Roadway Express, Inc.

ROADWAY EXPRESS Roadway Express, Inc. and Konstantine Petros. Case 8-CA-16853 26 February 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 11 September 1984 Administrative Law Judge John H. West issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Roadway Express, Inc., Toledo, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN H. WEST, Administrative Law Judge. On a charge filed March 11, 1983, as amended on April 26, 1983, by Konstantine Petros against Roadway Express, Inc. (Roadway), a complaint was issued April 29, 1983, alleging that Roadway violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act), collective- ly, by unlawfully discharging Petros because he filed a charge with the Board in Case 8-CA-14982-2 and testi- fied at the subsequent hearing on June 14, 1982, by sub- sequently disciplining Petros on four specified dates after his reinstatement, and by threatening Petros with disci- pline because he said he might file a grievance. Roadway denies violating the Act. A hearing was held on April 11-13, 1983, in Toledo, Ohio. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel (July 1984), Roadway (August 1981),' and the Charging Party (August 1984). On the entire record in this proceeding, including my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, and after considering the aforementioned briefs, I make the following ' Roadway was granted four extensions of time for filing a brief FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION 357 Roadway, a Delaware corporation, is an interstate motor common carrier of general commodities As here pertinent it maintains a terminal at Toledo The com- plaint alleges, Roadway admits, and I find that at all times material herein it has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. It is alleged, admitted, and I find that the Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehou- semen and Helpers of America, Local No. 20 (Team- sters) is now, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Petros has worked as a dockworker for Roadway at its Toledo terminal since September 1972. He and ap- proximately 100 other dockworkers who load and unload trailers are members of the Teamsters, and Petros also belongs to and has been active in the Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) since March 1980.2 Ivan Hofmann became manager of the involved termi- nal in October-1979 with the understanding that he was to make the operation profitable. Disciplinary action in- creased over violations of Roadway's work rules and freight handling rules. While the collective-bargaining agreement between Roadway and the Teamsters (J Exh. 1), as it relates to the involved terminal, does not speak to progressive discipline, Hofmann testified that this was the approach taken to discipline And under the Ohio ad- dendum Q. Exh. 2) it was agreed that no member shall be taken out of service without a hearing, with the em- ployer and union representative present, except for speci- fied serious violations.3 As testified to by Hofmann, while an employee would be discharged for consuming alcoholic beverages or taking drugs while on duty or on company property, supervisors can exercise discretion regarding whether to issue a warning letter for less seri- ous violations such as where to walk when entering or leaving the terminal.4 Hofmann testified that he reviewed all warning letters to determine whether they should be issued, and in reaching his determiantion the factors considered were as I follows: As long as the information on the warning letter was factual--in other words, if they wrote down everything that happened; that they wrote on there that they had talked to the employee about'the in- 2 Regarding the TDU, Petros has been on the International Steering Committee, he was chairman of the Roadway committee, and he was elected as a trustee of the steering committee His picture and name have appeared in TDU publications which were distributed to Roadway em- ployees On April 29, 1982, Petros was elected a Teamsters steward Ex- amples of gnevances Petros filed were introduced G C Exhs 40-44 Up to the time of the hearing herein Petros had filed 12 grievances 9 There are no written standards in Ohio for determining when a disci- plinary hearing should be held 4 While under the agreement the employee does not have the right to file a grievance over a warning letter, he can protest it 274 NLRB No. 52 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fraction, when they talked to him, the time they talked to him, the circumstances surrounding the in- cident; any witnesses that were in the general area; and that it was, in fact, a bona fide violation of the contract, or a work rule. Also, Hofmann made the decision on whether or not to call a hearing If one was called, the employee's work record for the preceding 9 months was reviewed 5 In January 1981 Petros posted a resolution on the bul- letin boards in the breakrooms at the involved terminal, which resolution, if adopted by the membership, might have resulted in a strike. The resolution was removed by a supervisor. On February 27, 1981, Petros filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board over that matter. The charge was withdrawn in April 1981 when Respondent agreed to the posting of TDU material so long as it was clearly identified as TDU literature. That same month, when Petros posted notices on the involved bulletin boards calling for the defeat of a union bylaws amendment, the bulletin boards were removed from the rooms. Petros filed a charge on August 11, 1981, alleging that Roadway violated the Act when it removed the bul- letin boards. A complaint was issued by the Board on January 21, 1982. That case, Roadway Express, 268 NLRB 982 (1984) (referred to hereinafter as the bulletin board case), will be dealt with infra. At this point it need only be noted that the administrative law judge therein credited the testimony of Petros and Emit Hudson that when they asked Hofmann why the bulletin boards had been removed he replied, saying, among other things, "that he was a stockholder in the Company, and that he did not want any material posted on the bulletin boards which caused problems or called for strikers against Roadway Express." Petros testified that he filed a number of unfair labor practice charges with the Board in 1981 against the Teamsters, Roadway, and a grievance committee because they would not process his grievances; and that the amended charge was dismissed in October 1981. Hof- mann testified that he was aware of but he was not both- ered by the fact that Petros filed numerous unfair labor practice charges against Roadway. The then chief steward at the involved terminal, Louis Leasor, testified about a conversation he had in 1980 or 1981 with James Echelson, the assistant terminal manag- er at Roadway's Toledo terminal According to his testi- mony, after looking at the shift which was posted, Leasor said to Echelson, "I didn't see my buddy, Pete [Petros], on the list. Did you guys forget to call him?" to which Echelson said "No, but I'd like to forget him." A coworker of Petros, James Hillabrand, testified as follows about a conversation he had with one of Road- way's supervisors, Donald Bowles, around the end of May or the first of June 1982: Mr. Bowles come up to me and told me-made the statement to me, at that time, that if I cared 5 If the hearing was postponed at the behest of the employee, the work record was "frozen" or, in other words, the alleged violations which oc- curred within 9 months of the time the hearing was first scheduled, were still considered about Mr Petros and his job, then I had better have a talk with him I said, "Well, what do you mean?" He said, "Well, we've been given orders, or been told, to letter Mr. Petros until he either straightens up-we're going to letter him until he either quits or he's fired." So that's-so after that, then, after he left, I went over to talk to Pete and told Pete, you know, what he had said, and that, you know, he better be care- ful. Bowles did not testify to deny making this statements It would appear that to the extent supervisors had some discretion as to when to write up a warning letter, that discretion no longer existed with respect to Petros. Whether Bowles' statement can be interpreted to mean that Petros would be "lettered" even when he did not deserve it will be treated infra. On June 14, 1982, Petros testified in the bulletin board case, supra. Dennis Gutman, an employee at the involved terminal, testified as follows regarding warning letters he and Petros received. Q. At what-between what period of time were you a union steward? A. Between April of `82 and the end of March of `84. Q In July 1982, were you witness to an incident which involved Konstantine Petros getting a letter for loitering? A. Yes. Q. Could you describe that incident? A. Well, I was working from 4:00 in the morning until 12:30, and Konnie was working from 11:00 in the morning until 7:30 at night, and it was about- between 5 and 10 minutes till 11.00, and Konnie was on his way into work, and I was stacking, and I yelled across the dock at him as he took his time- card out of the rack. And I-as I yelled at him, I said , "Guess who's back to work?" Or "Buddy Tubbs is back to work. It's his first day back He's on the outbound." And Konnie was walking from the rack where the timecards are kept, to the outbound where he was working, and he never even stopped. And as he was halfway down to the outbound dock, Bill Scroggins came out of the center office, city dis- patch, and he ran down the dock to Konnie and B The record does not reveal how much before this conversation the order was given to "letter" Petros Hofmann testified "No" to the fol- lowing question "Did you ever make any statement , to any of your staff asking them to discipline Mr Petros in any manner different from anyone else?" (Emphasis added) Hofmann did not impress me as being the type of individual who would ask anyone who worked for him to do some- thing Rather, in my opinion Hofmann would order or tell the person or persons what he wanted done For the reasons discussed infra, Hofmann did not impress me as being a credible witness And Assistant Terminal Manager Dean Schuler, who testified "No sir" to the following question "Did you ever indicate to any of your line supervisors, or T 0 M 's to watch Mr Petros more closely because of his union affiliations?" also did not impress me as being a credible witness ROADWAY EXPRESS talked to him, and then he came back and told me that I was getting a letter for unauthorized break. And then I found out later on that the letter that Konstantme got was a letter for loitering as he was coming into work. Q. Did you get a letter from an unauthorized break? A. Yes. Q Did-where was Konstantine when you yelled at him? A He had just come up the steps He was just taking his card out of the rack, out of the-where the timecards are kept, and I was stacking when I yelled at him. Q. And what did he say to you? A. Well, he-the only words that he said to me was "Who?" when I said, "Guess who's back to work?" And I told him who was back to work and he kept right on walking. Q Walking towards? A. Towards he was supposed to be working that day. Around July 27 or 29, 1982, Petros and Chief Steward Gary Tubbs, while attending joint area grievance com- mittee hearings, were advised during a sidebar meeting that Hofmann had applied for a flexible workweek. Petros explained the concept as follows: The flexible work week concept is-before-nor- mally, people would either work a Monday through Friday shift and have the weekend off, or a Tues- day through Saturday shift and have Sunday or Monday off. If the company needs them to work during the weekend they call them in to work for time and a half or double time, which is overtime. This is the standard national master freight agree- ment type of situation where an employee works Monday through Friday or Tuesday through Satur- day. But the flexible work week agreement came into effect with the option to put it in came into effect in 1976. This is where the company can put employees to work on Monday-I mean on a Saturday and Sunday for straight time. For example, give them Thursday or Wednesday off. This concept came into the national master freight agreement in 1976 Well, in 1976, we agreed, the employees there voted and agreed to set up an agreement where 189 employees were red circled. In other words, they were guaranteed the right to work either Monday or Tuesday through for Roadway Express, as long as they work for Roadway Express. Also, shifts were guaranteed, the starting times and the amount of people on these shifts were writ- 359 ten down, and we were also guaranteed six and seven days of work. Petros forwarded the following certified mail letter (G.C. Exh. 64) and posted it on Roadway's bulletin boards on August 3, 1982: HAROLD LEU, PRESIDENT LOCAL 20, TEAMSTERS 435 SOUTH HAWLEY STREET TOLEDO, OHIO, 43609 Dear Sir and Brother Recently I was informed that Roadway Express Dock Terminal Manager Ivan Hoffman [sic] is going to ask for approval of a newly negotiated Ohio Flexible Workweek as provided for in the Ohio Addendum and that the matter be placed on the Ohio Joint State Committee. I and my fellow Teamsters Brothers on the Dock are very con- cerned about this I hope you will stop this. I wish to ask you and your staff for the following information concerning this situation. I hope you will cooperate with me- 1. I want a copy of this New Ohio Addendum. 2 Give me copies of all Riders and Agree- ments negotiated by the Ohio Conference since January of 1981 that effect my employment at Roadway Express. 3. A copy of the new Ohio Guidlines [sic] which cover Flexible Workweeks in Ohio. 4. Any new Local Agreements negotiated by Local 20 and Roadway Express since January of 1981. , 5. I realise [sic] that under the IBT Constitu- tion and The Labor Management Reporting Act, I am entitled [sic] to all these vital documents signed or in the possession of my union (requests 1-4). , 6 What is the position of Harold Leu on this matter. 7. What is the position of Local 20 on this matter. 8. When will a Unit Meeting be called to inform the Brothers on the Dock and answer questions. 9. Why is Roadway using the grievance pro- ceedure [sic] rather than negotiating with Local 20 and the Stewards on the Dock 10. Where and when will a vote be taken with the Dock people if this new Flexible Workweek Agreement is Approved by the Union for imple- mentation of the Toledo Roadway Dock as pro- vided for in the IBT Constitution Article XVI- Section 4. 11. What is the status of our current Flexible Workweek Agreement voted on by the Roadway Local 20 Members in 1976. 13[Sic] Why is Roadway asking for a new Flexible Workweek Agreement now. 360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Because of the importance of this matter, please fur- nish the documents, information, and answers within 4 days Thank you very much for your co- operation in this matter. Fraternally, /s/ KONSTANTINE PETROS The following day Hofmann entered the trailer in which Petros was working and in a raised voice said, "Why shouldn't we have a flexible work week? I seen that letter up on the bulletin board that you sent to Harold Leu."7 Within a few days Petros and others circulated a peti- tion (G.C. Exh. 66) which reads as follows: We the undersigned Teamsters employees of Road- way Express Dock in Toledo, Ohio do hereby ex- press our complete opposition to the proposed "Full-flexible work week." We demand that Local #20 do all in its power to prevent it. The petition, which was signed by almost all the in- volved employees, was sent to Leu on August 11, 1982. The next day Petros along, with other stewards, at- tended a grievance committee hearing on the flexible workweek. The stewards vocally opposed the proposal but Roadway won Hofmann and Jim O'Neill, a labor re- lations man for Roadway, were also there. On August 13, 1982, Petros and the stewards saw an attorney to discuss the legal possibilities of opposing the proposed flexible workweek. Also, on August 13, 1982, Hofmann approached Petros and had him initial a piece of paper which had his name on it indicating that he was informed of a disciplinary hearing to be held on August 16, 1982. Petros told Hof- mann that Petros would be on vacation to which Hof- mann replied, "That's okay. It gives you more time to think about." Petros is credited Hofmann testified that while he remembered read- ing the letter he did not remember speaking to Petros about it . Hofmann went on to testify that he does not walk the dock alone, he "always had a supervisor in the general vicinity of [him] " Hofmann's general tes- timony does not refute Petros' testimony for the accompanying supervi- sor could have been outside the trailer and still have been in the general vicinity a When he testified the first day of the hearing herein Hofmann was asked if he remembered informing Petros of the disciplinary meeting Hofmann replied "You are asking me to pick one particular meeting Hofmann replied "You are asking me to pick one particular individual out of literally hundreds, when I had hundreds of hearings, thousands of letters, over a year ago, that is insane " The very next day, in answering Respondent counsel's questions Hofmann gave the following testimony: Q Do you remember telling Mr Petros that he would have more time to think about his hearing, at one point? A No, but I remember giving him the notice, and the reason I remember it is that wasn't our normal method of doing it We had problem [sic] where people wouldn't show up for hearings and they'd claim that the telegram-they never got the telegram or that they never got the letter, and we complained about this to the Union We said, "This is ridiculous So, they said, "Well, take it out to the employees and have them sign a note?" I very rarely did that The only reason I did it that day is Dean [Schuler] had to leave He gave me the packets He says, "You've On August 19, 1982, the Roadway Workers Associa- tion (RWA) was formed by certain Roadway employees to sue the Teamsters and Roadway, among others, for al- legedly unlawfully taking, as Petros testified, "our 1976 red circled agreement from us without a vote of the members."9 Subsequently a lawsuit was filed. A joint management/union meeting was held on August 25, 1982, at the Teamsters Local hall Leu, Petros, and other stewards along with Hofmann, O'Neil, and other Roadway representatives attended. O'Neil and Hofmann indicated that if Roadway did not receive co- operation everyone would work during the weekend for straight time. If the employees cooperated Roadway "would allow maybe 38 percent of the people to remain on a Monday or Tuesday through shift." The only stew- ard to speak out at the meeting against the proposal, Petros made the following remark: "We will not recog- nize this new agreement unless there is to vote of the members to change it. So therefore we-we were not agreeing to anything that is happening here today." 10 got two or three more people, and we have to have them sign it so that they'd be there for the hearing " So, I walked up to him and gave it to him, and I remember him telling me he was on vacation, and I said, "Fine, we'll schedule the next time " Q All right A I guess I don't exactly know what I said, but I remember he was on vacation Q Do you remember any comment that he would another-have more time to think about it? A No, not specifically. Petros is credited Hofmann's lack of memory on what was said is less than persuasive 9 As noted above, under the red-circled agreement 189 people were guaranteed Monday or Tuesday through starts io Petros' testimony was corrborated by two others who werent present, Hillabrand and Tubbs With respect to why he did not like the flex workweek, Tubbs gave the following testimony Q And you were all opposed to the flex work week, weren't you? A Well, wouldn't you be? Q Well, I'm asking you A Would you like to lose $18,000 a year? Q Was that what you were faced with? A Well, definitely Working on a shift that, after 20 years of Roadway, then I lose-besides losing 18,000 a year, besides facing working every Saturday and Sunday for straight time? Hofmann 'gave the following testimony about the above-described meet- ing and the flex workweek Q You don' t recall that meeting? A Why would I recall that meeting? Q Well, I am just asking you if you recall it? A. No, I don't Q You don't recall Mr Petros standing up and opposing this agreement between the company and the union? A Many people objected to that I can't specifically say I remem- ber him or not It was over a year ago Q. And you were toally unconcerned about opposition to the flexi- ble work week by many employees in the plant, including Mr. Petros? A I didn't want anybody to oppose it, but it didn't matter, we were going to put it in anyhow, and we did Q. And it didn't bother you that they were going to bring suit against the company to-and against the union to try to prevent your flexible workweek? A No, not particularly Q Didn't-now, the flexible work week was going to save you a lot of money, wasn't it? A That is correct, It was strictly a business decision Continued ROADWAY EXPRESS An RWA meeting was held on the evening of August 30, 1982, to explain the association to the employees and to get people to sign up. 'Members were required to' pay a total of $800 in fees by November 30, 1982. About 95 employees joined Five days later, September 4, 1982, Hofmann and Petros discussed the August 30, 1982 RWA meeting. Petros testified as follows . - After I discussed those matters [unreleated griev- ances] with him, he asked me how the. meeting went, and I said, it went fine. He then asked me, did you raise enough money. I said, yes. He said, he couldn't believe it. He said he had walked around and talked to a lot of people and they thought it was a bunch of crap. I just turned and left then, there was no further discussion. i i On September 7, 1982, Hofmann stopped by the trailer Petros was unloading and he asked Petros, who with the change was working Saturday through with the middle of the week off, how he liked his new shift. When Petros said he did not like it, Hofmann told him that it would help to protect his job. Petros and Tubbs were in Schuler's office on Septem- ber 13, at his request, discussing certain grievances A number of employees had filed grievances and Petros asked Schuler for their names and how much they were due in payments so that he could post it and let the em- ployees know how much money was due them. Petros testified that Hofmann came in "and he started yelling at me. He says Dean Schuler isn't going to be you,secre- tary. Get out of here " Petros left and Tubbs remained. Tubbs corroborated Petros adding that when Hofmann "threw Pete [Petros] out .. . I said `If Pete can't be here, then I'm leaving too.' And I walked out." With re- spect to this incident Schuler testified as follows: Gary [Tubbs] had wanted to discuss some' griev- ances I had a number of grievances I wanted to ask him about, my hopes being that I could get those grievances resolved, prior to going in and having to discuss them in front of a committee. Q And it did save you a lot of money in overtime, didn't it? A Certainly did Petros is credited Hofmann gave the following testimony about this conversation Q Didn't you confront Mr Petros with respect to a meeting that was conducted to organize this organization? A Not that I recall Q Didn't you have any conversation with him on or about Sep- tember 4, 1982, with respect to how this meeting went? A Not that I recall Q Didn't you tell them that you had talked to other employees about this meeting and about the Roadway Employees Workers As- sociation7 A I don't recall anything like that Q Didn't you tell him that in your opinion, that this was a bunch of crap? A I don't recall that Q Didn't you ask him whether they had raised enough money? A I don't recall that either 361 He asked if Mr. Petros could come along Mr. Petros was a part of some of those grievances, so I had said yes. We had started covering a particular grievance and there was discussion on it. They wanted some records looked up Q. What kind'of records? A They wanted to go into number of shifts em- ployees had worked and how many employees were involved in a grievance, and what they had coming from monetary and who was going to get paid- and I didn't have any of those records available and it was quite a time-consuming area. Q. Weren"t.those records available to the union from other sources? A. Those records were available for stewards to review. Yes,'they were. Q. All right. Well, what happened then, when you didn't have the records available? A. There was more discussion and Mr Hofmann came in about that point, picked up on the flow of the conversation, and put an end to it. A. Did he act in a insane or berserk or irrational way? A No, he knew .that I was calling up Mr. Tubbs to discuss grievances because I had told him I wanted to see if I could get some of them resovled. And he came in there thinking we're going to be re- solving grievances and we're discussing one that's serveral times discussed. A. What did Mr. Hofmann say when he came in? A. He told Mr. Petros that, as was indicated ear- lier, I wasn't a secretary. He told him to leave. Q Was that the end of it? A. At that point, there was no more discussion at all on grievances. Mr. Petros left the room. Mr. Tubbs left shortly thereafter, and we didn't discuss any more grievances. And Hofmann testified as follows regarding this incident: A Do you remember telling Mr. Petros that Dean Schuler was not his secretary? A. Yes. Q. Could you tell-describe what that incident was all about? A. I was in my office and they had their door open and I had my door open, and I heard Mr. 'Petros, and I guess it was Gary Tubbs, with him, asking for paperwork and records. And I had some- thing I had to cover with Dean, and when I walked in there, I asked Dean what was going on. I listened for a little bit He said, "He needs this record and this record and this record." And I said, "Well, wait a minute All those cases were decided by the committee or they were decid- ed in the hearing." I can't remember where they were decided . I said, "Those records are available to you there. Dean's not your secretary Now, go back to work." 362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hofman did not testify that he told Petros to leave but allowed Tubbs to stay albeit the three other people present testified to that fact. On September 15, 1982, Petros tendered Schuler two grievances for his signature and pursuant to the standard operating procedure Schuler would retain a copy. One of the grievances challenged Roadway's work rules that it had recently put into effect because allegedly Road- way had not negotiated them with the Union The other challenged the work rules in general allegedly because they had not been negotiated with the Union. Petros tes- tified that some of the rules were posted and others Roadway "had come up with offhand, saying that they were work rules . . that they hadn't posted." One of the grievances specified the number of the work rules. The other challenged all of the rules. Schuler asked Petros to give him, Schuler, copies of Roadway's work rules, and he stated that a copy of the work rules should be attached to the grievance. Petros replied that Schuler should have a copy of Roadway's work rules. Schuler refused to sign the grievances and retain a copy, and he dropped the grievances on the floor and walked away.12 Regarding this incident Schuler testified as follows: Q. Did you ever throw some grievances on the ground at Mr. Petros? A. There was a time on the dock in which I had-he had handed me some papers to review or discuss. I don't even recall what those papers were. I think he wanted me to sign some forms. I told him how absurd it was and the timeliness of the issue involved. If it's the occasion I recall, he wouldn't take them back. I wasn't going to keep them in my possession. I threw them on the ground. Petros' disciplinary hearing was held on September 16, 1982. As noted on General Counsel's Exhibit 69, during the preceding 9-month period, which apparently was "frozen" in August because Petros could not attend, Petros received the following warning letters: four for taking unauthorized breaks, two for being unavailable for a work call, six for failure to follow posted instructions, and five for mishandling freight and/or freight bills.14 Also, Petros had a 5-day suspension in December 1981. Petrol was discharged at the hearing. The next day, September 17, 1982, Hofmann wrote (G.C. Exh. 70): Dear Mr. Petros, A hearing was held on your behalf on 9/16/82. Present at the hearing were: Messrs. Hofmann, Schuler, Humm, Tubbs, Gutman, Hillabrand, Na- varro and yourself. As a result of this hearing, based on your Cumu- lative Work Record, in accordance with the Na- tional Master Freight Agreement and Central States Area Local Cartage Supplemental Agreement and the Ohio Addendum Central States Area Local Cartage Supplemental Agreement Article #46, you are hereby discharged.is Petros filed a grievance (p. 2 of G.C. Exh. 70). The Administrative Law Judge's decision in the bulle- tin board case, supra, was issued September 20, 1982. He concluded that While it is true that Respondent had no duty, in the first place, to provide bulletin boards for the use of the employees, since it maintained the bulletin Q, Did you offer them back to him without throwing them on the ground? A. Yes, sir. Q, Why wouldn't you take the papers? Do you remember? A. I believe the issue involved was a timely issue. It was either with regards to grievances or rebuttals of warning letters. It was an issue in which there was no reason for me to have them in my posses- sion. As noted above, the grievances involved Roadway's work rules. (G.C. Exh. 65.)13 12 Employee Jeffrey Welch testified that while he could not hear what Petros and Schuler said on September 15, 1982, he "saw Mr Petros and Mr Schuler talking, and then some papers were being handed back and forth, and Then Mr Schuler threw some papers down on the dock and turned around and walked away " i3 It is noted that page two of G C Exh 65 contains the following "Will sign for grievance at point the actual rules or instructions are at- tached to the grievances." Schuler's signature appears below this with what papers to be a date of 10/7/82 Petros speculated that Schuler signed it when it was later tendered by another steward Petros testified that . a lot of the work rules were changing every day and they weren't posted If anything, it was more than just, you know, the challenge of it It was just to get them in writing so people knew what was expected of them Because they were-getting letters for things 14 Petros testified regarding the warning letters that, while one was given for an alleged unauthorized break in June 1982 assertedly because he talked to Tom Stahl, neither he nor Stahl remembered saying anything to each other, that two letters were given for one other alleged unauthor- ized break, and that while he properly loaded a cart, the cart was on the line for 3 hours and later he was advised by the stacking foreman that some of the cartons fell off the cart and Petros was given a letter for mishandling freight since Roadway did not believe his assertion that he loaded the cart properly The remainder of the warning letters, according to Petros' testimony, were either unjust or not in violation of the work rules i s Regarding Petros, Hofmann gave the following testimony Q When you were at Toledo, were you aware of any activity, by Mr Petros, on behalf of TDU or Roadway Workers or anything else of that type9 A Only that he wore a [TDU] shirt and a cap and a badge, and that type of thing Q Did you know anything else about his activities' A Not specifically Q Was Mr Petros a disruptive force at the terminal while you were there, in your view9 A Not at all Q Did he, in your opinion, lower the profitability of the terminal in any way) A Not that I could relate to him Q Was he any more vocal than anyone else there concerning issues such as the Ohio flex work week? A Probably less vocal Q Were you annoyed at Mr Petros because he filed grievances? A There were hundreds of grievances filed there No-there's probably three or 400 grievances Gutman testified that he saw the terminal manager and the assistant ter- minal manager read the TDU material Petros brought into the terminal ROADWAY EXPRESS 363 board under lock and key for union business in ac- cordance with the bargaining agreement, Respond- ent may not interfere with the protected activities of its employees. Once having provided the bulletin boards in the break rooms and letting the employees use them for their union activities for several years, Respondent interfered with the protected activities of its employees when it removed the boards in order to prevent the posting of TDU material. It was not denied by the Respondent that supervisor Ray had removed the TDU material in January and that Ray and Schuler had, in effect, prohibited the posting of union material at that time. It was also not denied by the Respondent that supervisor Ray had removed the TDU material in January and that Ray and Schuler had, in effect, prohibited the post- ing of union material at that time. It was also not denied that the bulletin boards were removed in April 2, days after Petros had again posted TDU material Hofmann's explanation [footnote omitted] that as a stockholder in the Company he did not ap- preciate postings which created problems for his Company, such as strikers, constituted an admission that the board had been removed in direct response to Petros' union activity A grievance hearing was held on September 29, 1982. Pertinent portions of the minutes (R. Exh. 17) are as fol- lows: Case No. 82-153-K Petros vs. Roadway Express- Member was present. Union Rep.-R. Navarro Stewards-C. Tubbs, J DeVore, J. Hillerbrand Company Rep -Hoffman J. O'Neill, D. Schuler Summary: Company read letter of discharge dated September 17, 1982 taken September 16, 1982 based on grievant's cumulative work record Each letter was covered, total of sixteen letters. Union states several letters over nine months-company using ten months of letters. Last hearing scheduled before nine months, but because grievant wasn't available, etc this ruled out one month Determined hearing was scheduled before end of nine months properly. Grievant protested six of the letters. Steward DeVore stated company continues to "pick, pick, pick" on this man. Grievant claiming he is trying to do the job the company wants, but they seem to have supervisor look in over his shoulder his entire shift [Emphasis added.] DECISION: Grievant to be returned to work on regular scheduled shift the week of October 11, 1982. No compensation for time lost. Member to pay H.W and P [Health, Welfare and Pension]. All time off to be a disciplinary suspension. Majority. Apparently there were 17 letters. Regarding the griev- ance committee hearing, Petros testified herein as fol- lows: I believe . . . [the Union representative] only, presented 10 out of 17 letters, and he failed to even tell the committee that I had protested every warn- ing letter. And he merely made brief remarks as to some of the letters that I had gotten, as to what happened He failed to bring any witnesses on my behalf, like I requested from him. And the whole hearing more or less took about 15 minutes. Earlier Petros testified that the union representatives "told me to keep quiet, that he was going to present the case, and more or less not to say anything, that he was going to do all the work." Petros speculated herein that the Teamsters did not represent him adequately at the grievance committee hearing possibly because of his TDU acitivty. 16 Tubbs gave the following testimony regarding the grievance committee hearing: Q. Is this what you read [R Exh. 17], an accu- rate reflection of what transpired at that meeting? A. No. Q. And in what way is it not an accurate reflec- tion? A. Before we went in there, Mr. Navarro, the business agent, told myself and Mr. Petros, don't say a word, I will present the case. Well, Mr. Petros never presented a case or never brought the letters up, and the letters was all-Pete did protest each letter, and Mr. Navarro just passed them forth-you know-in front of the committee, but Mr. Petros didn't say a word at his own hearing down there at the Teamsters hall. Q. Mr. Tubbs, how long did the hearing last, the grievance hearing that you attended regarding Kon- stantine Petro's discharge? A. Approximately five or ten minutes. Q. And I believe that the record of the discharge states that each letter was covered, a total of 16 let- ters, would you say that that was accurate? Q. Was each letter covered" A. No, they were covered not there , but they were given forth to the committee. Q. Were they discussed? A. No. In the beginning of October 1982 a lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court in Toledo by RWA against the Teamsters, Roadway, et al, over the flexible work- week. Petros received a warning letter from Dock Supervi- sor Ron Covrett on October 17, 1982 (G.C Exh 72), for mishandling freight and/or freight bills A protest was i6 Petros went on to explain that TDU intends to make changes in the Teamsters to make the Union more democratic and accessible to the members and that the non-TDU members of Local 20 have openly ex- pressed their dislike for the TDU 364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD filed by Petros, who testified herein about the incident that, Well, I was working the inbound dock and I was told to go stack a half hour and then I would be stripping. So when I went to stack I was told by my-told to report to Tom Ross to stack for a half hour, who was a stacking foreman at that time. I noticed that Ron Covrett was on the other side of the dock, you know, sort of watching me, I was told to stack-I believe around 94 or 92 door, and Ron Covrett was on the other side, around 95 or 97 or 98 door. I believe him and Mike Oldham were over there watching me. I was told to load that trailer and I loaded some freight in it and then I went down and subsequently loaded two other trailers. While I was loading down-I believe around 86 door, I was told by Ron Covrett to come over to his trailer here, and start removing the boxes that I had stacked off on the left hand side. I had already stacked them It was where they should have been stacked in the first place. He told me to remove a row, I removed the row. He told me to remove another row, I removed another row and I think after I removed 30 or 40 boxes, he no- ticed one that the arrows were pointing downwards on the box instead of upwards, and he said you are getting a letter for mishandling freight. Later Petros testified. He did it in such a manner, like you know, "Remove Row 1. Okay, remove Row 2. Okay, remove Row 3. Okay, now you're going to get a letter for mishandling freight. One of the arrows are down " Covrett did not testify. Regarding his continuing TDU activities, Petros testi- fied as follows I attended the TDU convention in late October [1982] and was reelected to the International Steer- ing Committee, also to the-became chairman of the Roadway committee. Also at this time, people met from-of course they were TDU members that belonged-that worked for Roadway Express in different parts of the country, and we more or less discussed different items and problems that we were having with Roadway Express that we can solve together-that need solving together on a national basis, where we have to work together to solve on the national type of basis. At this present time we found out that some doc- uments had fallen into TDU's hands concerning the fact that Roadway was harass-I mean giving let- ters to people for production purposes. That the bottom 10 percent of the people on-in production were given letters and also that Roadway had the intent to eventually fire these people by giving them a lot of letters, not for production but for other rea- sons. Our intention was to file grievances throughout the country, and possibly even an after thought it might even be a lawsuit involved or whatever The initial thing was to get people to sign peti- tions urging the union to defend us and to file grievances challenging this production system that Roadway-we found out Roadway had in effect. We believed that they had it in effect anyway. These were new documents, and around December or January, I passed out a flier at work telling ev- erybody what this whole thing was-was going to happen-you know-the fact that we were going to pass petitions around, ask for signatures of people and eventually file a grievance. This would be done on a nationwide basis. Q. And did you personally distribute those fliers? A. Yes, I did. Q. And where and when did you do it? A. In the break rooms, and-on non working time, on breaks or before work or after work. Q. Can you estimate how many of these docu- ments you distributed? A. They were all over the break room-I mean- you know, I would hand them to people while they were sitting there eating. Q. More than 20? A. I would have to say in the realm around 70 or 80. Q. Over what period of time did you distribute them? A. At the end of December [1982] and the begin- ning of January [1983] On January 16, 1983, Petros received a warning letter (G.C Exh. 73) from Dock Supervisor Joanne Rosinski for failure to follow posted instructions work rule 8.17 He filed a protest. With respect to this incident, Petros gave the following testimony: I was on vacation, and this was the second day that I had reported back to work. I was sitting in the break room with-Greg Duncan, Ed Robison and Brent Thompson, and there were some others, too, but I can't remember who they were. I-it was the second day I reported back to work and we were waiting for the foreman to come in and give us our instructions as to where to go stack or where to go strip or who to report to as far as a foreman. There was a general procedure at that time to wait for the foreman to come into the break room before work and to tell you where you were sup- posed to go But then we waited and waited and waited, no foreman. Then Larry Cole come in, who is a termi- nal operations manager, he looked at me and says, what are you doing sitting there, arent't you? II Work rule 8 reads "No employee is to leave his assigned work area without permission from his immediate supervisor " G C Exh 2 ROADWAY EXPRESS I said yes He says, well, you were here yester- day, you should have known that we report to the stripping foremans desk now to get our instructions. He says you are getting a warning-you are going to get a letter for this, by Brent Thompson and Ed Robinson who were laid off will not be- cause they didn't know it-about this new work rule change. Also Greg Duncan didn't get a letter also, I was the only one that received a letter on that date for this offense. Q. Were you aware of the change? A. And I was supposed to report to work for Joanne Rosinski, so apparently she issued the letter. No, I wasn't aware of the change Petros received warning letters from Cole and Rosinski for this incident. For about 3 years before that the super- visors came to the breakroom and told the employees where they were working. Consequently, Petros believed that on the day in question he was at his work station in the breakroom awaiting instructions. On his first day back from his I-week vacation a foreman came into the breakroom and told Petros he was working for the fore- man that day. Regarding the incident, Rosinksi testified that under the new procedure when the second buzzer sounded in the breakroom the employees were supposed to go to the strip desk and receive their assignments; that on January 16, 1983, when the second buzzer sounded everyone pro- ceeded to leave the breakroom except Petros; that she went into the breakroom and told him that he was going to get a letter for not reporting to his work area at the sound of the buzzer; that Petros did not make any ex- cuses to her; that Petros should have known about the change in procedure because it was covered in mini- meetings with the employees on the Tuesdays, Thurs- days, and Saturdays every shift during the 2 to 3 weeks before the change; that she did not know whether Petros attended such a meeting, that she knew Thompson and was aware of the fact that he had been laid off for quite some time but she did not recall seeing him in the break- room that day; and that . if Konnie would have, at that time, made any inclination to me that he didn't know of-you know-the new buzzer system, I would have said okay, well, we will just make this a verbal warning and now you know. But he may-you know-nothing to me that he did not know of it. He didn't say anything to me. On rebuttal Petros testified that he never attended a mini-meeting where the new procedure was discussed; that Rosinski did not come into the breakroom that day; that he saw Rosinki on the dock for the first time that day, and that Rosinski did not say anything about a letter of warning over the incident. Cole did not testify about this incident. On February 27, 1983, Petros received a warning letter from Dock Supervisor Steve Wallace for taking an 365 unauthorized break. (G.C. Exh. 74.) Petros filed a pro- test. Petros testified as follows regarding this incident: I was loading some freight on I believe it to be 19 door. I was stripping and I was on a forklift I was taking a skid over to 19 door to load it on that trailer. At that time loading 19 door was Fred Hawkins. He was a laid off employee who hadn't worked at Roadway Express for two years, and I guess this was his first day back to work. As I approached the door, he removed himself from the trailer so I could load the skid, and I was loading the skid and signing my bill on, he at that time wanted to ask me a few questions because I was steward, regarding-you know-when he would be eligible for call next time, because he wasn't familiar with the Ohio flexible work week, the new one, and some of the new rules that were established under it. I think I kept working, I never stopped working or signing my bill on after I loaded the freight in the trailer. Steve Wallace had come up to me, the dock supervisor, and I asked Steve Wallace if I could talk to this man and tell him that he hadn't worked here for two years-and he would possi- bly-at least know when he was going to be called back to work. Steve Wallace then told me that I have no right to talk to him, that if I wanted to get permission to talk to him-that he could not give it, that I would have to go talk to the terminal operations manager, who at that time was Randy Keller on the out- bound dock. So I went up to Randy Keller and I asked him if I could-I told him what the siutation was, I ex- plained to him everything about Hawkins, and he told me that Hawkins could go read the agreement, that the company had posted it up on-inside the window-inside the city dispatch window. That if he wanted to know anything about it, he could go and read it and I wasn't allowed to speak to this man. After he had spoke to me, Steven Wallace come up to me and told me I was going to get a letter for unauthorized break, after Randy Keller spoke to me. Q. Had you stopped-had you taken a break at that time? A. No. Q. Had you stopped doing the job that you were assigned to do at that time? A. No.18 With respect to the incident, James (referred to above by Petros as Fred) Hawkins testified as follows: 18 On cross-examination Petros testified that he walked up to the mani- fest, signed his bills, and talked while doing his duties there, that Wallace came up after he got off the forklift, and that he saw Wallace approach- ing 366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As close as I recall, Mr Petros was running some skids of freight into my trailer with a forklift. I asked him-I knew he was a steward. We aren't really friends. I don't know him that well, but I knew he was a stewarad and I had a question about the call-in rules, being that I hadn't been working all that much at Roadway I asked him about it, as he was running the freight into the trailer, and he gave me an answer, but he did-he did tell me that we should go through the foreman, if we want to discuss union business. This I was unaware of. I didn't know that that was the procedure. But a supervisor came up. I don't know the man's name. The supervisor came up and said some- thing to the effect of "Stop talking, stop B.S.ing. Let's go back to work " Something like that. And that's what we did Q. All right. In your observation, had Mr. Petros stopped working while he talked to you? A. No. No. Q. Did he leave his work station at any time when he talked to you? A. No. Q. Did you receive any letter of warning at that time? A. Not that I can recall I don't believe I got a letter of warning for that incident. And Wallace testified as follows regarding the incident. Mr. Petros was stripping on the outbound, and I was the stacking foreman for the far north end of the dock. And Mr. Hawkins was stacking for me at 25 door. And I had gone up to one of the other doors to check on some bills and, as I passed, Mr Petros was standing talking to Mr. Hawkins at 25 door I did my business at 29 door or 31 door, and turned back, and Mr Petros and Mr. Hawkins were still standing there talking. And as I worked around the carts and come back towards them, Mr. Petros got on his horse [forklift] and started to back it out. A. And, as I walked up, he leaned over to me and he said, "I can talk to Mr. Hawkins , can't I?" And I said, "No, sir." And he says, "Well, it's union business." And I said, "If it's union business then you'll have to see Mr. Keller about it, or talk to him on your break time." And he said, "Well, we don't take breaks at the same time." They obviously started at different times in the evening. And he said, "Well, I can talk to him anyhow." And I said, "No, you'll have to see Mr. Keller then before you can talk to him." And he finished by saying, "Well, it's personal." And that's when I issued him a warning letter for the fact that they had been talking, and his admis- sion that it was a personal conversation. And he said, "Okay," and drove away. And I walked up to Mr. Hawkins and informed him that he was, also, going to get a letter for his participation in the conversation. On cross-examination Wallace gave the following testi- mony. Q So, you lettered both the men at that time? A. Yes, I did. It's a very rare occasion where two gentlemen are standing and talking that they both don't get the letter. Q. How much time elapsed between when you first passed Petros and Hawkins, and when you came back to them? A. Probably five minutes. Q. Why didn't [you] stop and letter the men when you passed them the first time if you ob- served them talking? A. I have a policy that I am a supervisor on the dock, and that's a standing policy with the company that an unauthorized break is not to be taken. I give most of my workers the benefit of the doubt, first. If I'm very visual there I would hope that anybody with a consideration for their job and doing it right would, immediately, go back to work without my having to babysit and tell them. Q. So, you did not walk up to them and admon- ish them the first time you saw them? A It's called giving them a break Q. So, you then ignored it the first time giving them a break figuring that they would see you and then go back to work. A That was the intention, that's the hope, yes. Q. So, you don't know, during the time that you weren't observing them, whether Mr Petros and Mr. Hawkins were engaged in work? A In work and conversation) Q. No, in doing the work at the company. In other words, that they were not working, you didn't observe them during that period of time when you were away from them? A. I was standing two doors away from them holding freight bills in my hand, writing on-check- ing the manifest, and able to look at them at the same time. Mr. Petros had already loaded the skid that he had brought from his door and signed it on. They were not engaged in work. Q. Okay. So, you observed them for this entire 10 minute period? A. Five, yes. Q. Five minute period. And they didn't do any work during that period of time? A. No, sir. While, as noted above, there was conflicting testimony regarding whether Hawkins received a warning letter, the letter, if it exists, was not introduced herein. On March 1, 1983, Petros received a warning letter from Terminal Operations Manager Cole (G.C. Exh. 75). Petros filed a protest. He testified as follows regarding this incident. ROADWAY EXPRESS I had asked Larry Cole for permission to see a mishandling freight letter. Previous to that we were allowed to see mishandling freight letters and see what we had done wrong on company time. We were allowed to go in the office and speak to the supervisor sitting at a desk and discuss this thing We were not ever-even though we had asked in the past if a steward could be there, we were not allowed to have a steward there while we discussed these letters, even though some of the-what we said was put into the record and made part of our record-disciplinary record. When I questioned what about this or what about that concerning an individual letter. Okay, at this present time, Larry Cole ap- proached me with the information as to what I did wrong in a letter that I-a mishandling freight letter that I had asked to see from them As he approached, I took a piece-a few pieces of paper out of my pocket. I do take notes all the time while I work, the company has known this, I have used them during hearings that I have had. They have actually seen the notebook, I have pre- sented them during the grievance hearings that I protested my-you know-suspensions on. I merely dust take the trailer number and maybe write down some instances where I have been har- assed by foremen and so forth, for my own personal protection, and this doesen't take very much time off at all, maybe a couple of minutes or so a day, they are just beef type of notes. If possible, I try to take them while I am on break. At this present time he was approaching me, and at least for a fact that I wanted to put down what he was going to tell me that I did wrong, for future reference, in case he changes his story later on in the hearing as to what I did wrong in that particu- lar mishandling freight letter. As he approached me, I was stacking 117 door, he seen me take this paper or-it was a black note- book, with notes-in a notebook, he said you are getting an unauthorized break for taking notes Then the buzzer had rang, which signals the be- ginning of break, so I actually examined these papers and everything else, and I infoprmed him that I merely wanted to take this notebook out to take notes on what he was going to show me. Petros also testified that supervisors saw him writing in his notebook-and even asked him if he was writing notes-on the dock before and he was never given a warning letter except for this incident and a later inci- dent involving Cole, which is treated infra, that except for these two incidents he was never told he could not write in his notebook on company time, and that since he filed the charge herein, no one has prevented him from writing in his notebook on company time. Cole testified as follows with respect to this incident: Well, he had asked me for some paperwork on a previous warning letter, and I went and got it- and-then I saw him writing a warning letter-I think that is what it as all about. [Emphasis added ] 367 Q. What happened-you were approaching Mr. Petros? A. Yes, I was approaching Mr Petros and I saw him writing at the-you know- Q. Was he-did you see what he was writing on? A. Yes, he was writing on a checkers stand at the time. Q. Okay. Did you see what he was writing in? A. Yeah, a notebook. Q. Was it a company notebook? A. I don't-it shouldn't have been because we don't-checkers don't have a company notebook. Q. Did Mr. Petros do anything as you ap- proached? Did you observe him take any action as you approached? A. Yes, he put the notebook in his pocket as I got closer, and he noticed that I was in the area Q. What happened then, did he make any remark or conversation? A Well, he got fidgety and all, because I saw him writing on the notebook and I mentioned it to him, and then that is when I told him I was going to give him a warning letter for unauthorized break. Q Did he admit to you that he was writing in a book? A. Yeah. Q. And did you issue him a warning letter on ac- count of that? A. Not because he admitted to me, I had saw him, and he admitted that he was writing in the book Q. Did you issue him a warning letter because he was writing in the book? A. Yes, because he was writing in the book, you know, instead of doing his job. Q. Was Mr. Petros on company time when he was writing in that book? A. Yeah, he was on company time. Petros gave the following testimony about a conversa- tion he had with Cole on April 12, 1983: I was stripping 152 door, and as I was signing my bills on, doing my paperwork, signing my produc- tion card at my desk, he approached me and ac- cused me of writing notes in a big black book. I told him I was doing my paperwork Then he told me to unload some skids or pallets that I had in 152 door into 154 door. I then proceeded to find a forklift and take the pallets-you know-to 154 door. At that time as I was approaching 154 door, Larry Cole pulled the dock plate up into the door. The dock plate is a plate that makes a continuous plane from the dock to the trailer that is to be loaded, and that makes it-it makes it possible for a forklift or a cart to cross into the trailer from the dock. At that point in time as he lifted the dock plate, I told him that this wasn't his job and that he could expect a grievance from that. Q Why would you grieve over that? 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. Well, it is a dock workers job to pull the plates, open the doors, load the freight and-this is something that we have been doing for 10 to 12 years. Q. Did he respond to you? A. He responded to me, he became very upset, he told me that I could do what I had to do, but I would get mine. That if life was miserable for me now, wait until I would have to explain these letters at my next hearing. He also told me that if I filed against him, that I would have to file against everybody. Q. Was there any more to that? A. I never filed a grievance. Regarding this incident, Cole testified in direct examina- tion that about an hour before the incident he gave Petros a warning letter for writing in his notebook on company time,19 that after he was in Petros' area several times he, Cole, pulled a dock plate and Petros told him that he, Petros, was going to file a grievance; and that he did not tell Petros that he was going to make life misera- ble for him; that he did not tell Petros that he would get his if he filed a grievance; and that he did not make any threat to Petros on cross-examination Cole gave the fol- lowing testimony: Q. Mr. Cole, your recollection of the dock plate conversation is not very good at this point, is it? A. No, because I considered it unimportant at the time because-you know-it is something that I do every day. Q You think it possible that you could have told Mr. Petros that if he was going to file against you, he would have to file against everybody? A. I-that would be the thing that's possible-I don't know-why should I say that-no. Q. You don't recall saying that? A. No. Q. Well, didn't you just state that pulling the dock plate was something that you did all the time? A. Yes, that is something that I did, and all my supervisors as well as dockmen, so I see no griev- ance in it, so I considered it unimportant. Q. So you can't recall saying that either? A. No. Q Is it possible that you could have said to Mr. Petros, that if he filed against you, he would have to file against everyone? A. Well-I am sure that wouldn't be my words. Q. It wouldn't be your words? A. No, I-I probably didn't even mention the thing. Q. So you don't have any- A. I don't remember saying anything back to him about it, he said it and I-all I remember doing is just ignoring it because it was unimportant to me. Q. So as far as you can recall, there was then no real conversations? A. No, no real conversation at all, other than him saying it to me, and I just left it alone. B. Contentions The General Counsel contends that the employee dis- ciplinary records he introduced (G C. Exhs. 5-37, see also G.C. Exhs. 76-85) and Respondent introduced (R. Exhs. 10-14) demonstrate that Respondent treated Petros disparately; that additional evidence supporting the dis- criminatory treatment of Petros can be found in (1) Bowles' above-described statement, (2) Hofmann's over- all antipathy toward Petros and his TDU activities which was evidenced in Hofmann's above-described ejection of Petros from Schuler's office, (3) Hofmann's statement to business agent Navarro that Hofmann was worried that the TDU literature that Petros was bringing to the plant was a threat because Hofmann believed it called for a strike at Roadway; (4) Schuler's throwing the grievance papers on the dock when they were ten- dered to him by Petros; (5) the warning letter Petros re- ceived on February 27, 1983, assertedly for talking to Hawkins,20 and (6) Petros receiving a warning letter for loitering when on his way to his work station he uttered at most a few words in response to a question on Gutman; that Hofmann's own testimony established that enormous amounts of money were at stake in revising the flexible workweek program and Hofmann's denial that he was aware of Petros' involvement in the opposi- tion to the proposed modifiation is simply unbelievable; that Respondent through its supervisors carried on a pro- gram of harassment by issuing the above-described warn- ing letters on October 17, 1982, and January 16, Febru- ary 27, and March 1, 1983; and that Cole's April 12, 1983 statement to Petros was a clear threat to discourage him from filing a grievance. Respondent argues that "the Board erred in failing to honor its own deferral standards" (R. Br. 3), that there is no evidence on the record which demonstrates that Petros was disciplined more harshly than other employ- ees similarly situated or that Respondent failed to act consistently in issuing discipline to Petros; that while the General Counsel presented disciplinary records that are inapplicable or dissimilar to the record of Petros, Re- spondent presented the disciplinary records of five em- ployees with records very similar to that of Petros; that the General Counsel has produced no evidence that Re- spondent's discipline of the Charging Party was in any part motivated by improper considerations; that the inci- dents which are alleged to be indicative of Respondent's attitude are "so innocuous, ambigious [sic] or trivial as to make General Counsel's allegations appear truly ridicu- lous" (R. Br. 16); that Respondent had no motivation to take action against Petros because of any of his activities; that the supervisors who testified, Cole, Rosinski, and Wallace, all stated that they were unconcerned with 19 As noted in R Exh 5, Petros did receive other warning letters after returning from his discharge , which letters were not specifically chal- lenged herein 20 The General Counsel argues that no warning letter to Hawkins was produced because no warning letter was issued ROADWAY EXPRESS Petros' activities and had been given no instructions to single him out for discipline, and that . . during Mr. Hofmann's term as manager the profitability of the Toledo Terminal increased sig- nificantly . . . . Such improved performance result- ed from increases in productivity which were achieved by enforcing the rules and regulations es- tablished by the Company' . . . It is clear that Mr. Hofmann was achieving his goal and in fact he achieved it so well that he was promoted to District Manager. Given these facts, there is simply no ra- tional basis to believe that he would have con- cerned himself with the activities of Konstantine Petros There was no reason to do it and the evi- dence produced in this case does not indicate that he did do it. [R. Br 26.] The Charging Party, on brief, contends that an analy- sis of the warning letters issued to Petros and a compari- son with other discharges of employees show that Petrds was disparately treated by Roadway; that the implication of Bowles' statement is that an attempt to get Petros to straighten up would be an attempt to get him to cease his union activities since Petros' work record reflects that he never engaged in any gross infractions of the work rules, such as insubordination or drunkenness or excess absenteeism, which might otherwise explain the urge to straighten him up; that it was demonstrated sta- tistically that Petros received most of the warning letters because of the bulletin board case, supra, in that 13 of the 17 warning letters relied on for Petros' discharge were issued in the 2-month period surrounding the hear- ing on the bulletin board case; that that hearing was held on June 14, 1982, and 5 letters were issued between the beginning of June 1982 and 'the time Petros testified and 8 letters were issued between the time Petros testified and the end of July 1982, and that [Hofmann and Schuler] repeatedly contradicted themselves on the discipline system in effect Dean Schuler, near the end of the hearing, emphatically stated that "it's a progressive disciplinary process " . . . Yet Hofmann had conceded early in the hear- ing that an employee could be disciplined for as few as one warning letters [sic], and that there were no rules or guidelines to show how an employee should be disciplined . . . This contradiction is significant because it belies Respondent's reason for so emphatically asserting the progressiveness of their system-they wanted to rely on Petros' prior five day suspension, knowing that the 17 warning letters issued to Petros, coupled with a good attend- ance record, could not support a discharge. Evi- dence produced at trial including the work record on such individuals as Mr Gregory, who received 28 warning letters and had a 29% absenteeism rate prior to his discipline hearing and then received no discipline, indicates that the Respondent's discipli- nary system was not truly progressive. [C.P. Br. 9.] 369 C. Analysis In International Harvester Co, 271 NLRB 647 (1984), the Board concluded as follows. The Board has consistently held that allegations of an employer's violation of Section 8(a)(4) will not be deferred to arbitration. In United Technol- ogies, the Board returned to the deferral policy originally established in Collyer Insulated Wire' and made clear'that the Board will now defer to arbitar- ation complaints alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(1), (3), or (5) where the underlying issues are cognizable under the grievance-arbitration provi- sions of the parties' collective-bargaining agreement. United Technologies does not address the Board's es- tablished position concerning alleged violations of Section 8(a)(4) The resolution of questions concern- ing access to Board processes has always been held to be solely within the Board's province to decide. McKinley Transport Ltd, 219 NLRB 1148, 1151 (1975) In Filmation Associates, 2 the Board stated- The prohibition expressed in Section 8(a)(4) against discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under the Act is a fundamen- tal guarantee to employees that they may invoke or participate, in the investigative procedures of this Board without fear of reprisal and is clearly required in order to safeguard the integrity of the Board's processes In our view the duty to preserve the Board's processes from abuse is a function of this Board and may not be delegated to the parties or an arbitrator [Emphasis added.] In addition, we find that where, as here, there are alleged violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) that are "closely intertwined" with the allegations involving Section 8(a)(4), deferral of those statutory issues is equally inappropriate. To hold otherwise would be contrary to the Board's established policy.3 More- over, it would be inefficient for the judge to resolve only the alleged violation of Section 8(a)(4) and not the releated allegations concerning Section 8(a)(3) and (1) where, as here, a hearing on all the alleged violations has already been held. 1 192 NLRB 837 (1971) This policy had been largely aban- doned by the Board in General American Transporation , 228 NLRB 808 (1977) 2 227 NLRB 1721 (1977) Accord Postal Service, 227 NLRB 1826 (1977) 3 Filmation Associates, supra at 1722 Accordingly, Respondent's belated attempt to have the issues raised by the complaint herein deferred to the grievance-arbitration provision of the collective-bargain- ing agreement must fall Taking the last alleged violation first, it is my opinion that Cole did threaten Petros on April 12, 1983. Petros impressed me as being a credible witness Cole did not Cole's denial on cross-examination, as set forth above, 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contains a concession that his recollection of the dock- plate conversation was not very good when he testified herein Cole's denial was equivocal . Regarding his de- meanor, it is my opinion that Cole was not sincere and he was not concerned with being convincing but rather he took what he believed to be the easiest way out of his predicament, viz, at first testifying that possibly he told Petros that he would have to file against everybody and then testifying that he did not recall saying that, that he was sure it would not be his words, and that he "prob- ably didn't mention the thing " (Emphasis added ) Cole's testimony about the March 1, 1983 warning letter is not credited Petros' rendition of what occurred makes sense while Cole's does not. Both agree that Petros asked to see a previously issued warning letter. There is also agreement on the fact that Cole went to get the letter and was returning with it . At this point, how- ever, their testimony differs. Petros asserts that he was taking the notebook out to make notes in it regarding the warning letter which Cole was about to give to him for his perusal That seems to make sense . Cole, on the other hand , asserts that Petros was writing in the notebook before he, Cole, gave him the previously issued warning letter. What could Petros have been writing? Cole as- serts, "I saw him writing a warning letter ." Did Cole ac- tually mean to testify that he saw Petros writing about a warning letter Since Cole testified that he saw Petros writing before he gave the previously issued warning letter to Petros, according to Cole's own testimony Petros could not have been writing about that warning letter. Petros was a credible witness who gave detailed plausible testimony . Cole was not a credible witness and his testimony was not plausible . Cole's conduct gives credence to Bowles' statement that supervisors were or- dered or told to letter Petros. While Bowles made his statement while Hofmann was still in charge in May- June 1982, apparently this position was reiterated when Cole became a superivsor Petros' testimony that Cole was the only supervisor to letter him over his notebook was not refuted. In my opinion the February 27, 1983 warning letter was unjustified . Wallace's testimony is incredible. It con- flicts with the testimony of Petros and Hawkins . It is in- consistent with the facts in that while Wallace himself testified that he told Petros two times to first see Keller before talking to Hawkins, Wallace then goes on to testi- fy that Petros then said , "It's personal," and Wallace then issued a warning letter . Petros testified that Wallace issued the warning letter after he, Petros, spoke to Keller. Keller did not testify herein. Consequently there is no reason for doubting Petros' testimony that he spoke to Keller. Why would Petros, as alleged by Wallace, tell Wallace that it was a personal matter and then go to see Keller to discuss this union matter? Petros' testimony makes sense ; Wallace's testimony does not Wallace did not issue the warning letter before Petros saw Keller and he did not issue it because Petros said, "It's personal." Rather, Wallace issued the warning letter after Petros saw Keller because Wallace saw this as an opportunity to comply with the order to letter Petros.21 While Cole testified herein, he did not deny Petros' testimony that he, Cole ( 1) spoke to Petros on January 16, 1983, about his failure to go to the stripping fore- man's desk from the breakroom at the sound of the second buzzer, and (2) issued a warning letter over the incident. Since Rosinski also issued a warning letter over this incident it would appear that Petros was penalized twice for the same alleged violation . As noted above, Hofmann in reviewing warning letters looked to see, inter alia, that the supervisors noted that "they had talked to the employee about the infraction ; when they talked to him; the time they talked to him." While Hof- mann was no longer at the terminal in January 1983, Ro- sinski, since she started at Roadway in July 1979, had worked under Hofmann . Rosinksi did not talk to Petros regarding this incident Cole did not deny Petros' testi- mony that he remained in the breakroom with Duncan, Robison, and Thompson after the second buzzer and Cole was aware of this. Is it Respondent 's position that even after Cole explained the situation Petros stayed in the breakroom alone until Rosinksi entered? Would that not have been insubordination? Rosinksi did not enter the breakroom as she testified . And she did not ask Petros himself why he did not show up on time because she was told by someone else about the incident . Further- more, Rosinski did not ask Petros for an explanation and in fact did not even discuss the incident with Petros be- cause she was told to issue the warning letter and, there- fore, there was no need to discuss the matter with Petros.22 There was no real justification for this warning letter. With respect to the October 17, 1982 incident, it is not the General Counsel's contention that there was not a box with the arrows incorrectly pointing downward but rather he contends that "the supervisor purposefully sought a reason for issuing a letter of warning to Petros." (G.C. Br. 19) On the other hand, Roadway argues on brief that "[e]vidently the Charging Party feels he is being `discriminated' against because a supervisor suspected him of committing an error-a suspicion that was ultimately borne out " (R Br. 11.) Since Covrett did not testify herein , it is only speculation that he suspected Petros of committing an error. Exactly why he had Petros strip three rows of the cartons to find the box with the arrows pointing the wrong way is not a matter of record And why Covrett waited on this matter until Petros left that trailer at 94 or 92 door and loaded two trailers by the 86 door is not a matter of record. Appar- ently the box with the arrows pointing the wrong way was not visable to someone who would walk into the trailer after Petros stacked the cartons, Petros had to move 3 rows of a total of 30 or 40 boxes before the box with the arrow pointing in the wrong direction could be seen. While Petros was stacking the involved trailer Covrett was, according to Petros' unchallenged testimo- 21 As noted above although Hawkins denied receiving a warning letter over this incident , the letter was never produced 22 If, as noted above , Rosinksi would have been willing to accept Petros' explanation , why did not Cole' ROADWAY EXPRESS ny, watching Petros from the other side of the dock by another door . Exactly what Covrett could have seen across the dock while Petros was stacking the trailer is not a matter of record In these circumstances it is my opinion that the General Counsel is correct in asserting that Covrett purposefully sought a reason for issuing a letter of warning to Petros While the discharge occurred within the 10(b) period, the alleged basis for the discahrge and Bowles ' statement occurred outside the 10(b) period . Nonetheless these matters can be considered herein for as pointed out in Stafford Trucking, 154 NLRB 1309 1310 ( 1965): This case is similar to The Wm. H. Block Compa- ny case, 152 NLRB 594, in that a substantial portion of the evidence revealing Respondent's motive in discharging Becker and Immel occurred outside the Section 10(b) period preceding the charge. As we noted in the Block case, such evidence is not there- by removed from our consideration in determining whether these employees were lawfully discharged within the 10(b) period . The Supreme Court has pointed out that "earlier events may be utilized to shed light on the true character of matters occuring within the limitation period."' Particularizing this principle, the court cited the rationale adopted by the Board in Axelson Manufacturing Company, 88 NLRB 761, 766 that : "Events obscure , ambiguous, or even meaningless when viewed in isolation may, like the component parts of an equation , become clear, definitive, and informative when considered in relation to other action . Conduct, like language, takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it occurs. Congress can scarcely have intended that the Board , in the performance of its duty to decide the validity of conduct within the 6-month period, should ignore reliable, probative , and substantial evidence as to the meaning and the nature of the conduct." 1 Local Lodge No 1424, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, etc (Bryan Manufacturing Co) v N L R B, 362 us 411 Petros' disciplinary record (R. Exh 5) reveals that during Hofmann's tenure, October 1979 to October 1982 (actually the record begins 11/25/80), normally Petros received up to two warning letters a month except (1) when Petros filed a charge with the Board in the bulletin board case supra on February 27, 1981, in that in the fol- lowing month he received four warning letters and the month after that, April 1982, he received three warning letters and a 3-day suspension , (2) when the Board issued the complaint in the bulletin board case, supra on Janu- ary 21, 1982, in that in February 1982 five warning let- ters were issued (four were later rescinded), in March 1982 five warning letters were issued (four were later re- scinded), and in April 1982 three warning letters were issued and later rescinded , and (3) when Petros testified in the bulletin board case, supra , on June 14, 1982, in that seven warning letters were issued in June 1982 (five of the seven were issued between June 1 and June 14, 1982, but the hearing date had undoubtedly been set by 371 that time and there could have been no doubt that the Charging Party Petros had assisted and would assist in the prosecution of that case. Also Bowles had admitted that supervisors were under orders to "letter " Petros) and six warning letters were issued in July 1982. Both Hofmann and Wallace testified that normally su- pervisors have some discretion as to whether to issue a warning letter And Roadway, on brief, indicates that "[s]ince the disciplinary progression is not a formal one Respondent had the power to show . . . [at least one employee] some leniency." (R. Br.) It would appear that at a minimum Roadway believed it could and it did pre- clude the exercising of any discretion favorable to Petros in the disciplinary process. But it was not just a case of precluding the supervisors from exercising discretion. Rather the supervisors were ordered to "letter" Petros until he straightens out, quits , or is fired Immediately after this admission Petros received the most warning letters he had received in any 1-month period, seven (even considering the months subsequent to the filing of the original charge and the issuance of the complaint in the bulletin board case, supra), which far exceeded the normal number of warning letters he received during a 1-month period (excluding from consideration the number of warning letters issued in those months subse- quent to the original charge and the complaint in the bulletin board case, supra). Roadway's counsel elicited testimony from Petros that some of the letters relied on to discharge him were fabrications, including two warn- ing letters issued for the same alleged violation. In view of the fact that Cole did not refute Petros' testimony that he, Cole, along with Rosinksi issued a warning letter over the above-described January 16, 1983 incident, and in view of the fact that even though Roadway elicited this testimony and was given specifics regarding when and who issued the warning letters but yet chose not to refute it, it must be concluded that Petros was correct. Some of the warning letters used in discharging Petros were fabrications. The General Counsel introduced evidence which dem- onstrates that Roadway's true motivation in lettering Petros to the extent it did was his protected concerted activity and his participation in the bulletin board case, supra. Bowles' statement, made just a few weeks before Petros testified, was meant to be a warning to Petros that his participation in the bulletin board case, supra, could result in his firing. The warning letters issued between June 1 and 14 when he testified demonstrated that this was not an idle threat. The postdischarge warning letters specifically chal- lenged herein demonstrated that supervisors were letter- ing Petros without justification. Their denials that they were told to letter him are not credited The conclusion is inescapable, in view of all that is described above, that at least during June and July 1982 Petros was being let- tered to some extent without justification.23 23 As noted above, in my opinion there is substantial evidence showing that Petros was also lettered unjustifiably after the original charge was filed and the complaint was issued in the bulletin board case, supra 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Once Roadway misused the warning letter portion of its disciplinary process in my opinion it obviated the need to compare punishment meted out to Petros vis-a- vis other employees based on their disciplinary records. Petros' disciplinary record itself has been shown to be flawed The alleged basis for Petros' discharge was a pretext. There was no legitimate business justification for the de- cision and so there was no dual motive. Notwithstanding this, under Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722 (1981); Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F 2d 899 (lst• Cir 1981), cert denied 455 U.S 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983), applies to all cases alleging viola- tions of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) turning on.employer•mo- tivation. Under Wright Line, supra, the General Counsel demonstrated that Petros was viewed. by 'Hofmann as a union activist; that Hofmann harbored animus toward Petros and his activities,24 and that even if a dual motive existed, which it does not, Roadway did not meet its burden of demonstrating, after the General Counsel made a prima facie case, that the same action would have taken place irrespective of Petros' protected con- duct.25 This Wright line analysis applies with equal force to four above-described postdischarge warning letters. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 20 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act '3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act by discharging Konstantine Petros on September 16, 1982, and by issuing warning letters to him on Octo- ber 17, 1982, and January 16, February 27, and March 1, 1983, because he joined , supported, or assisted the Union, engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and/or because he filed a charge with the Boad in Case 8-CA- 14982-2 and testified at the subsequent hearing on June 14, 1982, and in order to discourage employees from en- gaging in such activities or other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection 24 Hofmann's protestations to the contrary are not credited Hofmann was not a credible witness His demeanor impressed me as being that of a man who could place a great deal under the umbrella of a "business deci- sion" or "business necessity," including being less than candid while under oath 25 None of the predischarge alleged violations was serious enough when considered alone to warrant discharge The discharge was alleged- ly based on the cumulative record As noted above , the cumulative record was flawed The other discharges cited by Respondent are distinguishable in that Thomas Cox and Donald Masters had previous discharges and did not work during the full 9 months considered in their subsequent discharges Robert Johnson had an absenteeism problem and repeatedly had his wages garnisheed including instances either on the same day or within a few days preceding his 3- and 5-day suspensions and his discharge, and Robert Vernon and Michael Chisea had quite a few more warning letters than Petros and both had attendance problems 4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on April 12, 1983, by threatening Konstantine Petros with discipline because he said he would file a grievance. 5. The unfair labor practices set forth above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will be directed to, cease and desist from enagaging in such conduct or like or related con- duct and take affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Further, Respondent will be di- rected to make Konstantine Petros whole for any loss of earnings, and benefits he may have suffered by reason of the above-described unlawful actions, by making pay- ments to him of a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned had Respondent not en- gaged in the above-described unlawful action, with back- pay and interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).26 Re- spondent will be directed (a) to preserve and make avail- able to the Board, on request, all payroll records, and re- ports, and all other records necessary and useful to de- termine the amount of backpay due in compliance with this Decision and Order; and (b) to expunge from Kon- stantine Petros' personnel file all documents related to those of Respondent's actions which were determined above to be unlawful labor practices. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed27 ORDER The Respondent, Roadway Express, Inc., Toledo, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discouraging protected concerted activity or dis- couraging employees from availing themselves of the Board's process of filing unfair labor practice charges by unlawfully discharging any of its employees. (b) Threatening any employees with reprisals to dis- courage the filing of grievances. (c) Unlawfully taking any disciplinary action against any employee because the employee exercises rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act or files charges under the Act (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Make Konstantine Petros whole for any loss of pay and benefits he may have suffered between September 16 26 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 27 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall , as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules , be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses ROADWAY EXPRESS and October 11, 1982, by reason of Respondent's dis- crimination against him with backpay and interest there- on to be computed in the manner set forth above. (b) Remove and expunge from Konstantine Petros' personnel file all documents which relate to Respond- ent's actions which have been found to be unfair labor practices, and make whatever record changes are neces- sary to negate the effect of these documents and Re- spondent's unlawful actions. (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Toledo, Ohio terminal copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix."28 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being signed by the Respondent's author- ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu- tive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 28 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 373 The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT unlawfully discharge or otherwise un- lawfully discipline any of our employees or discriminate against them in any manner because of their union affec- tion or because they engage in union activities, protected concerted activities, or because they use the Board's processes or file unfair labor practices. WE WILL NOT unlawfully threaten to discipline any of our employees for engaging in protected concerted ac- tivities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to engage in self-organization, to bargain collectively through a representative of their own choos- ing, to act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all these things. WE WILL make Konstantine Petros whole for any loss of pay and benefits he may have suffered by reason of Respondent's unlawful actions against him. WE WILL remove and expunge from Konstantine Petros' personnel file all documents which relate to Re- spondent's actions regarding him which actions have been found to be unfair labor practices and make what- ever record changes are necessary to negate the effect of these documents and Respondent's unlawful actions. ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.