Texarkana Bus Co., Inc.

In the Matter of TEXARKANA Bus COMPANY, INC. and Two- STATES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., and AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH_ THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Case No. C-1591 -Decided August 15, 1940 Jurisdiction : motor transportation industry. Unfair Labor Practices Interference, Reotraint, and Coercion anti-union statements; declarations of union preference; discharge of one employee subsequent to his disclosure of his union activities and as a consequence thereof; interrogation concerning union member- ship and activities, preparation and solicitation of employees to sign letter renunciating the Union, use of employment application form calling for state- ment of labor organization of which applicant a member; discharge of one em- ployee as, dismissed as to one of the respondents. Discrimination: change of work shifts, suspensions, and discharges, refusal to reinstate an employee after leave of absence. Collective Bargaining- union's majority indicated by express authorization; effect of withdrawal of designation as a result of unfair labor practices-failure to negotiate in good faith: conditioning recognition on proof of majority while endeavoring to destroy majority by causing employees to sign letters renunicat- ing the Union. Remedial Orders : respondent ordered to bargain collectively; reinstatement ordered: as to employees found to be discriminatorily transferred prior to dis- criminatory discharge, to positions held prior to the transfers; back pay awarded Unit Appropriate for Collective, Bargaining : regular and extra bus drivers exclud- ing those drivers who have not finished a complete day's run Mr. Samuel Lang, for the Board. Mr. Ned Stewart, of Texarkana, Ark., for the respondent. Mr. J. D. Elliott, of Shreveport, La., and Zimring & Rabe, by Mr. 0. David Zimring, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union. Mr Malcolm A. Hofmann, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges i duly filed by Amalgamated Association of Street , Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees i Attached to the complaint is a second amended charge filed January 17, 1940 Three separate amend- ments to the second amended charge were filed on March 2, 6, and 7, 1940, respectively. 26 N. L. R B., No 63. 582 TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, IN C. 583 of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Amalgamated, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana) issued its complaint dated February 5, 1940,2 against the Texarkana Bus Company, Inc., and the Two-States Transportation Company, Inc., herein separately called the Bus respondent and the Taxi respondent, and collectively called the respondents, alleging that the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint as amended 3 alleged in substance (1) that the Bus respondent discharged Frank J. Thomas in September 1935 because of his activities in behalf of the formation of a labor organization; (2) that the respondents in October 1937, and for several months thereafter, interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in connection with the International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, Local Union #880, herein called the Teamsters; (3) that the respondents similarly interfered with, restrained, and coerced their employees by detailed acts beginning on or about May 29, 1939, in connection with the Amalgamated; (4) that the respondents discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Robert L. "hhatley, Jr., Laurence S. Medley, John W. Earnest, George A. Goss, Burnyl B. Lurry, W. H. Reynolds, and William B. Pierce, by discharging and refusing to reinstate them because of their union activities and thereby dis- couraging union membership and activity; (5) that the respondents discriminated in respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Robert L. Whatley, Jr., W. H. Reynolds, and William B. Pierce by changing their work shifts; (6) that the respondents discriminated in respect to the hire and tenure of employment of W. H. Reynolds, E. A. Herndon, Jr , and William B. Pierce by laying off Reynolds for 15 days, Herndon for 15 days, and Pierce for 45 days; (7) that the Bus respondent, since on or about June 1, 1939, has refused to bargain collectively with the Amalgamated as the exclusive representative of the employees of the Bus respondent in an appropriate unit of bus drivers and extra bus drivers, and, in interference with the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, has induced certain of its employees to sign letters terminating their affiliation with the Amalgamated. The complaint and accompanying notice of hearing were duly served on the respondents. On February 15, 1940, the respondents 2 Three separate amendments to the complaint were issued on March 2, 6, and 7, 1940, respectively 3 At the beginning of the hearing the respondents waived notice of the amendments to the complaint and the Trial Examiner granted them leave to file answers thereto at any time during the progress of the hearing 584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD filed their answers denying that they had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.' Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Texarkana, Arkansas, on March 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13, 1940, before George Bokat, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respondents, represented by counsel, and the Amalgamated, by its representative, participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing counsel for the Board moved to amend the complaint to include in paragraphs 20 and 23 thereof the name of William B. Pierce as having been discriminated against, and to strike from said para- graphs the name of John W. Earnest. At the conclusion of the hearing the Board's attorney moved that the pleadings be conformed to the proof in regard to minor details and moved for permission to take the deposition of one Thomas S. Neblett.5 The Trial Examiner granted these motions. The attorney for the Board also moved to take the depositions of certain other persons and this motion was denied by the Trial Examiner. At the close of the Board's case and at the conclusion of the hearing, the respondents addressed various motions to the complaint and to the sufficiency of the proof adduced in support thereof. The respondents' motion to dismiss that part of the complaint alleging a violation of Section 8 (3) of the Act in respect to W. H. Reynolds, was granted by the Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner reserved decision on similar motions to dismiss the complaint with respect to Laurence F. Medley, John W. Earnest, Burnyl B. Lurry, G. Allen Goss, Robert L. Whatley, Jr., and W. B. Pierce. The Trial Examiner also reserved decision on the motion of the Bus respondent to dismiss that part of the complaint alleging that it had violated Section 8 (5) of the Act, the motion of the Taxi respondent to dismiss the com- plaint in its entirety in respect to it, and the motion of both respond- ents to dismiss an allegation of surveillance of their employees' union activities. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the ad- mission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report dated May 27, 1940, copies of which were duly served upon the respondents and the Amalgamated, in which he granted the motion of the Bus respondent 4 The respondents also filed answers to the amendments to the complaint denying the alleged unfair labor practices set forth therein. b On March 27, 1940, after the termination of the hearing , the Trial Examiner signed and caused to be served on all parties an order receiving in evidence as Board Exhibit No 38 a stipulation by the parties of certain facts within the knowledge of Thomas S Neblett, in lieu of his testimony by deposition. By the same order the Trial Examiner received in evidence Board Exhibit No 35 in connection with the proposed testimony of Neblett, upon the admission of which ruling had been reserved. TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 585 to dismiss that part of the complaint alleging a violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act, and also granted the respondents ' motion to dismiss those parts of the complaint alleging violations of Section 8 (3) of the Act in respect to Laurence S. Medley, John W. Earnest and Burnyl B. Lurry, but denied similar motions addressed to similar allegations respecting George A. Goss , Robert L. Whatley, Jr., and William B. Pierce. The Trial Examiner in his Intermediate Report also denied the motion of the Taxi respondent to dismiss the complaint in its entirety in regard to it and granted the motion made by both respond- ents to dismiss the surveillance allegation . The Trial Examiner found that the Bus respondent had in engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and that the Taxi respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the respondents cease and desist from their unfair labor practices , that the Bus respondent offer full reinstatement to William B. Pierce, Robert L. Whatley, Jr., and George A. Goss, and make them whole for any loss of pay resulting from their discriminatory discharges , and further recommended that the Bus respondent make whole E . A. Herndon, Jr., and William B. Pierce for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their discriminatory suspensions of 15 and 45 days, respectively. On June 14, 1940, the respondents filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report, and on June 16 , 1940, the Amalgamated filed its exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to notice a hearing for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board in Washington , D. C., on July 9, 1940. The respondents were represented by counsel and participated. The Board has considered the exceptions of the respondents and the Amalgamated and, save as they are consistent 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 I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS The Bus respondent is a Texas corporation engaged exclusively in the business of carrying passengers in commercial buses in and between the cities of Texarkana , Arkansas, and Texarkana , Texas. The rev- enue of the Bus respondent is solely derived from 5-cent fares, and in the first 6 months of 1939 approximated $35,000. The annual revenue 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the Bus respondent is apportioned at 60 per cent for services rendered in the State of Texas and 40 per cent for services rendered in Arkansas. The routes of the Bus respondent run from points in Texarkana, Texas, to points in Texarkana, Arkansas, and about 60 per cent of the territory served is in Texas with the balance in Arkan- sas. The Bus respondent furnishes the only means of transportation available to the public at large, in, between, and through the cities of Texarkana, Texas, and Texarkana, Arkansas, other than taxicabs. Each of the buses used, traverses a route to and from both cities more than 10 times a day. The officers of the Bus respondent are C. E. Mitchell, president, -Bero Eldridge, vice president, and Joseph Eldridge, secretary-treasurer. C. E. Mitchell and Joseph Eldridge control the operations and labor policies of the Bus respondent. The Taxi respondent is a Texas corporation engaged exclusively in the operation of taxicabs for transportation purposes in, between, and through, the cities of Texarkana, Texas, and Texarkana, Arkansas. The taxicabs operated by the Taxi respondent travel daily to and from points in Texas and Arkansas and, during the first 6 months of 1939, produced a revenue of approximately $9,000. Although the appor- tionment of revenue obtained by the Taxi respondent from its services is difficult to ascertain, the Taxi respondent believes that about 60 per cent of its annual income is derived from services in Texas and about 40 per cent from Arkansas. The officers of the Taxi respondent are C. E. Mitchell, president, and Joseph Eldridge, secretary-treasurer. The Trial Examiner found that the Bus respondent and Taxi respond- ent, although owned by the same stockholders and managed by the same Board of Directors and the same officers, are operated as two separate and distinct corporations. The respondents concede that they are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership regular and extra bus drivers of the Bus respondent. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, Local #880, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Interference, restraint, and coercion When on or about January 1, 1935, the Bus respondent began its operations, it put into effect a printed application form to be filled out and signed by applicants for work. This form, apparently still in TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 587 use, contains the following request: "Name any lodge, labor or benefit organization of which you are a member." Although there is evidence indicatmg.that not all applicants were required to fill out these forms, they were still used in July of 1939.6 It is apparent that the refusal to fill in this blank might create the inference that the applicant is a member of a labor organization and that the request itself deters con- certed activity by both applicants for employment and employees who have filled in the application blank.' Employees of the Bus respondent first interested themselves in a labor organization in September 1935, when Frank J. Thomas and Mike Hatler, bus drivers, arranged with one Eugene Sullivan, an A. F. L. local organizer, for the holding of a meeting among employees of the Bus respondent in order to discuss the formation of a union. Shortly thereafter such a meeting was held and attended by 10 to 20 employees of the Bus respondent, including most of the day-shift bus drivers, and a few truck drivers from local companies. At this meet- ing Thomas was elected temporary treasurer for the purpose of col- lecting initiation fees to procure a charter from the"Teamsters Union." Thomas was the only officer elected that evening, and the meeting was adjourned until the,following week. Thomas testified that the next morning he learned from Eldridge that the Bus respondent had given him a 90-day suspension because his "services had been unsatisfactory for sometime." According to Thomas, he was unable to get a specific reason for his suspension and inquired whether the union had something to do with it. Then, "after I mentioned the union he (Eldridge) kmda got a little bit mad and said that I was fired." Thomas testified that Eldridge said "he didn't think that we ought to have organized the truckers and the teamsters union-said that we ought to have a union of our own find he said that if that was my attitude toward the company that I was fired." Al- though Eldridge admitted that he had the right to hire and discharge, he denied that he had discharged Thomas and testified that Mitchell had done the discharging. Both Eldridge and Mitchell testified that they had no knowledge whatsoever of the union before an organizer named Sullivan questioned them about the reasons for Thomas' dis- charge. It was not denied that Thomas had first been suspended for 90 days and then discharged. The Trial Examiner did not make the finding that Thomas' suspension resulted from his union activities but did find that Thomas was discharged subsequent to his disclosure of his union activities and as a consequence thereof. There was no 6 The form is drafted upon a model borrowed from another company 7 Other evidence of interference with the union activity of its employees by the Bus respondent, discussed infra, lends weight to the inference that this question was asked with the view of obtaining information concerning the union affiliation of employees or applicants for employment The situation presented is thus different from that in Matter of Hartsell Mills Company and Textile Workers' Organizing Committee, 18 N. L. R. B , 288, at page 14. 588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD specific denial of the testimony that Thomas was discharged following this disclosure, and, giving weight to the circumstance that the Bus respondent failed to advance any cause for the dismissal, we agree with the finding of the Trial Examiner. Following the discharge of Thomas only two or three of the respondent's bus drivers attended the next scheduled meeting of the employees and the attempt to obtain a union charter was abandoned. The next effort to organize the drivers of the Bus respondent took place in the fall of 1937, when William B. Pierce, a bus driver, com- municated with Sullivan and told him that the employees of the respondent bus company were again going to try to form a union. This organizational campaign resulted in the obtaining of a charter from International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers, on October 11, 1937, and the creation of a Local known as Local #880. Nearly all of the Bus respondent's drivers joined Local #880. Shortly after the installation of the charter the Local decided to admit to membership truck drivers of the Kenosha Auto Transportation Company, a local trucking company. Robert L. Whatley, Jr., a bus driver, testified that within a few days after the formation of Local #880, Mitchell, president of the respondents, questioned him about it and stated, "that he would like for us to have gotten into a union of our own." Although Mitchell denied making this remark, other witnesses ascribed similar state- ments to him, and the Trial Examiner, who observed his demeanor, found that the remark was made. Whatley further testified that about two weeks after the formation of Local #880, Mitchell and Eldridge called a meeting of the day-shift drivers at which Mitchell informed them "that he was very much hurt that the boys" had joined "the union without talking to him about it." Pierce testified that either Mitchell or Eldridge inquired why the drivers wanted to join a union and informed them that they did not want their drivers to be in a union with truck drivers. Whatley and Pierce both testi- fied that Mitchell and Eldridge stated that they were going to have all of the Bus respondent's rules compiled into a Rule Book and "they told us they could find things in this book of rules to fire us about other than belonging to the union." Other witnesses testified to the same threat. On or about November 30, 1937, the Bus re- spondent distributed a printed book of rules to all of its drivers con- taining all the rules previously posted from time to time on the Bus respondent's bulletin board. In addition to the meeting described above, at about the same time Mitchell and Eldridge also addressed a meeting of the night- shift drivers concerning Local #880. H. Gordie Brown, a driver, who attended, testified that "they talked like they were against it [Local 880]; they didn't say that they were, but they wanted to know why TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 589 we wanted to join it and what good we thought it would do us." Both Mitchell and Eldridge denied calling these meetings and denied making the statements attributed to them. Mitchell, asked by the respondents' counsel, "Did you warn any of the employees that there were lots of things that you could fire your drivers for?" replied, "I don't remember it if I did." Nevertheless four of the Bus respond- ent's witnesses, C. J. Niemeyer, Hugh Keller, Paul H. Bean, and Victor Vetrano admitted attending a meeting in 1937 during which Mitchell and Eldridge discussed Local #880, and Vetrano recalled Mitchell stating "that they thought the boys ought to have a union of their own." We therefore find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the officers of the Bus respondent called the meetings aforesaid and made the remarks attributed to them.' Following closely in the wake of these two meetings, James Howell and Roy Westmoreland, president and vice president of Local #880, respectively, were discharged by the Bus respondent.' The Trial Examiner found that "while clearly suspicious, the discharges of How- ell and Westmoreland were not supported by sufficient proof to estab- lish that they were discriminatory within the meaning of the Act." We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion. After the discharges of Howell and Westmoreland the bus drivers' interest in Local #880 waned and all dropped out of it by the time union dues were next to be paid. Robert L. Whatley, Jr., testified that he did not pay dues after paying his initiation fee because "they fired the president and the vice-president and I thought it best to drop out while I could and I didn't want any trouble." 10 One Jess Stevens testified that about the time when Local #880 was formed he applied to Mitchell for a job. Mitchell asked him whether he belonged to a union, and being told that he did not, said, "Well, stick around, I might need about 22 men, [approximately the number of bus drivers] ... 1 am going to show these boys who is the bull of the woods." Organizer Sullivan testified that shortly after the formation of Local #880, a proposed contract was submitted by the- Local to the Bus respondent to which the latter replied by returning its own form of agreement which the Local rejected, and that-negotiations then ceased and an agreement was never jointly executed because at about that time the employees of the Bus respondent began to drop out of Local #880. The contract as submitted by the Bus respondent to the union consisted for the most part of a compilation of existing company 9 In reaching this conclusion, we give weight to the testimony of one D T Lurry, who was not an em- ployee of the Bus respondent but was a close friend of Eldridge„that Eldridge told him, "if he wanted to fire a man, that they had rules and that some of them were always breaking the rules and he said anytime they broke a rule he could fire them if he wanted to 9 On or about November 5, 1937 19 H. Gordie Brown was asked, "Did you have any particular reason for dropping out of Local #880?" and answered, "Well, two of the boys got fired and all the rest of us all dropped out." Pierce also stated that he dropped out of Local #880 because "they fired a couple of the drivers " 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD rules and regulations. The Bus respondent contended that it evi- denced its good faith in dealing with labor organizations by signing the agreement exactly as presented by Local #880 and that it "operated in accordance with the terms and provisions thereof . . . for several months in perfect accord and harmony." Both Mitchell and Eldridge testified that after first obtaining the approval of their attorney, the agreement was signed exactly as presented, but admitted that it was never executed by Local #880. The provisions of the alleged agree- ment signed by the Bus respondent indicate the unlikelihood of its having been prepared by the union, and it is not reasonable to assume that Local #880 rejected the very agreement that it had submitted for the Bus respondent's approval. It is, moreover, apparent that the Bus respondent did not operate under the said agreement as alleged in its answer. In view of the anti-union conduct of the Bus respondent, set forth above, occurring coincidentally with the alleged execution of the agreement submitted by the union, we do not credit the Bus respondent's contention that it executed the agreement presented by Local #880.11 On May 27, 1939, J. D. Elliott, a special organizer for the Amal- gamated, arrived in Texarkana and began to organize the regular and extra bus drivers of the Bus respondent. On June 12, 1939, Elliott already had sufficient applicants to present a charter ,and to appoint temporary officers. Pierce signed an application for membership on May 30, 1939. He testified that within a few days thereafter Eldridge told him ". . . we knew that you boys were going to organize and we decided to let you go ahead and do what you wanted to . . . when you boys get ready to bring a contract in here to sign, you bring it in here yourself and don't send Mr. Elliott, we don't want to deal with him." Although Eldridge denied having made this remark, the Trial Exam- iner, weighing the demeanor of both witnesses, found that he did so, and we so find. It is thus apparent that at this time the Bus respond- ent was aware of the organizational activities of Elliott and some of its employees.12 On June 13, 1939, Elliott and a committee of the Amalgamated, consisting of Pierce, Whatley, Brown, Westmoreland,13 and Herndon, met with Mitchell and Eldridge. Elliott stated that the Amal- gamated represented a majority of the regular and extra bus drivers and that he desired to negotiate a contract.14 Mitchell and Eldridge refused to enter into bargaining negotiations until Elliott showed proof of the claimed majority by divulging the names of the drivers 11 In this connection we note the testmiony of Whatley that one Bertell , a business agent designated to negotiate the contract by the union, reported that the Bus respondent refused to sign the contract submitted by the union but signed one drawn up by its attorney which was unacceptable to Local #880. 19 See Section III E, infra 1' Westmoreland was reemployed by the Bus respondent several months after his discharge in November of 1937 I' See Section III C 2, infra. TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 591 constituting the majority. This Elliott refused to do. Elliott, however, at the request of Eldridge, indicated who were the temporary officers.15 The meeting consumed only a few minutes since it was agreed to adjourn until the following morning when the problem would be discussed more thoroughly, due to the fact that the shifts of the bus drivers were about to change. Later that afternoon Mitchell and Eldridge, after consultation with their attorney, prepared letters all reading substantially as follows: TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC., Texarkana, Texas, June 13, 1939.16 Mr. J. D. Elliott, or To whom it may concern: GENTLEMEN: The purpose of this letter is to advise you that I do not wish for you or anyone else to bargain for or make any kind of a contract for me or in my behalf with the Texarkana Bus Company, Inc. Yours truly, Mitchell and Eldridge both admitted that they asked most of their drivers to sign letters similar to the one above set forth. In connec- tion with this incident, Mitchell testified "We just showed them the letter and asked them if they wanted to sign it." Q. Did you tell them why it was that you wanted them to sign it? A. No. I just wanted to know if they were being represented by Mr. Elliott. Q. Were the employees aware of the fact that the union claimed to have a majority?' A. I think some of these drivers did. Q. Did you explain that to them? A. No, I don't believe I did. The evidence indicates that all but two of the drivers presented with letters signed them. The Bus respondent contends that by use of the letters, it was merely attempting to ascertain whether or not the Amalgamated possessed a majority. It is apparent, in the face of the refusal of the Amalgamated to disclose its membership, that this attempt, taking the form of letters of renunciation of the Amalga- mated signed by the bus drivers, itself constitutes a violation of the Act. Moreover, the Bus respondent's own version of the incident makes apparent that it deliberately set about to destroy the alleged majority of the Amalgamated in order to avoid its obligation under the Act to bargain with the Amalgamated. The language of the letter, which was read by the bus drivers in the presence of Mitchell and Eldridge, and after being summoned by them, coupled with the 15 Referring to one of them , Eldridge made the remark , "well, he is a good one 2(By error some of the letters were dated July 13, 1939. 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD request to sign, clearly indicated to the employees the desires of their employer. In this connection we note the testimony of Pierce that at the time he signed the letter Eldridge told him "it would be best for me to sign it." Goss testified that they "wanted me to sign it for the benefit of the company and I told them I would." The testi- mony of Lurry was that in the presence of Mitchell, Eldridge explained the meaning of the letter to him, as follows: "that it didn't concern the union and nothing about it, just told me to do my own bargaining and nobody would do my own bargaining." Indicative of the sig- nificance attached to the letter by the employees is the testimony of Medley, who was later discharged, that he refused to sign, telling Eldridge, . . . "if it cost me my job that I couldn't help it, but I would not sign that letter." 17 One Herbert McWilliams testified that Eldridge and Mitchell called him into the back office and "they told me they had a letter they wanted me to sign and they said that all of the rest of the boys were signing them." 18 Eldridge, at a later date, noticing a picture of H. Gordie Brown's daughter at the office of the bus company, said, ". . . it was a mighty pretty little girl, that he didn't see why a man with a pretty little girl like that would act like some of them do, that it looked like they would want to protect their jobs more." Herbert McWilliams testi- fied that at about the middle of June 1939 he had a conversation with Eldridge as follows: He [Eldridge] asked me, "Mack, have you signed up with those boys in that union?" And I says, "Yes, I have." . . . He said, "Have you paid anything on it?" And I says, "I have paid as much as any of them have." And he said, "Don't pay any more." G. Allen Goss testified that on or about June 15, 1939, as a result of a conversation he had with Chief of Police Giles of Texarkana, Arkansas, Eldridge told him, "that he knew that he could reach me through Mr. Giles where he couldn't through himself" and ". . . that he didn't want me to get mixed up . . . in the union." Goss further testified that on May 29, 1939, Mitchell told him that he knew that Herndon, McWilliams, Medley, Brown, and Westmoreland, had met with Elliot in a hotel in Texarkana, and Mitchell observed of the union, "that he expected it to be a good thing for the fellows to stay out of, that it would just cause a lot of trouble." H. Gordie Brown testified that Eldridge spoke to him in the office about the union one day, and asked "what good we thought it would do us; he said that he thought these guys were just trying to get their money." 17 Medley admitted, however, that Eldridge made the remark at the time that it "wouldn' t interfere with my job ' 18 McWilliams also testified that he told Eldridge, "I don't understand it," and "he [Eldridge] read it to me himself, and I says 'If the rest of the boys are all signing them'." TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 593 Notwithstanding the denials of Mitchell and Eldridge to the afore- said conversations, which are conformable with other testimony establishing their anti-union attitude, and evidenced by the testimony of numerous witnesses, we find that the conversations above set forth took place substantially as related above." We find that the Bus respondent by the use of the application form heretofore described, by the discharge of Thomas, as above set forth, by the meetings convoked in 1937 in connection with the formation of Local #880, by the preparation of, and the request to sign, the letters of June 13, 1939, and by the activities and remarks of Mitchell and Eldridge as detailed above, and by each of said acts, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. B. Interference, restraint, and coercion on the part of the Taxi respondent The complaint, as amended, alleged that the Taxi respondent com- mitted certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. As indicated above, there was never any effort on the part of the taxi drivers to interest themselves in a labor ograniza- tion. Nevertheless, Mitchell and Eldridge were officers of both respondents, and it seems that they disregarded the corporate separa- tion in so far as certain taxi drivers served also as extra bus drivers for the Bus respondent. The testimony specifically indicates that some of these employees were requested to sign the letters of June 13, 1939. In procuring the signing of the letters of employees of both respond- ents, Mitchell and Eldridge cannot be presumed to have acted solely as officers of the Bus respondent. In this respect, their acts are chargeable to the Taxi respondent, and we find that the Taxi respond- ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The complaint as amended also alleged the discharge of John W. Earnest by the Taxi respondent as a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Earnest was employed as a taxi driver for about 8 months prior to his discharge on July 31, 1939. The records of the Bus respondent indicate that the first full day Earnest worked as an extra bus driver was June 12, 1939, and the last day was June 24, 1939. Earnest joined the Amalgamated in the latter part of June 1939, although on June 13 be signed a letter similar to the one heretofore described at the request of Mitchell and Eldridge. Earnest testified that after joining the Amalgamated he received no further work as an extra bus driver although other extra drivers received such work, and although on several occasions he observed regular bus drivers "doubling up," or 19 McWilliams testified that on June 13 when asked by Eldridge or Mitchell to sign the letter, he said, "I need the work . . If 1 have got to sign it to hold my job , I will sign it," and that neither Eldridge nor Mitchell made any answer to this remark. 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD working two shifts. This circumstance and testimony that a few weeks prior to Earnest's discharge, Eldridge made a derisive remark about his drinking coca-cola with Pierce, "a union man," are the only indications in the record that the respondents knew of Earnest's union affiliations. Earnest testified that he was discharged by Mitchell on July 31, 1939, professedly because he was not taking an interest in his work. He admitted that he had been involved in two minor accidents, one occurring a week or two before his discharge. Mitchell testified that he discharged Earnest because he personally had observed him driv- ing in a reckless manner on the day of his discharge, because Earnest had lost interest in his work and had come to work late on several mornings in succession. Mitchell also testified that he had warned Earnest on the occasion of the earlier accident that if he were involved in another accident he would be discharged. Earnest did not deny that he received this warning, and admitted that he had been repri- manded for coming to work late. He did not deny the charge of reckless driving, observing, "Well, it could have happened Iguess, but I don't remember it." We find that the Taxi respondent, by the discharge of Earnest on July 31, 1939, did not interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The amended complaint, in respect to the allegations concerning Earnest's discharge, is hereby dismissed." C. The refusal to bargain collectively I. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The complaint as amended alleges that the regular and extra bus drivers employed by the Bus respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Bus respondent in its answer admits that said unit is appropriate. The record, how- ever, is obscure as to what employees of the Bus respondent are to be considered "extra bus drivers." The employees of the Taxi respond- ent constitute a reservoir of employees for the Bus respondent and employees are promoted from driving taxicabs to driving buses.21 Taxi drivers sometimes, with the permission of the Bus respondent, substitute on incomplete runs of regular bus drivers. When they do so they are paid by the bus drivers themselves. When a taxi driver drives a complete day's run in the place of a regular bus driver he is, however, carried on the pay roll of the Bus respondent and is paid by 20 The amended complaint also alleged the discharges of several employees within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, by both respondents The record establishes that of these only Earnest was employed by the Taxi respondent and, therefore, the complaint as addressed to the Taxi respondent with regard to these employees is hereby dismissed 21 The earnings of bus drivers are higher than taxi drivers TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 595 the Bus respondent for the run. The Amalgamated urges that only those employees of the Bus respondent who have worked a complete day's run and have been paid by it, should be considered extra bus drivers. This view of the unit finds support in a time sheet prepared by the Bus respondent's office manager, E. E. Wright, which lists regular and extra bus drivers employed as of and after May 15, 1939. Certain drivers 22 are there listed as employed on the date when they finished their first complete run for the Bus respondent, although it appears that they worked on incomplete runs prior thereto. On July 12, 1939, in anticipation of a consent election to be conducted by the Board, the Bus respondent agreed that certain of its drivers whose status is in dispute 23 should be stricken from a list of extra and regular bus drivers eligible to vote for the reason that these employees had not driven a bus for the Bus respondent prior to June 15, 1939.24 We shall interpret the phrase "extra bus drivers" to include only those who have driven a complete day's run for the Bus respondent and who have been paid by it.25 We find that regular and extra bus drivers, excluding those drivers of the Bus respondent who have not finished a complete day's run, constitute, and at all times herein material, constituted a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that said unit insures to employees of the Bus respondent the full benefit of their rights to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act. 2. Representation by the Amalgamated of a majority in the appro- priate unit The Amalgamated contends that on June 13, 1939, the Bus respond- ent employed 23 regular and extra bus drivers, of whom 13 had authorized the Amalgamated to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is not disputed that 11 of these 13 employ- ees had designated the Amalgamated as their representative. A. J. Myrick and Raeburn S. King, two employees who had signed Amal- gamated application cards, were called as witnesses by the Bus respondent. Myrick testified that although he had signed an applica- tion for membership in the Amalgamated he never paid any initiation fee or dues and did not intend to designate the Amalgamated as his bargaining agent. He testified that he had been accused of giving information to Mitchell and Eldridge concerning the Amalgamated and was told that he could prove the falsity of this accusation by 22 Leo Vann, E C Faulkinbury, Floyd Reynolds, Loyde Carroll 23 E C Faulkinbury, Floyd Reynolds, Loyde Carroll. For other reasons Leo Vann and William May were also excluded 24 By reason of the Amalgamated's insistence upon the reinstatement of Robert L Whatley, Jr , as a pre- condition thereto, the consent election was never conducted 22 That this definition of the appropriate unit does not affect the Amalgamated's majority on June 13, 1939, see Section III C 2, infra. 596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD signing the Amalgamated application and that he did so solely for that reason. Myrick, however, also testified: Q. Did you sign this willingly, at the time? A. Yes, sir, I signed it willingly, all right. Q. And you intended it to be an application at the time you signed it? A. Yes, sir. Q. But sometime later you changed your mind, is that right? A. Yes, sir. On June 13, 1939, Myrick, at the request of the Bus respondent, signed one of the letters repudiating the Amalgamated to which reference has been made above.26 King also testified that he never paid any initiation fee and did not intend to designate the Amalga- mated as his bargaining representative, although he had signed an application. King also signed a letter repudiating the Amalgamated on June 13. King admitted that he signed the application "because some of them were signing them," and that he attended an Amalga- mated meeting subsequent to his signing the letter of June 13. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that no weight is to be given to the testimony designed to rebut the effect of the applications of Myrick and King for Amalgamated membership. In reaching this result we consider the knowledge that their employer did not wish them to be represented by the Amalgamated which Myrick and King possessed as the result of the letter of June 13, 1939, the contradictory nature of their testimony, and the fact that they were in the employ of the Bus respondent at the time when they testified at its request. We find that on June 13, 1939, Myrick and King had in fact designated the Amalgamated as their bargaining representative. The Bus respondent further contends that five employees, not enumerated by the Amalgamated, should be included in the appro- priate unit. These are: William May, Leo Vann, E. C. Faulkinbury, Floyd Reynolds, and Loyde Carroll. The Bus respondent asserts that with these employees included in the unit, the Amalgamated, on June 13, 1939, represented but 13 of 28 extra and regular bus drivers. William May had taken an indefinite leave of absence on March 13, 1939, and admittedly was not carried as a driver on the books of the Bus respondent. The Bus respondent did not dissent from the exclu- sion of May from the bargaining unit in the proposed consent election to which reference has been made because he "had quit the employ of the respondent, Texarkana Bus Company, Inc." We find that William May was not a regular or extra bus driver of the Bus re- spondent on June 13, 1939. It also appears that the Bus respondent did not dissent from the exclusion of the other four disputed employees from the list of voters 26 See Section III A, supra. •TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 597 eligible to vote in the proposed consent election. Of these Faulkin- bury, Floyd Reynolds, and Loyde Carroll were alleged at the time of the proposed election to be ineligible to vote for the reason that they had not driven a bus for the respondent, Texarkana Bus Company, Inc., prior to June 15, 1939, but had, prior to that date been exclu- sively in the employ of the Taxi respondent as taxicab drivers. There is no testimony definitely indicating that any of the four employees worked as an extra bus driver before June 13, 1939. More- over, the time sheet prepared by the Bus respondent shows that none of these employees worked a complete run on or before June 13, 1939, and all are listed as "Employed" by the Bus respondent as of later dates. Furthermore, Wright and Carroll admitted that Carroll had not worked as an extra bus driver prior to June 13. Faulkinbury admitted that he first did a complete run on June 16, 1939, but asserted he might have worked "incomplete runs" prior thereto. Vann had signed an application card for the Amalgamated which at the time of the alleged refusal to bargain on June 13, 1939, was in effect. Vann did not testify and appears to have been regarded by the Amalgamated as a taxi driver.21 The Bus respondent agreed to his' exclusion from the proposed consent election. Reynolds did not testify but was similarly excluded from the eligible list for the pro- posed consent election, and is listed by the Bus respondent as first employed as a bus driver on July 6, 1939. We find that Floyd Reynolds, Leo Vann, Loyde Carroll, and E. C. Faulkinbury were not employees within the appropriate unit on June 13, 1939.28 It is thus clear that on June 13, 1939, the Amalgamated represented a majority of the Bus respondent's employees in the appropriate unit. On this date, as appears below, the Bus respondent refused to bargain with the Amalgamated. It appears that L. S. Medley and Burnyl B. Lurry, Amalgamated members, were at later dates discharged for cause.29 Other Amalgamated members may have since left the Bus respondent's employ or discontinued their Amalgamated activity. To the contrary, the Amalgamated may since have increased its membership. It may reasonably be inferred that loss of membership following June 13, 1939, or failure by the Amalgamated further to extend its membership was the product of the Bus respondent's unfair labor practices which cannot operate to change the bargaining repre- sentative previously selected by the untrammelled will of the major- E7 Vann, after the letters of Amalgamated repudiation were signed, requested the return of his application. Vann is listed on the Bus respondent 's time sheet as employed as an extra bus driver on June 20, 1939 28 Had we included these employees in the appropriate unit the Amalgamated's majority would not have been affected thereby, since Vann's authorization would have resulted in the Amalgamated's representing 14 of 27 employees in the appropriate unit We do not give weight, as did the Trial Examiner, to the circum- stance that Vann, Faulkinbury, and Reynolds signed the June 13 letters as showing that these men should be in the unit . Office-manager E. E. Wright also signed such a letter because he did not know at the time "whether [be] was eligible to be a member of the Union or not." fY See Section III F, infra. 323429-42-vol 26-39 598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ity.30 In any event, we will not engage in speculation as to the exact effect of the Bus respondent 's unfair labor practices on the exercise of the employees of the rights guaranteed by the Act, but will rely on the proof of majority at the time of the refusal to bargain. We find that on June 13, 1939, and at all times thereafter, the Amalgamated was the duly designated representative for the pur- poses of collective bargaining of a majority of the Bus respondent's employees in the appropriate unit, and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, it was and now is the exclusive representative of all the employees in, such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other con- ditions of employment. 3. The refusal to bargain On June 13, 1939, Elliott accompanied by a committee of the Amalgamated, consisting of Pierce, Whatley, Brown, Westmoreland, and Herndon, met with Mitchell and Eldridge. Elliott stated that the Amalgamated represented a majority of the regular and extra bus drivers and that he desired to negotiate a contract. As already noted, Mitchell and Eldridge refused to enter into bargaining negotia- tions until Elliott showed proof of the claimed majority by' divulging the names of the drivers constituting the majority. This Elliott refused to do. After a few minutes the parties agreed to adjourn until the following morning in order more throughly to discuss the problem. That afternoon, after consultation with the Bus respondent's attorney, the Bus respondent drafted and caused substantially all of its employees to sign the letter repudiating the authority of the Amalgamated to act as representative for the purposes of collective bargaining. The following day Elliott and the same committee met with the Bus respondent, and Elliott requested of Eldridge the letter addressed to him or to "Whom it may concern" which had been drafted and signed the previous afternoon. Eldridge said, "That is a letter, Mr. Elliott, that we will present to you in due time; it is a letter and a procedure that we have been instructed by our attorney." Mitchell observed that this letter had been circulating before Elliott "came up here." When Elliott commented, "You don't mean to tell me you had this letter circulating here before I came here when none of these boys didn't know who I was?", Mitchell spoke no further. Both Mitchell and Eldridge admitted at the hearing that the letter was prepared after consultation with their attorney on June 13. 80 National Labor Relations Board v Bradford Dyeing Association (U. S A ) 60 S Ct 918, Continental Oil Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 113 F. (2d) 473, C. C A 10, enforcing 12 N L. R. B 789, National Labor Relations Board v. Highland Park Manufacturing Co, 110 F (2d) 632 (C C. A. 4), enforcing 12 N. L R B.922 TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 599 It is apparent that the letter of June 13 could have had no purpose other than the destruction of the majority alleged to have been possessed by the Union. Eldridge, when asked by Elliott what the purpose of the letter was, is said to have answered, "That is a legal matter." This testimony is not specifically denied. Eldridge specifi- cally admitted that employees were instructed to come to the office of the Bus respondent and sign the letters of June 13. Eldridge testified that his sole purpose in causing the letters to be signed was to ascertain whether or not the Amalgamated represented a majority. He admitted that as a result of the signing of the letters by all but two of its employees the Bus respondent came to the conclusion that Elliott did not represent a majority. Thereafter no further confer- ences were held for the purposes of collective bargaining.31 We find that on June 13, 1939, and at. all times thereafter, the Bus respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Amalgamated as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con- ditions of employment, and that the Bus respondent thereby inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. D. The discriminatory change in work shifts The amended complaint alleged that the respondents discrimina- torily changed the work shifts of Robert L. Whatley, Jr., W. H. Reynolds, W. B. Pierce and others, from day to night.31 Both Whatley and Pierce started work for the Bus respondent on January 1, 1935, when it began business operations. Several witnesses testi- fied in effect that the Bus respondent recognized length of service by giving older drivers day runs which generally were considered prefer- able to night runs. Some runs are also considered more difficult than others because of faster time schedules or because older buses are used. On or about June 12, 1939, Whatley and Pierce were shifted from a day to a night run. About the same time or shortly thereafter several Amalgamated members were transferred to less desirable routes. In almost every case nonunion employees replaced Amalgamated mem- bers on the more desirable shifts. Brown testified that though occa- sionally the runs of individual drivers would be shifted, this mass shift- ing was "unusual," because some of the oldest drivers were shifted. The testimony of Brown was corroborated by McWilliams, Whatley, Medley, Pierce, and-Herndon. With reference to his transfer Pierce testified that Mitchell told him ". . . that I had talked too much and that Mr. Whatley. and I had an easy run long enough, and that he 31 On June 17, 1939, the Bus respondent agreed with the Amalgamated to ask the Board to conduct a consent election. 33 The Trial Examiner dismissed the allegations in the complaint respecting W. H. Reynolds , who did not testify . This ruling is hereby affirmed. 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was going to give us something harder." This testimony was not denied by Mitchell. Mitchell admitted that he told Whatley, when shifting him, "He wanted a good man to build up that run." Four or five days later Mitchell replaced Whatley with Faulkinbury on the new route . In this connection Mitchell testified as follows: Q. So when Mr . Whatley left this run which you wanted to build up by a good man you put a novice, Mr. Faulkinbury, on it? A. Yes, sir.33 Whatley testified that when he accused Mitchell of changing his route because of the Amalgamated, Mitchell did not deny that this was true. Although Mitchell denied that the shifting of Amalgamated em- ployees was " unusual," we do not, in light of all the circumstances, credit this denial. We find that the Bus respondent changed the work shifts of Whatley and Pierce, as well as those of other Amalgamated members, because of their activity in or affiliation with the Amalgam- ated. E. The discriminatory suspension of Pierce and Herndon The amended complaint alleged that the respondents discrim- inatorily suspended the employment of Earnest Herndon and W. H. Reynolds for 15 days and of Pierce 45 days.34 Herndon, secretary- treasurer of the Amalgamated, testified that he was laid off for 15 days in September 1939 assertedly because he did not attend a safety meeting. The day of this meeting Herndon arrived at the Bus re- spondent's office at 2:15 p. in. in order to take his bus out at 2:50 p. m. When he arrived at the office he noticed the following on the bulletin board, "Safety meeting, night drivers 2 p. in., day drivers 3 p. m." Herndon was a night driver who was not required to report for work earlier than 2:50 p. m. when his bus was to be taken out.35 Herndon 'further testified that no notice of the safety meeting had been posted the night before and that it was customary to give such notice. McWilliams testified to the same effect, stating that notices of safety meetings were customarily posted the day before. The Bus respond- ent did not dispute the testimony of Herndon and McWilliams or present any explanation for Herndon's suspension other than that set forth above. A witness called by the respondents testified that he had failed to attend a safety meeting without being disciplined there- for.36 As already noted Herndon was a member of the Amalgamated bargaining committee on June 13. The above facts, and other uncon- 83 The record indicates that Faulkinbury had never driven a complete run for the Bus respondent before replacing Whatley. 84 The case of W. IL Reynolds is not discussed See footnote 29, supra 85 Day drivers were required to report for work a half hour earlier than starting time. 88 See Matter of Collins Baking Co. and Bakery & Confectionery Workers Local Union No. 486, 19 N. L R. B. 374. TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 601 tradicted testimony that employees on sundry occasions were not disciplined for minor infractions of the rules, lead us to conclude that Herndon was suspended because of his Amalgamated activities. Pierce testified that on December 18, 1939, Mitchell informed him that he was laid off for 45 days because he "had been talking too much" and was "abusing his equipment." Pierce denied abusing his equipment but admitted telling other employees that under the Fair Labor Standards Act 31 the Bus respondent could cut wages to a mini- mum of 30 cents an hour unless the Company was under contract with a union calling for higher wages. He testified that Mitchell objected to his telling the drivers that their wages could be cut and also ob- jected to his telling them that it was unnecessary to purchase 1939 chauffeur licenses. About December 1, 1939, Mitchell instructed the drivers that they would have to purchase such licenses. Pierce, ob- taining advice to the contrary, advised the drivers that this was unnecessary. The advice of Pierce turned out to be accurate and none of the drivers purchased 1939 licenses. Mitchell did not deny Pierce's testimony and testified that he laid off Pierce after he received a report from S. G. Bonner, shop foreman, that Pierce had been "rough on his bus or on the equipment." Bonner testified that on about the 10th or 15th of December 1939 he reported to Mitchell as to Pierce that "I didn't think he was cooperating with the shop and I knew that he was neglecting his equipment." On cross-examination Bonner was vague, evasive, and contradictory.38 Although Bonner contended that Pierce had refused to report a badly worn tire, he admitted that his assistants were required to check tires every night, that although they failed to ascertain the alleged worn condition of Pierce's tire they were not disciplined for their neglect, nor were they disciplined for their failure to ascertain a broken motor bolt on Pierce's bus which Bonner claimed Pierce had failed to report. More- over, this testimony as to Pierce's failure to report defects in the con- dition of his bus is utterly inconsistent with Bonner's testimony that Pierce unnecessarily and repeatedly requested him to check his bus. Bonner testified in part " . . . but I condemn him (Pierce) for taking about two hours of my time away from the shop three or four times a week to check things that is not necessary." 87 52 Stat. 1060 Amended, August 9. 1939, Public Act No. 344, 76th Congress. 38 Q What do you mean by abuse of equipment? A Well, that covers a lot of things there Q. Suppose you tell me what you mean by that? A Well, I didn't make any note of any particular items, but in one case I could mention that he (Pierce) had a tire that was pretty badly worn .. he told me he know the tire was about to go, but he wouldn't report it . . Q He told you that he deliberately refused to report it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he tell you that he would not or he did not report it? A. Well, he said that he did not report it. 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. You were annoyed at his constantly asking you to check his equipment and things like that, weren't you? A. Yes, that is right. Q. Don't you know that there wasn't a driver with the Tex- arkana Bus Company that had the safety record that Mr. Pierce had? A. I don't doubt that. Pierce was instrumental in the formation of the Amalgamated, was one of the most active of the Amalgamated members, and was on the Amalgamated committee which met with Mitchell and Eldridge on June 13, 1939. It is apparent from the record , and we find, that Mitchell's resentment of Pierce 's "talking too much" was in reality resentment directed toward Pierce 's activity in attempting to improve the welfare of the bus drivers by concerted action. We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the contention of the Bus respondent that Pierce failed to cooperate and abused his equipment is without merit. We further find that the Bus respondent by suspending Herndon and Pierce for 15 and 45 days respectively discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging mem- ' bership in the Amalgamated , and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. F. The discharges The amended complaint alleged that William B. Pierce, Robert L. Whatley, Jr., John W. Earnest , George A. Goss, Burnyl B. Lurry, and W. H. Reynolds were discriminatorily discharged within the meaning of the Act.as William B. Pierce . Following his 45-day suspension discussed above, Pierce returned to work and was discharged on March 6, 1940, about a month after his return. Pierce testified that Mitchell told him that he was discharged because he had failed to pick up seven passengers waiting at a transfer point to transfer to his bus, and because on another occasion he had refused to accept a torn transfer. According to Pierce 's testimony , the bus bearing the passengers in question was supposed to arrive at the transfer point 5 minutes ahead of Pierce 's bus, and when Pierce reached this junction he did not see the bus there or any passengers and proceeded on his route. Jack Smith, who drove the connecting bus, testified that when he arrived at the transfer point he saw Pierce's bus at an intersection waiting for the light to change and that he blew his horn to attract Pierce's attention, but that Pierce evidently did not hear the horn and drove 89 The issues concerning Reynolds and Earnest and the allegations of the complaint in respect to them have been disposed of in Section in B, supra. TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 603 on as the light changed. The transfer passengers had to wait, 15 minutes for the next bus. Mitchell was fully apprised of the above facts. Pierce admitted that he refused to accept a transfer which had been torn in two from a passenger he had seen get off another bus. There is printed on the face of the rejected transfer the following: "This transfer not good if mutilated," and Pierce testified that he had previously rejected other transfers which were mutilated without being reprimanded. Pierce testified that he reported this incident to Eldridge the following morning and was not reprimanded, and this testimony stands undenied. It appears that if Pierce had accepted the transfer he might have been deemed to have violated a rule of the Company and have been liable to discharge, and that by rejecting it, according to the Bus respondent, he was committing a dischargeable offense. There was testimony that other drivers had rejected trans- fers without being disciplined. We do not believe that this incident was regarded by the Bus respondent as one of the causes for the discharge of Pierce. Mitchell further testified, however, that Pierce's discharge resulted as a culmination of many incidents, most of which have been de- scribed above,40 which made him "believe that the general conduct of Pierce was becoming detrimental to the best interests of the Company." Pierce had one of the best safety records of all the drivers. Eldridge admitted that Pierce was a good driver until he "began to get ram- bunctious with the equipment." 41 Mitchell admitted that Pierce "was not altogether unsatisfactory." We find that Pierce's activity on behalf of the Amalgamated resulted in his discharge by the Bus respondent just as shortly before it had caused his suspension. We find that the Bus respondent by discharging William B. Pierce on March 6, 1940, discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Amalgamated, and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. Robert L. Whatley. Whatley was one of the first drivers hired by the Bus respondent when it commenced operations. He was acting presi- dent of the Amalgamated, and one of the Amalgamated's committee which met with Mitchell and Eldridge on June 13, 1939. On June 12, 1939, one of the wheels of Whatley's bus scraped a curb, but, since, in response to Whatley's inquiry, neither of the two passengers aboard claimed injury, Whatley made no report of the incident. Two days later, one of the passengers, J. J. Moore, informed Whatley that he 40 See Section III F, supra. 41 We have already found that Pierce did not abuse his equipment, Section III F, supra 604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD had sustained minor injuries from the accident of June 12 . That day, June 14, Whatley reported Moore's claim to Eldridge . On June 16 Whatley reported for'work at 2:30 p. in. and was informed by Mitchell that the latter wanted to see him. According to Whatley 's testimony, Mitchell told him that failure to report an accident was a discharge- able offense . Whatley replied that he had made the report as soon as he heard from Moore that he had been injured . Whatley testified that Mitchell nevertheless discharged him, and informed him that Wright, the office manager, had his check ready. It is Mitchell's testimony that when he questioned Whatley about the accident Whatley got angry and said, "If you don't want me to work for you, I will quit." The Bus respondent thus claims that Whatley quit, and was not discharged. Brown, McWilliams , and Goss testified that Whatley , upon leaving Mitchell's office, informed them he had been discharged . ' Bus drivers are paid on the 5th and 20th of every month. The payment on the 5th is for the second half of the preceding month and that of the 20th for the first half of the month. Brown testified that it was the custom for the Bus respondent to pay an employee the day he was discharged, whereas if an employee quit he would have to wait until the next pay day in order to receive his check . If Brown's testimony is accurate, the inference to be drawn is that Whatley was discharged on June 16, since he received his check on that day . Wright, the office manager, admitted that the drivers are not paid until the 5th or 20th of each month, but asserted that the checks are signed on the 1st and 15th of each month, and consequently Whatley's chock was already made out on June 16 . Wright further testified that he was under instructions to give any employee his check when he handed in his badge, and that Whatley "made some remark like `I am through ' or something to that effect, and he had his badge in his hand and he laid it on the desk, and I don't remember what all was said." Wright further testified that Mitchell told him after he had paid Whatley that the latter "had quit." It is significant , however, that in a copy of a contract which the Bus respondent alleged if was willing to enter into with Local #880 in 1937 and which, according to the admission of Eldridge, "was merely the reduction to writing of the existing rules of the company," the following language occurs : "Any driver leaving the employ of the company on his own accord will wait until the next pay day for his money. Any driver discharged with cause will be paid the day his services are dispensed with." This language corroborates the testi- mony of Brown, although Eldridge testified "that the rule was never put into effect." More significant, however, was the uncontradicted testimony of Herndon , Goss, and Pierce that while Whatley was in Mitchell 's office on June 16, Faulkinbury , an extra bus driver, was making preparations to take over Whatley's bus. Goss testified TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 605 further that when he asked Faulkinbury what route he was going to operate the latter replied "that he was pulling Garland" (the route which Whatley had been operating). We therefore find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Faulkinbury had been instructed by the Bus respondent to take over Whatley's bus prior to the time that Whatley's employment with the Bus respondent actually was terminated. The weight of the evidence indicates, and we find, that Whatley was discharged and did not quit on June 16. Turning to the question of whether Whatley's failure to report Moore's injury was the true reason for Whatley's discharge, we note that Rule # 43 of the Bus respondent's "Book of Rules" provides in part, "No driver is to assume when an accident report should or should not be made. Your instructions are to make a full report to the office of all accidents, regardless of extent." Whatley testified that he had always interpreted this rule to apply only when a claim was made by a passenger, and that he had reported the accident as soon as he learned that Moore claimed injuries. The testimony is clear that the Bus respondent regarded the claim of Moore as a minor one. In fact, according to the uncontradicted testimony of Whatley, Eldridge informed him "that he thought he knew Mr. Moore and it was kinda a fake case-and didn't amount to anything." The evi- dence also reveals that the Bus respondent's insurance carrier, which settled Moore's claim for $50, was not handicapped in its investiga- tion due to the fact that Whatley had reported the accident 2 days after its occurrence, nor was any complaint made about the nature of Whatley's work. Whatley, in fact, had a perfect safety record prior to this occasion. Mitchell admitted that he overlooked viola- tions of rules by the drivers "but after they keep doing it I fire them for it." The Bus respondent produced no evidence that Whatley violated any rule other than the violation mentioned above. In the light of all the circumstances, giving particular consideration to the fact that Whatley was one of the prime movers in the forma- tion of the Amalgamated, and the temporary president thereof, as well as a member of the Amalgamated's committee that met with Mitchell and Eldridge on June 13, we find that Whatley was dis- charged because of his Amalgamated activity.- We find that the Bus respondent by discharging Whatley on June 16, 1939, discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employ- ment, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed then in Section 7 of the Act. George A. Goss. Goss started to work for the Bus respondent in October 1938 and for a year prior thereto had worked for the Taxi respondent. Goss applied for membership in the Amalgamated on May 30, 1939. As we have already noted, Eldridge, on or about 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD June 15, 1939, told Goss "that he knew that he could reach [Goss] through Mr. Giles where be couldn't through himself" and ". that he didn't want [Goss] to get mixed up in . . . the union.42 We have also noted that Mitchell counseled Goss that " [the Union] would be a good thing for the fellows to stay out of." 43 Goss testified that on or about September 25, 1939, he asked Eldridge for permission to lay off for 2 weeks beginning on October 22 for the purpose of going to Detroit to look for a better position and that Eldridge had no objection to his doing so. Goss further testified that about a week prior to October 22 Mitchell also acquiesced when the same request was directed to him. There is ample testimony to show that the Bus respondent permitted other employees to take temporary leave of absence in order to seek other employment, and in certain instances permitted its employees to work temporarily at more profitable em- ployment and then return to work with the Bus respondent. This was admitted by Mitchell. The respondent's answer recites: ". . . Goss in October 1939, advised the officials of the respondent bus company that he wanted to quit and go to Detroit, Michigan, where he thought he could get a better job-and voluntarily terminated his connection with respondent bus company of his own free will and accord-and evidently was unable to find more profitable employ- ment and returned to Texarkana and asked the officials of the re- spondent company to give him his job back, that his vacancy had already been filled and the respondent bus company was unable to put him back to work." Both Eldridge and Mitchell denied the testimony of Goss and asserted at the hearing that Goss had volun- tarily quit his employment. Much conflicting testimony was adduced on this issue.44 The Bus respondent, however, did not deny Goss' testimony that it was customary for employees who desired a short leave of absence so to indicate by placing their names on the company bulletin board. Goss testified that he wrote, "Goss off October 22 until" on the bulletin board prior to leaving for Detroit, and explained that the word "until" meant until he returned. 42 See Section III A, supra. 43 Ibid 44 At the time of leaving Goss was given a letter of recommendation signed by Mitchell dated October 21, 19?9. The letter reads as follows To Whom It May Concern, The bearer, Mr. Allen Goss , has been in the employ of this company for a number of months as a Bus driver. Mr Goss' connection with this company has been satisfactory, and we feel sure that anyone desiring the services of a competent driver, will find him honest and energetic. Mr Goss has terminated his connection with this company voluntarily, for the purpose of going East in search of more profitable employment. Several of the respondents ' witnesses testified that Goss had quit his employment, but under cross-exam- ination modified their testimony to the extent that they had not beard Goss say he had quit , but had in- ferred he had quit from the fact of his leaving to look for more profitable employment. The Amalgamated introduced several witnesses who testified that they understood that Goss had obtained leave to look for more profitable employment. TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 607 Goss returned to Texarkana on November 3, 1939, and informed Wright "that he was back and would be at work the next day," but Wright informed him that he would have to see Mitchell before he could return to work. Goss was unsuccessful in efforts to see Mitchell until November 6 when the latter informed him, "that it didn't seem fair to turn the boy off who had been working" his route. Mitchell's reference was to one Loyde Carroll, an extra bus driver, who took Goss' route when he left for Detroit. Goss further testified, and his testimony is undenied by Mitchell, "that he (Mitchell) said to drop around once in awhile and if there came an opening he would let me go back to work." The records of the Bus respondent indicate that three new bus drivers were hired after November 6, 1939, but Goss was not put back to work.45 The Bus respondent made no complaint about Goss' work, and advanced no explanation for its failure to reinstate Goss subsequent to his return on November 3, 1939, other than that set forth in its answer. It is apparent that the latter contention that upon Goss' return "his vacancy had already been filled and the respondent bus company was unable to put him back to work" is without merit. Weighing all the circumstances of the case, we find that the Bus respondent's failure to reinstate Goss was due to his Amalgamated affiliation. We find that the Bus respondent by refusing to reinstate George A. Goss on November 6, 1939, discriminated in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby discouraging membership in the Amal- gamated, and interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. L. S. Medley. Medley worked for the Bus respondent for about a year and 5 months prior to his discharge on July 13, 1939. Medley refused to sign the letter of June 13 because, as he informed Eldridge, he had joined the Amalgamated. Rule #82 of the Bus respondent's book of rules contains in part the following language, "Any employee who-drinks any intoxicants-in the uniform of the Company, either on or off duty, will in the discretion of the management, be discharged for the first offense." Medley admitted that Mitchell had caught him drinking beer while in a public cafe, in the uniform of the Bus respondent and that 2 or 3 days later Mitchell informed him that he was discharged for this reason. Medley and several Board witnesses testified that some of the bus drivers frequently and openly drank beer while in company uniform, and that no employee had been discharged for this reason heretofore. Mitchell testified that if any of his drivers so consumed beer while in company uniform he was, unaware of it; that shortly after Medley began work for the Bus 45 The Bus respondent's records also revealed that a new driver was hired on November 5, 1939 This date is significant because it indicates the Bus respondent hired a new driver just after it became appraised. of Goes'return to Texarkana and his desire to return to work. 608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respondent he caught Medley drinking beer and cautioned him about it and that, upon being detected repeating the offense, Medley said, "You never need worry about me drinking any more, and I won't do it again." Mitchell further testified that the third time he caught Medley drinking beer, he discharged him. Medley admitted sub- stantially all of this testimony and that lie had assured Mitchell "that it wouldn't happen again." Although some of the testimony advanced by the Bus respondent to establish the fact that Medley frequently drank intoxicants is not credible," in view of the facts recited above we find that Medley was not discharged because of his Amalgamated activity or affiliation. Burnyl B. Lurry. Lurry worked for the Bus respondent for about a year prior to his discharge on February 14, 1940.- He had also worked as a taxi driver for the Taxi respondent. Lurry testified that Mitchell discharged him because of his failure to report a minor acci- dent which occurred on February 11, 1940. He admitted that he had not complied with the company's rules by failing to report the accident. Lurry further admitted that he had been involved in two accidents prior to the one leading to his discharge and admitted that he had been reprimanded about accidents or speeding on four different occasions, and that on the occasion of the accident prior to the one resulting in his discharge Eldridge warned him that he would be discharged if he had another accident. D.• T. Lurry, father of Burnyl, testified as a Board witness, and stated that he was responsible for getting his son placed with the Bus respondent because he was a good friend of Eldridge. D. T. Lurry also testified that in the summer of 1939, Eldridge spoke to him on several occasions about the poor driving of his son and about labor unions. Eldridge indicated that "he thought" Lurry's son belonged to the Amalgamated and made certain anti- union statements. On cross-examination, however, D. T. Lurry admitted that his son Burnyl told him that he did not report his last accident because" . . . he said that they had told him if any more reports came in there he would lose his job anyhow, and so he just thought he would drive for two or three days longer anyhow, before the woman reported it." In view of the above facts we find that Lurry was not discharged because of his Amalgamated activity or affiliation. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondents described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial 46 The testimony of a police officer that he had complained of Medley for drinking intoxicants was re- pudiated by a letter from the Chief of Police of Texarkana , Texas, superior officer of this witness, stating, "we have never had a complaint on the above -mentioned man " TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 609 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. V. THE REMEDY Since we have found that the respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order them to cease and desist there- from. Moreover, we shall order the respondents to take certain affirmative action which we deem necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the Bus respondent discriminatorily changed the work shifts of W. B. Pierce and Robert L. Whatley, Jr.; discrimina- torily suspended the employment of Ernest Herndon and W. B. Pierce for 15 and 45 days respectively; discriminatorily terminated the employment of W. B. Pierce, Robert L. Whatley, Jr., and George A. Goss. We shall order the Bus respondent (1) to offer Pierce, Whatley, and Goss immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; (2) to offer to Pierce and Whatley the routes operated by them prior to their discriminatory transfers; (3) to make Pierce, Whatley, and Goss whole for any loss of pay suffered by them by reason of the Bus respondent's discrimination against them, by pay- ment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages from the date of his termination of em- ployment to the date of the offer of reinstatement less his net earnings 47 during such periods. We shall further order the Bus respondent similarly to make whole Ernest Herndon and William B. Pierce for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of their discrimina- tory suspension for 15 and 45 days respectively, less their net earnings 48 during such periods. Having found that the allegations of the amended complaint have not been sustained in respect to the Taxi respondent, other than those generally alleging a violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act, we shall dismiss the complaint as to it except in this regard. We shall dis- miss the complaint as well in so far as it alleges that the Bus respond- 47 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room, and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working elsewhere than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590, 8 N. L R B. 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county, municipal or other work -relief projects are not considered as earnings, but, as provided below in the Order, shall be deducted from the sum due the employee, and the amount thereof shall be paid over to the appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects See Matter of Republic Steel Corporation and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N L R. B 219, enf'd as modified as to other issues, Republic Steel Corporation v National Labor Relations Board, 107 F (2d) 472 (C C A 3), cert. granted , 60 S Ct 1072. 11 Ibid 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ent has violated Section 8 (1) or (3) of the Act with respect to John W. Earnest, L. S. Medley, W. H. Reynolds, and Burnyl B. Lurry. 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. Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, Local #880, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ- ment of William B. Pierce, Robert L. Whatley, Jr., George A. Goss, and E. A. Herndon, Jr., the Bus respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act. 3. The regular and extra bus drivers of the Bus respondent, exclud- ing those drivers who have not finished a complete day's run, consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America was on June 13, 1939, and at all times since has been the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit, for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 5. By refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Associa- tion of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the ap- propriate unit, the Bus respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. 6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 8. The respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act with respect to John W. Earnest, W. H. Reynolds, Laurence S. Medley, and Burnyl B. Lurry. 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 re- TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 611 spondent Texarkana Bus Company, Inc., Texarkana, Texas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, or any other labor organization of its employees by discharging or re- fusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner dis- criminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment; (b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America as the exclusive representative of its regular and extra bus drivers, excluding those drivers who have not finished a complete day's run; (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to George A. Goss immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position, and offer to William B. Pierce and Robert L. Whatley, Jr., immediate and full reinstate- ment to the positions they held prior to their discriminatory transfers or to positions substantially equivalent thereto; without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges; (b) Make whole each of the employees named in the preceding paragraph for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of the Bus respondent's discrimination against him, by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as wages from the date of his illegal termination of em- ployment to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earn- ings,49 if any, during said period; deducting, however, from the amount otherwise due each such employee, monies received by him during said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal or other work-relief projects; and pay over the amount, so deducted, to the appropriate fiscal agency of. the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; (c) Make whole E. A. Herndon, Jr. and William B. Pierce for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their discriminatory suspension of 15 and 45 days, respectively, by payment to them of sums of money they would normally have earned as wages during 49 See footnote 47, supra 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD said periods, less their net earnings,50 if any, during said period; deducting, however, from the amounts otherwise due them, monies, if any, received by them during said period for work performed upon Federal, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects; and pay over the amounts, so deducted, to the appropriate, fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects; (d) Upon request bargain collectively with Amalgamated Associ- ation of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, as exclusive representative of its regular and extra bus drivers, excluding those drivers who have not finished a complete day's run, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment; (e) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its premises, and keep posted for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the Bus respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), and (c) of this Order; (2) that the Bus respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in para- graphs 2 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this Order; (3) that the Bus respond- ent's employees are free to become or remain members of Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, and that the Bus respondent will not discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity in that organization; (f) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Bus respondent has taken to comply herewith. 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 Two-States Transportation Company, Inc., Texarkana, Texas, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its premises, and keep posted for a period of at leat sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that it will not 60 Ibid. TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, INC. 613 engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraph 1 (a) of this Order; (b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Taxi 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 respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act, with respect to John W. Earnest, Laurence S. Medley, and Burnyl B. Lurry. MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 323429-42-vol. 26-40