overriding concern was isolating Callaway and thereby diminishing his lost. effectiveness in rallying the other employees into seeking a substantial 1" As set forth above, not only was the Corning facility located some raise in the upcoming negotiations. Respondent merely used this incident 70 miles from Gridley, it was also the one facility that had its own col- with Landis as a possible justification for its unlawful actions. lective-bargaining agreement. 744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing to demonstrate that any of its actions would have associate with his coworkers, Respondent affirmatively taken place in the absence of Callaway's protected con- sought to punish him for his past transgressions. Re- duct. spondent deviated from its established practice of assign- In February, Callaway, while at the Chico facility, ing overtime on the basis of seniority and instead as- urged his fellow represented employees to work together signed overtime on several occasions to junior employ- to demand higher wages in the upcoming contract nego- ees.2 5 tiations. Callaway took this action with the full knowl- In the mid-April meeting with Respondent's manage- edge that Respondent strongly opposed any increase that ment, Callaway was reprimanded regarding the filing of exceeded the President's wage guidelines. A short time timecards for overtime not worked. The General Coun- following this Chico meeting, Supervisor Giggia, on the sel alleges that this warning violated Section 8(a)(l). As orders of Assistant Manager DeMuth, requested that an noted earlier, the record regarding the procedure employee furnish Respondent with a written statement of Callaway followed in disputing overtime assignments is what was said at the meeting. Clearly, such a request less than clear. It appears that Respondent was not, as constitutes a coercive interrogation of its employees' contended by the General Counsel, warning Callaway union activities, and Respondent is not relieved or ab- over filing grievances, but was merely warning him re- solved of any liability for such conduct by virtue of the garding the method he followed. In these circumstances, fact that the request was not accompanied by any I find that Respondent's conduct does not amount to an threats. 23 unlawful threat. A second event occurred during February which Respondent in its communication with employees added to Respondent's already existing resentment of made no secret of the basis for its actions against Callaway. Callaway informed nonunit employee Landis Callaway. Mechanic Supervisor Clark informed several that he was not receiving the same wage rate as another employees, including Callaway, that Respondent restrict- nonunit employee employed in the same classification at ed Callaway to the Gridley facility because he was caus- another facility. Callaway then suggested that Landis re- ing "union problems." Respondent further informed first quest a raise to bring his salary in line with the other em- Landis and then Callaway himself that, because of ployees. When Landis requested the raise, DeMuth asked Callaway's role in the Landis affair, Landis was receiv- if Callaway had told him of the wage differential. ing only half of his promised raise. Each of these conver- DeMuth then stated that Callaway was causing Respond- sations constitutes unlawful threats in violation of Sec- ent trouble and asked Landis for a written statement. As tion 8(a)(l). was the case with Healey above, DeMuth's discussions On May 12, Respondent transferred Callaway to Cor- with Landis constituted unlawful interrogation of em- ning, the most remote facility within Respondent's five- ployees' protected concerted activities." plant system .26 Respondent contends that the substantial Respondent's reaction to Callaway's conduct was swift increase in the production output at the Coming facility, and blatant. In short order, it "grounded" Callaway with which commenced in May, warranted the permanent as- the result that it not only prevented him from communi- signment there of a mechanic. While this may well be eating with employees at the four other facilities, but the case, Respondent offered no evidence explaining why also kept him stationed at headquarters under the watch- Callaway, the most senior mechanic, was selected for ful eyes of Respondent's officials. Apparently not satis- this assignment. Once again, the statements and actions fied with merely denying Callaway the opportunity to of the various supervisors remove any reasonable doubt ------- ~~~~~~~~~~~on the question of why Callaway was indeed selected. " The complaint, as amended at hearing, alleges that this incident, as on the evening Callaway received the assignment, well as several others, constitutes unlawful creation of the impression of On ning C a r iv ignment, surveillance. I do not agree with this interpretation since the actions of Huddleston called him and warned him that DeMuth Callaway were at all times open and notorious with no attempt on the and Mathews would take immediate action if he reported part of any employee to conduct union business in secret. for work late On the following morning. This warning » Respondent contends that Callaway's conversation with Landis is was given despite the fact that Callaway had never pre- not protected since Callaway was admittedly not acting in his official ca-'s pacity as union steward and that Landis was not a member of the Union. ViouSly received a warning or reprimand for being tardy This contention, of course, totally ignores the concept of protected con- and in fact had a practice of normally reporting 10 to 15 certed activity as distinct from union activity. On the question of wheth- minutes early for work. er Callaway's first informing Landis that he was not receiving the same wage as a comparable employee and then suggesting that Landis request Respondent, during the month prior to Callaway's a raise constitutes protected concerted action, I find the Board's decision transfer to Coming, changed Its policy regarding both in Richard M. Brown, D. 0. and Donald R. Janower, D. O.. a Co-Partner- the use of the company vehicles and/Or compensation ship d/b/a Park General Clinic, 218 NLRB 540, 546-547 (1975), enfd. 546 for the employees' use of private vehicles, as Well as its F.2d 690 (1976), as analogous. There, the Board affirmed without com-evi- ment the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that an employee and a poiy ncmesaonfrtvltm.Thrcrdvi coworker who joined the employee in meeting with the employer solely to discuss the employee's wage rate were engaged in protected concerted 2 The fact that the record does not disclose with certainty both the activity. See also Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, dates and the amounts of the overtime Callaway lost while "grounded" affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Internation- does not constitute a barrier to reaching the obvious conclusion that al Union. AFL-CIO, 252 NLRB 1124, fn. 2 (1980). In any event, based on Callaway was in fact unlawfully denied overtime. I leave for the compli- the statements of supervisors, it is abundantly clear that Respondent's ance stage resolution of the question of how much overtime Callaway overriding concern was isolating Callaway and thereby diminishing his lost. effectiveness in rallying the other employees into seeking a substantial 1" As set forth above, not only was the Corning facility located some raise in the upcoming negotiations. Respondent merely used this incident 70 miles from Gridley, it was also the one facility that had its own col- with Landis as a possible justification for its unlawful actions. lective-bargaining agreement. MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 745 dence establishes that Respondent applied this new Having found that Respondent discriminatorily denied policy in a disparate manner, at least regarding the as- William Callaway the opportunity to work overtime signment of mechanics to Corning. In this regard, while employed at the Gridley facility during the period Callaway was not compensated for time or expense in his of mid-February to on or about May 12, transferred daily trips to and from Corning. Yet, when another em- Callaway from the Gridley facility to the Corning plant ployee was assigned to relieve Callaway while on vaca- on or about May 13, and further refused to allow tion, he was expressly authorized to put in 2 hours' over- Callaway to work 2 hours' overtime on a daily basis to time each day whether or not work existed in order to compensate him for travel expenses, it is recommended compensate him for his expenses in travel. Callaway was that Respondent immediately transfer Callaway from the offered no such similar opportunity. Coming facility to the Gridley facility. It is further rec- Respondent further placed restrictions on Callaway ommended that Respondent make Callaway whole for even when at the Corning facility. Employees were told any loss of earnings, including overtime, from mid-Feb- not to associate with him and he was specifically prohib- ruary 1980 to the date he is transferred back to the Grid- ited from using the telephone except when speaking to ley facility with such earnings to be computed within the one of Respondent's managers. This restriction was not meaning and in accordance with the Board's Decisions in applicable to any other employee. F. W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Respondent's purposes for transferring Callaway were Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).28 clear. Huddleston informed employee Watson that Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon Callaway was transferred because he was making "union the entire record in this case, I make the following: troubles," and Respondent was making an example of him. DeMuth, in a conversation with employee Drews, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW explained further when he stated that Callaway would be , n n r assigned to Corning "until either he quit or other ar- . M a t he w s Rea Mi, Inc., is an employer engaged rangements were made." These statements, like Supervi- n commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) sor Clark's earlier ones, not only established the purpose o e . behind Respondent's conduct, but also constituted un- 2. General Teamsters Local No. 137, International lawful coercive threats to other employees should they Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen also wish to cause Respondent problems by making and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within "union troubles." the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Finally, the complaint alleges that Respondent further 3. By discriminatorily denying William Callaway the violated Section 8(a)(1) when Supervisor Seamon in- opportunity to work overtime from mid-February to structed employee Landis that the National Labor Rela- mid-May while employed at the Gridley facility, Re- tions Board wanted Landis to prepare a written state- spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. ment concerning Callaway's conversation with him 4. By transferring Callaway on or about May 13 from about his wage rate. The evidence does not establish that the Gridley facility to the Corning facility because of Landis was informed of the purpose of the request, 2 was Callaway's union and other protected concerted activi- assured that no reprisals would take place against him, ties, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the and/or that his participation was on a voluntary basis. Act. Johnnie's Poultry Co. and John Bishop Poultry Co., Succes- 5. By refusing in a disparate fashion to permit sor, 146 NLRB 770, 775 (1964). Clearly, Seamon's re- Callaway to work 2 hours' overtime daily while assigned quest did not meet these requirements. to the Corning facility in order to compensate him for travel expenses, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and 1. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (1) of the Act. UPON COMMERCE 6. By interrogating employees concerning their union The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, and other protected concerted activities, Respondent vio- above, occurring in connection with Respondent's oper- lated Section 8(a)() of the Act. ations described in section I, above, have a close, inti- 7. By requesting employees to furnish the National mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and Labor Relations Board with written statements concern- commerce among the several States and tend to lead to ing its employees' protected concerted activities, Re- labor disputes burdening and and obstructing commerce spondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. and the free flow of commerce. 8. By informing employees that Respondent denied overtime opportunities to Callaway, transferred IV. THE REMEDY Callaway to the Corning facility, and disparately refused Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair to permit Callaway to work overtime to compensate for Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair his travel expenses, Respondent violated Section 8(aX)I) labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent oh t ra ve l e , v A o l t ed ec t o n cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative e c action to effectuate the policies of the Act. 9. Respondent did not violate the Act by any other conduct as alleged in the complaint, as amended at the " If in fact the Board agent conducting the investigation of the unfair hearing. labor practice had even informed Respondent that he wished to have Landis prepare such a statement. " See, generally, Isis Plumbing S Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 745 dence establishes that Respondent applied this new Having found that Respondent discriminatorily denied policy in a disparate manner, at least regarding the as- William Callaway the opportunity to work overtime signnent of mechanics to Coming. In this regard, while employed at the Gridley facility during the period Callaway was not compensated for time or expense in his of mid-February to on or about May 12, transferred daily trips to and from Coming. Yet, when another em- Callaway from the Gridley facility to the Corning plant ployee was assigned to relieve Callaway while on vaca- on or about May 13, and further refused to allow tion, he was expressly authorized to put in 2 hours' over- Callaway to work 2 hours' overtime on a daily basis to time each day whether or not work existed in order to compensate him for travel expenses, it is recommended compensate him for his expenses in travel. Callaway was that Respondent immediately transfer Callaway from the offered no such similar opportunity. Coming facility to the Gridley facility. It is further rec- Respondent further placed restrictions on Callaway ommended that Respondent make Callaway whole for even when at the Corning facility. Employees were told any loss of earnings, including overtime, from mid-Feb- not to associate with him and he was specifically prohib- ruary 1980 to the date he is transferred back to the Grid- ited from using the telephone except when speaking to ley facility with such earnings to be computed within the one of Respondent's managers. This restriction was not meaning and in accordance with the Board's Decisions in applicable to any other employee. F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Respondent's purposes for transferring Callaway were Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 28 clear. Huddleston informed employee Watson that Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon Callaway was transferred because he was making "union the entire record in this case, I make the following: troubles," and Respondent was making an example of him. DeMuth, in a conversation with employee Drews, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW explained further when he stated that Callaway would be R , Ic i a e enae assigned to Coming "until either he quit or other ar- i. M a t he w s R ea d y M wih I n c th m sof em pl o y er n e 26 m a ed rangements were made." These statements, like Supervi- ln commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) sor Clark's earlier ones, not only established the purpose behind Respondent's conduct, but also constituted un-2. G e n e r a l Teamsters Local No. 137, International lawful coercive threats to other employees should they Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen also wish to cause Respondent problems by making a n d Helpers of America, is a labor organization within "union troubles." t h e meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Finally, the complaint alleges that Respondent further 3. By discriminatorily denying William Callaway the violated Section 8(a)(l) when Supervisor Seamon in- opportunity to work overtime from mid-February to structed employee Landis that the National Labor Rela- mid-May while employed at the Gridley facility, Re- tions Board wanted Landis to prepare a written state- spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. ment concerning Callaway's conversation with him 4. By transferring Callaway on or about May 13 from about his wage rate. The evidence does not establish that the Gridley facility to the Corning facility because of Landis was informed of the purpose of the request," was Callaway's union and other protected concerted activi- assured that no reprisals would take place against him, ties, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the and/or that his participation was on a voluntary basis. Act. Johnnie's Poultry Co. and John Bishop Poultry Co., Succes- 5. By refusing in a disparate fashion to permit sor, 146 NLRB 770, 775 (1964). Clearly, Seamen's re- Callaway to work 2 hours' overtime daily while assigned quest did not meet these requirements,.to the Corning facility in order to compensate him for travel expenses, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (1) of the Act. UPON COMMERCE 6. By interrogating employees concerning their union The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, a n d o th e r protected concerted activities, Respondent vio- above, occurring in connection with Respondent's oper- la t e d Section 8(a)l) of the Act. ations described in section I, above, have a close, inti- 7. By requesting employees to furnish the National mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and Labor Relations Board with written statements concern- commerce among the several States and tend to lead to ing it s employees' protected concerted activities, Re- labor disputes burdening and and obstructing commerce spondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. and the free flow of commerce. 8. By informing employees that Respondent denied overtime opportunities to Callaway, transferred Iv. THE REMEDY Callaway to the Corning facility, and disparately refused Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair to per m i t C al law ay t o work overtime to compensate for labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent h is tr a v e l epenes Responde v io l at ed S ec tio n 8 cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative o e c t. action to effectuate the policies of the Act. 9. Respondent did not violate the Act by any other conduct as alleged in the complaint, as amended at the "If in fact the Board agent conducting the investigation of the unfair hearing. labor practice had even informed Respondent that he wished to have Landis prepare such a statement." See, generally, Isis Plumbing S Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 745 dence establishes that Respondent applied this new Having found that Respondent discriminatorily denied policy in a disparate manner, at least regarding the as- William Callaway the opportunity to work overtime signnent of mechanics to Corning. In this regard, while employed at the Gridley facility during the period Callaway was not compensated for time or expense in his of mid-February to on or about May 12, transferred daily trips to and from Coming. Yet, when another em- Callaway from the Gridley facility to the Corning plant ployee was assigned to relieve Callaway while on vaca- on or about May 13, and further refused to allow tion, he was expressly authorized to put in 2 hours' over- Callaway to work 2 hours' overtime on a daily basis to time each day whether or not work existed in order to compensate him for travel expenses, it is recommended compensate him for his expenses in travel. Callaway was that Respondent immediately transfer Callaway from the offered no such similar opportunity. Corning facility to the Gridley facility. It is further rec- Respondent further placed restrictions on Callaway ommended that Respondent make Callaway whole for even when at the Corning facility. Employees were told any loss of earnings, including overtime, from mid-Feb- not to associate with him and he was specifically prohib- ruary 1980 to the date he is transferred back to the Grid- ited from using the telephone except when speaking to ley facility with such earnings to be computed within the one of Respondent's managers. This restriction was not meaning and in accordance with the Board's Decisions in applicable to any other employee. F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Respondent's purposes for transferring Callaway were Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 28 clear. Huddleston informed employee Watson that Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon Callaway was transferred because he was making "union the entire record in this case, I make the following: troubles," and Respondent was making an example of him. DeMuth, in a conversation with employee Drews, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW explained further when he stated that Callaway would be 1. Mh R M I i ag assigned to Corning "until either he quit or other ar- i. M a t he w s R ea d y M wih I n c th m sof em pl o y er n e 26 m a ed rangements were made." These statements, like Supervi- ln commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) sor Clark's earlier ones, not only established the purpose behind Respondent's conduct, but also constituted un- 2. G e n e r a l Teamsters Local No. 137, International lawful coercive threats to other employees should they Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen also wish to cause Respondent problems by making a n d Helpers of America, is a labor organization within "union troubles." t h e meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Finally, the complaint alleges that Respondent further 3. By discriminatorily denying William Callaway the violated Section 8(a)(l) when Supervisor Seamon in- opportunity to work overtime from mid-February to structed employee Landis that the National Labor Rela- mid-May while employed at the Gridley facility, Re- tions Board wanted Landis to prepare a written state- spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. ment concerning Callaway's conversation with him 4. By transferring Callaway on or about May 13 from about his wage rate. The evidence does not establish that the Gridley facility to the Corning facility because of Landis was informed of the purpose of the request," was Callaway's union and other protected concerted activi- assured that no reprisals would take place against him, ties, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the and/or that his participation was on a voluntary basis. Act. Johnnie's Poultry Co. and John Bishop Poultry Co., Succes- 5. By refusing in a disparate fashion to permit sor, 146 NLRB 770, 775 (1964). Clearly, Seamen's re- Callaway to work 2 hours' overtime daily while assigned quest did not meet these requirements,.to the Corning facility in order to compensate him for travel expenses, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (1) of the Act. UPON COMMERCE 6. By interrogating employees concerning their union The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, a n d o th e r protected concerted activities, Respondent vio- above, occurring in connection with Respondent's oper- la t e d Section 8(a)l) of the Act. ations described in section I, above, have a close, inti- 7. By requesting employees to furnish the National mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and Labor Relations Board with written statements concern- commerce among the several States and tend to lead to ing it s employees' protected concerted activities, Re- labor disputes burdening and and obstructing commerce spondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. and the free flow of commerce. 8. By informing employees that Respondent denied overtime opportunities to Callaway, transferred Iv. THE REMEDY Callaway to the Corning facility, and disparately refused Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair to per m i t C al law ay t o work overtime to compensate for labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent h is tr a v e l epenes Responde v io l at ed S ec tio n 8 cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative o e c t. action to effectuate the policies of the Act. 9. Respondent did not violate the Act by any other conduct as alleged in the complaint, as amended at the "If in fact the Board agent conducting the investigation of the unfair hearing. labor practice had even informed Respondent that he wished to have Landis prepare such a statement." See, generally, Isis Plumbing S Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). MATHEWS READY MIX, INC. 745 dence establishes that Respondent applied this new Having found that Respondent discriminatorily denied policy in a disparate manner, at least regarding the as- William Callaway the opportunity to work overtime signnent of mechanics to Corning. In this regard, while employed at the Gridley facility during the period Callaway was not compensated for time or expense in his of mid-February to on or about May 12, transferred daily trips to and from Coming. Yet, when another em- Callaway from the Gridley facility to the Corning plant ployee was assigned to relieve Callaway while on vaca- on or about May 13, and further refused to allow tion, he was expressly authorized to put in 2 hours' over- Callaway to work 2 hours' overtime on a daily basis to time each day whether or not work existed in order to compensate him for travel expenses, it is recommended compensate him for his expenses in travel. Callaway was that Respondent immediately transfer Callaway from the offered no such similar opportunity. Corning facility to the Gridley facility. It is further rec- Respondent further placed restrictions on Callaway ommended that Respondent make Callaway whole for even when at the Corning facility. Employees were told any loss of earnings, including overtime, from mid-Feb- not to associate with him and he was specifically prohib- ruary 1980 to the date he is transferred back to the Grid- ited from using the telephone except when speaking to ley facility with such earnings to be computed within the one of Respondent's managers. This restriction was not meaning and in accordance with the Board's Decisions in applicable to any other employee. F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Respondent's purposes for transferring Callaway were Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 28 clear. Huddleston informed employee Watson that Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon Callaway was transferred because he was making "union the entire record in this case, I make the following: troubles," and Respondent was making an example of him. DeMuth, in a conversation with employee Drews, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW explained further when he stated that Callaway would be 1. Mh R M I i ag assigned to Corning "until either he quit or other ar- i. M a t he w s R ea d y M wih I n c th m sof em pl o y er n e 26 m a ed rangements were made." These statements, like Supervi- ln commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) sor Clark's earlier ones, not only established the purpose behind Respondent's conduct, but also constituted un-2. G e n e r a l Teamsters Local No. 137, International lawful coercive threats to other employees should they Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen also wish to cause Respondent problems by making a n d Helpers of America, is a labor organization within "union troubles." t h e meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Finally, the complaint alleges that Respondent further 3. By discriminatorily denying William Callaway the violated Section 8(a)(l) when Supervisor Seamon in- opportunity to work overtime from mid-February to structed employee Landis that the National Labor Rela- mid-May while employed at the Gridley facility, Re- tions Board wanted Landis to prepare a written state- spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. ment concerning Callaway's conversation with him 4. By transferring Callaway on or about May 13 from about his wage rate. The evidence does not establish that the Gridley facility to the Corning facility because of Landis was informed of the purpose of the request," was Callaway's union and other protected concerted activi- assured that no reprisals would take place against him, ties, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the and/or that his participation was on a voluntary basis. Act. Johnnie's Poultry Co. and John Bishop Poultry Co., Succes- 5. By refusing in a disparate fashion to permit sor, 146 NLRB 770, 775 (1964). Clearly, Seamen's re- Callaway to work 2 hours' overtime daily while assigned quest did not meet these requirements,.to the Corning facility in order to compensate him for travel expenses, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES (1) of the Act. UPON COMMERCE 6. By interrogating employees concerning their union The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, a n d o th e r protected concerted activities, Respondent vio- above, occurring in connection with Respondent's oper- la t e d Section 8(a)l) of the Act. ations described in section I, above, have a close, inti- 7. By requesting employees to furnish the National mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and Labor Relations Board with written statements concern- commerce among the several States and tend to lead to ing it s employees' protected concerted activities, Re- labor disputes burdening and and obstructing commerce spondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. and the free flow of commerce. 8. By informing employees that Respondent denied overtime opportunities to Callaway, transferred Iv. THE REMEDY Callaway to the Corning facility, and disparately refused Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair to per m i t C al law ay t o work overtime to compensate for labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent h is tr a v e l epenes Responde v io l at ed S ec tio n 8 cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative o e c t. action to effectuate the policies of the Act. 9. Respondent did not violate the Act by any other conduct as alleged in the complaint, as amended at the "If in fact the Board agent conducting the investigation of the unfair hearing. labor practice had even informed Respondent that he wished to have Landis prepare such a statement." See, generally, Isis Plumbing S Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursu- will effectuate the policies of the Act: ant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the fol- (a) Transfer William Callaway from the Coring facili- lowing recommended: ty to his former job at the Gridley facility or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, ~ORDER: 2~9 ~without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and The Respondent, Mathews Ready Mix, Inc., Gridley, privileges. California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, (b) Make whole William Callaway for any loss of shall: earnings, including overtime, suffered as a result of the 1. Cease and desist from: discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the (a) Denying its employees the opportunity to work section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." overtime because of the employees' union and other pro- (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the tected concerted activities. Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all (b) Transferring its employees from one facility to an- payroll records, social security records, timecards, per- other because of the employees' union and other protect- sonnel records, and reports and all other records neces- ed concerted activities. sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the (c) Interrogating its employees concerning their union terms of this Order. activities, sympathies, and desires. (d) Post at its Gridley, Yuba City, Oroville, Chico, (d) Requesting its employees to furnish the National and Corning, California, facilities copies of the attached Labor Relations Board with written statements concern- notice marked "Appendix."30 Copies of said notice, on ing the protected concerted activities of fellow employ- forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, ees. after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized rep- (e) Informing its employees that Respondent denied resentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re- overtime and transferred employees from one facility to ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive another because of the employees' union and other pro- days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including a tected concerted activities. tected concerte act . places where notices to employees are customarily (t) Restricting its employees in their access to the p es ee otes t ployee ae office and the telephone because of their union and other posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to protected concerted activities. insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov - protected concerted activities. (g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- ered by any other maten al. straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 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 " In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursu- will effectuate the policies of the Act: ant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the fol- (a) Transfer William Callaway from the Coming facili- lowing recommended: ty to his former job at the Gridley facility or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and The Respondent, Mathews Ready Mix, Inc., Gridley, privileges. California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, (b) Make whole William Callaway for any loss of shall: earnings, including overtime, suffered as a result of the 1. Cease and desist from: discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the (a) Denying its employees the opportunity to work section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." overtime because of the employees' union and other pro- (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the tected concerted activities. Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all (b) Transferring its employees from one facility to an- payroll records, social security records, timecards, per- other because of the employees' union and other protect- sonnel records, and reports and all other records neces- ed concerted activities. sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the (c) Interrogating its employees concerning their union terms of this Order. activities, sympathies, and desires. (d) post at its Gridley, Yuba City, Oroville, Chico, (d) Requesting its employees to furnish the National and Corning, California, facilities copies of the attached Labor Relations Board with written statements concern- notice marked "Appendix." 30 Copies of said notice, on ing the protected concerted activities of fellow employ- forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, e e s . after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized rep- (e) Informing its employees that Respondent denied resentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re- overtime and transferred employees from one facility to ci t a maintained by it for 60 consecutive another because of the employees' union and other pro-thereafter, in conspicuous places, including a tected concerted activities., .ay teafr,. "n ,osiuu *lcs ".,uig tected concerted activities.places where notices to employees are customarily (f) Restricting its employees in their access to the p osted Rea nab l e s sha l lb e en R e to office and the telephone because of their union and other Posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to poffictead conherteledhone bctivities. f'theirunionandother in s ur e t h at sa id n o tic es ar e n o t a lt e r ed , d e f ac e d , o r c o v - protected concerted activities.erdbanotrmtril (g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- "^^ '.y o t h er m at en al . straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the (e) Notify t h e Regional Director for Region 20, in rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. "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 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United Findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursu- will effectuate the policies of the Act: ant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the fol- (a) Transfer William Callaway from the Coming facili- lowing recommended: ty to his former job at the Gridley facility or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and The Respondent, Mathews Ready Mix, Inc., Gridley, privileges. California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, (b) Make whole William Callaway for any loss of shall: earnings, including overtime, suffered as a result of the 1. Cease and desist from: discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the (a) Denying its employees the opportunity to work section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." overtime because of the employees' union and other pro- (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the tected concerted activities. Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all (b) Transferring its employees from one facility to an- payroll records, social security records, timecards, per- other because of the employees' union and other protect- sonnel records, and reports and all other records neces- ed concerted activities. sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the (c) Interrogating its employees concerning their union terms of this Order. activities, sympathies, and desires. (d) post at its Gridley, Yuba City, Oroville, Chico, (d) Requesting its employees to furnish the National and Corning, California, facilities copies of the attached Labor Relations Board with written statements concern- notice marked "Appendix." 30 Copies of said notice, on ing the protected concerted activities of fellow employ- forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, e e s . after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized rep- (e) Informing its employees that Respondent denied resentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re- overtime and transferred employees from one facility to c ereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive another because of the employees' union and other pro-thereafter, in conspicuous places, including a tected concerted activities., .ay teafr,. "n ,osiuu *lcs ".,uig tected concerted activities.places where notices to employees are customarily (f) Restricting its employees in their access to the p osted Rea nab l e s sha l lb e en R e to office and the telephone because of their union and other Posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to poffictead conherteledhone bctivities. f'theirunionandother in s ur e t h at sa id n o tic es ar e n o t a lt e r ed , d e f ac e d , o r c o v - protected concerted activities.erdbanotrmtril (g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- "^^ '.y o t h er m at en al . straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the (e) Notify t h e Regional Director for Region 20, in rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. "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 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United Findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursu- will effectuate the policies of the Act: ant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the fol- (a) Transfer William Callaway from the Coming facili- lowing recommended: ty to his former job at the Gridley facility or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and The Respondent, Mathews Ready Mix, Inc., Gridley, privileges. California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, (b) Make whole William Callaway for any loss of shall: earnings, including overtime, suffered as a result of the 1. Cease and desist from: discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the (a) Denying its employees the opportunity to work section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." overtime because of the employees' union and other pro- (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the tected concerted activities. Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all (b) Transferring its employees from one facility to an- payroll records, social security records, timecards, per- other because of the employees' union and other protect- sonnel records, and reports and all other records neces- ed concerted activities. sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the (c) Interrogating its employees concerning their union terms of this Order. activities, sympathies, and desires. (d) post at its Gridley, Yuba City, Oroville, Chico, (d) Requesting its employees to furnish the National and Corning, California, facilities copies of the attached Labor Relations Board with written statements concern- notice marked "Appendix." 30 Copies of said notice, on ing the protected concerted activities of fellow employ- forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, e e s . after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized rep- (e) Informing its employees that Respondent denied resentative, shall be posted by it immediately upon re- overtime and transferred employees from one facility to ci t a maintained by it for 60 consecutive another because of the employees' union and other pro-thereafter, in conspicuous places, including a tected concerted activities., .ay teafr,. "n ,osiuu *lcs ".,uig tected concerted activities.places where notices to employees are customarily (f) Restricting its employees in their access to the p osted Rea nab l e s sha l lb e en R e to office and the telephone because of their union and other Posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to poffictead conherteledhone bctivities. f'theirunionandother in s ur e t h at sa id n o tic es ar e n o t a lt e r ed , d e f ac e d , o r c o v - protected concerted activities.erdbanotrmtril (g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- "^^ '.y o t h er m at en al . straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the (e) Notify t h e Regional Director for Region 20, in rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. "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 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United Findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Order of the National Labor Relations Board."