Atlas Truck Rental & Leasing

54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Atlas Trucking, Inc. d/b/a Atlas Truck Rental & Leasing and Anthony Joseph Long. Case 7- CA-24206 30 May 1986 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND STEPHENS On 23 October 1985 Administrative Law Judge Benjamin Schlesinger issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. 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,1 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, Atlas Trucking, Inc. d/b/a Atlas Truck Rental & Leas- ing, Wyoming, Michigan, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. 1 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). Although we do not attach as much weight to the wording of the Re- spondent's 1 August 1984 separation notice to Charging Party Long as does the judge in resolving credibility, we conclude, after careful exami- nation of the entire record, that there is no basis for reversing the judge's credibility findings. Also, in adopting the judge's finding that the Respondent had knowl- edge of Charging Party Long's union activity, we do not rely on the pre- hearing statement to the Board of former Night Shift Foreman Steve Arnold. A. Bradley Howell, Esq., for the General Counsel. John H. Gretzinger, Esq., and Bradley K. Glazier, Esq. (Clary, Nantz Wood, Hofus, Rankin & Cooper), of Grand Rapids, Michigan, for the Respondent. Anthony Joseph Long, of Kentwood, Michigan, for the Charging Party. DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT BENJAMIN SCHLESINGER, Administrative Law Judge. On 1 August 19841 Charging Party Anthony Joseph Long either resigned from his position as the second-shift 1 Unless otherwise stated, all dates refer to the year 1984 tire mechanic2 for Respondent Atlas Trucking, Inc., doing business as Atlas Truck Rental & Leasing, or was terminated from his position in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by Respondent's acceptance of a resignation, which Long testified that he did not make.3 The resolution of this issue depends on my determina- tion of the credibility of the various witnesses. What is not at issue is jurisdiction. Respondent admits, and I find, that Respondent is a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Michi- gan. Respondent has maintained an office and place of business at Clay Avenue, Wyoming, Michigan, where it is engaged in the daily and long-term leasing of commer- cial trucks.4 At that location, as well as about 17 other branches that Respondent maintains in Michigan, during the calendar year ending 31 July, which period is repre- sentative of its operations, Respondent provided services valued in excess of $50,000 to enterprises within Michi- gan which purchased and received goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers locat- ed outside of Michigan. I conclude, as Respondent admits, that Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I also find and conclude, as Respondent admits, that General Teamsters Union, Local No. 406, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America (Teamsters) and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) are each labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Long testified that on 31 July about 3 p.m. he called Roger Glas, his second-shift supervisor, to advise that he did not believe he would be able to get to work because he was in the process of repairing his car. Glas suggested that Long get a ride from a neighbor or somebody else to bring him in, and Long agreed that he would do so if he were really needed. Glas said that he really could use Long but agreed to call Long if he needed him. Long then told Glas that he had received a job offer that day, he did not think he would accept the offer because it was for less money, but he wanted to get more details and would talk to Glas the next day. Glas replied that if Long decided to accept the job Glas hoped that Long would give Respondent 2 weeks' notice. Immediately after this conversation, Long telephoned James Hitts, who was Respondent's first-shift supervisor5 and whose duty was to give the second-shift supervisor instructions on what work was left over to do. Long told Hitts about his conversation with Glas and asked wheth- 8 The second shift is scheduled from 330 p.m. to midnight As a me- chanic, Long repaired, mounted, dismounted, and balanced tires. 8 The relevant docket entries are as follows the unfair labor practice was filed on 21 January 1985; complaint issued on 20 March 1985; and the hearing was held in Grand Rapids, Michigan , on 19 and 20 June 1985 4 Another of Respondent's divisions, M&K Truck and Trailer (M&K), located at Clyde Park, Wyoming, Michigan, refurbishes and repairs the trucks used in Respondent's rental operations S The General Counsel stipulated that notwithstanding Hitts' job title he was not a supervisor within the meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act. 280 NLRB No. 6 ATLAS TRUCK RENTAL 55 er there was anything pressing that required him to come in Hitts replied that there was nothing pressing and that Hitts would finish up the work Hitts testified and cor- roborated this part of his conversation with Long 6 I find that Long was prepared to work on 31 July if Respondent could not have done without him If he had really resigned from his job, he would not have called Hitts to inquire about whether he was needed In addi- tion, from Long's past employment history, it appears that Long was attentive to the responsibilities of his job and that his absentee record was good In fact, earlier in his employment, Long had called in sick but he had agreed to work, despite his illness, if he were really needed Of even greater significance, Glas corroborated that Long did not resign on 31 July but merely made known that he had just returned from a job interview and was seriously considering taking that job David Mitchell, Respondent's branch service manager, recalled almost the same conversation as Glas did Mitchell testified that Long called Glas at 3 25 p m, and Mitchell was in the same room as Glas Mitchell over- heard or learned from Glas that Long had car trouble, that Glas asked Long to have a relative or neighbor or taxi bring him to work because there was a lot of tire work to be done that night, and that Long had just come from a job interview and was seriously considering the job Mitchell spoke with John Meyermg (Meyering), Re- spondent's district manager, about 4 p in and made ar- rangements to get the most important tire work done by having the second-shift trailer man take care of any emergency that came in that night The following day at 9 am , according to Mitchell, he and Meyering discussed how to cover the tire repair work if Long did not come back to work They decided to call Long to find out if he would be back Mitchell said that it was not until between 11 am and noon that he called Long, to whom he said that he was calling to "confirm that you have quit, or if you are coming back " Long said that he had quit Mitchell asked where he was going to work, and Long replied that he was going to an overhead door company on 28th Street Mitchell asked him why he was leaving, and Long said that he had a better paying job, with more room for advancement Mitchell accepted his resignation and asked him to come to the facility and sign a separation notice Long said he did not wish to come in and asked Mitchell to mail it to hun With that, the conversation ended, and Mitchell re- ported to Meyering that Long had quit Mitchell and Meyering decided that the second-shift trailer man should do any emergency repairs and that they would schedule as much tire work as possible for the first shift Mitchell then prepared a separation notice for Long About 2 hours after the earlier telephone conversation, again according to Mitchell, Long called back He said that he had not quit Mitchell reminded him of their ear- lier conversation Long repeated several times that he had not quit, but Mitchell said that Respondent had ac- cepted his resignation and it stood Hitts denied, however, Long's testimony that Long also told him about the other job opportunity that Long had been offered Hitts also said that his conversation with Long took place between 2 30 and 3 p m Between that second conversation and the first, Mitch- ell, believing that Long's mention of another job was just a ploy to get a raise, told Meyering that if Long should want his job back Mitchell felt that Respondent should not give the job back because Long's work performance was not as good as it could be, that Long was not inter- ested in the job that he had, and that he was looking for another job and would probably leave anyway Meyering's recollections were similar, but different, too On 31 August Glas reported to him that he had just received a phone call from Long , who said that he was not coming to work because of trouble with his car Glas asked him whether he could get a ride from a friend, to which Long replied that he had just come home from an interview with an overhead door company and he was seriously considering another job Meyering stated that Respondent had to arrange for another employee to stay over into the second shift because of the great amount of work that had to be done The next day, about 11 am , Mitchell reported to Meyeting that he had called Long , that he said to Long that he had been scheduled to work the previous day, that he telephoned 5 minutes before he was due to start work, and that he did not come to work Mitchell stated that Glas said that Long might have another job, and Mitchell asked Long what his intentions were, was he quitting, to which Long said yes, and Mitchell then ac- cepted his resignation About 2 hours later, Mitchell received another phone call from Long Mitchell told Meyering that Long was on the line and that he said he had changed his mind and was asking for his job back Meyermg told Mitchell to tell Long "No way, Jose, anyone that is going to leave us like that, the day before certainly is not going to have his job back " When Long reported to work that afternoon, Meyer- ing pulled Long's timecard from his hand, stating "What you pulled on us There is no way we are going to let you come back here You are done, and it is over " Long recalled two telephone conversations with Mitchell on 1 August, but his recollections were substan- tially different He claimed that Mitchell's call woke him up about 8 30 am , and Mitchell announced that Re- spondent had decided to accept his resignation Long asked him whose bright idea that was and told him that he had not resigned Mitchell said that he was just told to make the call and to tell Long that he did not have to report to work, and Long replied that he would get back to Mitchell, that he was not even awake, and that he "wanted to give it a little thought " About an hour later, Long called Mitchell and stated again that he had not re- signed, that he did not intend to resign, that he would report to work that afternoon, and that, if Respondent would not permit him to work, Respondent would have to lay him off or fire him True to his word, Long re- ported to work at 3 p m and was about to punch in his timecard, when John Meyering ran out of his office, grabbed the timecard from Long's hand, and said that Long no longer worked there Thereafter, Long com- plained to Mitchell that he knew he was not permitted to work only because of his union activities Mitchell re- 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plied that nobody had said anything about that to hun, but, even if someone did, he could not say anything be- cause it would jeopardize his own job. I find none of the testimony wholly appealing. Long had been attempting to obtain a wage increase since June and was obviously disappointed that he did not get one. He had heard that another employee obtained an in- crease by threatening to quit, so Long decided to do something similar. I find it improbable that he would have told Glas on 31 July, in addition to the offer of an- other job, that the job was for less money and that he did not think he would accept it. That would not have put pressure on Respondent to rethink its position about Long's wage increase. On the other hand, I note that Long said to Glas that he was going to get more details on the job the following day and would notify Glas about it, thus keeping Respondent in some form of sus- pense. I have also considered Long's testimony about his two telephone conversations with Mitchell on 1 August. I have difficulty understanding why Long would call back Mitchell to give him the very same message as Long had given in his first conversation. I also do not know what prompted Long's desire to have time to think about Mitchell's message in his first conversation, unless he was thinking about quitting or ascertaining whether an- other job was actually available. But I have even greater reservations about Respond- ent's narration because it contradicts the separation notice written by Mitchell on 1 August, which stated: Tony called at 3:25 P.M. on 7-31-84 and said he was accepting another job. Did not report to work. Shift started at 3:30 P.M. No matter what other differences may appear in the tes- timony in this proceeding, the facts set forth in the sepa- ration notice are clearly false. No one, not even Mitchell, corroborated that Long stated on 31 July that he was ac- cepting another job. The notice completely avoids the events of 1 August and Mitchell's alleged call to Long shortly before Mitchell wrote the notice. Instead, the notice states that Long said on 31 July that he was ac- cepting another job, a patently false statement, and im- plied that because he was accepting the other job (and thus quitting his employment with Respondent), he did not report to work when his shift started at 3:30 p.m. All witnesses conceded that Long said only that he could not report to work because his car had broken down. Another problem with Respondent's case arose with its attempt to boltser its reason for accepting Long's res- ignation by showing that he was not a good worker. Mitchell made clear that, between his first and second conversations with Long, Mitchell discussed with Meyering the possibility that Long might change his mind and decide to return to work. They discussed Long's work record and determined that he was a poor worker, unworthy of a second chance. In addition, they decided that once Long had quit without giving 2 weeks' notice, he had lost Respondent's good will and should not be permitted to return to work. From this testimony, I had assumed that, before the second conversation, Long's employment status had been fully settled. That, however, turned out to be wrong, at least if I am to credit Meyering, who went into detail about his presence when Long's second telephone call was re- ceived and Mitchell's turning to him to announce that Long was calling and wanted to return to work, and Mitchell's looking to Meyering for advice, to which Meyering made his "No way, Jose" comment. I find that Meyering's explanation that his remark was merely a final confirmation that Respondent would not take Long back does not jibe with Mitchell's testimony about his conversation with Meyering earlier in the day, a conver- sation which Meyering corroborated only that he "prob- ably" talked about Long's work record "generally." If Mitchell were to be credited, Mitchell would not have sought Meyering's counsel and would have rejected out of hand Long's request to revoke his prior quit. In addi- tion, Respondent offered evidence to the effect that, once an employee quit without notice, he lost Respond- ent's good will and was not eligible for reinstatement. If that was Respondent's firm and immutable rule, there was no reason for Mitchell to discuss with Meyering what should be done if Long changed his mind. Indeed, I believe that no such discussion took place. Meyering did not testify to such a conversation. I discredit Respondent's attempt to justify its accept- ance of Long's alleged resignation. I fmd the separation notice to be without factual basis. In particular, I found Meyering an evasive witness, who became nervous on cross-examination, as shown by his frequent repetition of questions that were asked of him . Respondent's witnesses were improperly led on direct examination by counsel, even after warning by me. What particularly sticks out is Respondent's attempt to justify the factual basis of the written separation notice. Although Meyering conceded that Respondent knew only on 1 August that Long was quitting, he also testified that: We had every indication to believe that he was done on the 31st . . . (Me said [then] that I just talked to an overhead door company, and more op- portunity, more pay, I am seriously considering taking this job. Then the guy does not show in to work that night after you ask him to come in. That is a good indication to me that the guy is done. Meyering was the only witness who stated that on 31 July Long mentioned an overhead door company and a job with more pay and more opportunity. Mitchell said that was mentioned in his first conversation on 1 August. Long denied that it was ever said on 1 August, and I fmd that more accurate . In sum, Respondent's case falls on the separation notice; the remainder of its testimonial position is a contrivance to fit more in line with the facts that it seeks to have me believe . I cannot. In addition, Respondent points to no incident of recent date that would suggest that Long was not a capable em- ployee or was a disciplinary problem. Long had been employed since February 1983. He had received favor- able work evaluations and pay increases on 6 July 1983 and 20 February 1984. He was reprimanded for talking ATLAS TRUCK RENTAL 57 with a customer on 11 June 1984 and for refusing to stop talking with that customer despite John Meyermg's di- rective to return to work, but that appears to be the only meaningful blemish on his record' except for his union activities which Long thought, and the General Counsel urges, was the true reason Long is no longer working for Respondent Long testified that he had been involved in attempts to organize Respondent's employees at its Clay Avenue fa- cility as well as other of Respondent's branches In early April he net with Clay Avenue employees about their interest in being represented by a union In late April he obtained the names and telephone numbers of other em- ployees at other branches and telephoned them from his home Sometimes, he spoke to other employees who had called him at his work station at the Clay Avenue facili- ty, and he placed a few telephone calls from there, too, but that stopped in mid-May when Respondent placed a wooden box with a steel rod over the receiver at his work station Long asked Lee Siemens, Respondent's branch manager, why the telephone, which Long often required for his work, was locked Siemens replied that it was a precaution that Respondent was taking, but Sie- mens refused to give Long any detailed reason but as- sured him that it did not involve hum 8 About 13 June, Long contacted Teamsters Representa- tive Roy Piper and arranged for a meeting several days later Piper wanted to be assured that there was enough employee interest in the Teamsters and wanted Long to get support from at least one or two employees from each of Respondent's departments As a result, Long, with the help of some other employees, began to contact employees at other branches He distributed Teamsters authorization cards during breaks Long's organizing ef- forts continued into July and consisted of telephone com- munications from his home as well as from work 9 In early or mid-July, Long learned that the M&K employ- ees had already contacted the UAW, and he telephoned UAW Representative Kurt Hatfield in mid-July to offer his aid in coordinating the organizing drive Hatfield sug- gested that Long arrange for a meeting with as many of Respondent's employees as he could get If there were enough employee support, then their efforts could be co- ordinated Thereafter, Long attempted to arrange for that meeting, but his efforts lapsed when he lost his job Respondent contends in its brief that there is no proof that it knew of Long's efforts to organize its employees, but I find sufficient evidence that it did First, I note that none of Respondent's witnesses specifically denied that they knew of Long's involvement with the union cam- paign When I asked Mitchell what he knew of Long's activities, Respondent's counsel objected to the question as being outside the scope of direct examination I with- drew my question Second, there had been rumors spread around Respondent's shop that there was a union organizing effort, and it appears that Respondent had some idea of Long's involvement Siemens, who did not testify, asked Long in early June whether he had heard anything about the "union rumors going around " Steve Arnold, who was M&K's night-shift foreman, testified that he was aware of union organizing at M&K in Janu- ary and February, he had a conversation with employee Jeff Spielmaker and Long about the Union, and he knew that Long was supporting the union drive He also testi- fied that Carl DeVries, Respondent's operation manager, told him that he suspected that Long was involved in the union campaign He also admitted that Jack Meyering, Respondent's president, instructed him to find out every- thing he could about the union campaign and that he made every effort to report to higher management what he found out Although Arnold equivocated about whether he told Respondent's management about Long's activities or whether he had conversations with them in which Long's name was mentioned, it appears reasonable to infer that, if Arnold knew about Long and made every effort to tell higher management about the union campaign, Arnold did so Furthermore, I found Arnold's oral testimony, which was inconsistent with and contradicted major conces- sions contained in an investigatory affidavit10 that he gave to the Regional Office, to be less than candid He admitted being loyal to Respondent and disliking Long Although he was laid off from M&K, he received help from John Meyering and Chuck Meyering, Respondent's maintenance director, in obtaining a higher paying job at Fruehof Trailer, which performs truck repair work for Respondent Arnold appeared to me to be couching his testimony to favor Respondent 11 I find his affidavit more reliable and credit it See generally Administrative Law Judge Ries' discussion in Salem Leasing Corp, 271 NLRB 86 (1984), and particularly the reference to United States v Leslie, 542 F 2d 285 (5th Cir 1976), on which I particularly rely Assuming that Arnold's affida- vit was not given under oath "subject to the penalty of perjury" within the meaning of Rule 801(dXl) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is a statement which, in light of Arnold's present bias, "is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which [the General Counsel] can procure " Rule 803(24) I, therefore, find that both Chuck and John Meyering advised Arnold that they knew that both Spielmaker and Long were involved in the union organizing effort Joe LeBlanc, an admitted statutory supervisor, advised Arnold to start locking the M&K gate so that anyone who was attempting to organize the employees would have to see Arnold first LeBlanc also advised Arnold that the phones would be removed to keep Long and Respondent's work rules provide for progressive discipline Even if I credited the facts leading to this reprimand (Long testified that Mitchell termed the warning "chicken shi "), it alone was insufficient to justify Long's discharge a A few days later, the lock was broken Respondent then installed a device that could switch off the telephone from its front office a There was another telephone available for Long to make these calls from work 10 I note that the affidavit was mailed to Arnold and not signed in the presence of the subscribing Board agent Nonetheless , Arnold testified that he gave the affidavit under oath and he signed it under a printed portion in which he certified to the truth of its contents Arnold also read the affidavit in full and made corrections where he felt such were neces- sary a i Arnold met with Respondent's representatives the night before the hearing and gave them his affidavit While he was testifying, Arnold ap- peared to be checking his answers with John Meyermg by smilin g at him 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Spielmaker from telephoning M&K employees. Arnold also testified on direct examination that his supervisor, Jim Soule, admitted that Long's phone was removed to prevent him from calling M&K and talking about the Union.' 2 Although Arnold's affidavit identifies these conversations as taking place before March, it appears probable, and I so find, that the conversations took place closer to the time when Long's telephone was first locked in mid-May. Respondent contends that the locking of Long's tele- phone and subsequent removal of it was not caused by Long's union activities. Rather, John Meyering testified that unauthorized and expensive telephone calls were being made, and Respondent was merely attempting to save money. Respondent, however, never produced its telephone bills to corroborate its claim. Furthermore, Meyering claimed that calls were being made on all three shifts, while at the same time he contended that the telephone bills that were not produced did not show the times when the telephone calls were made.' 3 There was, accordingly, no basis for his claim that calls were being made on any particular shift. I also note that Long's workplace was physically separated from all other work stations. But for the suspicions that Long was involved in union activities, there appears no reason to lock his phone because no one could see him. Meyering also claimed that it was not necessary for the second shift to have use of a telephone, but Long and Hitts testified that calls had to be made and received on the second shift. Indeed, up to that time, the telephone had been at his workplace for 6 years and had never been removed or locked. When the telephone was first locked, Hitts asked Siemens what the reason was. Siemens replied that it had nothing to do with the first shift, but just the second shift. 14 Siemens explained that calls were being made by the second shift to other branches, and to the outside, which did not pertain to company business. Three or four days later, Hitts said to Siemens that he had never seen this kind of security "on just the telephone" and asked whether it related to the union activity. Siemens said : "[W]ell, it could, but . . . I am not allowed to dis- cuss it." Another indication of Respondent's knowledge of Long's union activities and its discrimination against him related to Long's attempt to obtain a wage increase. In mid-June he filled out a three-part form that Respondent had used for employees to request wage increases, but Siemens told him that it was no longer necessary to fill out that form and that Respondent would evaluate the employees when they felt like doing so. Later, Long pressed Hitts for a wage increase, and Hitts approached Siemens and Mitchell: "[H]ow does a guy go about get- ting a raise around here?" Mitchell asked whether the raise was for Hitts; Hitts replied that it was not, but it Is Arnold, who was subpoenaed and testified as a witness for the Gen- eral Counsel, later denied this on cross-examination. However, I credit his first admission. is In addition, the phone was connected to Respondent's other branches, including M&K, by an intracompany line. Calls to other branches are not individually billed 14 Long was the only employee on the second shift who would have had access to this phone, which was not locked on the first shift. was for Long and Tom Whitfield, another employee. Siemens said that Whitfield recently got an increase, and Hilts then said: "[H]ow about Tony?" Siemens asked Hitts what he knew about Long' s "union involvement"; and Hitts replied that Siemens knew more about it than Hitts did, that Hitts had heard only rumors but did not know of any "involvement." Mitchell remarked that: "[W]ell we don't want a union in the shop anyhow"; and Siemens questioned Hitts about Long's earlier use of Re- spondent's telephone for "non-company business." Hitts denied any knowledge of such use. I find ample evidence that Respondent knew of a union campaign and of Long's involvement. Respondent first attempted to thwart Long's activities by removing his access to its other branches by locking his phone and locking the M&K gates. The facts indicate that Respond- ent withheld consideration of Long's request for a wage increase because of his union activities. When Long's ac- tivities continued, Respondent seized on an alleged "quit" to which Long was not a party. It is wholly im- probable that Long would represent that he was quitting to take a higher-paying position, when in fact his next job paid him far less. Respondent offered in evidence no compelling reason why Long was terminated. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983). Its claim that Long did not give 2 weeks' notice when he quit makes no sense, because Long did not quit.' s Its claim that Long's work performance was bad was unsupported by any credible evidence' a and contra- dicted Mitchell's written reason for Long's termination. In any event, what little Mitchell and Meyering were able to relate was inconsistent and clearly contradicts the earlier fine work evaluations that Long had received. The only reason remaining in this record for Long's ter- mination is his union activities, and I conclude that his termination violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The activities of Respondent set forth above, occur- ring in connection with its business operations, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be or- dered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain is Because of this finding, it is unnecessary to consider whether Re- spondent had a policy of refusing to reinstate employees who had quit without notice. For the same reason, Respondent's citations of decisions involving a quit-U.O.P., Inc., 235 NLRB 621 (1978); Rich's of Plymouth, Inc, 232 NLRB 621 (1977), enfd in part 578 F 2d 880 (5th Cir. 1978)- are inapposite. I note that Meyermg's testimony about former employee Darwin Honeysette was inconsistent. First he stated that because Honey- sette quit without notice "that's all we need," and that there was no need to consider his past work record. Later, he said that Respondent did con- sider his work record. 16 If, as Mitchell claimed, Long constantly talked with other employ- ees and wasted time on the job for a 2-week period, I cannot believe that Mitchell would not have issued a written reprimand, especially because he did so for the alleged 10- or 15-minute incident of 11 June ATLAS TRUCK RENTAL affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent laid off Anthony Joseph Long because of the union activities in which he was engaged, I shall recommend that Respondent be or- dered to offer immediate and full reinstatement to Long to his former position or, if it is no longer available, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss of earnings or any monetary loss he may have suffered from 1 August 1984, as a result of Re- spondent's unlawful conduct, less interim earnings, if any. The amount of backpay shall be computed in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).17 I shall also recommend that Re- spondent remove from its files any reference to Long's discharge or "quit." Sterling Sugars, 261 NLRB 472 (1982). On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed'8 ORDER The Respondent, Atlas Trucking, Inc. d/b/a Atlas Truck Rental & Leasing, Wyoming, Michigan, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discharging its employees because they supported and assisted General Teamsters Union, Local No. 406, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Internation- al Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultur- al Implement Workers of America and in order to dis- courage the membership in and support and assistance of these Unions by its employees. (b) 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 National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer Anthony Joseph Long immediate and full re- instatement to his former position or, if that position is no longer available, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of his discharge by Re- spondent, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision. (b) Remove from its files any reference to the dis- charge or "quit" of Anthony Joseph Long and notify him in writing that this has been done and that evidence of his unlawful termination will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against him. 17 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) r e 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- po 59 (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 place of business in Wyoming, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 1 e Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Re- spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ent 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. 19 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 Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge our employees because they supported and assisted General Teamsters Union, Local No. 406, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Inter- national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America and in order to discourage the membership in and support and assistance of these Unions by our employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. WE WILL offer Anthony Joseph Long immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if that posi- tion is no longer available, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of his dis- charge by us, with interest. WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the discharge or "quit" of Anthony Joseph Long 'and notify him in writing that this has been done and that evidence of his unlawful termination will not be used as a basis for future personnel actions against him. ATLAS TRUCKING, INC. D/B/A ATLAS TRUCK RENTAL & LEASING