Truck And Dock Services, Inc.

592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Truck and Dock Services, Inc. and Furniture, De- partment Store & Parcel Delivery Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen, Local Union No. 193 Controlled Temperature Transit, Inc and Furniture, Department Store & Parcel Delivery Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen, Local Union No. 193 Cases 25-CA-15204 and 25-CA-15205 28 September 1984 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN AND DENNIS On 27 July 1983 Administrative Law Judge Karl H Buschmann issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed limited cross-excep- tions, a supporting brief, and an answering brief Thereafter, the Respondent filed a brief in response to the General Counsel's limited 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 and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 1 and conclusions 2 as modified ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find trigs 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 2 In the remedy section of his decision, the judge found that Truck and Dock Services (TDS) and Controlled Temperature Transit (CTT) consti tute, in essence, a joint employer because both were participants in th[e] scheme to unlawfully discharge Jim Taylor and because both were af- filiated at least to the extent of common supervisory authority The complaint, however, alleges more precisely, and we find, that TDS and CTT are a single employer To determine whether two entities are sufficiently integrated so that they may fairly be treated as a single employer, the Board and the courts examine four principal factors (1) common management (2) centralized control of labor relations, (3) interrelation of operations, and (4) common ownership Radio Union v Broadcast Service of Mobile 380 U S 255 256 (1965), NLRB v Browning Ferris Industries, 691 F 2d 1117, 1122 (3d Cir 1982), Shellmaker Inc , 265 NLRB 749 754 (1982) While none of these factors, viewed separately, has been held controlling, the Board has stressed the first three factors, particularly centralized control of labor re lations Parklane Hosiery Co, 203 NLRB 597, 612 (1973) Single employer status depends on all of the circumstances and has been characterized as an absence of an arm s length relationship among unintegrated com panics Blumenfeld Theatres Circuit, 240 NLRB 206, 215 (1979), enfd 626 F 2d 865 (9th Ctr 1980) TDS is owned by Clarence Fielder and CTT is owned by Clarence s 27 year old son, Craig Fielder Clarence testified that TDS provides driv ers, warehousemen, and other employees exclusively to crr, a trucking company, and to no other customers Employees of both companies share the same facilities, use the same equipment, use the same timeclocks, re ceive the same or similar benefits, and are Issued paychecks from Clar ence's dispatching office at CTT Both payrolls are run on CTT s com- puter The consolidated complaint alleges, inter aim, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by modifying 10 March 1982 3 the overtime provision in the collective-bargaining agreement without notice to or bargaining with the Union The judge found that the Respondent vio- lated the Act by refusing to bargain on request with the Union about overtime 12 January 1983 The judge also found, however, that because the initial change in the computation of overtime oc- curred more than 6 months before the charge was filed, "the unilateral changes are clearly beyond reach pursuant to Section 10(b) " We disagree On 10 March, following a meeting with TDS and CTT employees, the Respondent decided that effective immediately employees would be paid overtime after 45 hours a week and 9-1/2 hours a day The new policy conflicted with the Respond- ent's current overtime practice and the collective- bargaining agreement between TDS and the Union covering TDS employees, 4 which provided over- time after 40 hours a week and 8 hours a day 5 The Respondent imposed the policy without notifying or bargaining with the Union The judge found, however, the Union did not discover the new overtime policy until 23 Decem- ber, when an employee mentioned it during the in- vestigation of another matter No party filed excep- tions to this finding On 12 January 1983 Union Clarence, while employed by TDS, serves as operations supervisor for CTT and has an office at CTT's warehouse In this capacity, Clarence testified he has authority to hire, fire, approve overtime make job assign ments and supervise employees for both companies While Craig also has authority to hire and fire CTT employees, Clarence admitted his son con suits him on wage rates and benefits and both he and Craig hired CTT s secretaries Furthermore, one employee testified when he transferred from City Haul and Storage, TDS predecessor, also owned by Clarence, to CTT, Clarence approved the transfer for both companies While no evidence indicates that either Clarence or Craig own any in terest in the other s company, the record does reveal Craig formed CTT at age 22 with a high school education and several years of work experi ence as a truckdriver for his father As noted, Clarence is actively in- volved in the day to-day operations of both companies Thus the compa nies relationship is a close family one rather than one between independ ent companies dealing at arm s length In such circumstances, the Board often treats ownership by other family members as personal own ership See Bryar Construction Co 240 NLRB 102, 104 (1979) Given the common management, centralized control of labor relations, interrelation ship of operations, and the close family connection we find TDS and CTT to be a single employer Accordingly, we shall refer collectively to TDS and CTT as the Respondent 3 All dates are in 1982 unless otherwise indicated 4 The appropriate unit consists of all over-the road drivers, local driv ers, helpers and warehousemen TDS employs A union does not repre sent CTT's employees 5 The judge inadvertently referred to the hourly overtime provision in the collective bargaining agreement as providing for overtime after 8 1/2 hours per day The General Counsel in its answering brief also referred to contractual overtime 40 hours a week and 8 1/2 hours a day Art X of the applicable contract, however states, Inter aim that ' [A111 hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours a day shall be compensated for at the rate of one and one half (1 1/2) times the regular straight time rate' Fur thermore, the record reveals only testimony on the weekly, as opposed to hourly, overtime practices of the Respondent We correct the error 272 NLRB No 93 TRUCK & DOCK SERVICES 593 President Charles Ford and union business agent Edward Elder met with TDS owner Clarence Fielder at the Respondent's office According to Elder's credited testimony, he asked Fielder about the overtime changes and also reminded him of his obligation to bargain with the Union Fielder stated that he had dealt directly with the employees and did not feel it was necessary to bargain with the Union On 14 January 1983, approximately 10 months after the new overtime policy was initially implemented, the Union filed the instant unfair labor practice charge We conclude that, contrary to the judge, Section 10(b) does not bar us from finding the Respond- ent's 10 March overtime change violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and providing a full remedy for the violation It is well-settled law that the limitations period does not begin to run on an alleged unfair labor practice until the person adversely affected is actually or constructively put on notice of the al- leged offending act See Carpenters (Skippy Enter- prises), 211 NLRB 222, 227 (1974), enfd 532 F 2d 47 (7th Cir 1976), Burgess Construction, 227 NLRB 765, 766 (1977), enfd 596 F 2d 378, 382 (3d Or 1979), Allied Products Corp, 230 NLRB 858 (1977) Here the judge found the Union received notice of the overtime change 23 December and filed its charge 14 January 1983 The limitations period thus began 23 December and the charge was there- fore filed well within the 6-month limit Accordingly, we shall issue the new Conclusions of Law, a new remedy, and a new Order and notice to employees CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Truck and Dock Services, Inc and Controlled Temperature Transit, Inc are a single employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 2 Furniture, Department Store & Parcel Deliv- ery Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen, Local Union No 193 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 Truck and Dock Services, Inc , a successor of City Haul and Storage, Inc , assumed and became legally bound by a collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and City Haul and Storage, Inc 4 The bargaining unit is All over-the-road drivers, local drivers, help- ers and warehousemen employed by Respond- ent Truck and Dock Services, Inc at the facil- ity as described in Article I of the July 1, 1980 until June 30, 1983, collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and the Compa- ny 5 By unilaterally modifying 10 March 1982 the overtime provisions in the collective-bargaining agreement between Truck and Dock Services, Inc and the Union effective from 1 July 1980 to 30 June 1983, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act 6 By discharging Jim Tayloi 10 January 1983 because he joined the Union, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act We shall, inter aim, order the Respondent to bar- gain on request with the Union concerning over- time, and to make whole unit employees for any loss of wages or other benefits caused by its failure to adhere to the overtime provisions of the applica- ble contract since 10 March 1982 Backpay shall be made in a manner consistent with Board policy as stated in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), with interest as prescribed in Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) We shall also order the Respondent to offer Jim Taylor immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a sub- stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previ- ously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against him Backpay shall be computed as prescribed in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in Florida Steel Corp, supra ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Truck and Dock Services, Inc and Controlled Temperature Transit, Inc , Indian- apolis, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with Furniture, Depart- ment Store & Parcel Delivery Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen, Local Union No 193 as the exclu- sive representative of the employees in the bargain- ing unit by unilaterally modifying the overtime provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement between TDS and the Union effective from 1 July 1980 to 30 June 1983 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for supporting the Union or any other union (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) On request, bargain with the Union as the ex- clusive representative of the employees in the fol- lowing appropriate unit concerning overtime All over-the-road drivers, local drivers, help- ers and warehousemen employed by Respond- ent Truck and Dock Services, Inc at the facil- ity as described in Article I of the July 1, 1980 until June 30, 1983, collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and the Compa- ny (b) Adhere to the overtime provisions of its col- lective-bargaining agreement with the Union effec- tive from 1 July 1980 to 30 June 1983 (c) Make whole the unit employees for any loss of wages or other benefits caused by its failure to adhere to the overtime provisions of the applicable contract since 10 March 1982, in the manner set forth in the amended remedy section of this deci- sion (d) Offer Jim Taylor immediate and full rein- statement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with- out 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 discrimination against him, in the manner set forth in the amended remedy section of the decision (e) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge of Jim Taylor and notify him in writing that the removal has occurred and that the unlawful discharge will not be used against him in any way (f) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copy- ing, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order (g) Post at its facilities in Indianapolis, Indiana, copies of the attached nonce marked "Appendix "6 6 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" Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re- gional Director for Region 25, after being signed by the Respondent'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 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 the Respondent has taken to comply 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 refuse to bargain with Furniture, Department Store & Parcel Delivery Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen, Local Union No 193 as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em- ployees in the bargaining unit, by unilaterally modifying the overtime provisions of the collec- tive-bargaining agreement between Truck and Dock Services, Inc and the Union effective from 1 July 1980 to 30 June 1983 WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi- nate against any of you for supporting Furniture, Department Store & Parcel Delivery Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen, Local Union No 193 or any other union 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, on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative concerning overtime of the employees in the following appropriate unit All over-the-road drivers, local drivers, help- ers and warehousemen employed by us at Truck and Dock Services, Inc at the facility as described in Article I of the July 1, 1980 until June 30, 1983, collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and the Compa- ny WE WILL adhere to the overtime provisions of our collective-bargaining agreement with the Union effective from 1 July 1980 to 30 June 1983 TRUCK & DOCK SERVICES 595 WE WILL make whole the unit employees for any loss of wages or other benefits suffered as a result of our failure to adhere to the overtime pro- visions of the applicable contract since 10 March 1982 WE WILL offer Jim Taylor 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 notify Jim Taylor that we have re- moved from our files any reference to his dis- charge and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way TRUCK AND DOCK SERVICES, INC DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE KARL H BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law, Jiidge This case was tried in Indianapolis, Indiana, on April 4 and 5, 1983 Charges were filed on January 14, 1983, by the Union and amended on February 25, 1983 The con- solidated complaint issued on February 25, 1983 The principal issues are whether the Respondents discrimina- torily discharged their employee, Jim W Taylor, in vio- lation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), and whether the Respondent modified certain overtime provisions in the bargaining agreement without bargaining with the Union, in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act Respondents filed timely answers admitting several of the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint and deny- ing the commission of any unfair labor practices On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondents, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT Respondent Truck and Dock Services, Inc is an Indi- ana corporation located at 7218 McFarland Road, Indi- anapolis Indiana,' where it is engaged in the business of providing employees, principally truckdrivers and ware- housemen, to other companies In practice, the Compa- ny, which is owned and operated by Clarence Fielder, has supplied the services of its 13 employees consisting of drivers, dockmen, and a mechanic to one customer, namely, Controlled Temperature Transit, Inc , a compa- ny owned by Craig Fielder, the son of Clarence Fielder Respondent Controlled Temperature Transit, Inc is an Indiana corporation, located at 5700 West Minnesota Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, where it is engaged in the trucking business In addition to clerks and other office ' This location is the home of the Company's owner Clarence Fielder personnel, this Company also employs drivers, ware- housemen, and mechanics who are directly supervised by both Craig Fielder and his father, Clarence Fielder The Company's employees are not represented by any union The third company, relevant to this case, is City Haul and Storage, Inc It was owned and operated by Clar- ence Fielder and ceased doing business shortly prior to May 1981 Its operation of trucking services was taken over by Truck and Dock Services, Inc, which Clarence Fielder established on May 6, 1981 The parties have stipulated that Truck and Dock Services, Inc is a suc- cessor of City Haul and Storage, and that it assumed and became legally bound by a collective-bargaining agree- ment between the Company and the Union, Furniture, Department Store & Parcel Delivery Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen Local 193, on behalf of the employees, covering "all over-the-road drivers, local drivers, helpers and warehousemen employed by the Respondent Truck and Dock, at the facility as described in Article I of the July 1, 1980 until June 30, 1983, collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and the Company" The first issue in this case began with the events on March 10, 1982, when Respondent Controlled Tempera- ture Transit conducted a meeting with its employees to discuss the Company's financial difficulties The employ- ees of Truck and Dock were also present at the meeting and participated in the discussions The Respondent re- ceived suggestions by several of the assembled employ- ees how it could improve its economic situation After that meeting the Companies decided that, effective im- mediately, employees of both companies would be paid overtime after 45 hours a week and 9-1/2 hours per day in lieu of the existing practice of 40 hours a week and 8- 1/2 hours per day This change for the employees of Truck and Dock Services was in conflict with the exist- ing bargaining agreement and was effectuated without notifying or bargaining with the Union To the General Counsel's allegations that Respondent's conduct, in changing the terms of a valid bargaining agreement without bargaining with the Union, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), Respondent argues that the Union is barred by the doctrine of laches from asserting their rights, and that the Board is barred by Section 10(b) of the Act from finding a violation The second issue, the alleged violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, revolves around the circum- stances of Jim Taylor's termination of employment The record shows that Taylor had been employed for more than 3 years as a mechanic by Controlled Temperature Transit The employees at that plant were not represent- ed by a union On December 30, 1982, Craig Fielder informed the employees that they were expected to report for work on the following Monday, even though that day, as the first weekday following New Year's Day, was a tradi- tional holiday Taylor, however, did not come in for work on that day and had so informed Craig Fielder In- stead, he had gone to join the Union Thereafter, Taylor worked as usual without any incident until January 10, 1983 On that day, Clarence Fielder received the usual 596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD checkoff list from the Union The list, however, did not only contain the names of the employees of Truck and Dock Services, but also that of Jim Taylor, who, as an employee of Controlled Temperature Transit, had be- longed to a nonunionized work force Taylor's subsequent discharge, according to the Gen- eral Counsel, was prompted by his union application Re- spondent, on the other hand, submits that when Taylor's name appeared on the checkoff list, he had thereby indi- cated his desire to join the unionized work force of Truck and Dock According to Respondent's version of the events, he was simply asked to fill out an application and told that there were no openings at that time, and if an opening became available, he would be considered for employment at Truck and Dock Services The Respond- ent argues that when Taylor subsequently gathered his tools and left the premises he had indicated that he had voluntarily left his employment with Controlled Temper- ature Transit Analysis There is no dispute that Respondent Truck and Dock Services, which, as stipulated by the parties, was bound by the terms of the bargaining agreement with Local 193, had effectuated a change in the agreement on March 10, 1982, by abrogating its overtime provision and by independently agreeing with the drivers to pay for overtime work under a different formula The only ques- tions to be resolved are whether a finding of violation is barred by (a) the Union's failure to challenge the Compa- ny's action until January 14, 1983, and (b) by Section 10(b) of the Act which, in substance, prohibits the issu- ance of a complaint "based upon any unfair labor prac- tice occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board " In this regard, the record shows that the Union's charge was filed on January 14, 1983, or more than 9 months from the time the Company had instituted the change The equitable doctrine of laches is recognized between litigants when there is un- reasonable delay in asserting a right under circumstances prejudicial to the adverse party or where recovery would be prejudicial because of the time delay First, the circumstances in this case, even assuming dilatory con- duct by the Union, do not remotely suggest prejudice to the Respondent based on the Union's failure to timely as- certain Respondent's change of the overtime provision Second, the Respondent failed in its duty to give notice to the Union Had it done so, the Union might have challenged Respondent's action within a reasonable time The Union was unaware of the change in overtime even though its practice was to regularly police compliance with the contract It came to the attention of the Union on December 23, 1982, when one of the employees re- ported it in connection with another matter In short, the Respondent is not in a position to rely on a defense of laches when its own failure to notify and bargain with the Union was certainly a contributing factor, if not the sole reason, for the Union's delay in filing a charge With regard to Section 10(b), Respondent argues, that Respondent's meeting with the employees, as well as its implementation of the new policy occurred on March 10, 1982, more than 6 months in advance of the Union's charge, filed on January 14, 1983 The General Counsel, conceding this point, nevertheless submits that unlike unilateral changes made prior to the 6-month limitation, Respondent's conduct amounted to an abnegation of its obligations under the contract, so that it constitutes a continuing violation of the Act Support for the General Counsel's position is found in Machinists Local 1424 v NLRB, 362 U S 411, 419 (1959), a case relied on by the Respondent There, the Court explained that the theory of continued violation cannot be used to avoid the appli- cability of Section 10(b) But where, as here, evidentiary support for a violation exists within the 6-month period, and without reliance on any evidence prior to that period, Section 10(b) cannot insulate a Respondent from a finding of a violation Here, the evidence shows that Union President Charles Ford and Union Business Agent Edward Elder met with Clarence Fielder and his attor- ney, Stephen M Gentry, on January 12, 1983, at Re- spondent's office Elder asked Fielder about the overtime changes and also reminded him of his obligation to bar- gain with the Union Fielder, however, stated repeatedly that he had gone directly to the men and that he did not see the need to bargain with the Union over the issue Clarence Fielder clearly admitted that the change re- garding overtime was still in effect The record also shows that this practice is not in accord with the applica- ble provision in the existing bargaining agreement Sig- nificantly, Fielder, when requested, continued to refuse to bargain with the Union about the overtime provision I, therefore, find that the circumstances regarding the unilateral changes are clearly beyond reach pursuant to Section 10(b) and serve here for background purposes only, but Respondent's refusal to recognize its bargaining obligation and its continued failure to bargain with the Union violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act The termination of Jim Taylor's employment is basi- cally an issue of fact which, on this record, turns on the credibility of the witnesses In this regard, Taylor testi- fied, as follows, about the events of January 10, 1983, after Fielder had received the checkoff list which, among others, contained Taylor's name Taylor had re- ported for work as usual at 8 a m About 8 30 a m Clar- ence Fielder came to the garage, approached Taylor, and said that, since he chose to switch companies, he wanted him to take the timecards to the office and get things switched over Taylor did as he was told and went to the office There, Fielder instructed him to fill out a job application for Truck and Dock After Taylor had com- pleted the application, Fielder took the job application, asked him whether it was signed, and then told Taylor, "Ok, we don't need you right now I'll let you know if we need somebody" Taylor asked whether he had to clock out, to which Fielder answered, "Yes, you do" Taylor gathered his tools and asked Fielder if he wanted to check his toolbox to make sure that he did not have any company tools Fielder declined and Taylor left the premises He immediately went to the Union and ex- plained the events which had just occurred The Union promptly filed a grievance on Taylor's behalf Respondent's version of this episode is that Taylor simply walked off his job on January 10, 1983, thereby TRUCK & DOCK SERVICES 597 resigning Fielder, in his testimony, initially stated that Taylor had requested to change companies but then con- ceded that Taylor never came to him and requested a change of employment from Controlled Temperature to Truck and Dock, but that he had assumed that Taylor requested the change because he had signed the checkoff authorization Fielder testified further that, even though he observed Taylor gathering up his tools and driving away, he never inquired whether or why he was leaving Moreover, Fielder stated that Truck and Dock did not need a mechanic but Controlled Temperature did Yet Truck and Dock's employees are usually referred to Controlled Temperature for work Fielder did not ex- plain why Taylor could not simply have been employed by Truck and Dock and then referred to Controlled Temperature The scenario offered by Fielder's testimony is implau- sible, inconsistent, and incredible An employer who as- sumed that an employee walked off the plant and quit his job would not likely discuss the need to discharge that employee, further, an employer who observed one of his employees with more than 3 years' job seniority gather- ing his tools, requesting the employer to inspect his tool- box, and leaving the jobsite, would not idly stand by without inquiring the reasons for the employee's con- duct And, an employer who became aware that one of his employees had joined the Union and signed the checkoff authorization would not automatically assume that this employee had chosen to irrevocably switch his employment to another company Finally, Fielder's de- meanor as a witness did not impress me for its veracity He appeared cunning, evasive, and contradictory in his testimony Taylor, on the other hand, appeared truthful and forthright His testimony clearly indicated that his union membership prompted Respondent to require him to make application for employment at Truck and Dock, an affiliated operation Similar to a maneuver involving a double-breasted operation, Taylor was then informed that there were no job openings Considering also the timing of Respondent's conduct in this scheme, it is clear that Respondent was motivated solely by union animus I therefore find that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent, Truck and Dock Services, Inc , is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 2 The Respondent, Controlled Temperature Transit, Inc , is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 3 The Union, Furniture, Department Store & Parcel Delivery Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen Local Union No 193, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 4 Respondent, Truck and Dock Services, Inc , a suc- cessor of City Haul and Storage, Inc , assumed and became legally bound by a collective bargaining agree- ment between the Union and City Haul and Storage Inc 5 The bargaining unit consists of All over-the-road drivers, local drivers, helpers and warehousemen employed by the Respondent Truck and Dock Services, Inc , at the facility as described in Article I of the July 1, 1980 until June 30, 1983, collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and the Company 6 By refusing to bargain with the Union concerning the overtime changes, Respondent Truck and Dock Services, Inc violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act 7 By discriminatorily discharging Jim Taylor because he had joined the Union, Respondents, Controlled Tem- perature Transit, Inc , and Truck and Dock Services, Inc , violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order them to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act The Respondents having discriminatorily discharged their employee Jim Taylor must offer him reinstatement and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from date of dis- charge to date of proper offer of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) Since both cor- porate entities were participants in this scheme and since they are affiliated at least to the extent of common super- visory authority, I find that they are liable jointly and severally Respondent, Truck and Dock Services, Inc , having failed to bargain with the Union concerning the overtime issue must be ordered to bargain in good faith However, since the actual change in the computation of overtime was made prior to the 6-month limitation of Section 10(b) of the Act, I cannot order that the change be re- scinded [Recommended Order omitted from publication ]