Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc.

DECISIONS AND ORDERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In the Matter of SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, INC. and BROTHER- HOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN Case No. C-1181.Decided March 28, 1940 Motor Bus Transportation Industry-Interference, Restraint, and Coercion- Company-Dominated Unions: Employees Association : direct sponsorship by em- ployer ; assistance in formation and participation in administration ; financial and other support ; after formation of successor , employer recognition withdrawn ; -successor inside organization : known by two successive names ; same entity ; domination of and interference with formation and administration; use of facilities , supervisory cooperation ; unrestricted leave privileges for organizers, accorded exclusive recognition in contract as well as check-off ; outside organiza- tion: contrasting denial of privileges to and derogatory statements concerning outside union indicative of preference for inside union; disestablished as repre- sentatives for collective bargaining-Contracts : with organization found to b--- company-dominated ; employer ordered to cease giving effect to-Check-Off collection of dues and assessments for company -dominated organization, by means of ; employer ordered to reimburse employees for deductions from wages in accordance with-Desci imination : allegations of, not sustained by evidence. dismissed. Mr. Daniel J. Leary and Mr. Paul F. Broderick, for the Board. Mr. Ivan Bowen, of Minneapolis, Minn., Mr. Sam O. ,Uargus, of Kansas City, Mo., and Mr. Mark McGee, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the respondent. Mr. V. P. Nutter and Mr. M. A. Darr r, of Kansas City, Mo., and Mn J. A. Farquharson, of Washington, D. C, for the B. R. T. Mr. Karl H. Mueller, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the G. E. U. Mr. Gilbert V. Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon amended charges duly filed by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, herein called the B. R. T.. with the Regional Director for 22 N. L. R. B, No. 1. 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Seventeenth Region (Kansas City, Missouri),' the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its complaint dated February 28, 1938, against Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, herein called the respond- ent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Sec- tion 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The com- plaint, with notice of hearing to be held thereon at Kansas City, Missouri, were duly served on the respondent, the B. R. T., and Grey- hound Employees Union, herein called the G. E. U., a labor organiza- tion alleged in the complaint to be dominated by the respondent. On March 11, 1938, the respondent filed with the Regional Director its separate motions: (1) to transfer the bearing to Fort Worth, Texas, in the Sixteenth Region; (2) to dismiss the complaint because it had not been signed by the Regional Director; and (3) for "further and better particulars" of the matters alleged in the complaint. On the same day it filed, subject to the foregoing motions, its answer to the complaint denying the alleged unfair labor practices and asserting affirmative defenses. On March 21, 1938, the Board denied the re- spondent's motion to transfer the hearing. It did not rule on the- respondent's other motions. They are hereby denied. Pursuant to notice, after a postponement, a hearing was held in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 4, 1938, before Charles W. Whitte- more, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. At the opening of the hearing, the G. E. U. and one D. C. Ellis (an employee of the respondent and a member of the G. E. U.) appeared by counsel 2 and filed motions for leave to intervene. The respondent renewed its motions, previously filed, to transfer the hearing, to dismiss the complaint, and for particulars. The G. E. U. and Ellis moved, subject to a ruling on their motions to intervene, to transfer the hearing to Fort Worth, Texas. Trial Examiner Whitte- more reserved decision on all the motions made before him. No testi- mony was taken. After the Board's formal exhibits were introduced in evidence the hearing was, without objection, adjourned until further notice. i Charges and amended charges had originally been hied by the B R . T with the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region (Fort Worth , Texas ) On December 16, 1937, however, the Board transferred the proceedings from the Sixteenth to the Seventeenth Region. 2 The G E . U and Ellis appeared by Karl H Mueller , an attorney formerly in the employ of the Boaid . On March 30, 1938, the Board barred Mueller from appearing as counsel in this proceeding . On April 4 , 1938, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued an order temporarily restraining the Board from excluding Mueller from participation in the case. On April 6, 1938, the Board vacated its order barring Mueller from appearing as counsel SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 3 Upon further amended charges duly filed by the B. R. T., the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its amended complaint dated October 1, 1938, against the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The amended complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent, the B. R. T., and the G. E. U. Concerning the unfair labor practices the amended complaint al- leged in substance (1) that the respondent dominated and interfered with the administration of three successive labor organizations of the respondent's employees, namely : Employees Association of Southwest- ern Greyhound Lines, Inc.,3 herein called the Association, Greyhound Employees, Inc., herein called G. E., Inc., and -the G. E. U., and con- tributed support to them; (2) that the respondent discouraged mem- bership in the B. R. T. by discharging Dorsey Young, J. F. Moore, and W. L. Nuttal because they had joined and assisted the B. R. T.; and (3) that by the foregoing and other acts the respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. On October 7, 1938,'the respondent filed its answer to the amended complaint denying the alleged unfair labor practices and alleging that a preliminary hearing conducted by the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in October 1937 constitutes a bar to these pro- ceedings in so far as they relate to Young and Nuttal.4 Pursuant to notice a hearing on the amended complaint was held at Kansas City, Missouri, front November 21 to December 3, 1938, before J. J. Fitzpatrick, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board.5 The Board, the respondent, the B. R. T., and the G. E. U. were repre- sented by counsel, participated in the hearing, and, with the limita- tion in the case of the G. E. U. noted below, were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to nitruduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the opening of the hearing D C. Ellis and F. A. Waltersdorf, as individuals and as mem- bers of the G. E. U., filed motions to intervene which the Trial Ex- aminer denied. The G. E. U. filed a motion to intervene generally. The Trial Examiner denied the motion but permitted the G. E. U. to intervene with respect to the issue of its alleged domination by the 3 The complaint incorrectly designated this organization as The Southwestein Giei hound Lines , Inc., Employees Representation Association " At the hearing the Tual Examiner granted the Board 's motion to amend the complaint to correctly designate it as Employees Association of Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc * Our conclusions below, regarding the discharges of Young and Nuttal render unneces- sary any consideration of this allegation of the answer. 5 On November 4, 1938, the Board designated Charles E Persons as Trial Examiner in i, ate of Ch.iilee \V Whittemore and on November 18, 1938, it designated .1 J Fitz- patrick as Tiicl Examiner in plate of Chailes E Persona 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent. The G. E. U. renewed its motion to transfer the hearing to Fort Worth, Texas. The Trial Examiner failed to rule on this motion. It is hereby denied. The respondent renewed its motions (1) to transfer the proceedings to the Sixteenth Region and (2) for "further and better particulars" of the complaint. The Trial Ex- aminer denied both motions. Numerous other motions and numerous objections to the admission of evidence were made and ruled upon at the hearing. At the close of the. hearing the respondent and the G. E. U. moved to dismiss the complaint. The Trial Examiner re- served decision on these motions, which he subsequently denied in part in his Intermediate Report. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no preju- dicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On January 31, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, copies of which were served upon all the parties, in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7), but not within the meaning of Section 8 (3), of the Act. He recommended that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and dis- establish and withdraw all recognition from the G. E. U. He recom- mended, further, that the complaint be dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent discriminatorily discharged W. L. Nuttal, J. F. Moore, and Dorsey Young. Exceptions to the Intermediate Report were filed by the respondent, the B. R. T., the G. E. U., D. C. Ellis, and F. A. Waltersdorf. Briefs in support of the respective excep- tions were thereafter filed by the G. E. U., D. C. Ellis, and F. A. Waltersdorf. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before the Board in Wash- ington, D. C., on November 21, 1939, for the purpose of oral argu- ment. The respondent and the G. E. U. were represented by counsel, and the B. R. T. by a representative; all participated in the argu- ment. The Board has considered the exceptions to the Intermediate Report, the briefs filed, and the arguments advanced at the oral argu- ment before the Board and, in so far as the exceptions are incon- sistent with the findings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. It is engaged in the business of transporting passengers, mail, express, SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 5 and newspapers by motor busses for hire under regularly published tariffs, through the States of Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. Its con- solidated gross revenue for the year ended December 21, 1936, was $4,630,367.84; for the first 9 months of 1938 was $4,193,299.12. Its total consolidated assets on December 31, 1936, were $4,344,038.34. The respondent maintains garages and repair shops essential to the safe and regular operation of its interstate busses 8 in the various cities along its route. On October 31, 1938, the respondent employed a total of 1007 employees, of whom 337 were bus drivers, 226 were garage employees, 258 were agents and station employees, and 186 were general administrative employees. The voting capital stock of the respondent is owned directly or indirectly by the Greyhound Corporation of Delaware. The re- spondent is closely affiliated with other Greyhound Systems in the Greyhound Lines and by means of joint operating traffic and facility arrangements with other Greyhound Systems and interchange ar- rangements with independent bus lines, it operates as a closely co- ordinated part of an integrated system. H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is a national labor organi- zation admitting to membership all bus drivers employed by the respondent. Employees Association of Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., was an unaffiliated labor organization from its inception late in 1933 until April 30, 1937, when the respondent withdrew recognition from it. It admitted to membership all employees of the respondent who had been on the respondent's pay roll for 90 days or longer, except supervisory and colored employees. Greyhound Employees Union is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership all employees of the respondent who have been on the respondent's pay roll for 90 days or longer, except super- visory and colored employees. Although it was never incorporated, the G. E. U. was known, for a short time after its - inception in April 1937, as Greyhound Employees, Inc. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background; domination of the Association In the spring of 1933 the B. R. T. started to organize the re- spondent's 7 bus drivers, established its -Local No. 1006 among them, and sought, unsuccessfully, to secure recognition by the respondent. e The record does not disclose the number of busses operated by the respondent. 1At that time the respondent was known as western Greyhound Lines, Inc. 283033-41-vol 22--2 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In 1934 it abandoned its organizing efforts and closed Local No. 1006. A factor contributing to the failure of the B. R. T.'s early effort was the organization among the respondent's drivers of the Association. On September 15, 1933, the respondent's president addressed a letter to its supervisory and other employees wherein he suggested that they form an inside union and outlined the procedure for organ- izing it. The employees, with the respondent's assistance, followed the suggestions contained in the letter and organized the Association. The Association adopted a constitution and bylaws which the re- spondent had submitted and which contained no provision for the pay- ment of dues. The respondent immediately recognized and shortly thereafter entered into contractual relations with the Association. It contributed all funds necessary for the operation of the Association, paid committeemen of the Association for time spent by them in Association work, and reimbursed them for expenses incurred in connection with such work. It also participated directly in the Association's affairs. The Association continued in existence until April 30, 1937. On that date the respondent withdrew recognition from it under circum- stances more fully described below. During the entire life of the Association the respondent's relation to it remained substantially un- changed. The respondent's domination of and interference with the Association is well illustrated by an incident occurring in 1936. In that year the respondent's president requested and secured the resig- nation of the Association's chairman, J. F. Moore, who was thereupon succeeded in that position by D. C. Ellis. At the hearing the respond- ent's counsel stated that the Association was similar to the labor or- ganization which the Board had found to be employer-dominated in Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., Greyhound Manage- ment Company, Corporations and Local Division No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America 8 We find that from July 5, 1935, to April 30, 1937, the respondent dominated and interfered with the administration of the Association and contributed financial and other support to it, and that the re- spondent thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. Abandonment of the Association; formation of G. E., Ine. and the G. E. U. On February 18, 1937, the respondent's president addressed a letter to all the respondent's employees in which, after assuring them that 81 N. L. R. B. 1, order enforced , 303 U. S. 261. SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 7 the Act did not require them to join a union and that the respondent would bargain individually with any employee who chose not to join a union, and after asserting that the respondent reserved the right to express its opinion as to whether a particular labor organization solicit- ing its employees was antagonistic to the existence and development of the motor bus industry, he stated that until a court of competent jurisdiction should order otherwise the management would continue its relation with the Association as long as the employees should desig- nate representatives in the Association to represent them. On April 12, 1937, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of the Act.° Five days later, Massey, the re- spondent's general claim agent,10 addressed a letter to all committee- men of the Association, stating that he did not yet know what ultimate effect the Supreme Court's decisions would have on the Association, but that the committee should continue exactly as it had in the past. He added that in his opinion the only possible effect the decisions could have would be to prevent the respondent from reimbursing the committeemen for expenses incurred and time lost in the transaction of the Association's business, but that this might not happen for a period of months or even years. Clayton, an Association committee- man, after receiving this letter, discussed the legality of the Associ- ation with other drivers in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He then arranged for a conference with Tibbetts, the respondent's president, and Knutson, its operating manager. The meeting was held at Fort Worth, Texas, on April 21, 1937. Clayton was out of service 4 days because of this conference. The respondent nevertheless paid him for his time and gave him $4.50 a day in addition for expenses. At the meeting Clay- ton told Tibbetts and Knutson that in his opinion, as well as that of other drivers with whom he had spoken, an inside organization would be preferable to the outside labor organization (the B. R. T.) which was trying to organize the respondent's employees. Tibbetts and Knutson expressed their agreement. Clayton next discussed with them and with Massey, who had joined the meeting, the "best and quickest -procedure" of organizing a new inside union. Clayton im- mediately reported the substance of the discussion to Ellis, the Associ- ation's chairman, by long-distance telephone. The call was made on Knutson's phone at the respondent's expense. Clayton then dictated to Knutson's secretary, in Knutson's presence, the following letter : APRIL 21, 1937. To: MR. O. C. ELLIS & GENERAL COMMITTEEMEN : As you probably know, several organizers for various unions are starting to work on the operators of Southwestern Grey- 9National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Langhlnn Steel Corp, 301 U . S. 1, and companion cases 10 At the time of the hearing Massey was the respondent 's personnel director 8 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hound Lines. This activity has shown a marked increase since the decision handed down by the Supreme Court. The operators in the Tulsa region have insisted that I take some action to forestall their efforts to organize us, so I came to Fort Worth and went over our plans with Mr. Tibbetts, Mr. Knutson, and Mr. Massey, and they approved same, which are as follows : 1. Hold a general election for the purpose of electing three (3) Committeemen from each district. The duties of these Committeemen will be to meet with the men they represent and work out any changes in present Memo- randum of Understanding and working Agreement which they desire-it being understood that they are working out an entirely new organization plan and changes must be made to take care of new procedures. 2. After the regional or grievance committees complete this work they are all to meet in Fort Worth and draw up new documents incorporating any changes which may be made. 3. Then these committees will meet with the management for final approval and signing of new agreements. The operators in Tulsa region will want no drastic change in working Agreement, but the Memorandum of Understanding will have to be changed considerably to cover elections, eligibility and procedure. They also have as an objective some workable form of pension and sick benefit plan. They also want to work toward a National Organization of all 'Greyhound employees because if such an organization can be had, the membership would be large enough to really have a pension and sick benefit plan that would be worth something in addition to having a very strong organization. A provision must also be made gov- erning amount of dues and how to be paid. The operators in Tulsa region do not want to affiliate with any other labor organization because they feel that they would only be shouldering the others financial burden and would be dictated to by someone not understanding our problems. Such a plan would work a hardship on both the employees and man- agement, and these operators are well aware of the fact that the employees are not capable of dictating as to the policies of the management and any organization that will be of any benefit is one composed of our own employees who can meet with the management on a compromising basis. SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 9 These operators want some immediate action taken so, if I may, I suggest that you send out notices to all the present Com- mitteemen, explaining in detail the purpose, giving instructions to hold the elections as soon as possible so we may get this under way before some of the labor unions get started with their organization plans. If this is done, we will eliminate a lot of squabbling and ill feeling among the employees. Please let me hear from you as to your opinion on the above- address me 460 St. Louis Street, Springfield, Missouri. B. C. CLAYTON, Committeeman, District No. R. Copies of the letter were made and mailed to all Association com- mitteemen at the respondent's expense. By letter dated April 21, Ellis notified all committeemen of the Association that a meeting would be held in Fort Worth on April 26 "for the purpose of formulating and incorporating an organization under the New United States' law recently upheld," and requested them not to join any organization "until a new organization is effected by the members of the present organization." Ellis testified that he dictated this letter to the secretary of E. T. Bowman, the respondent's superintendent at Denver, Colorado, although Bowman's initials, affixed at the bottom, indicated that the latter had dictated it. In any event the letter was mailed to all committeemen on the respond- ent's interoffice stationery and at its expense. In response to this letter all the Association committeemen, save one, convened at Fort Worth from April 26 to 30, 1937. Clayton testified, without contradiction, that in the course of the meetings he had frequent conversations with officials of the respondent con- cerning the progress of the new organization which was in process of formation and concerning the activities of other labor organiza- tions on the respondent's system. The committee was furnished stationery and a typewriter by the respondent. By the close *of the meetings the committeemen had adopted a constitution, bylaws, and a membership form for a new labor organ- ization which they then called Greyhound Employees, Inc. Just before they adjourned the respondent notified them, by letter dated April 30, that it had withdrawn recognition from the representatives of the Association "as presently constituted." Although it does not appear that the Association ever formally dissolved, it thereupon ceased to exist, for all practical purposes, being supplanted by G. E: Inc., and the G. E. U. The committeemen expected the respondent to defray the expenses of their meeting. Some of them were advised, however, in confer- 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ence with an employee of the Board's Fort Worth office," that under the Act the respondent could not with propriety make any financial contribution to the new labor organization, and that those commit- teemen who had been issued annual passes by the respondent solely because they were committeemen should relinquish the passes. Com- mitteemen holding such passes thereupon surrendered them and received trip passes from the respondent for their return passage to their posts of duty. Tibbetts, learning of the advice given the com- mitteemen, refused a request for a loan to defray the expenses of the meeting. Some of the committeemen had already left Fort Worth. Those who remained obtained a $1,000 loan from a local bank upon their unsecured joint personal note. With this sum they defrayed the expenses. On May 2, 1938, the G. E. U. assumed liability for the note. Ellis testified without contradiction that several' days after the close of the Fort Worth meeting, upon information that it would not be necessary to incorporate the new labor organization, he changed its name, with the acquiescence of all the committeemen, from "Grey- hound Employees, Inc.," to the "Greyhound Employees Union."' C. History of the G. E. U.; the respondent's relations with it Upon the close of the meetings, on April 30, 1937, all of the coin- lnitteemen returned to their respective districts and proceeded to engage in an active membership campaign among the respondent's employees on behalf of the new organization. Clayton testified that immediately upon his return from the meeting he obtained leave of absence for the first week of May from Wise, the respondent's super- visor at Springfield, Missouri, for the stated purpose of holding organ- izational meetings for the new organization in several cities in his district. The respondent's bulletin boards were used to post advance notices of these meetings; in fact, the notice of one meeting, which was posted on the respondent's bulletin board in Tulsa, Oklahoma, had been sent by Clayton in bus mail to Duncan McRae, the respond- ent's district superintendent at Tulsa. Copies of the respondent's notice of withdrawal of recognition of the Association "as presently constituted," and membership application blanks of the new organiza- tion were also posted on the respondent's bulletin boards. Ellis ad- mitted at the hearing that during this organizational period in May 1937, he.also had made free use of the respondent's bulletin boards, personally posting G. E. U. notices thereon. "The employee was Karl H. Mueller , at that time the Board's Regional Attorney for the Sixteenth Region. Mueller thereafter left the Board's employ . He appeared in this proceeding as counsel for the G. E. U. SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 11 According to the testimony of Clayton, the first meeting of the new- organization scheduled by him was to have been held in the drivers' room at the respondent's Springfield terminal, but Clayton, finding that the room was too small, requested Wise to obtain permis- sion to hold the meeting in a larger room under the restaurant in the respondent's terminal. Wise made the necessary arrangements and the meeting was held in this larger room. Soon thereafter, Clayton held other organizational meetings in the drivers' rooms in the re- spondent's terminals at Tulsa and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. While Clayton was in Tulsa,-McRae offered his assistance to the new organi- zation, but Clayton declined to accept it. This testimony of Clayton's stands uncontroverted in the record. We accept it as substantially correct. Again in August 1938 the G. E. U. advantageously used the respond- ent's bulletin board. Rowland, a bus driver of the respondent, who is a committeeman of the G. E. U. and testified on its behalf, stated that Crippin, a dispatcher for the respondent'12 drafted and posted on the respondent's bulletin board at Kansas City, Missouri, a notice signed by Rowland, stating that a meeting of the G. E. U. would be held in the drivers' room at the respondent's Kansas City terminal. During the first part of May 1937 both the B. R. T. and the new organization were actively engaged in organizing the employees of the respondent throughout its system. During the same month exclusive recognition was requested of the respondent, first by the B. R. T. as the representative of its bus drivers, and later by the G. E. U. as the representative of its bus drivers, maintenance and depot employees. At that time the respondent, although expressing its disapproval- of the B. R. T. as mentioned below, refused to negotiate with either organization, insisting that the Board determine the controversy con- cerning representation. As a result, both the B. R. T. and the G. E. U. initiated representation proceedings before the Board which were heard in Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhownd Lines, et at. and The Brotherhood of Railroad Traivn2en.13 On September 14, 1937, the Board ordered that 2 elections be con- ducted among the employees of the respondent. In the election among the bus drivers which was held in October 1937, the B. R. T. received a majority of the ballots cast. Thereafter, the G. E. U. employed Karl Mueller, then engaged in the private practice of la%v, who objected to the results of that election. On November 29, 1937, the Board sustained the objections filed by the G. E. U., vitiated the results of 22A dispatcher collects bus drivers ' trip reports and cash fares and issues receipts therefor. He also exercises direct supervision over the extra drivers. u 3 N. L. R. B. 622, 636. 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the election, and directed that a new election be conducted within 20 days among the bus drivers. 14 On December 4, 1937, the Board indefi- nitely postponed this election.15 Beginning in November 1937 and continuing to the time of the hearing, a check-off arrangement between the respondent and the G. E. U. had been in continuous operation. During that period be- tween $6,500 and $7,000 had been checked off by the respondent and remitted as dues to the G. E. U. On December 8, 1937, the B. R. T. filed an amended charge in the instant proceeding alleging for the first that the respondent had domi- nated and interfered with the administration and formation of the G. E. U. During the same month Ellis, Denny, Rowland, and Plum- lee, Association committeemen who had met in Fort Worth in April, employed counsel who drafted a new constitution for the G. E. U. and bylaws for the Southwestern Region thereof.- In January 1938, the constitution and bylaws were adopted, according to their provisions, by.a majority of the respondent's employees who during the..preceding December had paid dues to the G. E. U77 Nomination and election of committeemen from the various districts within the region by secret ballot followed. Ellis called a meeting of the newly elected committeemen which was held on May 2, 1938, at Fort Worth. Officers were elected and payment of the $1,000 note executed by the committeemen of Associa- tion at Fort Worth in April 1937 was assumed by the G. E. U. Ellis and Denny, chairman and secretary-treasurer, respectively, of the As- sociation were elected to the same respective offices in the G. E. U. On August 29, 1938, the respondent entered into contracts with the G. E. U., providing for recognition of the G. E. U. as the exclusive representative of all the respondent's bus drivers and depot employees, and covering wages, hours, and other conditions of employment."' The contracts, effective on September 1, 1938, were to continue for a term of one year and thereafter from year to year, unless terminated by the parties. 14 4 N. L R. B. 271. 1s 4 N. L. R. B. 272. '$ The constitution provides that the Greyhound Employees Union shall consist of 14 autonomous regional organizations , each embracing one of the 14 companies of the integrated National Greyhound transportation system The regional organization for the respondent 's system is designated as "Greyhound Employees Union-Southwestern Region." 17 The constitution provided that it should become effective when it had been ratified by a majority of the employees in any region who had paid dues to the organization in December 1937 Up to the date of the hearing the employees of no other Greyhound company had affiliated with the G. E. U. 1s The contracts made no provision for the check-off, which was 'apparently covered by separate supplemental agreement. SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 13 D. The respondent's contrasting hostility toward the B. R. T.; inter- ference, restraint, and coercion The B. R. 1'., after its unsuccessful attempts in 1933 and 1934, resumed its organizational activity among the respondent's bus drivers in April and May 1937. The respondent thereupon evinced its hos- tility against the B. R. T. and its favoritism toward the G. E. U. During this period Nutter, special organizer for the B. R. T., was, denied permission by Grey, the respondent's regional manager at St. Louis, Missouri, to hold a B. R. T. meeting in the drivers' room in the respondent's terminal at St. Louis, or to use its bulletin board at that terminal; likewise, Darr, field supervisor for the B. R. T., was refused permission by McRae to use the respondent's bulletin board at Tulsa. In contrast, the Association and its successor inside organization, as mentioned above, with the cooperation of the respondent's officials freely used its bulletin boards as well as its drivers' rooms. Hostility to the B. R. T. was also manifested in the respondent'& practice of granting leaves of absence to its employees for organiza- tional work. Moore testified without contradiction that while he was. a member of the Association he was readily granted leave by his superintendent at all, times without reservation to handle Association business; however, after he joined and became an organizer for the B. R. T., the dispatcher, upon instructions from Musser, a superin- tendent for the respondent at Kansas City, Missouri, informed him on one occasion in May or June 1937 in reply to a request for leave, that if he took additional leave he could turn in his equipment.13 The record does not reveal whether on that occasion Moore stated that lie desired leave for B. R. T. work. However, this denial of leave shortly after Moore had become an active member of the B. R. T., when con- trasted with his prior unrestricted leave privileges seems to us to have been calculated to interfere with the organization of the B. R. T. As we have stated above, Clayton obtained unrestricted leave privi- leges to attend a meeting of the committeemen of the Association at Fort Worth in April, and to hold organizational meeting for the new organization during the first week of May 1937. At the end of that week Clayton joined the B. R. T., but apparently was inactive in its affairs until several days later when he went to Dallas, Texas. Clayton without stating his purpose obtained a week's leave from Wise to make this trip to Dallas where he engaged in B. R. T. organi- zational work. Upon the expiration of that week, Clayton while in Dallas obtained from Wise an additional week's leave. However, after several days of campaigning for the B. R. T. during the first 19 Prior thereto, but without disclosing his purpose, Moore had obtained leave on several occasions to work for the B. R. T. 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD part of the second week, Clayton's leave was canceled by McRae who ordered him back to duty. Upon Clayton's return Wise informed him that he, as distinguished from other drivers at Springfield, would have to obtain his leave from McRae at Tulsa and not from Wise, as had previously been the practice. In October 1937 Clayton was de- nied leave to-act as an observer for the B. R. T. in the election held, in the representation proceedings. Clayton notified Nutter of this and after his protest to the respondent, Clayton was later granted leave. We believe that the difference in treatment of Clayton, as a member of the Association and of the new organization, and later as a member of the B. R. T., was also designed to obstruct the B. R. T.'s organizational work. The record also reveals several anti-B. R. T. statements made by certain of the respondent's officials. Darr testified that Tibbetts, in reply to a query, stated on May 22, 1937, in the presence of Mr. Bowen ,20 that he would not recognize the B. R. T., and that it was not the proper -representative for the respondent's bus drivers, as it was against bus companies. Neither Bowen nor Tibbetts denied this state- ment. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding in his Interme- diate Report that Tibbetts made the statement attributed to him. Robinson, a representative of the B. R. T., testified that in the latter part of May 1937, McRae told him in the presence of several drivers, including McClesky and Smith, that he considered the B. R. T. a "lousy" organization, that he made the statement in the past and would make it again. This testimony was corroborated by statements to the same effect contained in an affidavit signed by McCleskey, Smith, and Robinson on May 26, 1937. Although McRae testified at this hearing he failed to deny this statement. We accept Robinson's testimony as substantially true. Tice, a former employee, testified that, in a conversation with Knutson in January 1938 concerning his reinstate- ment, Knutson asked if Tice belonged to the B. R. T., and upon his negative reply, Knutson said that since Tice was no longer an employee he felt free to speak ; whereupon Knutson further stated that any man who "belonged to the union was going to do some `tall' driving if he stayed with the Company." Knutson denied that he made any state- ment concerning unions during this conversation. The Trial Exam- iner accepted Tice's statement as true in view of Knutson's general attitude toward the B. R. T. We are in agreement with the Trial Examiner's determination. In response to the conflicting claims of the B. R. T. and the G. E. U. made to the respondent for recognition as the exclusive representative of its employees, the respondent had stated in May 1937 and at many 20 Bowen is one of the attorneys who represented the respondent at the hearing and at oral argument. SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 15 times thereafter that it would not recognize the B. R. T. or G. E. U. as the exclusive representative of any of its employees unless the Board had determined the appropriate unit and certified the proper repre- sentative. The respondent maintained this position at least to March 11, 1938, when in its first answer filed in these proceedings it stated that it had adhered to the position above stated. However, on August 29, 1938, over the vigorous protest of the B. R. T., it entered into bar- gaining contracts with the G. E. U. as the exclusive representative of its bus drivers and depot employees, although the G. E. U. had not been certified by the Board as the representative of such employees. Further, while the respondent had previously accorded the G. E. U. a check-off arrangement, on April 15, 1938, it denied the B. R. T. a check-off for its members, stating that "while proceedings are pending before the Labor Board it is necessary to leave all such matters in their present situation". The respondent's recognition of the G. E. U. at a time when it knew that the B. R. T. was claiming to represent a major- ity of its bus drivers, when representation proceedings were pending before the Board, and when charges had been filed alleging that the G. E. U. was an employer-dominated organization, and its refusal to accord the B. R. T. a check-off on the pretext of leaving matters in status quo pending the determination of the Board's proceedings, although it had previously granted a similar request of the G. E. U. during the pendency of those same proceedings, clearly evidence the respondent's favoritism toward the G. E. U. and its hostility toward the B. R. T. We find that the respondent, through its supervisory employees, by indicating to its employees that it was hostile toward the B. R. T. and that it favored an inside labor organization, influenced them against and interfered with their participation in the B. R. T. and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed, by Section 7 of the Act. E. Conclusions regarding the G. E. U. We have found that the respondent sponsored and dominated the Association. After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act, the respondent, doubtful of the Association's legality, col- laborated with the committeemen of that organization in a move to transform it into a new inside union. Having first conferred with Clayton and assisted him in calling the Fort Worth meetings, it con- tinued such consultation and assistance during the course of the meet- ings, thus influencing their outcome. The very language of the re- spondent's letter, withdrawing recognition from the Association "as presently constituted," implicitly assured the committeemen that the 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent would welcome the successor organization. We find that by its'conduct in connection with the meetings of the Association com- mitteemen at Fort Worth in April 1937, the respondent interfered with the formation of the labor organization there initiated under the name of "Greyhound Employees, Inc." That G. E., Inc., was employer-dominated is not seriously ques- tioned. The G. E. U. asserts, however, that it is a new and separate organization, free from the vices, if any, of the Association and of G. E., Inc. The record does not support this contention. In addition to the testimony of Ellis in this proceeding that shortly after the in- ception of G. E., Inc., he changed its name to "Greyhound Employees Union," the record contains his testimony in-the hearing of the repre- sentation case in July 1937 where he stated that the G. E. U. was the same organization as that formed at the Fort Worth meetings and offered, as proof of designation of the G. E. U. as bargaining agent, authorization cards made out in the name of G. E., Inc., as well as of the G. E. U.21 We find that "Greyhound Employees, Inc.," and "`Grey- hound Employees Union" are merely successive names of the G. E. U. In a further effort to dissociate itself from the respondent's unfair labor practices the G. E. U. asserts that its present existence did not officially begin until January 1938 when it adopted its present con- stitution and bylaws. Thus Ellis, notwithstanding his testimony in the representation case, in which the G. E. U. had filed a petition under its present name, testified that at the time of the hearing in that case no labor organization "officially" known as the G. E. U. existed.22 The record, however, reveals no break in the existence or change in the identity of the G. E. U. since April 1937. To the contrary effect., it shows complete continuity of the organization's leading personnel. Ellis, for example, enjoyed uninterrupted leadership. He and the three other individuals who retained Mueller in December 1937 to draft a constitution and bylaws had been among those present at Fort Worth. After its reorganization, moreover, the G. E. U. as- sumed payment of the obligation incurred at Fort Worth by the Association committeemen, thus acknowledging by action more elo- quent than words its debt to the founders of G. E., Inc. We find that the G. E. U. as presently constituted is the same organization as that initiated by the Association committeemen at Fort Worth in April 1937. Aside from and in addition to the respondent's interference with the formation of the G. E. U., the respondent's relations with that organ- ization since its inception require a finding of employer-domination. 21 Ellis' testimony in the representation case was introduced in evidence upon offer by the G E. U. 22 At oral argument before the Board counsel for the G. E U stated that at the time of the hearing in the representation case the G. E. U. was "embryonic." SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 17 From the beginning, as we have shown, the respondent rendered every assistance to the G. E. U., at the same time maintaining uncompro- mising hostility toward the B. R. T. Outstanding examples of this favoritism are found in the respondent's action in making its facilities available to the G. E. U. to the exclusion of the B. R. T. and in grant- ing a check-off and recognition agreement to the G. E. U. but with- holding both advantages from the B. R. T. although both unions had petitioned the Board for certification and the representation proceeding remained undetermined.23 The role of Ellis, too, supports our conclusion as to the nature of the G. E. U. Ellis assumed the chairmanship of the Association follow- ing Moore's resignation at the respondent's request. These circum- stances justify the inference that Ellis was satisfactory to the re- spondent in that position. In his subsequent position as head of the G. E. U. Ellis necessarily served as a symbol of the respondent's wishes regarding employee self-organization, thereby vitiating the freedom of choice of employees who joined that union. To a lesser degree the same is true of other Association committeemen who became leaders in the G. E. U. Under all the circumstances of the case we find no merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the G. E. U. that because it has a constitution and bylaws, adopted by secret ballot, which purports to eliminate from its structure all employer-participation in its affairs and because it has operated under its constitution in a democratic manner it is capable of functioning as a bargaining representative free of the respondent's influence and control. At the hearing the Trial Examiner properly denied a request of the G. E. U. to take the deposi- tion of all its members to show that they signed a G. E. U. check-off order of their own free will and that they desire to preserve the con- tract obtained by the G. E. U. Such evidence is immaterial to the issue'24 which is not what choice the employees made, but whether they had freedom of choice, or whether, as we find, the existence of the G. E. U. and its recognition by the respondent obstructed their freedom of choice.25 We find that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the G. E. U., and contributed support to it, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We find further that the G. E. U. is incapable of serving the respondent's 23 The recognition agreement was granted the G. E U. during the pendency of charges alleging it to be employer dominated. =+ See Matter of Emsco Derrick and Equipment Company (D & B Division ) and Steel Workers,Organizing Committee, 11 N L. R B. 79. 25 Nat,onal Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company, 308 U. S 241. 1H DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. F. The alleged discriminatory discharges W. L. Nuttal was discharged by the respondent on September 16, 1937. He had been a bus operator for 11 years . Although the exact term of Nuttal's employment by the respondent does not appear, he had worked on the respondent's regular run between Kansas City and St. Louis for 5 or 6 years. Nuttal had a good driving record, having earned a star rating for 4 consecutive years .20 In 1935, the respondent selected Nuttal as a master operator to assist in the in- struction of new operators and to observe the operations of other drivers. After several months he resigned from this position as it kept him away from home, and returned to his former regular run. Nuttal was an active B. R. T. member , having been elected secretary- treasurer of Local 1006 in 1933 . Again in 1937 he openly resumed his B. R. T. activities, collected dues and solicited lnembers, and was elected national 'representative from the newly formed- Local' 1001. On September 16 Musser , district superintendent, by telephone in- formed Nuttal, who had been ill for several days, that Musser had orders from Fort Worth to take Nuttal out of service permanently. Musser told Nuttal then, as well as on two subsequent occasions, that the respondent had not informed Musser of the reason for the dis- charge. About a week later , according to Nuttal, Massey, personnel director, hold him, in response to a query as to why he had been dis- charged, "Well , it looks like these cash fares will catch up with you." Some mention was also made of an adverse checker report on Nuttal. Nuttal denied at that time and again at the hearing that he had misappropriated any cash fares. Knutson testified that he discharged Nuttal for failing to account for a $2.00 cash fare collected from a passenger on September 2, 1937. The uncontradicted evidence is that Knutson received a checker re- port 27 from a, Pinkerton detective showing that on'September 2, 1937, Nuttal collected a $2.00 cash fare for which he failed to issue a receipt, and that Knutson checked Nuttal's trip report for that day and found no evidence that a $2.00 fare had been collected or that the fare had been turned in. Immediately thereafter Knutson had Nuttal dis- charged.. At the hearing the Pinkerton detective confirmed the state- 26 Under respondent's system a new driver was rated B ; after 6 months of good work he was rated A ; then after a year he was rated AA ; after another year he was rated AAA ; and after 2 years with a record of no accidents, and provided he had a one-year record without any infraction of rules, he was given a star rating . Each advancement carried an additional 1/4 cent per mile increase in compensation. 27 The respondent employs the Pinkerton Detective Agency to check its drivers at irregu- lar times for honesty and for infractions of its rules and regulations. SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 19 ments made in his report, which is in evidence. Knutson stated that it was a policy of the respondent to discharge a driver immediately, regardless of his prior record, for failing to account for cash fares. J. F. Moore was discharged by the respondent on July 3, 1937, He had been employed as a bus driver by the respondent and its prede- cessors for many years. Moore earned his star rating in 1934 and kept it until April 1936, when it was revoked because of an altercation with the superintendent of another bus company. Thereafter, Moore was suspended several times because of certain complaints lodged against him. He never regained his star rating. Moore was chairman of the Association from 1933 to 1936 when he resigned at the request of the respondent. In April 1937 he joined the B. R. T. and became an active member and organizer. On one occasion, as we have shown, he was denied leave for a trip on behalf of the B. R. T. and was admonished by a dispatcher that if he took time off he would have to turn in his equipment. On July 3, 1937, Musser told Moore of the receipt of instructions from , Fort, Worth to take Moore out,of service, but denied knowledge of the reason, therefor. On July 8 Moore, after Musser again stated that he did not know the reason for the discharge, wrote to Musser, sending a copy of the letter to Knutson, requesting a hearing on his dismissal. He failed to receive a reply or obtain a hearing. Later Musser told Moore that the respondent had discharged him for fail- ing to account for cash fares amounting to $12.60. At the hearing Mooi-e denied this charge. Knutson testified that Moore was discharged for failure to report cash fares. A checker report, verified at the hearing by a Pinkerton detective and his wife who had accompanied him, showed that on June 25, 1937, the detective paid Moore four cash fares amounting to $12.60, for which Moore failed to give a receipt. A check of Moore's report for that day, which is in evidence, failed to show that transaction. The discharges of Nuttal and Moore are suspicious in view'of their activity on behalf of the B. R. T. and the respondent's hostility toward that organization. The record is clear, however, that re- ported cash shortages were the immediate cause of the discharges. It is not contended or shown that the respondent instituted a closer check of Nuttal and Moore than of other drivers or that the respond- ent had failed to discharge other drivers on similar evidence. With- out determining whether or not Nuttal and Moore were actually guilty of withholding cash fares, we find that the record does not support the allegations of the complaint with respect to them. Dorsey Young was first employed by the respondent as an extra driver in May 1935 and obtained a regular run in September 1936. 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD He joined the B. R. T. on May 15, 1937, attended three meetings, and regularly wore his B. R. T. button. According to Young, on June 18, 1937, McRae discharged him, assigning bad checker reports, particularly with regard to reckless driving, as the reason. Young admitted also that he had been reprimanded about a week,or two before his discharge because of another bad checker report and would have been suspended for four days but for the fact that the respond- ent needed drivers and deferred the suspension. After his discharge Young saw Knutson in Fort Worth. Knutson read the unfavorable reports and complaints concerning Young and said that there was no place in the organization for him as he could not obey orders. Knutson testified that after he had received the last of the two unfavorable checker reports on Young dated May 26 and June 11, respectively, he ordered Young's dismissal because he considered the latter "too big a risk as a driver." Knutson said he arrived at the conclusion from numerous unfavorable checker reports and reports from the superintendents. The personal-history file ='^, of Young, which was corroborated by testimony, clearly shows that from the beginning of his employment until the time of his discharge there had been many complaints lodged against Young, and that he had been reprimanded and penalized for them on numerous occasions. Some of the specific complaints lodged against him are as follows : A 1936 report charged him with driving too fast and talking too much to passengers; during the spring and early summer of 1937 he was charged with carrying a passenger beyond her destination; speeding and reckless driving; following another bus too close; being discourteous to a passenger; arguing with a ticket agent; pulling into the station too fast; and being warned by highway patrolmen about his reckless driving. Young admitted some of the charges and sought to excuse others. Upon the entire record we are of the opinion and we find that the respondent did not discharge Young because of his membership in or activity on behalf of the B. R. T. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE We find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. 28 Respondent keeps a file on each driver , containing all reports and matters concerning the conduct and driving records of the driver. SOUTHWESTERN GREYHOUND LINES, INC. THE REMEDY 21 As we have found that the respondent has engaged in and is engag- ing in unfair labor practices, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the respondent has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of the G. E. U. and contributed support to it and that the G. E. U. is incapable of serving the respond- ent's employees as their genuine representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, we shall order the respondent to withdraw recog- nition from and disestablish the G. E. U. as such representative. Since the contracts between the respondent and the G. E. U. embody recogni- tion of the G. E. U. as the representative of the respondent's drivers and depot employees, we shall order the respondent to cease and desist from giving effect to the contracts heretofore described or any other contracts or agreements it may have entered into with the G. E. U. in regard to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other condi- tions of work. We have found that the respondent has maintained and is now main- taining a check-off system for the G. E. U. The G. E. U. contends that every member of the G. E. U. signed his check-off authorization voluntarily and without coercion by the respondent and made an offer of proof, which we accept as testimony for the purpose of this argu- ment, that all its members would testify to that effect. In view of the circumstances, however, we can not consider this evidence probative of voluntary action by the employees. We have found that the 're-' domination and interference in the administration of the G. E. U. precluded a free and untrammelled choice of this organization by the employees ; thus by the salve token, it also precluded a- free and uncoerced acceptance of the check-off. Our views on the subject as set forth in Hatter of The Heller Brothers Company of Newcomers- town and International Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop 'Forgers, and Helpers'29 are applicable to this case. We there stated : It seems plain to us that the authorization by.'an employee for, the check-off of dues owed to an organization which his employer- has formed and continues' to dominate cannot be considered : as having been voluntarily given by the employee.. When check-off authorizations are sought under such conditions the employee •is 21 7 N. L R B. 646. See also Matter of Lone Star Bag and Bagging Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee , 8 N L R. B 244; Matter of West Kentucky Coal Company and United Mine Workers of America, District . No. '23, ' 10 N. L R B. B. 88 Matter of IV,lhams Coal Company and United Mine Workers of America, District go. 23, 11 N L. R. B. 579; Matter of Western Union Telegraph Company, A Corporation, and Aumeoxcan Comnuunication8 Association , 17 N L. R. B 34. 283033-41-N of 22-3 22, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD placed in the position of permitting the check-off or of putting himself squarely upon record of openly opposed to the Company's wishes. No employee confronted with such an option can be re- garded as having exercised free choice. Thus the same pressures' by the respondent which compelled its employees to abandon their free choice of representatives enforced their acquiescence in the check-off. Under these circumstances we will restore the status quo by ordering the respondent to reimburse its employees for amounts deducted from wages as dues for the Independent. Consequently, we shall order the respondent to reimburse its employees, for amounts deducted from wages as dues for the G. E. U. We will also order the respondent to cease its use of the check-off in behalf of the G. E. U. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the proceeding, the Board makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Greyhound Employees Union, formerly known as Greyhound Employees, Inc., is a labor organization, within the meaning of Sec- tion 2 (5) of the Act. 3. Employees Association of Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., was a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 4. By dominating and interfering with the formation and adminis- tration of Employees Association of Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., and Greyhound Employees Union, formerly known as Greyhound Employees, Inc., and contributing support thereto the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the mean-' ing of Section 8 (2) of the Act. 5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees„in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 7. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of W. L. Nuttal, J. F. Moore, and Dorsey Young, or any of them, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of. the, Act. -SOUTHWESTESN' GREYHOUND • LINES, INC. ' ' ' 23 ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, Southwestern Greyhound Lines, Inc., and its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of Grey- hound Employees Union, or the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees, and contributing, support to Greyhound Employees Union, or any other organization of its. employees; (b) Recognizing Greyhound Employees Union as the represent- ative of any of its employees for the purposes of dealing with the: respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of work; (c) In any manner giving effect to its contracts above described, or any other contracts or agreements it may have entered into, with Greyhound Employees Union in respect to wages, hours, or other conditions of employment; (d) In any manner making deductions from the pay or wages of its employees, or any of them, for dues or fees ,payable, or to become payable, to Greyhound Employees Union; (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activ- ities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will- affectuate the policies of the Act; (a) Withdraw all recognition from Greyhound Employees Union as the representative of any of its employees for the purposes of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,, ' rates, of- pay, wages,, hours of employment, or conditions of work, and completely disestablish Greyhound Employees Union, as such representative ; (b) Reimburse, individually and in full, all employees who were, or still are, members of Greyhound Employees Union for all dues and assessments, if any, which it has deducted from their wages, salaries, or other earnings on behalf of Greyhound Employees Union; (c) Post immediately in conspicuous places in all of-its terminals in each of its divisions notices to itsemployees,'stating' (1) 'that the, 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent will cease and desist as provided in paragraph 1 (a), (b), (c),.(d),.and, (e) of this Order, and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action-set forth in paragraph 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; (d) Maintain such notices for a period of at least 60 days from the date of posting; (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed in so far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act by discharging W. L. Nuttal, J. F. Moore, and Dorsey Young.