Superior Forwarding Co., Inc., And Debtor-In-Possession, And Central Transport, Inc.

806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Superior Forwarding Company, Inc., Debtor-in-Pos- session, and Central Transport, Inc. and Do- menick Carlini Superior Forwarding Company, Inc. and Bill Ray- mond. Cases 26-CA-11196 and 26-CA-11240 22 January 1987 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND STEPHENS On 24 July 1986 Administrative Law Judge Robert T. Wallace issued the attached decision. The Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed cross-excep- tions and an answering brief and brief in support of the cross-exceptions. 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, cross-exceptions, and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rul- ings,' fmdings,2 and conclusions3 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.4 i At the hearing, the Respondents renewed their motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on the ground that the case should be de- ferred to the grievance-arbitration procedure under Collyer Insulated lI ire, 192 NLRB 837 (1971). In their brief in support of their exceptions, the Respondents cite United Technologies Corp., 268 NLRB 557 (1984), in arguing that deferral is appropriate. The judge denied the motion at the hearing, inter alia, because there is an allegation in the second amended complaint that the Respondents violated Sec. 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act, and under International Harvester Co., 271 NLRB 647 (1984), deferral is inappropriate in 8(a)(4) cases. The judge found that because the other al- legations in this case are so intertwined with the 8(a)(4) allegation, they also should not be deferred to the grievance-arbitration procedure. We agree with the judge that deferral is inappropriate under the circum- stances of this case. 2 The Respondents have excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra- tive 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 re- versing the findings. In his discussion of Carlini's loss of the St. Louis run (par. 15 of his decision), the judge inadvertently stated that it was Raymond, not Car- lini, who lost the run We correct the error. S The General Counsel has excepted to the judge's inadvertent failure to find that the Respondents violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by requiring employees to return their grievance money in order to receive diesel fuel. The judge ordered the Respondents to "cease and desist from requiring employees to return checks in payment of grievances in order to receive diesel fuel at discount." We agree with the General Counsel and find that the Respondents violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by requiring the employees to return the grievance payments in order to purchase fuel. 4 We agree with the judge's conclusion that a finding that employee Raymond was constructively discharged is not precluded by the fact that prior to the fuel dispute Raymond planned to retire on 31 July 1985. We further adopt the judge's Order that requires, inter alia, that the Respond- ents offer Raymond immediate and full reinstatement and make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of his unlawful dis- charge. In so doing, however, we leave the matter of Raymond's planned ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondents, Superior Forwarding Company, Inc., Debtor-In-Possession, Sterling Heights, Michigan, and Little Rock, Arkansas, and Central Transport, Inc., Sterling Heights, Michigan, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(h). "(h) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondents have taken to comply." 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. retirement, to the extent that it may affect the remedy herein, to the com- pliance stage of this proceeding. ` In his Order, the judge recommended that the Respondents cease and desist from "in any like or related manner" interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their Sec 7 rights. However, in his notice to employees the judge used broad "in any other manner" lan- guage. In her cross-exceptions, the General Counsel requests that the Board modify the Order to conform to the broader language in the notice. Contrary to the General Counsel, we believe that a narrow order is appropriate here because in our view the Respondents have not been shown to have a proclivity to violate the Act or a general disregard for employees' fundamental statutory rights. See Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). Accordingly, we shall issue a new notice to employees utiliz- ing narrow cease-and-desist language to conform to the Order. In his Order, the judge recommended the inclusion of a visitatorial clause, authorizing the Board, for compliance purposes, to obtain discov- ery from the Respondents under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure subject to the supervision of the United States court of appeals enforcing the Order. Under the circumstances of this case, we find it unnecessary to include such a clause. Accordingly, we shall modify the judge's Order to delete this clause. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT discharge you because of your ac- tivity on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 667, or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT reduce your work assignments or otherwise discriminate against you because of your union activities and/or because you file charges under the Act. 282 NLRB No. 121 SUPERIOR FORWARDING CO. WE WILL NOT terminate the practice of selling __ diesel fuel at a discount to you because of your union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten to cease selling fuel at a discount to you if you insist on payment of moneys awarded you in settlement of grievances. WE WILL NOT promise benefits to you (e.g., good recommendations for jobs, resuming sales of diesel fuel to you at discount prices) if you return moneys received in settlement of grievances. WE WILL NOT promise continued sales of diesel fuel at discount prices to you if you mislead the Union into believing that you received full satisfac- tion of grievances. WE WILL NOT require you to return' checks in payment of grievances in order to receive diesel fuel at discount. WE WILL NOT in any like or related -manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer Bill Raymond immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his, seniority or any other rights or privileges 'previously enjoyed and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest. WE WILL make Domenick Carlini whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the unlawful reduction, in his work assignments. WE WILL reimburse Bill Raymond, Domenick Carlini, Kenneth Smith, James Perry, and Ronald Haskins, with interest, for any additional expenses incurred as a result of the unlawful refusal to sell them diesel fuel at prices available to other em- ployees. WE WILL pay to Kenneth Smith, James Perry, and Ronald Haskins, with interest, amounts with- held by'reason of their compliance with the unlaw- ful requirement that they return checks issued them in settlement of grievances. WE WILL remove from our' files any reference to the unlawful discharge' of Raymond, the unlawful reduction in work assignments to Carlini, the un- lawful requirement of the return of the grievance money by Perry, Smith, and Haskins, and the un- lawful failure to sell diesel fuel to Raymond, Car- lini,' Perry, Smith, and Haskins at prices available to other employees, and WE WILL notify them in writing that these things have been done and that 807 evidutic&I-Of,those actions will not be used against them in any way. SUPERIOR FORWARDING COMPANY, INC., DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION CENTRAL TRANSPORT,, INC. Bruce E. Buchanan, Esq., for the General Counsel. Charles J. Lincoln, Esq., and Bob Lawson Jr., Esq. (Lin- coln & Orsini, PA), of Little Rock, Arkansas, for Re- spondents. DECISION ROBERT T. WALLACE, Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard at Little Rock, Arkansas, on 17 through 19 December 1985 pursuant to charges filed by the above-named individuals on 11 July and 9 August, respectively. The complaint, as amended both prior to and at the hearing, alleges that Respondents Superior Forwarding Company, Inc. (Superior) and Central Transport, Inc. (Central) are joint employers or alter egos of each other and together discriminated against, threatened, and promised benefits to employees as an inducement not to collect moneys found due them by a grievance panel in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. On the entire record, and after due consideration of briefs submitted by the General Counsel' and Respond- ents, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT/ANALYSIS Central and Superior are common motor carriers and each derives annual gross revenues well in excess of $50,000 from hauling freight in'interstate commerce; and both are employers within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. Superior has its headquarters and central dispatch office in Sterling Heights, Michigan. Its operations, how- ever, are conducted in an area comprising Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas; and it has terminals at Memphis, Tennessee, and at various points in Arkansas including Jonesboro and Searcy. At all pertinent times collective-bargaining agreements were in effect between' Superior and employees at the named terminals; and the agreements provided for resolution of disputes through recourse to grievance procedures specified therein. Superior filed for bankruptcy on 26 November 1982, and shortly thereafter it put into effect a new policy whereby over-the-road operations would be performed using tractor units leased' from owner/operators. To assure their continued employment, drivers were given an opportunity to buy tractors from the Company, and many did so including alleged discriminatees Carlini, Raymond,_ James Perry, Kenneth Smith, and Ronald Haskins. In explaining the changeover, drivers were as- ' The brief of the General Counsel contains an unopposed request to correct the official transcript in certain respects. The request is granted because the changes sought, all editorial in nature, are warranted. 808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sured that they would- continue to receive benefits such as vacations, sick leave, and holidays. In addition, they were told that the Company would provide them with diesel fuel at 72 cents per gallon, a price that was about 50 cents below the retail price at truckstops. The new arrangements worked well for about 18 months during which period the road drivers were al- lowed to fuel up at 72 cents per gallon at fuel dumps of Central as well as those of Superior. However, in August 1984, both carriers began to charge them an additional amount (6 cents per gallon) corresponding to an increase in the Federal highway use tax on fuel. That action, as well as other asserted discrepancies in driver pay,2 was the subject of consolidated grievance No. 310 filed by their Union (Teamsters Local 667) on 12 November 1984. The matter was considered on 8 April 19852 by a panel (Southern Multi-State Grievance Committee) duly constituted under the applicable collective-bargaining agreement. No representative of Superior appeared, and the grievance was determined in favor of the drivers. On 15 April, L. D. Davis, Superior's "Director of Labor" and terminal manager at Little Rock, had a tele- phone conversation with Carlini as follows: L.D: We got a notice from Local 667 that you had won those grievances by default. Nick: Yes sir. L.D: And if you want to collect the money, we will,pay you. The only catch to it, Nick, is that we are not required under contract to even sell you diesel fuel. Nick: Yes sir. L.D: And if you want the money we will get it for you but no more diesel fuel, you can buy at the truck stop .... I was just told there wouldn't be any more diesel fuel sold to you unless you told the Union folks those grievances settled that you won by default. Nick: Yes sir. Well you see those grievances .. . affect all of us . . . all the drivers, not only me, it's all the drivers. L.D: So, like I say, they don't have to sell any of them diesel fuel if they don't want to. On the same day Carlini was denied access to the fuel dump at his home station (the Memphis terminal of Su- perior), and the ban was gradually extended so that by 5 June he was unable to buy fuel at any price from pumps maintained by Superior or Central.4 On numerous occa- a These included claimed undercompensation for mileage operated and for "drop and hook" and delivery pay a Unless otherwise indicated, all dates are in 1985. 4 On 5 June Carlini saw posted at the Memphis terminal a teletype message as follows: ATTN TERMINAL MANAGERS REGARDING DOMENIC CARLINI JR. COMMENTS PER MR GARAVAGLIA, MR. CARLINI IS NOT TO FUEL ANYWHERE IN THE SYSTEM UNTIL FUR- THER NOTICE. Charles Garavagha works for Central as its vice president for labor rela- tions Appended to the message is a handwritten notation: "We also re- ceived a verbal from Ann in Fuel-DJ." The initials are those of David Justice, a dispatcher of Superior at Memphis "Ann" is stationed at Ster- ling Heights and is in charge of Central's fuel accounting system. sions during that period and consistently thereafter, he bought fuel from truckstops at prices well in excess of $1 a gallon. On 8 July Superior, through Davis, agreed in writing to settle in full all matters pertaining to, among other things, grievance' No. 310;5 and pursuant to the agree- ment Superior issued checks in the amount of $1101.99 payable to Carlini, $779.44 payable to Raymond, $664.10 payable to Perry, $814 payable to Smith, and, $823.93 payable to Haskins.6 On the next day, however, Davis instructed other terminal managers that access to pumps also should be denied to Raymond, Perry, Smith, and Haskins (all Jonesboro-based drivers) because "these people don't like the price of our diesel fuel ...."v At the hearing he explained that he had just got through .... a meeting ... where they [the named drivers] extorted nine thousand and something out of the company, so why should I sell them fuel? I was not obligated to do so under the contract.8 Not all drivers were cut off, only "those people who ap- peared up there [at the meeting] and demanded that money." Like Carlini, the named drivers also were denied access to fuel pumps of Central at St. Louis and other points.9 Davis' claim that neither Superior nor Central was under any obligation to sell fuel to drivers is reiterated in the joint brief filed on their behalf. Therein they argue, citing among other cases Benchmark Industries, 270 NLRB 22 (1984), that the situation is analogous to a de- cision unilaterally to discontinue a lagniappe, such as gift hams at Christmastime, which an employer had no obli- gation to provide. The comparison is inapposite. The complaint herein does not allege any breach of contract or bargaining obligation. Neither is an issue raised about whether the practice of selling fuel to drivers at a dis- count was in fact "compensation" and so part of their terms and conditions of employment. Instead, the grava- men of the complaint is that drivers were discriminated against for engaging in a protected union activity, i.e., seeking payment of an award resulting from recourse to an established grievance procedure. Compare Diversified Industries, 208 NLRB 233 (1974); and Mrs Baird's Bak- eries, 189 NLRB 606 (1971).10 And this is exactly what 5 There is no evidence that Superior exercised appeal rights under the grievance procedure after 8 July with regard to that grievance. 6 The checks were received by the payees about 27 July. 7 The exclusion notice posted at the Jonesboro terminal bore the letter- head of Central and the signature block of Davis as director of labor. It began. "Effective immediately Central Transport will no longer sell fuel to Superior brokers at the Jonesboro terminal [emphasis added]." 8 Although Davis testified that he signed the agreement to avert a threatened strike, Respondent makes no claim that a strike would have been unlawful in the circumstances. Indeed, its position (as stated by counsel (Tr. 39)) is that no coercion was involved. I conclude that Davis' use of words such as "extortion" and "robbery" represent hyberbole con- veymg his view about the merits of the consolidated grievance. Other road drivers continued to buy fuel at pumps of Superior and Central for 78 cents per gallon at all pertinent times after the initial 6- cent price increase in August 1984 10 Here, as in Diversified Industries at 238, the merits of the grievance are not at issue. SUPERIOR FORWARDING CO Davis admits he did. Accordingly, I find that his tele- phone conversation on 15 April entailed two violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, one a threat to cut off fuel to Carlini if he pursued the grievance and the other a promise to continue that benefit if he would forgo the grievance. In addition, I find violations of Section 8(a)(3) in the act of cutting off fuel to Carlini on and after 15 April and to the Jonesboro drivers on and after 9 July. During the next 4 weeks the Jonesboro drivers made a number of anxious calls to Davis at Little Rock. His message to each of them was basically the same: that fuel would not be sold to any driver who chose to be a party to the "extortion" that had taken place, that "we" were under no obligation to sell fuel to anybody, and that they would be allowed to buy fuel at 78 cents per gallon if and when they returned their grievance checks. Also, he told them that people from Central were coming to Jonesboro to hire drivers and if any of them were inter- ested "for me to give him a good recommendation it cer- tainly would help if he returned that check." i a Smith, Perry, and Haskins opted to return their checks un- cashed,12 and shortly thereafter they were hired by Cen- tral. Raymond, however, had tendered his written resigna- tion to Davis on 12 July; and he cashed his grievance check promptly on receiving it about 28 July.13 He states that he quit because loss of his ability to buy dis- counted fuel would so reduce his income as to make im- practical continued driving at the mileage and/or per- centage rates provided in his lease with Superior. I find the termination on 12 July to be a constructive discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). By being forced to pay a retail puce of $1.24 a gallon rather than the 78- cent rate available to other drivers operating under simi- lar lease arrangements, Raymond would have had to absorb a 60-percent increase in fuel costs, a situation that so distorted his terms and conditions of employment as to render them intolerable.'' Compare Holiday Inn of Santa Maria, 259 NLRB 649 (1981), in which an employ- ee was held constructively discharged when he quit on having his hourly wage reduced from $4.33 to $3.60. Carlini, unlike Raymond, chose to operate without a fuel subsidy; and, as noted above, he filed an unfair labor practice charge on 11 July. By 12 August, Carlini had been operating for Central approximately 3 months on a regular run (5 nights a week) between Memphis and St. Louis. 15 On that date 11 Here, too, I find violative of Sec 8(a)(1) the promises of resumed fuel sales and good recommendations conditional on return of grievance money. 1 a According to Davis, these drivers severally assured him that they had nothing to do with the grievance and indeed never objected to paying "the company price." 13 About 8 August Raymond received a letter from the personnel office of Central at Sterling Heights acknowledging receipt of notice that he had terminated his employment with Central as of 12 July 14 A finding of constructive discharge is not precluded by the fact that prior to the fuel dispute Raymond planned to retire on 31 July because, as found, the "moving factor" behind his departure was the discriminato- ry action in cutting off his access to cheap fuel Compare Southern Flori- da Hotel Assn , 245 NLRB 561, 566-567 (1979) 15 Carlini stated that he so operated without ever having sub- or trip- leased to Central I credit his testimony, especially as no document of that type was produced by Central. 809 he attended a meeting at which he, Davis, and a union representative attempted , unsuccessfully, to effect settle- ment of the "Board case" (Tr. 188-189 and 200), as well as a number of pending grievances filed by Carlini. Before leaving, Carlini expressed interest in becoming a driver for Central provided he could transfer with se- niority, thereby to retain the Memphis-St. Louis run. Davis replied : "Well, Nick, I don't know how long your St. Louis run will last you ." Three days later, Superior's terminal manager at Memphis (Steve Bates) told Carlini that his assignment to the run had been canceled . There- after, his mileage-based earnings decreased substantially. Up to that time he had driven an average of 2307. 1 miles a week during 1985, whereas from 15 August to just prior to hearing his average declined to 1411.2 miles a week, or by approximately 38 percent. Davis states that the reason why Carlini lost the St. Louis run was because Central had determined it "no longer needed to sublease Mr. Carlini or any other Supe- rior driver . . . [for the] particular departure and arrival time [involved]"; 16 and he offered no explanation at all for the sharp and continuing decline in income experi- enced by Raymond following loss of that run. In these circumstances an inference is warranted and taken that the decline was purposefully effected and meant to punish Raymond for engaging in protected activities, i.e., pursuing grievances and filing the unfair labor practice charge. Jolie Belts Co., 265 NLRB 1130 (1982); Petco, Inc., Interstate, 238 NLRB 1297 (1978). Accordingly, I find a violation of Section 8(a)(4) and (1) as well as an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1). I also find that Central and Superior constitute a single-integrated enterprise and so are jointly liable for the unfair labor practices here shown to have been com- mitted . Compare Truck & Dock Services, 272 NLRB 592 ( 1984); Schaller Trucking Corp., 269 NLRB 392 (1984). Although their representatives at the hearing professed lack of knowledge of any connection between the two companies other than normal business relationships be- tween independent carriers , 117 there is ample evidence that Superior is but an operating arm of Central. Both companies submitted annual reports to the Inter- state Commerce Commission showing Superior as a small regional carrier wholly owned and controlled by Central, a carrier conducting extensive operations in the United States and Canada . They share common officers (Beryl L. Shroyer, vice president of finance, and R. W. Lech, executive vice president); as well as a common 16 1 find the explanation totally inadequate, particulary in light of the fact that Carlini was used without benefit of any sub- or trip-lease See fn 15 and the finding below that Central and Superior are joint employers 17 As noted, Davis testified for Superior He has been with that Com- pany for 10 years, serving as terminal manager, regional manager , and di- rector of labor Garavaglia appeared for Central He has served as its vice president for labor relations for about 20 years Garavaglia asserted that Central had no financial interest in Superior , and that the latter was not within the corporate system of Central or in any way controlled by it He "thinks" Superior has a general office somewhere in Sterling Heights For his part, Davis also avers that Superior was not controlled by Central As to Garavaglia, Davis was "not really" aware of who he was and he claims never to have had occasion to seek Garavaglia's advice on labor relations matters I decline to credit any of those asser- tions. 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD headquarters at Sterling Heights from which operations of both carriers are coordinated on a daily basis through a central dispatch board. Other examples of integrated operations abound. Among other things, the evidence shows that in a flier used for Central advertising purposes lists Superior ter- minals as its own; that at least two of those terminals (Little Rock and Searcy) have prominent outdoor signs bearing the legend "Central Transport"; that telephone calls to the Little Rock terminal are answered with the greeting "Central"; that the two carriers provide facili- ties and services (including furnishing fuel at the same discount price) for each other's lease operators; that Cen- tral provides a host of administrative services for Superi- or drivers, including matters dealing with fuel permits and stickers, decals, , inspection notices, insurance person- nel, and the fuel subsidy program; that freight bills cov- ering rservices provided by use of Superior's operating authority are issued solely in the name of Central; that Superior drivers provide service under Central's operat- ing authority without executing trip leases with Central (fn.' 15); that the resignation of a Superior driver was ac- cepted and processed by Central (fn. 13); that by memo posted at Superior's terminal in Memphis, Garavaglia ad- vised all terminal managers "in the system" not to sell fuel to a Superior driver (fn. 4); and that by memo on Central stationery posted at Superior's terminal in Jones- boro, Davis advised drivers based there that Central would no longer sell fuel to them at Jonesboro (fn. 7). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I find that Respondents are joint employers and/or constitute a single integrated enterprise ; that they violat- ed Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act in the particu- lars and for the reasons stated above; that they are not shown to -have violated the Act in any other respect; and that the unfair labor practices here found to have been committed have affected, are affecting, and unless perma- nently enjoined will continue to affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY In addition to the customary cease-and-desist order and requirement for notice posting, my Order will re- quire Respondents to offer unconditional reinstatement to Bill Raymond and make him whole for all wages and benefits lost as a result of his unlawful discharge, in ac- cordance with the principles set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977);18 to make Domenick Carlini whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the unlawful reduction in his work assignments; to re- imburse Raymond, Carlini, Kenneth Smith, James Perry, and' Ronald Haskins, with interest, for any added ex- penses incurred by them as a result of the unlawful refus- al to sell them diesel fuel at prices available to other em- ployees; and to pay to Smith, Perry, and Haskins, with interest, amounts withheld by reason of their compliance 18 See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). with an unlawful requirement that they return checks given to them in settlement of grievances. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed'9 ORDER The Respondents, Superior Forwarding Company, Inc., Debtor-in-Possession, Sterling Heights, Michigan, and Little Rock, Arkansas, and Central Transport, Inc., Sterling Heights, Michigan, their officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discharging employees because of their activity on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 667, or any other labor organization. (b) Reducing work assignments to employees or other- wise discriminating against them because of their union activities and/or because they file charges under the Act. (c) Terminating the, practice of selling diesel fuel at a discount to employees because of their union activities. (d) Threatening employees to cease selling diesel fuel at a discount to employees if they insist on payment of moneys awarded them in settlement grievances. (e) Promising benefits to employees (e.g., good recom- mendations for jobs, resuming sales of diesel fuel to them at discount prices) if they return moneys received in set- tlement of grievances. (f) Promising continued sales of diesel fuel at discount prices to employees if they mislead' their Union into be- lieving that they received full satisfaction of grievances. (g) Requiring employees to return checks in payment of grievances in order to receive diesel fuel at discount. (h) 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) Offer Bill Raymond immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimina- tion against him, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision. (b) Make Domenick Carlini whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the unlawful reduction in his work assignments. (c) Reimburse Bill Raymond, Dominick Carlini, Ken- neth Smith, James Perry, and Ronald Haskins, with in- terest, for any additional expenses incurred as a result of the unlawful refusal to sell them diesel fuel at prices available to other employees. (d) Pay Kenneth Smith, James Perry, and Ronald Has- kins, with interest, amounts withheld by reason of their is 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 thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. SUPERIOR FORWARDING CO. compliance with the unlawful requirement that they return checks issued them in settlement of grievances. (e) Remove from all files any reference to the unlawful discharge of Raymond, the unlawful reduction in work assignments to Carlini, the unlawful requirement of the return of the grievance money by Perry, Smith, and Has- kins, and the unlawful failure to sell diesel fuel to Ray- mond, Carlini, Perry, Smith, and Haskins at prices avail- able to other employees, and notify them in writing these things have been done and that evidence of those actions will not be used as bases for future personnel actions against them. (f) 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 records necessary to analyze the amounts of backpay and benefits due under the terms of this Order. (g) Post at their facilities at Little Rock, Fort Smith, Jonesboro, and Searcy, Arkansas; Memphis, Tennessee; St. Louis, Missouri; Sterling Heights, Michigan; and In- dianapolis, Indiana, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."20 Copies of the notice, on forms provided 20 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 811 by the Regional Director for Region 26, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspic- uous places including all places where notices to employ- ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (h) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply with this Order. For the purpose of de- termining or securing compliance with this Order, the Board, or any of its duly authorized representatives, may obtain discovery from the Respondents, their officers, agents, successors or assigns, or any other person having knowledge concerning any compliance matter, in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Proce- dure. Such discovery shall be conducted under the su- pervision of the United States Court of Appeals enforc- ing this Order and may be had upon any matter reason- ably related to compliance with this Order, as enforced by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis- missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein. the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "