Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1935

1 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1935)

DECISIONS AND ORDERS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD
In the Matter Of PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND LINES, INC., GREYHOUND
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, CORPORATIONS and LOCAL DIVISION No.
1063 OF THE AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET , ELECTRIC RAIL-
WAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA
Case No. C-1.Decided December 7, 1935
Motor Bus Industry-Company-Dominated Union: domination or interference
with formation or administration ; financial or other support ; disestablished
as agency for collective bargaining-Employee Representation Plan: form and
operation-Interference, Restraint or Coercion : espionage ; expressed opposi-
tion to labor organization , threats of retaliatory action ; surveillance of, ques-
tioning regarding organizational activity or meetings ; persuasion of employees
to refrain from forming or joining or to resign from union ; propaganda against
union-Discrimination : discharge-Reinstatement Ordered-Back Pay: awarded.
Mr. Robert B. Watts for the Board.
Mr. Ivan Bowen, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Mr. Charles H. Young,
of New Castle , Pa., for respondents.
Mr. Charlton Ogburn, of New York City, for the Union.
Mr. Stanley S. Surrey, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
,STATEMENT OF CASE
On October 8, 1935, Local Division 1063, Amalgamated Associa-
tion of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
America, transmitted to the National Labor Relations Board a charge
against the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Greyhound
Management Company, Inc. of violation of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and requested that the Board permit such charge to be
filed with it. Permission for such filing was granted by the Board
on October 8, 1935, pursuant to its Rules and Regulations , Series
1, Article II, Section 35. On October 9, 1935, the Board issued its
complaint against the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. and the
Greyhound Management Company, Inc., hereinafter called the re-
spondents, alleging that the respondents had committed unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, sub-
1
2 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
divisions (1), (2) and (3), and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act. In summary, in respect of
the unfair labor practices the complaint stated :
1. The respondents, by their officers and agents, discharged C. D.
Lehman, Steve Mitchell, Emil Law, Lester Moberly; Albert Mc-
Kelvie, Albert Burns, John Rihr, Erwin D. Matthews and Robert
Maxwell, all employees of the respondents at a garage located in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the reason that they joined and as-
sisted a labor organization known as Local Division No. 1063 of the
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employees of America, and engaged in concerted activities
with other employees for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid and protection.
2. The respondents, by their officers and agents, have urged, per-
suaded and warned their employees at the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
garage to refrain from becoming members of Local Division No.
1063, have threatened them with discharge if they became or re-
mained members thereof, and have kept under surveillance the meet-
ings and meeting places of Local Division No. 1063. The discharges
and the above acts are alleged to be unfair labor practices, forbidden
by Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (3).
3. The respondents, by their officers and agents, have dominated
and interfered with the administration of a labor organization of
their employees known as the Employees Association, Pennsylvania
Greyhound Lines, Incorporated, and have contributed financial and
other support thereto. Such acts are alleged to be unfair labor prac-
tices prohibited by Section 8, subdivision (2).
The complaint and accompanying Notice of Hearing were served
on October 10, 1935, on Local Division No. 1063, the Pennsylvania
Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Greyhound Management Company, Inc.,
in accordance with the Rules and Regulations, Series I, Article V.
Pursuant to the Notice of Hearing accompanying the complaint, a
hearing was held at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, by the National Labor
Relations Board, all members being present, and testimony taken.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded
to all parties. The respondents appeared specially at this hearing
and objected to the jurisdiction of the Board (Resp. Exhibit 1) on
constitutional grounds. Upon the denial of their objections by the
Board, the respondents moved to dismiss on the ground that the facts
stated in the complaint did not justify the issuance of the complaint
under the Act. This motion was denied by the Board. The re-
spondents thereupon filed their answer to the complaint (Resp. Ex-
hibit 2), denying the allegations of violation, and participated in the
hearing. Upon motion of the attorney for Local Division No. 1063
DECISIONS AND ORDERS e3
(Board Exhibit 2), acquiesced in by the respondents and by the
attorney for the National Labor Relations Board, the complaint was
amended by striking the abbreviation " Inc." from the name of the
respondent " Greyhound Management Company, Inc.", so as to make
the name of that respondent conform to the name on its charter. At
the close of the Government's presentation of its case, the respondents
moved to dismiss on the ground that the evidence failed to prove the
complaint. This motion was denied. The respondents then offered
evidence to support their answer. At the close `of the hearing the
respondents waived their privilege of oral summation and thereafter
submitted a written brief to the Board.
F INDINGS OF FACT
I. GREYHOUND SYSTEM AND COMPANIES INVOLVED
A. Greyhound Lines
The Greyhound Lines is a nation-wide system engaged in the
transportation for hire of passengers and property by motor buses.
By means of a number of affiliated companies this system affords,
through its own and connecting lines, motor bus transportation to
every state in the United States and to some cities in Canada (Board
Exhibit 11). Operated as an integrated system, through traffic agree-
ments, interline tariffs, connecting schedules and joint advertising,
the Greyhound Lines presents striking similarities to our national
railroad systems. Schedules similar to railroad time-tables are issued
which provide detailed information covering travel to any part of
the United States. These schedules include trips varying from short
regional trips, such as from Philadelphia to New York or New York
to Boston, to transcontinental trips from New York to California,
Chicago to Miami, Jacksonville to Los Angeles, or New York to New
Orleans (Board Exhibit 12). Tariff schedules contain complete in-
formation on the rates for interstate transportation of property on
this system and the rules and regulations governing such transporta-
tion (Board Exhibit 57). Terminals similar to railroad stations are
located in key cities. In several large cities Travel Bureaus are main-
tained for the convenience of persons seeking information about
schedules and rates (Board Exhibit 14). So rapid and extensive has
been the development of this transportation system that the advertis-
ing statement "Greyhound Bus Lines serve more millions of people,
more territory, more cities and national playgrounds than any other
travel system in the United States" (Board Exhibit 14) is far from
an idle boast. In 1934 the Greyhound Lines operated 125,170,245 bus
miles, as compared to 106,386,939 in 1933. The miles of route trav-
ersed totaled 42,863 in 1934, and the number of buses owned was
4 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1,614. The number of employees was 6,077 (Board Exhibit 9, at
1808). The Greyhound Lines claims that it sells about 30 million
tickets annually (Board Exhibit 14).
The principal corporation in this system is the Greyhound Corpo-
ration, incorporated in Delaware in 1926 to act as a holding company
in the field of motor bus transportation. This company owns stock
interests in the thirteen bus operating companies whose routes con-
nect to form the national system of Greyhound Lines. Of these
thirteen, nine are controlled through stock ownership. The operat-
ing revenues of these thirteen companies for the year 1934 was
$33,603,109. It also has interests in terminal companies and other
companies performing auxiliary services. The control by stock own-
ership is heightened by a system of interlocking officers and directors
(Board Exhibits 20 and 21). The subsidiaries of the Greyhound
Corporation in turn own or control many operating companies.
Railroads own stock interests in five of the bus operating companies,
the holdings of the Pennsylvania Railroad being very extensive
(Board Exhibits 9, 10 and 17).
B. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., and Greyhound Manage-
ment Company-the Respondents
The Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., incorporated in Dela-
ware in 1930 (Board Exhibits 3, 4, 5; Resp. Answer, par. 1), is one
of the corporations affiliated with the Greyhound Corporation.
Fifty per cent of its common stock is owned by the Greyhound Cor-
poration and the other fifty per cent, together with all of the pre-
ferred stock, by the American Contract & Trust Co., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The Pennsyl-
vania Greyhound Lines, Inc. owns the entire stock of the Pennsyl-
vania Greyhound Lines of Indiana, Inc. ; Pennsylvania Greyhound
Lines of Illinois, Inc. ; Montgomery Bus Co., Inc. ; Pennsylvania
Greyhound Lines of Virginia, Inc.; Peoples' Rapid Transit Co., Inc.
and the Pennsylvania Greyhound Transit Co., bus operating com-
panies and terminal companies. The Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines,
Inc. and its wholly owned operating companies form what is known
as the Pennsylvania Greyhound System. In operates an interstate
bus transportation system of nearly 5,000 miles in length, extending
from New York, Philadelphia and Atlantic City to Chicago, Indian-
apolis and St. Louis, and transporting for hire persons, baggage,
mail, and freight. The operating revenues for this System for the
year 1934 were about $7,000,000 (Board Exhibits 9 and 10, Resp.
answer, par. 4, Resp. answer par. 3, Rules & Reg., Series 1, Art.
II, par. 9). The Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., acts as fiscal
agent in performing bookkeeping, auditing and financial services,
and in the supervision of payrolls and is the employer of the men
DECISIONS AND ORDERS J^
in the Pennsylvania Greyhound System (see infra). In turn, it has
an agreement with the Greyhound Management Company whereby
the latter is employed as managing agent for Pennsylvania Grey-
hound Lines, Inc. and its subsidiaries, subject at all times to the
general supervision and direction of the boards of directors of those
companies.
The Greyhound Management Company is a Delaware corporation
(Board Exhibits 6, 7, 8; Resp. Answer, par. 2) all of whose stock is
owned by the Greyhound Corporation (Board Exhibits 9 and 10;
Resp. Answer, par. 3, Rules & Reg., Series 1, Art II, par. 9). It per-
forms various services for the Greyhound operating companies and
controlling corporations, in addition to the Pennsylvania Greyhound
System, such as the handling of group, insurance and personnel prob-
lems, the preparation of schedules, legal services, advertising, etc.
C. Pittsburgh garage
The System owns and operates a number of garages in strategically
located cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland
and Pittsburgh (Board Exhibit 16). Pittsburgh is an important
terminus in the northeastern part of the Greyhound Lines. It con-
nects by direct interstate bus route with New York, St. Louis, Wash-
ington, Philadelphia, Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Buffalo, Scranton,
and Charleston, W. Va. (Board Exhibits 12 and 13; also Board
Exhibits 29, 30, 31, 32). The garage at Pittsburgh is leased and
operated by the Pennsylvania Greyhound Transit Co. from the
Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. This garage serves all of the
Greyhound buses operating from, through or to Pittsburgh on those
routes, so that its services are used mainly by the operating subsid-
iaries of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. In addition, it per-
forms services,for other bus companies, operating both inter- and
intra-state, for which direct charge is made. The garage, located at
California and St. Ives Streets, is a one-story building occupying
an entire block. About 90 men are employed at this garage on an
average; 91 were employed during the month of July (Resp. Exhib-
its 17 and 22). The superintendent is Jack J. Nyland, and under
him are three foremen, M. Bremmier, J. O'Boyle and P. Keast.
The Assistant Manager of Maintenance for the Pennsylvania Grey-
hound System, Carl D. Sprain, and the Superintendent of Drivers,
Karl Bauer, have offices in the garage.
The garage is open continuously all year round for the servicing of
buses. After a bus has completed a scheduled run to Pittsburgh and
before leaving on its next scheduled run, it is brought to the garage,
cleaned and washed. It is then greased, oil and gasoline are added
and it is inspected for defects. Any defects which have been noticed
by the driver, as indicated in a driver's envelope, and any other
6 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
defects discovered in the inspection are then noted on a service order
and are remedied. The foreman assigns various mechanics and spe-
cialists to the several jobs and each man places his number opposite
the work performed as indicated on the service order. The brakes
and wheels are tested and adjusted if necessary. After the various
repairs have been made the bus is ready for testing. An employee
known as a "tester" takes the bus on a short trial run to ascertain if
all defects have been remedied and if the bus ,is ready for operation.
If the trial run is satisfactory, the tester so reports to the foreman,
who has the responsibility of finally approving the bus as ready for
service. The driver then calls for the bus and it proceeds on its regu-
lar run. The work performed as described above is directed to insure
safe and continuous operation of the various buses on their regular
interstate schedules. It is performed while the buses are idle await-
ing their next scheduled run, so that they are not taken out of regular
and continuous service.
The servicing described above is given regularly and continuously
to all buses operating through Pittsburgh on their schedules and is
necessary to enable these buses to continue such scheduled operation.
In addition to this regular service, major repair work is performed at
the garage. A number of Greyhound buses are "allocated" to the
Pittsburgh garage for their major repairs. These buses receive at
Pittsburgh everything except the regular servicing described above,
which may be performed at other terminal points in addition to
Pittsburgh, and any emergency repairs necessary to enable the bus to
return to Pittsburgh if major repair work is necessary. At every
15,000 miles and 45,000 miles a bus so allocated is withdrawn from
service and thoroughly inspected and all necessary repairs made.
Painting, straightening of fenders, body work and similar jobs are
also part of the major repair work performed on allocated buses.
Each garage has its allocated coaches, the Pittsburgh garage having
about ninety on the average (Resp. Exhibit 18).
The employees at the garage are classified as mechanics and me-
chanic helpers, painters, sheet metal men, trimmers, batterymen,
bodymen and bodymen helpers, cleaners, brakemen, electricians,
gassers, greasers, machinists, unit mechanics, washers, welders, etc.,
together with subdivisions of the broader classes. Some of the em-
ployees function as road mechanics. They are dispatched from the
Pittsburgh region and make such emergency repairs as are necessary
to enable the bus to proceed to a garage. Sometimes the road me-
chanic takes with him another bus to replace the disabled bus. The
drivers working' in the Pittsburgh region are not garage employees,
but they do have a room in the garage allocated to them where they
congregate preparatory to going out on their trips and where they
make their reports (Resp. Exhibit 17).
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 7
II. THE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA GREYHOUND
LINES, INC.
A. Formation of Employees Association and conduct of elections
The complaint alleges, and the answer denies, that the respondents
are dominating and interfering with the administration of a labor
organization of their employees known as the Employees Associa-
tion of the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc.' and are contributing
financial and other support to it. In order fully to understand the
present operation of the Association and the attitude of the re-
spondents toward it and other labor organizations, it will be neces-
sary to describe briefly its formation and history. While the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act applies only to practices occurring on or
after July 5, 1935, in cases where such practices have their origins in
events prior to that date, knowledge of that background of events
may be vital to a proper evaluation of the present practices. Con-
sequently, in this and other parts of the findings of fact reference
will be made to events prior to July 5, 1935 wherever it is necessary
for this purpose.
Until the fall of 1933 the employees of the Pennsylvania Grey-
hound System were unorganized and did not belong to any labor
organization or association. However, about the month of July, 1933,
the management decided, after discussions with representatives of
employers in other industries, that the employees should be organ-
ized into some form of employee association. Mr. S. R. Sundstrom,
President and General Manager of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines,
Inc., stated that there had been no demand to the management on
the part of employees for any form of organization, and that the
Association subsequently formed by the management was definitely
instigated by it. An accurate and informative description of the
management's sponsorship and initiation of the Association is con-
tained in a letter from W. A. Duvall, General Manager of Mainte-
nance for the Pennsylvania Greyhound System, to various subordi-
nates, including Mr. Nyland, the superintendent of the Pittsburgh
garage. This letter (Board Exhibit 73), dated July 26, 1933, reads
as follows :
"Mr. J. NYLAND
Mr. DEL BURNS
Mr. CHAS. WARD
Mr. WM. GLOVER
Mr. WM. ELLS
1 There is a slight inaccuracy in the name used in the complaint The correct name is
given in the text above.
97571-36-vol. i--2
8 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"The management has decided to set up a plan of. employe
representatives. At a Meeting of the Regional Managers of
Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines in Cleveland yesterday the
matter was explained fully and upon their return it will be dis-
cussed at length with you.
"Before the plan can be set up the Management must be
requested by the employes at the various divisions to do so.
Am attaching a sample of the petition which will be used for
obtaining a list of the employes interested.
"It is to our interest to pick out employes to serve on the
committee who will work for the interest of the company and
will not be radical. This plan of representation should work
out very well providing the proper men are selected, and con-
siderable thought should be given to the men placed on this
responsible Committee.
"This matter should be discussed fully with the Regional
Managers before anything is done, as they have been given full
instructions on how it should be handled.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) W. A. DUVALL
Manager of Maintenance."
Accompanying the letter was a sample petition prepared by the
management, with the following heading:
"'We, the undersigned employees of the ____________________
(Region)
request that an election be held for the purpose of electing em-
ployee representatives in this Region to confer with the Manage-
ment on matters affecting our welfare."'
and having the following instruction at the bottom :
"(Sample to be drawn up and sent to key men who will pre-
pare one themselves in this order.)" (Board Exhibit 74.)
For the Pittsburgh Region of the Pennsylvania Greyhound System,
such petitions were circulated among and signed by the employees of
the Pittsburgh garage and the drivers stationed there by employees
selected by the management, who stated to some of the signers that
"Crawford instructed us since the N. R. A. came along that we have
to have an organization ." Crawford was the Regional Manager for
the Pittsburgh Region of the Pennsylvania Greyhound System. The
"request" embodied in these petitions was "accepted" by the com-
pany by a posted notice. Notices signed by Crawford were then
posted, fixing the time and procedure of voting and listing the persons
who had been nominated by the employees (Board Exhibits 60, 61).
Employee tellers were selected by the Regional Manager and a mem-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 9
ber of the management acted as ex officio Teller. The voting was by
secret ballot from August 29 to August 31, 1933, and supervisory
employees were not permitted to vote. A representative each from
the drivers, the maintenance force and the clerical force were selected.
A notice signed by Crawford was posted, announcing the employees
elected, who were designated "Regional Committeemen", and in-
forming them that they would meet at a stated date to elect a Regional
Chairman, who would have stated functions (Board Exhibit 63). A
letter from Crawford to the employee representatives confirmed the
meeting and informed them that three named members of the man-
agement would represent the company on the Regional Committee
(Board Exhibit 64). At the meeting of the Regional Committee
presided over by Crawford, Robert J. Davidson, the representatives
of the drivers, was elected Chairman by the three employee repre-
sentatives, the management representatives and Crawford not being
present during this election.
Davidson was then notified by Crawford that the first meeting of
the General Committee, composed of Regional Chairmen, would be
held in Cleveland for the purpose of electing a General Chairman
and for consideration of the proposed by-laws of the Employees Asso-
ciation. On September 6, 1933 Davidson and four other Regional
Chairmen of the Pennsylvania Greyhound System met with the
eight Regional Chairmen of the other systems at the general office in
Cleveland. Marcus Dow, Manager of Safety and Personnel for the
Pennsylvania Greyhound System, presided. At his suggestion a
General Chairman of the Pennsylvania Greyhound System was
elected, and the employees chose Davidson. Mr. Dow then presented
mimeographed by-laws and regulations for the approval of the Re-
gional Chairmen. These had been prepared by Mr. Sundstrom and
Mr. Dow after they had gathered and examined material on company
representation plans. These were then discussed by these employee
representatives among themselves and amendments were suggested
by them. At a later date they were called to another meeting in
Cleveland, presided over by Mr. Sundstrom, at which another series
of mimeographed material was submitted. After further amendments
suggested by the company and the employees were adopted, the docu-
ments were signed. These included a "Memorandum of Understand-
ing Covering Method To Be Followed in the Handling of Questions
Between the Management and the Employees Covered by the Follow-
ing Regulations" ; "By-Laws of the Employees Association of Penn-
sylvania Greyhound Lines, Incorporated"; "Regulations for the
Government of Bus Operators"; "Regulations for the Government
of Regional Clerical Employes", and "Regulations for the Govern-
ment of Employes in the Maintenance Department" (Board Exhibits
10 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
66, 67 (incomplete), 68, 69, 70; Resp. Exhibits 5 and 6 are the same
as Board Exhibits 66 and 67; Resp. Exhibits 10, 8 and 9 represent
later editions, slightly revised, of Board Exhibits 68, 69 and 70).
Neither the Memorandum of Understanding, the By-Laws, nor the
various Regulations was ever presented to the entire group of em-
ployees for their approval or disapproval, they never voted on them,
and they never approved them.
In the elections conducted in August, 1934 for the Pittsburgh re-
gion, the employees made nominations on petitions mimeographed by
the company (Board Exhibits 75, 76, 77), printed ballots were dis-
tributed by the company (Board Exhibits 79, 80, 81, 82), the company
prepared for the use of the employee representatives a list of employ-
ees eligible to vote (Board Exhibit 78), the elections were held on
company time and company property, the reports of the tellers were
made on mimeographed forms prepared by the company (Board
Exhibits 83, 84, 85), and a notice on a mimeographed form, signed by
Crawford and the Employees Regional Committee, was posted, giving
the result of the election (Board Exhibit 86). The election of the em-
ployee representatives for 1935-1936, held in August, 1935, was simi-
larly conducted (See Board Exhibit 87). The July 22, 1935 form
letter of Dow, Manager of the Department of Safety and Personnel,
to the Regional Managers calling attention to the 1935 elections is
worthy of mention. It commenced by calling their attention to the
annual election of employee representatives and its date. Nomina-
tions had to be in the hands of the Regional Manager on a certain
date. Blank forms necessary for the election were furnished. The
Regional Managers would prepare the election roll. Yet the Re-
gional Managers were also advised that this is "strictly an employee
election to be conducted by the employees" (Resp. Exhibits 28B;
cf. 28A).
B. Description and analysis of Employees Association
The "Association is organized for the purpose of providing ade-
quate representation for Bus Operators, Maintenance Employees
and Clerical Employees before the Management of the Pennsyl-
vania Greyhound Lines, Inc. and securing for them satisfactory
adjustment of all controversial matters." (Preamble, By-Laws,
Resp. Exhibit 6). The By-Laws define those eligible for member-
ship and the qualifications of voters and representatives (Articles
I and III). They provide for representatives from each of the
three employee groups, the term of office and the method of filling
vacancies (Article II). The procedure for nominations and elec-
tions is outlined (Article IV). The composition of the Regional
Committee, the election of a Regional Chairman, and the meeting
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 11
of the Regional Committee with the members of the management,
the composition of the General Committee, which consists of the
Regional Chairmen, and the composition of the Joint Reviewing
Committee, consisting of the Regional Chairmen and an equal num-
ber of management representatives, and meetings of the General
Committee and the Joint Reviewing Committee, are provided for
(Article V). The process of amendment is described (Article VII).
The Memorandum of Understanding (Resp. Exhibit 5) describes
the manner in which "controversial" and "discipline matters" are
to be handled. An employee dissatisfied with the decision of his
immediate superior on any controversial point, including disciplinary
action, may place the matter in the hands of his Regional Com-
mitteemarr. The latter, by giving five days' notice, may have the
matter brought up at the monthly meeting of the Regional Com-
mittee. Similarly, the Regional Manager may place controversial
matters before the Regional Committee (Sections 3-5). In the event
the Regional Committeeman cannot effect a satisfactory settlement
with the Regional Manager, a "joint submission" is prepared by them
stating the question at issue, the agreed facts and their positions.
This is furnished to the Chairman of the General Committee, who
may take the matter up with the proper company official-the Man-
ager of,Safety and Personnel for controversies affecting drivers, the
Manager of Maintenance for controversies affecting maintenance
employees, and the Comptroller for controversies affecting clerical
employees. If a satisfactory settlement is not obtained,' a "joint sub-
mission" is prepared by the General Chairman and the official in-
volved and presented to the Joint Reviewing Committee (Sections
6-8). The Joint Reviewing Committee is composed of the Chairmen
of the Regional Committees and an equal number of representa-
tives of the management, and at least a two-thirds vote is necessary
to a decision. Decisions 'rendered by this Committee are final and
binding upon employees and management. If the Committee can-
not arrive at a decision, provision is made for a committee of one
employee, one representative of the management and a third person
selected by these two, to be appointed to arbitrate the matter (Sec-
tions 9-13). The By-Laws of the Joint Reviewing Committee are
contained in a separate document and provide for the election of
officers, the date and place of business, the order of business, the
duties of a secretary, etc. They may be changed by a two-thirds
vote (Resp. Exhibit 7).
The following aspects of the Association's operations are signifi-
cant:
(1) Membership. Membership in the Association is automatic.
All employees engaged as bus operators, maintenance men or cler-
ical employees and who are not in supervisory positions are mem-
12 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hers and eligible to vote if they had worked for the company for
three months prior to the nominations. Membership ceases upon ter-
rnination of severance of employment (Article I, By-Laws). There
are no applications for membership, no dues, no membership cards.
(2) Employee Representatives. Only members, and consequently
only employees, may be eligible for the office of representative. Ac-
cordingly, no outside person or organization may represent the
employees (Article III, By-Laws).
(3) Amendment of By-Lciiws. The By-Laws of the Association
(and also the By-Laws, of the Joint Reviewing Committee) may be
amended only by a two-thirds vote of the Joint Reviewing Commit-
tee. Since the membership on that Committee is divided equally
between the employees and the management, the management has a
veto power over any proposed change in the Employees Association
(Article VI, By-Laws).
(4) Employee Meetings. The By-Laws and other regulations con-
tain no provisions for employee meetings. The employees thus had
no regular method of formulating the wishes of the entire group.
Similarly, the employee representatives had no regular method of
receiving instructions from the employees, of ascertaining their
wishes or of imparting information to them.
(5) Compensation of Employee Representatives. The Regula-
tions for the Bus Operators and the Maintenance Employees provide
that members of the employee committee doing committee work
will be compensated for time off at their regular rate of pay and
for expenses (Bus Operators, 3-M-2 (b) ; Maintenance' Employees
8-F-2). The employee representatives also receive free transpor-
tation in addition to their expenses (Board Exhibit 65). Because
of the extensive territory served by the respondents, some of the
employee, representatives must travel very frequently on the affairs
of the Association.
(6) Expenses of Association. The employees do not pay any dues
and do not contribute anything toward defraying the expenses of
the Association. The mimeographing of forms, stenographic serv-
ices, etc., and election material are all supplied by the management
and all expenses of the Association and its machinery are borne by
the management.
(7) Management Veto by Inaction. A department head could
refuse to enter into a joint submission to the Joint Reviewing Com-
mittee, thus preventing the employee representatives from consider-
ing the problem with the management and allowing the manage-
ment to pick and choose those matters which it would "talk over"
with its employees.
The plan, like other "employee representation plans," was obvi-
ously designed primarily, if not solely, to handle individual employee
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 13
grievances , rather than to provide an avenue for collective bargain-
ing by means of which, as in the conventional relation between an
employer and a labor union , a contract eventuates covering wages,
hours and the basic working conditions for the employees for a
fixed period . Prior to the inception of the plan, discipline was the
concern of each individual official and complaints had been received.
None of the documents contains a clause providing for collective
bargaining on the part of the employees with the management in
the future on questions that may arise concerning wages, hours or
basic working conditions . While some general matters were dis-
cussed, this was due entirely to the activity and initiative of David-
son. At one time he took up the question of a wage increase and
an equalization of wages for drivers. Howe' er , the request was not
treated as a matter for bargaining but instead was looked upon as
strictly a management problem. The official involved refused to
join in a joint submission to the Joint Reviewing Committee and
the matter was thus ended . The classification of maintenance em-
ployees (infra), although proposed by the employee representatives,
was handled as a purely managerial problem and not as a matter
for collective bargaining.
The Regional Committee does not provide a favorable medium
for free discussion and genuine bargaining . The Regional Manager
presides over all of the meetings as chairman , so that four manage-
ment representatives are present , as compared with three employee
representatives . The conduct of the meetings is such as to make it
appear that their sole purpose is the submission of individual com-
plaints and grievances to the Regional Manager . No caucuses are
held by either group. There is no real voting. The Regional Man-
ager is generally the spokesman for the management . He presents
the management 's views and merely asks the employees if they
acquiesce or disagree, or informs them of the management 's views
and states if they want to go further , they know the procedure. In
some cases involving discharges the Joint Reviewing Committee
and the department head did reverse the Regional Manager.
C. Conclusion- managemnent domination of and interference with
Employees Association and contribution to it of financial and
other support
From the above description of the formation and operation of the.
Employees Association the conclusion is inescapable that the allega-
tion in the complaint of the respondents' domination , interference
and support is fully supported -by. the facts.
Historically , as shown above , the Employees Association was
entirely the creature of the management . It was planned by the
14 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
management, initiated and sponsored by it, and foisted upon em-
ployees who had never requested it. The initial elections were con-
ducted by the management, its organization chartered by the man-
agement and its By-Laws written by the management. Its functions
were described and given to it by the management.
Currently, it is still the creature of the management. All of its
affairs are controlled by the management-its elections are arranged,
conducted and supervised by the management, the meetings of the
Regional Committees are controlled by the management so as effec-
tively to prevent any genuine and free discussion, the choice of
matters to be discussed by the General Committee of employee repre-
sentatives rests with the management through the system of "Joint
Submission", the-organic structure is entirely at the control of the
management because of the necessity for its consent to any amend-
ment by the By-Laws. The Association is completely supported by
the management, so that a cessation of its financial and other support
would leave the Association completely penniless and unable to
function. The words domination, interference and support are
separately inadequate to describe the management's part in the
Association. The totality of the management's prescribed organic
structure of the Association and the . management's participation
results in complete subjugation and control.
The Association supposedly exists to provide "adequate represen-
tation for employees before the management". The "adequate rep-
resentation" actually provided is a mockery. The employees are
not permitted to utilize the skilled services of men outside the em-
ploy of the respondents in negotiation with the management since
there has beeii imposed upon them by the management an organiza-
tion whereby only employees may be representatives. The employees
have no regular or established method of meeting with each other
and by discussion and debate to formulate the desires of the whole
group and then as a body so to instruct their representatives. Simi-
larly, the representatives have no established method of consulting
with the employees whom they represent. The representatives are
wholly dependent upon the management for their expenses and
financial support. They have been intimidated and discouraged by
the hostility of the management toward any real activity on behalf
of the employees.
The Association is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2, subdivision (5) which defines a "labor organization" to
include an employee representation plan in which employees partic-
ipate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of
dealing With employers concerning grievances and conditions of
work. In its functioning the Association is a mechanism for the
handling of grievances, an important aspect of employment, albeit
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 15
it is management -controlled and the participation of the employees
is futile . The respondents in their brief admit it is a labor
organization.
While in its actual functioning the Association does not more than
handle grievances , the management has consistently utilized the
Association to block any real organization of its employees. The
Association was originally presented to the employees as in satis-
faction of their rights under Section 7(a) of the National Industrial
Recovery Act. It represented the respondents ' purported compli-
ance with the declaration of that Act that employees shall have the
right to organize for collective action . Later, as will be described,
when the employees attempted to join a union of their own choosing
that could act as their representative , the management advanced the
Association in opposition to their efforts and urged them not to join
the union , backing their persuasion with threats of discharge. In
their testimony and in their brief the respondents declare that the
committeemen are the only representatives of the employees-that the
Association provides " a means for selection of representatives of
the employees" (Resp. brief at p. 6).
The participation of the respondents in the Association-their
domination , interference and support-are unfair labor practices
proscribed by Section 8, subdivision ( 2). There can be but one way
of remedying the unlawful conduct in this case and that is a com-
plete withdrawal of all recognition from the Association as repre-
sentative of the employees, in addition to the order requiring cessa-
tion of such domination , interference and support . The control
of the management so permeates every aspect of its operations that
the Association and the management cannot be regarded as separate
entities so as -to require only the cessation of the latter's domination,
interference and support . The management's manipulation of the
Association to prevent genuine employee organization can be offset
only by such complete withdrawal of recognition . Since merely to
order a cessation of the unfair practices prohibited by Section 8,
subdivision ( 2) will be ineffective to remedy the result of those
practices , such affirmative withdrawal of recognition from the Asso-
ciation as an organization representative of the employees in their
relations with the management is necessary to effectuate the policies
of the National Labor Relations Act.
III. FORMATION OF DIVISION NO. 1063 AND RESPONDENTS ' REACTION TO IT
A. Formation of Division No. 1063
In 1934 and 1935 some of the employees became interested in an
outside labor organization . They became skeptical of the Employees
Association when they were informed of the letter written by Duvall
16 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the time it was formed (Board Exhibit 73, quoted above). They
doubted the good faith of the management. Davidson at first de-
fended the Employees Association. Later, about January, 1935, he
visited the representative of the American Federation of Labor in
Pittsburgh. In April, 1935, the other members of the General Com-
mittee questioned him about the possibility of an outside organiza-
tion,- and he informed them of the Amalgamated Association of
Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, a
labor organization. They immediately indicated their willingness to
join at that time. Davidson, who testified he thought he could get
more for the employees through an outside union than through the
Employees Association, then applied for and secured a charter,
which was issued on May 7, 1935 to the Pennsylvania Greyhound
Employees as Division No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Association.2
He commenced to obtain applications on May 11, 1935 and called a
meeting on May 28, 1935. Subsequent meetings were held on July
10 and July 11, 1935. About fifty to sixty members, including both
drivers and maintenance employees, were secured, each of whom
paid an application fee of $2, and membership cards were issued.
Davidson was and is President of the union. With the exception
of a temporary "Board" member, there are no other officers. Divi-
sion No. 1063 was formed and exists in part for the purpose of
dealing with the management concerning grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment and conditions of work
and hence is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2,
subdivision (5).
B. Respondents' reaction to formation of Division No. 1063-(1)
Discharge of Davidson
On May 16th, coincident with the initial activity of Davidson in
organizing the union and obtaining members, Crawford went from
his office to the garage and informed Davidson that Mr. Sundstrom
had said he must stop taking time off for the Employees Association
and to be on the job that evening, though Davidson informed Craw-
ford that in his capacity as employee representative he had to see
some employees who were in trouble. The trouble was unrelated to
union activities, and was a matter which Davidson was attending to
as employee representative in the Employees Association. While
once in 1933 Sundstrom had objected to his taking time off but had
later acquiesced, there had been no other objection to his doing so.
Crawford's language, as will be shown later, indicated clearly that
he at that time knew of Davidson's activity in organizing the union.
Davidson, despite Crawford's order, informed the dispatcher that he
2 Hereafter referred to as the union.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 17
would not take his run that evening because of committee work.
While this procedure was customary, the dispatcher did not know
that Crawford had ordered Davidson to report, and Davidson did not
so inform him. The next day Crawford suspended him for dis-
obedience and prohibited him from going on company property. On
May 20th a management hearing was held on this suspension. While
originally Sundstrom, Dow, Bauer and Crawford were present, after
some objection by Davidson based on the absence of employees and
a request for a stenographic record, all but Crawford withdrew.
Crawford then discharged him after he said he had no further
defense. In this connection it should be noted that Davidson was
regarded as an efficient employee, had been awarded a four-year non-
accident button in August 1934 and was a star driver.
Davidson then asked for and obtained a review of his discharge,
in accordance with the regulations. In the interval a special election
was held to fill his place as representative of the drivers, although
his term had not expired and under the By-Laws he could still act
as a representative. The election was held at the instigation of the
management. At the hearing before the Board it was defended by
the respondents on the ground that Davidson could not sit on his
own case, which obviously is not sufficient reason to remove him from
office generally. The Regional Committee sustained the discharge,
Henry, an employee representative, testifying that he didn't feel free
to object after Crawford, who presided, had asked the men to uphold
the decision. Davidson then became a special organizer for the
Amalgamated. Davidson did not organize or work for the union
on company time or while he was taking time off for his activities
as employee representative; nor did he receive any funds from the
Amalgamated prior to his discharge.
The sudden attempt to shackle Davidson in his activities as em-
ployee representative, the discharge which resulted, and the special
election all point to the anxiety of the respondents to rid themselves
of Davidson as soon as possible and indicate their hostility to any
outside labor organization and to any employee engaging in activ-
ities in connection with such organization. One is reminded of the
letter written by Duvall at the birth of the Association; "It is to
our interest to pick out employees to serve on the Committees who
will work for the interest of the company and who will not be rad-
ical." The testimony of the respondents' officials in regard to David-
son further evidences this attitude. It must be remembered that
Davidson was the General Chairman of the employee representatives.
He had not resigned from this position at the time he commenced
to organize the men into the union, so that at the same time he both
held office in the Employees Association and was organizing the em-
ployees into an outside union. Such conduct was not inconsistent
18 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the By-Laws or other regulations. The attitude of the manage-
ment officials toward his dual position is illuminating, for, in addi-
tion to indicating the hostility to any outside labor organization, it
clearly shows that the management regarded the Employees Asso-
ciation as its creature and property. Sundstrom referred to his
conduct as "inconsistent" and stated that it was an offense against
the employees and against the company. The terms "very bad
faith", "unethical thing", "false colors", "boring from within"
were applied by Sundstrom to characterize Davidson's conduct. The
respondents' attorney and Sundstrom thought Davidson's activities
constituted a "breach of faith," to the company. Throughout their
testimony the officials indicated that they felt the management was
aggrieved because of Davidson's conduct even after the Board had
attempted to point out the implication of their attitude. It is sig-
nificant that at the conclusion of his cross-examination of Davidson,
counsel for the respondents asked the following question : "Do you
understand the meaning of the word that is used in A. F. of L. union
circles, called `rat'?" While counsel, in response to questioning by
the Chairman of the Board, stated that the remark was intended to
apply to the general situation in the case and not to Mr. Davidson,
the question-is revealing of the company's attitude.
C. Respondents' reaction to formation of Division No. 1063-(0)
Hostility of off eials of respondents to the union
The union was active in the month of July and meetings were held
on July 10 and July 11. Throughout the entire period beginning at
the middle of May officials of the respondents actively indicated their
hostility to the union and kept it under surveillance. Their attitude
can best be described by separately discussing each of the officials
involved.
Nyland-Superintendent of the Garage. On repeated occasions
Nyland questioned employees about the union and warned and ad-
vised them not to join. He arranged to meet employee McKelvey
about May 9 in the night time at a secluded street and there asked
who had joined the union, stating he believed he could rely on him
because of his long employment with the company. Nyland pro-
duced a list of employees whom he said were union members, and on
which McKelvey recognized his and other names. Upon McKel-
vey's refusal to give any information Nyland informed him his days
were numbered. The performance was repeated shortly after July
10. About May 29 Nyland told employee Rihr to keep out of the
union if he and his wife and kids did not want to go hungry. At
a later date Nyland told him to stay out of the union if he knew
what was good for him. About the beginning of June, Nyland
asked employee Law if he had joined and informed him that he and
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 19
Sprain had investigated unions and found they were no good. He
often asked Henry, an employee representative, what was going on
and what the men were doing and whether he was satisfied with his
job. About July 11 Nyland asked employee Lehman if he had joined
the union and advised him not to join. He spoke to him on behalf
of the Employees Association. All of the above, although heard by
Nyland who was present throughout the hearing, and was not con-
troverted or denied by him, with the exception of his possession of a
list, when he testified.
On the evening of July 10, Nyland and Bauer openly maintained
surveillance of a meeting of the union which took place on that date.
They sat in a car parked near the entrance of the meeting place and
observed the employees who were entering. Their view was unob-
structed and there was sufficient light to enable them clearly to
observe the men.
Brernomier-Garrage Foreman. Bremmier was very outspoken in
his hostility to the union. On May 28 he asked employee Mitchell
if he was going to the union meeting that evening and said if he
were smart he would stay away. He stated it was his "business" to
find out who was attending. The next day, after the meeting, he
asked employee Matthews if he had attended. Upon receiving a
negative answer, he said: "You use your head. If you fellows mess
around with that union you're going to get fired." He also asked
employee Maxwell if he attended, and said : "Well, if you know what
the hell is good for you, you will stay away from them." Similar
"advice" was given to McKelvey. On July 26, when he demoted
employee Rihr from tester to mechanic, he said: "You should have
kept your nose clean and kept out of the union." On July 28 he
asked Lehman what the union fellows would do when the shop closed
down, and said, "The Greyhound has plenty of money and will stop
at nothing to break your union."
Bremmier did not testify and none of the above was controverted
or denied by the witnesses of the respondents.
Sprain--Assistant Manager of Maintenance. Sprain also kept
asking the men whether they belonged to the union and whether they
were dissatisfied. About the end of May he asked Mitchell if he was
satisfied with his work and stated that if he was not satisfied he could
leave. Later on, about the middle of July, he spoke to employee
Moberley and said he was attending outside meetings and was appar-
ently dissatisfied. He added: "We are running a bus company here
and we intend to keep on running a bus company. We are not going
to let anything interfere with it. And all of you fellows that are dis-
satisfied with the way we are running the company can get out." He
asked who was at the head of the activities and said that if Moberley
joined he would not have his job very long. Nyland participated in
20 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these remarks. Another employee, Burns, was also questioned by
Sprain about the end of July as to whether he was satisfied with his
job and as to whether all of the boys had signed up.
Although Sprain testified at the hearing, he did not deny or
controvert these statements.
Crawford-Regional Manager for the Pittsburgh Region. Craw-
ford early made known to Davidson his hostility and that of the
management to the union. When he informed Davidson on May 16
that he had received instructions from Sundstrom that morning to
forbid him to take any time off, he went on to discuss the union, and
said : "You are not kidding us. We know what you are doing."
Davidson replied : "Well, what about it?" and Crawford said : "I
don't think the men want it. In fact, I have had a couple of long-
distance calls this morning that the men don't want it." After the
meeting of the Regional Committee, at which Davidson's discharge
was sustained, Crawford asked Henry and Schweinford, employee
representatives, to remain. He then said to them that he had heard
there was an undercurrent of dissension around the shop, and added :
"I am going to give you a chance to quit now with a clean record,
but if you stay it will be different." He stated that no outside
organization would get into and run the Greyhound Lines. Henry
said : "That is rather straight from the shoulder talk, isn't it, Mr.
Crawford?" and he replied: "That is just what I meant it to be."
Crawford, although he testified, did not deny or controvert these
statements.
Crawford also maintained surveillance over the men through one
Hilton, whom he paid for that purpose. Hilton worked with Drake,.
a driver for the company. Together, with the assistance of Bauer
and Crawford, they had a petition typed, stating the men were satis-
fied, and Drake circulated it among the drivers, implying that those
who did not sign would be fired. Drake was paid by the company
for the time he lost on account of these activities. He was the one
who circulated the petition calling for a special election after David-
son's suspension. Hilton attempted to ascertain who attended one
of the union meetings by copying the license numbers of cars parked
outside the meeting place and gave the list to Crawford. Drake
introduced to Nyland a person named Weir, who had been employed
by Drake to drive himself and Hilton around for some time but who
later told Drake he wanted to work in the garage. He was em-
ployed by Nyland, and, although he had little experience, was given
three pay increases in three weeks. Drake told Weir that Nyland
was all right and "on our side." Weir was supposed to be a "stool
pigeon" and was told by Drake that "there's going to be a lot of
guys cleaned out for this union business, and there'll be a good chance
for a good job for you in there." Weir did not give Drake or the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 21
others any information. Later Nyland thought mistakenly that
Weir had joined the union and asked Drake, "What the heck kind
of a man did you recommend to me?" Shortly thereafter, about
July 10, Weir was discharged without being given a reason for the
discharge. Crawford, when testifying, offered the unconvincing and
unacceptable explanation that Hilton was employed by him as an
undercover man to check on whether the drivers were congregating
in saloons and drinking excessively.
The officials listed above were located in Pittsburgh all of the time,
with the exception of Sprain who traveled frequently, and were the
ones who had daily contact with the employees in the garage. Craw-
ford, Sprain and Nyland had authority to hire and discharge main-
tenance employees.
The testimony of many of the officials as to their knowledge of
the activities of the employees during this period, when placed
against the background of hostility and bias described above, is re-
vealing because of its unreality and contradictions. Nyland stated
that he went to the place where the July 10th meeting was held, out
of "curiosity" and because he had been "in one way or another
invited down" by the boys; he didn't know it was a union meeting
or what kind of a meeting it was-it might have been a "dance."
He said he never spoke to Mr. Duvall, who visited the Pittsburgh
garage for the purpose of an inspection in the middle of July and
again on July 30, about the situation, the activities of the men or
the meeting. Duvall testified he did not remember whether Nyland
told him a union was being formed, nor did he tell him of observing
the men at the meeting. On July 30 Nyland did say to him that
"some of the boys might want to organize for themselves"--but did
not use the word "union." Sprain said he received knowledge of
the outside organization in the following fashion-one of the em-
ployees, entering his office on the pretext of obtaining a pass, sur-
reptitiously informed him Davidson was organizing the men and
that they had held a meeting, and then walked out. Sprain testi-
fied he did not make any inquiries of anybody, did nothing about the
information, said it had no relation to any subsequent actions or to
any conversations with other officials-the matter "died" right
there. Duvall in regard to Sprain testified that Sprain informed
him only of his supposition and thought that the men were forming
an organization of their own-again the word "union" is not used
in their conversations. Duvall said he knew there was some unrest,
but "didn't'know it was a union"-it might have been the Elks or
something else. Crawford stated .he had no knowledge that an in-
dependent labor organization was being formed. He testified he did
know that Nyland and Bauer had been outside of the meeting place
on July 10-they told him the next day that some mechanics and
22 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
drivers had attended a meeting but didn't say what kind of a meet-
ing it was. But he did not know it concerned a labor organization
and said that "It might have been a Democratic meeting", since
it was held in the Democratic Hall. He himself "wasn't curious
about it or worried about it or interested in it." He saw nothing
wrong in Nyland's actions in observing the men and did not believe
that the employees would be uneasy on account of it and afraid of
their jobs. He did not report to his superiors that an organization
was being talked about and meetings being held-"I didn't feel it
was serious enough to be concerned about." Sundstrom, while stat-
ing in a prepared statement that "to his knowledge" no official had
ever urged, pursuaded, warned or advised any employee to refrain
from joining a labor organization, did testify he knew Davidson
was organizing the men and his attention had been called to the fact
meetings had been held. He had received a report from Crawford,
and Duvall had spoken to him personally about the meetings.
Such testimony is incredible. The indifference of the officials, their
air of careful unconcern, the studied avoidance of the word "union"
in their conversations describing the activities of the employees, the
naive ignorance of the type of meetings their employees are holding,
are impossible of belief. The testimony points to a constructed case
and only serves to emphasize the hostility and bias of the manage-
ment testified to in the uncontradicted evidence of the employees.
The evidence outlined above fully supports the allegations in the
complaint that the respondents urged, persuaded and warned their
employees not to join Division No. 1063, threatened them with dis-
charge if they became or remained members, and kept their union
meetings under surveillance., Employees are guaranteed certain
rights by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act-the 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 purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Employers are pro-
hibited in Section 8, subdivision (1) from interfering with, restrain-
ing or coercing employees in the exercise of such rights. For an
employer to threaten employees with discharge if they join a certain
labor organization and to warn them that their jobs will be forfeited
if they become members is obviously to commit acts within the inter-
diction. The maintenance of open surveillance of the union meet-
ings of employees is a vicious form of restraint and coercion, espe-
cially when coupled as here with threats of discharge, for it has the
obvious intent and effect of placing the employees in fear of their
jobs because of their activity in connection with the union. The
prohibition of Section 8, subdivision (1) clearly reaches the em-
ployer who urges and persuades men in his employ not to form a
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 23
labor organization. Such "advice" is not the advice of a person
on an equal plane and having an unprejudiced mind. It is the
"advice" of an employer who has the right to discharge the em-
ployee to whom the "advice" is given-to control to a large extent
his economic position and thus his welfare. Here it was "advice"
that was accompanied by threats of discharge and warnings if the
advice were rejected-"advice'othat therefore became effective. The
motive for the proffering of such "advice" and for the other acts
of interference, restraint and coercion on the part of officials of the
respondents is clear-the employees were already members of the
Association which the management had under its thumb and it was
to the interest of the respondents that they be kept in that Association
and not join an organization of their own choosing.
IV. DISCHARGES
On July 30 six of the maintenance employees in the Pittsburgh
garage were discharged 3 by Mr. Duvall. He also ordered the dis-
charge of a seventh, and he was discharged on July 31 by Mr. Ny-
land, pursuant to such order. All seven were members of the union,
and the complaint alleges that they were discharged because of that
membership and their union activities. The allegation is denied by
the respondents who advance other reasons for the discharges. Here,
as generally, in discharging these employees the respondents did not
openly state that they were being discharged for union membership
or activity, so that standing by themselves the actual discharges con-
stitute equivocal acts in the light of the conflicting reasons that are
advanced. In reaching a decision between these conflicting conten-
tions, the Board has had to take into consideration the entire back-
ground, of the discharges, the inferences to be drawn from testimony
and conduct, and the soundness of the contentions when tested against
such background and inferences (Compare Norris v. Alabama, 294
U. S. 587 (1935) ). Moreover, as the Supreme Court has stated
"Motive is a persuasive interpreter of equivocal conduct", so that
the Board may properly view the activities of the respondents in the
light of the manifest interest and purpose described above (Texas &
Newt Orleans Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway c Steamaship
Clerks, 281 U. S. 548 (1930) ). The background against which these
discharges must be considered has been in large part presented above
in Part III hereof. However, before describing the discharge of
each employee separately, it is necessary to complete the picture by
a description of two other events that also affected the Pittsburgh
garage in July. These are the establishment of a classification of all
' The respondents claim that some of these men were "furloughed" and this contention
will be discussed later.
97571-36-vol i-3
24 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pennsylvania Greyhound employees, and consequently of the em-
ployees in the Pittsburgh garage, and the occurrence in July of 17
road failures and an accident on buses serviced by the Pittsburgh
garage.
A. The July 1, 1935, classification of Pennsylvania Greyhound
System, Employees
Sometime in 1934 the management commenced work upon a classi-
fication of its employees. Davidson in 1933 had requested such a
classification and the management apparently also desired it. Mr.
Duvall worked extensively on the classification of the maintenance
men and consulted other large companies in its preparation. Prior
to this classification the maintenance employees were grouped to-
gether as one class and there was no rate classification. On July 1,
1935 the new classification of maintenance employees became effec-
tive. It divided the garages into Class "A" and Class "B" garages,
and then classified the various maintenance jobs and fixed a scale of
wages for these classifications. A minimum was established for each
classification, and monthly and yearly automatic increases provided
for, up to a maximum. Some of the classified groups were further
divided into classes, such as Mechanic, first class, and Mechanic,
second class; Bodyman and Sheet Metal Worker, first class, and
Bodyman and Sheet Metal Worker, second class, and a scale estab-
lished for each class (Resp. Exhibit 3). On July 1, 1935 the main-
tenance employees were fitted into this classification on the basis of
the wages they were then receiving and the work they were then
doing. For example, a mechanic receiving 63¢ an hour became a
second-class mechanic ; one receiving 66¢ an hour became a first-class
mechanic (Resp. Exhibit 3, sheet 3). Where less than the minimum
was being earned, an increase was granted (Resp. Exhibit 3, sheet
3) ; where more than the maximum was being earned, no reduction
was effected. Previous seniority was observed only in regard to the
group or class in which the employee was placed. For example,
mechanic A, employed on July 1, 1930 and receiving on July 1,
1935 66¢ an hour, became a mechanic, first class, with his position
in that class fixed on the basis of his length of service as compared
with that of the other first-class mechanics. Mechanic B, employed
on July 1, 1932 and earning on July 1, 1935 630 an hour, became a
mechanic, second class, and his position in that class similarly fixed.
If all of the first-class mechanics were employed prior to July 1,
1930, mechanic A would be at the bottom of his class, and if all of
the second-class mechanics were employed after July 1, 1932, me-
chanic B would be at the top of his class. If the number of first-
class mechanics were reduced on a basis of seniority by classification,,
A would thus be the first to be, let out, although in actual length
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 25
of employment he had seniority over all of the second-class mechan-
ics who prior to July 1, 1935 had been classed with him merely as
mechanics. To this extent the seniority of the maintenance em-
ployees was altered by the classification. The Regulations for the
maintenance employees state that seniority shall be by craft and will
be computed from date of last employment. Craft referred to the
broad classifications, such as greaser, mechanic, cleaner, etc. (Resp.
Exhibit 8, Par. 3-A-1, 3-B-1). It is clear that the classification to
the extent that it disturbed seniorities existing on July 1, 1935 as
described above conflicted with these Regulations.
Generally speaking, a first-class mechanic on July 1, 1935 was
more efficient than a second-class mechanic, since the allocation was
based upon the wages then being paid. Since those wages were
affected to some extent by the conditions existing at the time the men
entered into the employ of the company, this would not always be
the case. However, if the classification, prepared over a long period
of time and with great care, is to be given any weight, it is obvious
that, from July 1, 1935 on a first-class mechanic was intended to be
recognized by the company as more efficient and more valuable to it
than a second-class mechanic. Moreover, advancement from the
lower to the higher class was on the basis of competency.
The classification of July 1, 1935, was not discussed with the
employees or their representatives. It was never submitted to the
employees or voted on by them.
B. The July road failures of the Pittsburgh Garage and the Warren,
Ohio, accident
A "road failure" is the term used to describe the situation when
a bus on its regular run develops a defect and is unable to continue,
so that another coach must be substituted for it. Apparently, if such
a condition is caused by an accident involving other cars, the situation
is not classified - as a "road failure " but as an "accident ." Monthly
records are kept of all of the road failures.and accidents allocated to
the responsible garage.
Mr. Duvall was the official directly concerned with road failures
and their causes, since he was in charge of the maintenance depart-
ment. On July 9 or 10, 1935, his attention was called to what he
deemed was an excessive number of road failures for the Pittsburgh
garage for the first part of July. He called Sprain , his assistant, at
Pittsburgh , and after learning from him that there seemed to be a
let-down in the quality of the work at the garage , offered sugges-
tions for improvement . Three more failures then occurred , making
twelve for the July 1-14 period , and Duvall went to the Pittsburgh
garage on July 15. He checked it over , observed what he termed a
"loose condition", and told Nyland and the foreman that unless an
26 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
improvement took place some of the work would be transferred else-
where. At the regular shop meeting on July 17, Nyland discussed
these failures separately (Resp. Exhibit 31). On July 21, Sprain
wrote to Nyland that there had been a let-down in the quality of
the work at Pittsburgh and that conditions had become worse in the
last three weeks. He stated it was apparent many of the "employees
have become more concerned with the outside and personal inter-
ests" 4 and that unless there was an "immense improvement", the
major work would be transferred. He ended by suggesting a special
meeting of the garage employees (Resp. Exhibit 30). Duvall after
his trip, thought the matter had been cleared, up, but on July 23 he
writes to Sprain that he "was rather surprised this morning to
find that up to the 13th of the month the Pittsburgh Garage has
been responsible for 12 road failures" and that unless a marked im-
provement occurs, and even if it does, the major work may be
transferred (Resp. Exhibit 14). The writing of this letter after
he had thought the situation had cleared up was explained by
Duvall on the ground that he wanted to put himself on recprd.
On July 26,6 Nyland held a special shop meeting on these road
failures. He read letters from Sprain and Duvall to the effect that
unless a marked improvement occurred drastic steps would be taken
and some of the work transferred (Resp. Exhibit 15). He described
the road failures in detail, all of which he verbally classed as
"preventable", but his reference to certain ones indicates that he
thought they were non-preventable and due to defects in the equip-
ment. The employees themselves thought most were non-preventable.
In previous months the road failures had been classified in writing
as preventable and non-preventable; for July the posted list was
silent as to classification (Board Exhibit 40), but Nyland said orally
that they were preventable. The descriptive list of road failures
with their causes indicates that some were non-preventable and due
to defects in equipment (Resp. Exhibit 19; cf. Resp. Exhibits 24a-
24p). By the end of July there were 17 failures, all involving buses
allocated to Pittsburgh.
The number of road failures in July was clearly in excess of those
occurring in previous months for the Pittsburgh garage, and the
miles per failure average was decidedly lower (Resp. Exhibits 20,21).
The number of failures was also much higher than that for any
other garage in July, the second highest number being five for Phila-
delphia (Resp. Exhibit 216). However, it is doubtful whether such
a comparison is an accurate indication of the comparative efficiency
He testified that the phrase had no particular reference to anything.
In some parts of the record the date is erroneously placed at July 28.
s This Exhibit shows 16 road failures as -against the 17 that occurred . The dis-
crepancy was not explained.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 27
of the garages. Unusual circumstances can easily increase the
amount of failures, and the element of chance can readily bunch a
number of failures into the period of one month. July was a busy
month and the employees were rushed in their work. The supervis-
ing officials at the garage relaxed their standards in order to meet
the volume of work. Moreover, road failures in many cases occur in
later months on account of work in prior months, so that it cannot be
said a garage is inefficient for a certain month on the basis of the
number of failures for that month. If the Pittsburgh garage was
inefficient in July, the result of that inefficiency should in part have
been reflected in a high number of failures in September if the
Respondents' Exhibit is to be given full weight. Yet, in September
only four failures occurred.
On July 28, 1935 one of the Pennsylvania Greyhound buses, No.
566, skidded near Warren, Ohio, turned broadside to the road and
smashed into two cars, injuring some of the occupants of the bus
and the cars (Resp. Exhibit 25, Board Exhibit 89). Duvall went to
Cleveland on July 29 to inspect the bus and after a minute inspection
concluded that the accident was due to faulty adjustment or non-ad-
justment of the brakes. At that time Duvall was under the impres-
sion some people had been killed in the accident. The bus had been
checked at the Pittsburgh garage before it commenced the fatal
run. Duvall immediately went to Pittsburgh, arriving there July 30,
1935 in an angry mood, and spent four or five hours inspecting the
garage. He checked the report on bus 566 and ascertained who had
worked on the brakes. He also checked the previous road failures
with Nyland and Bremmier. He decided to shift to Chicago some of
the buses then allocated to Pittsburgh for major servicing.
The July 30 and July 31 discharges may now be considered.
C. The July 30-31 discharges separately described
1. Chester Lehman. Chester Lehman was an electrician who had
commenced work for the Greyhound Lines in May 1928 but whose
employment at the Pittsburgh Garage dated from October 1929.
He was an efficient mechanic and did all of the electrical work,
being helped in periods of large volume of work. He was one of
the highest paid mechanics in the garage. Although an electrician,
he was classified as a unit mechanic on July 1, and became the junior
in seniority of the three in that group. He was younger in seniority
than F. Beining, the classified first-class electrician, but senior to
the second-class electrician and the electricians' helper (Resp.
Exhibit 17A).
Lehman joined the union on May 28, 1935, and attended its meet-
ings. Both Nyland and Bremmier had knowledge of his union
28 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership. Both these officials had also spoken to him about the
union, Nyland telling him unions were no good and not to join
and Bremmier saying the company would break the union. Lehman
on both occasions defended the union and his activity. At the July
26 meeting, Nyland made it clear that Lehman was in no way respon-
sible for the two road failures caused by defective electrical
equipment.
On July 30 Nyland called him into Nyland's office and left him
alone with Duvall. Duvall mentioned the seventeen road failures,
stated that some of the work was being moved out, that he was the
youngest in his department and that he was fired. Lehman chal-
lenged his statement of seniority and Duvall replied he didn't say
anything about the basis of seniority. Duvall agreed that there was
nothing the matter with his work and that he was not responsible
for any of the failures. Lehman told him that he thought he was
being discharged for union activity, which Duvall then denied.
After Lehman's discharge, F. Beining, the classified first-class elec-
trician, took over his work although he was not as skillful. Nyland,
in answer to his protestation that he was not used to the work, told
him to take his time and do his best. Beining was kept very busy
and on account of the pressure of the work was unable to take a
desired vacation.
Lehman's wage was 78¢ an hour for an eight hour day. He was
employed elsewhere for a short period after his discharge and from
July 30 to the date of hearing had earned $30. He was not employed
elsewhere at the date of hearing.
2. Albert, McKelvey. Albert McKelvey 7 was a mechanic employed
for eight years by Greyhound Lines and since June 1933 at the
Pittsburgh Garage. He was the junior in seniority of the first-class
mechanics under the July 1st classification but was older in point
of service than ten of the sixteen second-class mechanics (Resp.
Exhibit 17). In 1930 he had been recommended by the Superin-
tendent of the New York garage, as able, honest, and reliable (Board
Exhibit 56).
McKelvey joined the union on May 28, 1935 and attended its meet-
ings. Both Nyland and Bremmier knew of his union membership,
he having informed them of it when questioned by them. After
May 28 Nyland had arranged to meet him at a secluded spot and had
questioned him about the union, saying he thought he could rely on
him because of his long employment. McKelvey had refused to give
him any information and Nyland had said his days were numbered.
Shortly after July 10 this was repeated. Bremmier had questioned
him about the May 28 meeting and had told him to stay away from
the union if he knew what was good for him.
7 The complaint erroneously refers to him as "McKelvie."
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 29
On July 30 he was called into Nyland's office by Nyland and Duvall
said he was going to let him go on account of the road failures since
he was the last on the list of mechanics . McKelvey asked to be trans-
ferred, but Duvall said that was impossible . McKelvey said he
thought his discharge was for union activities and Duvall replied that
he ought to know what to do with his spare time without fooling
around like that.
McKelvey's wage was 74¢ an hour for an eight hour day. He was
employed elsewhere on similar work at the time of the hearing and
had earned $145 (at the rate of $29 a week ) since his discharge.
3. Stephen Mitchell. Stephen Mitchell was a mechanic whose
employment at Pittsburgh commenced in May, 1933. He had pre-
viously been employed at Pittsburgh but had been discharged by
Duvall following a road failure on a bus on which he had worked.
He was next to the last of the first-class mechanics in point of senior-
ity on the July 1st classification but was ahead of twelve of the
sixteen second -class mechanics ( Resp. Exhibit 17). On July 11
he had been temporarily sent to the Gettysburg Garage on a motor
job by Nyland , who stated he was sending him there since he was
one of the few mechanics who could it handle it competently. He
returned July 27.
Mitchell became a union member late in May, 1935 and attended
some of its meetings. On May 28, Bremmier had questioned him
about his going to the meeting and had told him if he were smart, he
would stay away. Sprain had also told him if he were dissatisfied
with his work he could leave. On July 30 he was brought by Nyland
to his office and there Duvall told him about the seventeen road fail-
ures, stated that some of the work was being moved out, and that he
would have to go-that he was through.
Mitchell 's wage was 68¢ an hour for an eight -hour day. Since
July 30 up to the date of hearing he had earned about $100 through
other employment and was then employed elsewhere, though irregu-
larly and at a lower rate.
4. Lester Moberley . Lester Moberley s was a body repair man and
had been employed at Pittsburgh since September, 1933. He was the
junior first -class body repair man on the basis of the July 1 classi-
fication, but was senior in service to one of the four second-class
body repair men and one of the four body repair men helpers
(Resp. Exhibit 17). He became a union member on May 28, 1935
and attended the meetings . About the middle of July Sprain and
Nyland had warned him about the union. Sprain had said if he
were dissatisfied he could get out and that if he joined he would not
have his job very long. For the latter part of July he was tempo-
11 The complaint erroneously refers to him as "Moberly."
30 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rarily at Sunbury, Pa. On July 30 Nyland brought him to Duvall
in the former's office and then left. Duvall mentioned the road
failures and that work was being transferred, and then that he was
being let go as he was the youngest body repair man. Moberley
stated that as a body repair man he could not be responsible for road
failures and Duvall agreed, but said he was through. Bremmier a
short time later told him "to get the hell off the property."
Moberley's wage was 68¢ an hour for an eight-hour day. He had
been employed for a short period after his discharge and to the date
of hearing had earned about $103-104. He was employed at similar
work in Pontiac, Michigan at the date of hearing.
5. John Rihr. John Rihr was employed at the Pittsburgh Ga-
rage in November 1929. During his last four years there he worked
as a tester. On July 26, he was demoted from tester to mechanic
and on the basis of the July 1 classification, he then became a first-
class mechanic with seniority over seven of the thirteen in that
group (Resp. Exhibit 17). He became a union member on May 28
and attended its meetings. He had advised Bremmier of his mem-
bership. Nyland had told him to stay out of the union if he didn't
want to go hungry and if he knew what was good for him. Brem-
mier, in demoting him, had given the number of road failures as a
reason and had added that he should have kept out of the union.
On July 31 he was discharged by Nyland, who gave the number of
road failures as the reason. Duvall the previous day had told
Nyland to discharge him.
Rihr was earning 68¢ an hour for an eight hour day. He has
not been employed since his discharge and is now on relief.
6. Albert Burns. Albert Burns was a greaser who had been em-
ployed at the Pittsburgh Garage since November, 1933. -He was the
senior of the two greasers on the July 1 classification (Resp. Exhibit
17A). Burns was a member of the union and had attended its
meetings. About July 28 he drove Sprain to his hotel and the
latter asked him if all of the boys had signed up. He added that
most of the work was going to be transferred and only a few men
kept to perform greasing, storage work, etc. He said the men were
never satisfied and that Greyhound wages were the highest paid in
that field. Burns replied that since he was a greaser, he supposed
he would have his job and Sprain said he guessed so.
When Duvall was inspecting the garage on the morning of July 30
he noticed Burns had left the lights on in his grease pit and in an
irritated fashion he criticized Nyland and Burns for it. He told
Nyland he had warned Burns once before, although actually it had
been the relief man whom he had previously warned. He also was
displeased with the way Burns had greased the bus on which he was
then working, and informed Nyland of his displeasure but did not so
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 31:
inform Burns. Later Burns was called in, as were the other em-
ployees, and Duvall spoke to him about the road failures and also
about his being reprimanded for leaving the lights on. He then
discharged him.
Burns was earning 400 an hour for an eight-hour day. He has
not worked since his discharge.
7. Emil Law. Law was a mechanic who specialized on brake
work. He had been employed in the Pittsburgh garage since April,,
1932. He was classified as a second-class mechanic and was fourth,
in seniority in the group of sixteen (Resp. Exhibit 17). Law joined
the union in May 25, 1935 and attended all its meetings. Nyland
had questioned him about May 28 on his union membership and he
had stated that he belonged to it.
Law was the employee who had worked on bus No. 566, which was
the bus involved in the accident at Warren, Ohio. He had checked
and adjusted the brakes and had "okayed" them (Resp. Exhibit 16).
On July 30, he was called before Duvall in Nyland's office. Duvall
told him about the road -failures and then asked if he had worked
on No. 566, showing him the work order slip. He stated he had
worked on it. Duvall said that there had been an accident due to
defective brakes and two people had been killed. He then discharged
him for inefficiency.
Law in his testimony stated 'that if he had been responsible for
the accident, his dismissal was fair, but in response to a• question
from the Board, stated that he thought he was discharged for his
union activity.
Law was earning 57¢ an hour for an eight-hour day. He-has not
been employed since his discharge.
D., Consideration of the reasons advanced by respondents for the
discharges
The union charged and the complaint alleges that the above em-
ployees were discharged because of their union membership and
activities. The respondents denied this and stated that the employ-
ment of Lehman, Mitchell, Moberley and McKelvey was termi-
nated9 as a result of the decision to transfer some of the work else
where and the consequent reduction in the budget of the Pitts-
burgh garage, such action being immediately caused by the Warren,
Ohio accident and being motivated by a desire to correct the sup-
posedly inefficient work being performed at the garage as repre-
sented by the excessive July road failures, and that these men were
chosen because they were the junior men in their classifications; that
O The respondents claim these men were not discharged but furloughed . This will be
discussed later.
32 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Law was discharged because he had been inefficient in his work
on bus No. 566; that Burns was discharged because of improper
work, in that he had left the lights burning in his grease pit and
was careless in his greasing of the buses; and that Rihr was dis-
charged because-as a tester he should have eliminated some of the
July road failures, and was therefore thought by Duvall to have
been to some extent responsible for the July road failures. In
arriving at a decision between the rival claims, it is necessary to
examine carefully the respondents' contentions and related matters.
1. July road failures not attributable to men discharged. In spite
of the repeated references to the July road failures and their being
advanced in a general way as the cause for the discharges, none of
these failures was directly attributable to the men discharged. The
respondents do not claim that the road failures were or could be
traced to any of the men discharged. Both at the time of the dis-
charges and at the hearing the respondents did not allocate any
failure to any definite person, apparently made no attempt to do so
and finally admitted that it could not be done. In most cases the
nature of their work was incompatible with their being responsible.
Moberley was a body repair man and could not be responsible for
road failures. Burns being a greaser likewise did work uncon-
nected with road failures. Mitchell was working elsewhere for a
large part of the month. At the July 28 meeting Nyland absolved
Lehman of any responsibility for the road failures. Neither Law
nor McKelvey was charged with responsibility. Rihr is a possible
exception. Duvall testified that he believed if Rihr had been efficient
in his testing he could have eliminated some of the failures. The
nature of the failures, however, tends to militate against the possi-
bility of such elimination.
2. Efcienoy of men. While the respondents asserted that they
desired to eliminate the inefficient work that they said was being per-
formed at the Pittsburgh garage, it was admitted that most of the
men discharged were efficient employees. Lehman did practically all
of the specialized electrical work and had been commended for his
work. Duvall said he was a good electrician and loyal. McKelvey
had been given a high recommendation by the garage superintendent
in New York (Board Exhibit 56) and Duvall stated he was always
a fairly good employee and always did fairly good work-he had no
particular desire to remove him. Mitchell had been sent by Nyland
to Gettysburg on a particular job because of his skill as a mechanic.
Moberley was described by Duvall as a "good workman" who did
" good work". Duvall stated generally that " all of these employees
are good employees ".
3. Action taken with respect to men who worked on bus involved
in Warren, Ohio accident. While the respondents advanced the
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 33
Warren , Ohio accident as one of the motivating causes of the action
taken at the Pittsburgh garage, the treatment of the men who worked
on the bus involved in that accident is astonishing when considered
in relation to the. respondents ' desire to increase the efficiency of the
garage. Duvall , on the basis of his testimony , came to Pittsburgh in
an excited state, after having inspected the bus and being informed
two people were killed, and was determined to take some action. He
testified that he checked the records on that bus to ascertain who had
worked on the brakes . Discovering that Law had adjusted the
brakes, he discharged him (see supra). About the same time the
driver of the bus was punished by a temporary forfeiture of bonus
pay. But Duvall made no effort to ascertain which employee had
tested the bus after Law had adjusted the brakes, did not discharge
the person who had tested it-in fact, did not even reprimand him.
And yet Duvall testified that an efficient tester could probably have
discovered the maladjustment of the brakes, and hence tester and
mechanic shared the responsibility for the accident. Rihr, who was
the other tester and who had not worked on the Ohio bus was dis-
charged; the tester who had tested and approved the Ohio bus is
still employed by the respondents ; both tested buses involved in the
July road failures.
4. Transfer of work from Pittsburgh garage. While Duvall tes-
tified that he decided to remedy what he thought was a bad sit-
uation at Pittsburgh by transferring some of the major work else-
where, the record does not show that there was any actual change
in the amount of work , performed at Pittsburgh . Eight old buses
were transferred from ' Pittsburgh to Chicago , i. e., allocated to
Chicago. Some of the Chicago buses were then transferred to other
garages. At the same time, the new buses were allocated to Pitts-
burgh . These buses were added to the number of buses fulfilling
the schedule on runs east of Pittsburgh , so that while the number
of buses on those runs increased , the number of runs each bus made
was apparently decreased. Hence on a monthly basis Pittsburgh
had more buses after July than before ( Resp. Exhibit 18).10 The
volume of work did not decrease in August . Beining, the electrician
who took Lehman 's place, was kept very busy . Henry, an employee,
stated that there was more work in August and that they had to
work faster.
5. The type of men allegedly discharged because of transfer of
work-Seniority . Duvall testified that Lehman, Moberly, Mitchell
and McKelvey were terminated because of the reduction of the
payroll necessitated by the transfer of work. According to Duvall
and the other officials who testified on the point , the desired ob-
to Apparently sometime in July another bus was added to Pittsburgh, since this Exhibit
shows 94 buses for July and 96 for August.
34 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
jective was to correct what they thought was the inefficient work
being performed at Pittsburgh as reflected in the number of road
failures. It would be natural to assume that the effect would be
related to the cause and that care would be used in picking the men
to be discharged because of the alleged reduction of the payroll.
Inefficient men would be logical candidates. Yet efficiency or inef-
ficiency played no part in the choice. All of the four so discharged
were deemed efficient employees (see supra). They were in the first
class of their respective groups. No employees in the second class
of any group were discharged with the exception of Law. Previous
discharges to remedy somewhat similar situations had occurred only
after a careful investigation of the merits of each man. But at
Pittsburgh there was a "shot-gun" discharge, the men being picked
quite at haphazard if efficiency were the sole motive for the choice.
It was claimed by Duvall that he chose the men lowest in seniority.
High seniority is not synonymous with efficiency and if the men
discharged were picked on a seniority basis, it must be concluded
that efficiency of operation was not the desideratum at Pittsburgh,
all of the respondents' repeated remarks about safety and efficiency
notwithstanding. And if seniority were the sole test, these four
men were unfairly removed. Lehman was the senior of the man who
replaced him. Mitchell and McKelvey, although at the bottom of
the list of first-class mechanics, were the seniors of ten of the second-
class mechanics. Moberley, although at the bottom of the first-class
body repair men, had seniority over one of the second-class men.
And, finally, Sundstrom testified that if these men were deemed the
"younger" men because after the July 1 classification they found
themselves at the bottom of a small classified group, although actu-
ally-they were the senior of many others doing similar work, and
were then discharged as being the younger men, he would regard
such treatment as unfair.
E. Conclusions with respect to July 30 and July 31 discharges
On the basis of the facts found above, it must be concluded that
employees Lehman, McKelvey, Mitchell, Moberley and Rihr, were
discharged because they were members of Division No. 1063 of the
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employees of America and for their activities in connection
with that union. The facts indicate a jealous regard on the part of
the executives for their Employees Association and a desire to pre-
vent any other organization from gaining a foothold in their sys-
tem, so that there was a strong motive for hostility toward the mem-
bers of Division No. 1063. The officials directly associated with the.
Pittsburgh garage openly evidenced their- hostility to the union.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 35
threatened the employees and warned them not to join, and main-
tained surveillance of their activities. These discharges occurred at
a time when the union was rapidly gaining strength and consolidat-
ing its position. All of the discharges were of union men whose
membership was known. All of these employees at various times had
been threatened or warned in some fashion by the officials at the
garage. Their discharges were not isolated acts but represented the
culmination of a period of open hostility on the part of the manage-
ment. The respondents' claims as to the motive for these discharges
lack substance and support in the evidence and the inferences to be
drawn from it. Moreover, in the respondents' testimony these claims
are constantly shifting-at first the road failures are advanced in a
vague general way as the motive for the discharges, then the desire
to eliminate inefficiency at the Pittsburgh garage becomes the domi-
nant motive, but in turn this gives way to a purely mechanical
dollars and cents reduction of the budget for the garage. At best
the most that can be said for these, claims is that the accident at
Warren, Ohio, crystallized the respondents' half-formed desire to
take some action at Pittsburgh. The respondents desired to dis-
courage membership in Division No. 1063 and to rout it if possible,
and these discharges were the expression of such desire. They would
have a two-fold effect-they would not only immediately affect the
discharged employees but would also discourage other employees
from joining or remaining members of Division No. 1063. There
may have been an accompanying desire for a mild "house-cleaning"
so as to stir the men into more efficient work, and it is possible that
the respondents thought that some discharges would accomplish this
result. But the above employees chosen as examples were chosen
because of their union membership.
The cases of Law and Burns are different. Law appears to have
been discharged because of the belief of Duvall that his work on
bus No. 566 had been faulty and had contributed to the accident at
Warren, Ohio. Burns appears to have been discharged because
Duvall had observed him working in what he regarded as an ineffi-
cient manner, and, possibly because of Duvall's excited mood, had
taken more hasty action than would ordinarily have been the case.
The record does not support the allegations in the complaint that
these two discharges were for union membership or activity. In so
finding, however, the Board is not unmindful of the fact that these
discharges represent the severest discipline that can be meted out to
employees. The cases are not free from doubt and there is some
evidence to support the contention that milder but not less effective
discipline might have been administered if the supervisory officials
had not been determined to discourage union membership. However,
36 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the whole record the Board is of the opinion that union member-
ship or activity was not the effective cause for the two discharges.
Of the five men discharged for union membership and activity,
McKelvey and Moberly at the time of hearing were regularly em-
ployed elsewhere at similar jobs, the latter in Pontiac, Michigan.
McKelvey's salary was appreciably less than he had been earning at
the Pittsburgh garage; Moberley's salary was not stated. Moberly
had been obliged to move to another city to obtain his new job.
Mitchell was also working elsewhere, though apparently irregularly
.and at a considerably lower rate. Obviously all three have less
seniority in their new work and this consequent loss in seniority is
undoubtedly serious. Lehman and Rihr had not secured employ-
ment elsewhere at the time of hearing. On these facts none of the
employees can be said to have obtained "other regular and substan-
tially equivalent employment", as the term is used in Section 2, sub-
division (3). The Board, by virtue of Section 10, subdivision (c),
accordingly has the power to order the respondents to offer rein-
statement to these employees. Since the discharges constituted un-
fair labor practices, so that the men were unlawfully separated from
their means of livelihood, the offer of reinstatement should be coupled
with payment of back pay from the date of discharge, less sums
earned elsewhere in the meantime. Such payment is necessary to
compensate the employees for the wrong done them in this case and
to make them whole. As it will thus effectuate the policies of the
Act, the Board is authorized by Section 10, subdivision (c) to enter
such an order.
F. Further contentions of respondents with respect to July 30-31
discharges
The respondents at the hearing and in their brief urged several
contentions which proved to be wholly immaterial to the case. How-
ever, these will be briefly discussed for the sake of completeness.
1. Discharged or furloughed. The union claims and the complaint
alleges that all the employees named above were "discharged". The
respondents contend that certain of the men, viz., Lehman, McKelvey,
Moberley, and Mitchell, were only temporarily laid off-"fur-
loughed"-and not discharged. Aside from the question of variance
with the complaint, the respondents' contention, even if sound, is of
little moment as far as a violation of the Act is concerned. Sections
8 (1) and 8 (3) may be violated by a "furlough" for union activities
as well as by a discharge. If the motivating cause of the discrimi-
natory change in the tenure of employment was interference with
the employees in the exercise of their guaranteed rights or discour-
agement of membership in a labor organization, a violation is estab-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 37
lished whether the change is temporary or permanent. Hence, even
if the employees were furloughed, a violation of the Act has been
committed in this case if the cause for such furloughs was union
membership or activity.
However, the record shows that the men were discharged rather
than furloughed. Words such as "fired", "through", "let go", were
used to describe the discharges when they took place. Duvall
in his testimony used language-"release"-related to a discharge
rather than a furlough and did not indicate that he had definitely
informed the men they were merely being temporarily laid off. In
the report to the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, which han-
dled the group insurance for the Greyhound employees, stating that
the insurance should be discontinued on the employees involved, the
symbol "1-a" was used by the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines to
describe the cause of cancellation. The key on the report shows that
1-a means "discharged or resigned". This symbol is used in the cases
of the four employees under discussion as well as for the other
employees who the respondents admitted were "discharged" on July
30 and 31 (Board Exhibit 54). The symbol "1-b", meaning "tem-
porary lay-off or leave of absence" is used to describe the cause of
cancellation of insurance on other employees not involved in this
case, followed by the descriptive remark "lay-off" or "leave of ab-
sence" in the appropriate cases (Board Exhibit 55). It is clear that
the men did not resign. The superintendent of the Group Division,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, testified that it was impor-
tant to his company that it know the correct cause of cancellation.
In addition, an employee temporarily laid off could continue his
insurance during that period by tendering his contributions, while
a discharged employee could not. The general auditor for the Penn-
sylvania Greyhound. Lines testified that he had made an arrangement
with the Cleveland office of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Com-
pany that in the case of lay-offs unless the Greyhound Company knew
the men would return to work within thirty days they. should be
listed by symbol 1-a, "discharged or resigned", even though they were
only being temporarily laid off. However, this testimony, which was
not confirmed by the insurance company, cannot be said to refute the
written reports of the respondents made pursuant to the written
contract with the insurance company. The auditor was unable to
describe a "furlough" or to differentiate it from a "lay-off". The
term appears to be a recent addition to the Greyhound vocabulary
and the alleged new classification cannot be given credence.
2. Failure of discharged employees to use Employees Association
channels for purpose of complaint. Counsel for the respondents in
his cross-examination and the officials of the respondents in their
testimony brought out repeatedly that none of the discharged eia-
38 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees had made use of the Employees Association to have his case
reviewed. Such failure has no bearing on the case. The discharge
of the men for union activity constituted an unfair labor practice
which was in no way affected by their subsequent failure to complain
as provided in the Employees Association plan. The jurisdiction of
the National Labor Relations Board is exclusive; it is not shared
with private groups established for the adjustment of complaints.
As indicated above the Employees Association was illegally domi-
nated and interfered with by the management, so that failure to
;complain to it can have no consequence in this connection. More-
over, the reasons for such failure are obvious : the men had chosen
other representatives; they thought that nothing could be gained
through the Employees Association ; they had no use for it, some
of them couldn't even get on the premises.
3. Posting of notice containing Section 7 (a) of the N. I. R., A.
The respondents repeatedly called attention to the fact that a notice
'containing Section 7 (a) of the N. I. R. A. and the labor provisions
of the Motor Bus Code had been and was still posted in the Pitts-
burgh garage (Resp. Exhibits 26 and 27). Such posting was com-
pulsory under the Motor Bus Code. It is clear that the posting, pur-
suant to legal compulsion, of a notice to the effect that einployeees
are free to organize cannot have the effect of excusing or preventing
unfair labor practices-it does not even give rise to any inference
that an unfair labor practice was not committed or that the respond-
ents' attitude was that'described in the posted notice.
4. Current employment of union members. The respond'ents also
called attention to the fact that many members of the union are still
employed. In itself, such testimony is meaningless. It is not neces-
sary to discharge every union member to discourage union member-
ship or to break a union. It is clear the respondents could not at
one time discharge all of the union members and still keep the garage
open. No inference of innocence may thus be made from this
testimony.
5. Failure of discharged employees to apply for reinstatement.
The respondents brought out that the discharged employees did not
apply for reinstatement. As in the case discussed in Section 2 above,
such conduct can in no way affect the unfair labor practice.com-
'pleted by their discharge. This evidence was advanced by the
respondents in support of their contention that the men were fur-
loughed and not discharged. Why they would not reapply if fur-
loughed for an indefinite period and yet would apply if discharged
was not made clear. The evidence therefore does not support the
inference intended by the respondents. Moreover, as pointed out in
Section 2 above, some of the employees felt with justification that
they would not even be allowed on the premises after their discharge.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 39
6. Participation of discharged employees in elections of Employee
Association. The respondents pointed out that some of the dis-
charged employees had participated in the elections of the Employees
Association. In view of the clear evidence of their membership in
Division No. 1063, this has no bearing on the question of whether the
discharges were for such union membership and activity. Nor, under
the circumstances can such participation be regarded as the result
of a free and uninfluenced choice on the part of the employees.
G. The August and September discharges
Two employees of the garage were discharged in the subsequent
months. It is alleged in the complaint, and denied by the re-
spondents, that these men were likewise discharged for union inem-
bership and activity. Their cases will now be considered separately.
1. Erwin D. Matthews. Matthews was a mechanic who com-
menced his work at the Pittsburgh garage in October, 1929. He was
fourth in seniority of the first-class mechanics (Resp. Exhibit 17).
He joined the union in July and attended its meeting on July 10.
Bremmier after the May 28 meeting had warned him not to join
saying that the fellows who "messed around" with the union would
be fired. On August 13 Nyland 'discharged him for improper work
en the wheels of a bus which had a road failure on account of a
wheel coming off. Nyland told him that was the reason for his dis-
charge and neither he nor Matthews mentioned the union, although
Matthews testified he thought he was discharged for union activity.
Matthews also testified he had later heard from some of the men
that a company which serviced the tires on the Greyhound buses had
worked on the wheels after he had, but the records show the con-
trary. Serious consequences could result from a failure to tighten
the wheels. Duvall had considered him a good mechanic and did
not know of his discharge until informed of it by Nyland.
He was earning 74¢ an hour for an eight-hour day. Since his
discharge he has been employed and had earned $154.31 at the time
of hearing.
2. Robert Maxwell. Robert Maxwell was a touch-up painter who
had been employed since January, 1934. There was one first-class
painter, one second-class painter and one touch-up painter (Resp.
Exhibit 17) . He joined the union at the end of May. Bremmier had
advised him not to join. On September 18 he was discharged by
Lydon, the clerk, who did not know the reason for the discharge.
Maxwell saw Sprain and was informed that he had left some "trans-
fers", used to put the imprint of the "Greyhound" upon the buses,
laying out overnight in an incompleted condition, which would re-
sult in inefficient work. The union was not mentioned when he was
97571-36--vol. i--4
40 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharged. He had been rather careless in his work on these trans-
fers. Duvall did not know of his discharge until informed of it
and testified that the action was rather drastic, since a "transfer" is
not very expensive. He later gave him a letter of recommendation
,so as not to stand in the way of his getting another job (Board
Exhibit 44).
Maxwell was earning 45¢ an hour for an eight-hour day and has
not been employed since his discharge.
3. Conclusion. The discharge of both Maxwell and Matthews do
not seem to be connected with the events of July. Their discharges
.appear as isolated events, bearing only upon the individuals sepa-
rately involved, and were not for union membership or activity.
Accordingly the record does not support the allegations in the com-
plaint 1 with respect to these two employees.
V. APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT
A. The unfair labor practices as "affecting eommaerce"
The complaint alleges that the acts of the respondents enumerated
therein constitute unfair labor practices affecting commerce. The
term "affecting commerce" is defined in Section 2, subdivision (8),
as "in commerce, or burdening or obstructing commerce or the free
flow of commerce, or having led or tending to lead to a labor dis-
pute burdening or obstructing commerce or the free flow of com-
merce". The term "commerce" is defined in Section 2, subdivision
(6) to include "trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or* commu-
nication among the several states".
The respondent companies, as shown above, are engaged in the
operation and management of an extensive interstate bus transpor-
tation system, which in turn is but part of a much larger system.
The operations conducted at the Pittsburgh garage are an integral
part of the operation of this interstate transportation system. Buses
carrying passengers and property in interstate transportation are
serviced and made ready for their regular runs at this garage.
Such servicing is essential to the safe and regular functioning of
the system. The President of the company testified that "the
Pittsburgh Garage is located strategically for service to the buses
operating through the mountainous regions of Pennsylvania and
contiguous and surrounding territory", and that the physical oper-
ation of the buses regularly and currently engaged in interstate
transportation is made possible by the maintenance of the garage
at Pittsburgh. The garage is thus an integral part of the opera-
tions of instrumentalities of interstate transportation and the em-
ployees involved are actively working upon instrumentalities of
interstate transportation and are engaged in operations in the course
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 41
and conduct of interstate transportation. Consequently, the acts
of the respondents occurred in the course and conduct of the opera-
tions of instrumentalities of interstate transportation and affected
employees engaged in operations in the course and conduct of inter-
state transportation and on instrumentalities of interstate transpor-
tation, and hence occurred "in commerce" within the meaning of
Section 2, subdivision (8).
The respondents throughout their testimony stressed the impor-
tance of safety and efficiency of operation in the motor bus transpor-
tation industry. They testified to the numerous measures instituted
by them in the ceaseless efforts to achieve such ends. At the same
time, however, the very acts of the respondents considered above
created a condition of unrest and fear which was a threat to the
efficient and safe operation of their buses. Many of their employees
today are working under the heavy handicap imposed by the constant
fear of losing their jobs because of their membership in Division No.
1063. An employee who had been warned by Crawford testified
that "I don't know why I am working now". It is not difficult
to imagine the fear induced in the men by the constant warnings
and threats of discharge or by the knowledge that the officials are
maintaining surveillance of their activities. And men driving and
working on buses under the pressure of such fear of discharge are
not likely to be capable of working with normal efficiency; an
employee testified that the fear of discharge made him "nervous"
and- that he could not get himself together and drive through traffic
in the usual fashion. It is the consequent impairment of the effi-
ciency and safety of the instrumentalities of interstate transportation
caused by such unrest and anxiety which the Congress desired to
remove by eliminating the sources of such unrest.
The acts of these companies also tended to "lead to a labor dispute
burdening and obstructing commerce." A "labor dispute" is defined
in Section 2, subdivision (9), to include "any controversy concern-
ing terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning the
association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, main-
taining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of
employment." At the time of Davidson's discharge, the employees
at the garage and the drivers were demanding of him that he call a
strike for their rights. Davidson counseled them against a strike.
After the July 30 and July 31 discharges, the employees again wanted
to strike, feeling that a strike would be the only method of protecting
those union employees who still had their jobs. Davidson again
advised against a strike and told them that he would take up the
discharges with the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations
Board and with a Commissioner of Conciliation. He pursued such a
course and thus the strike was averted. The respondents feared a
42 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
strike in May and July. Sundstrom was aware of the strike talk
and because of it had a request made for police protection. Coin-
mencing about May 17 and continuing to the date of hearing, from
one to three Pittsburgh City policemen have been detailed to the
Pittsburgh garage at the expense of the respondents. The effect of a
strike at the Pittsburgh garage upon the Pennsylvania Greyhound
System, and hence upon interstate transportation, is obvious. It was
succinctly expressed by Sundstrom when he testified that a strike
would undoubtedly have seriously crippled the operation of the bus
schedules.
Interference with the activities of employees in forming or joining
labor organizations results in strikes and other forms of industrial
unrest which in the field of transportation have the effect of impair-
ing the safety and efficiency of the instrumentalities of such transpor-
tation. About 50% of the strikes and lock-outs that occurred in the
motor transportation industry from January, 1935 to July, 1935 in-
clusive, involving 32,732 employees and 162,721 man-days of idleness,
arose over the issue of employee organization (Board Exhibit 25a).
It is common knowledge that in the industrial scene numerous and
prolonged strikes have resulted from denial by employers of the
rights now guaranteed by Section 7 and from their interference with
employees. attempting to exercise such rights ((1934) 39 Monthly
Labor Review No. 1, p. 75, Table 9). The Board cannot be blind to
such knowledge or fail to realize the disruption of commerce that
results from such strikes and unrest. The motor transportation in-
dustry has achieved an important place in the transportation systems
of this country 11 and it is the desire of Congress to prevent the inter-
ference with transportation and the impairment of the safe and effi-
cient operations of its instrumentalities that results from such strikes
and unrest. It is significant that, unlike the parallel legislation in
the railway field, there are no provisions for collective bargaining
and employee freedom of organization and representation in the
recent Motor Carrier Act of 1935, imposing federal regulation of
interstate motor transportation. The omission was succinctly ex-
plained on the floor of the Senate by Senator Wheeler, Chairman of
the Committee on Interstate Commerce, on the ground that the
Wagner Act then before Congress would cover the field of motor
transportation and that therefore such provisions need not be in-
corporated in the Motor Carrier Act (Cong. Record, 74th Congress,
1st Session, Vol. 79, p. 5887).
11 See Report of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on the Motor Carrier Act
of 1935 ( Board Exhibit 23 ) ; Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway v . Walters,
294 U. S. 405 ( 1935 ) ; Board Exhibits 17, 18 and 19 and Senate Document No. 152, Regula-
tion of Transportation Agencies , 72d Congress , 2d Session ( March 1934 ) ; Board Exhibits
22 and 24: Hearings Before the Committee on Interstate Commerce , United States Senate,
on Motor Carrier Act of 1935.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 43
B. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Greyhound Management
Company as employers
The Pittsburgh garage is leased and operated by the Pennsylvania
Greyhound Transit Co. but it does not employ the men working there.
The complaint alleges that the maintenance employees are employed
by, the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. and the Greyhound
Management Company and the record supports this allegation. The
form for application for employment at the garage or elsewhere in
the Pennsylvania Greyhound System is entitled "Application for
Employment. Greyhound Lines" and must be forwarded, after
signature by the Department Head or Regional Manager, to the
"Department of Safety and Personnel, Greyhound Lines". This is
a department in the Greyhound Management Company and is headed
by Mr. Marcus Dow, an official of that company. The form contains
a statement to be signed by bus operators that begins as follows :
"Whereas, the undersigned is desirous of making application for
employment to the Greyhound Management Co. (Greyhound Lines)"
(Board Exhibit 43). The group insurance policy was issued by the
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. to the Greyhound Management
Company for the benefit of its employees. The individual employee
policies issued pursuant to the basic policy describe the individual as
an employee of the "Greyhound Management Company, associated
and/or subsidiary companies" (Board Exhibits 34 (Lehman policy),
36 (Rehr policy), 42 (Burns policy) ). However, on the applications
of the employees, on which the blanks are apparently filled in by the
respondents, the name of the employer is given indiscriminately as
"Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines" or "Greyhound Management
Company" (Board Exhibits 45-53, covering applications of nine em-
ployees discharged). On one, the " Greyhound Management Coin-
pany" is given as the employer in one place in the application, while
at another place the "Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines" is listed as
the employer (Board Exhibit 46). The reports to the insurance
company discontinuing the insurance on certain employees bear the
name t'Peimsylvania Greyhound Lines" as the employer (Board
Exhibits 54 and 55, covering seven employees discharged on July 30
and July 31). A letter from Duvall to all maintenance employees,
congratulating them on the awards to the Greyhound Management
Company for winning the National Maintenance Contest sponsored
by the Bus Transportation Magazine, bears on the letterhead the
name "Greyhound Management Company, Fiscal Agent", with vari-
ous other companies listed around it, including the " Pennsylvania
Greyhound Lines, Inc. and subsidiaries" (Board Exhibits 37 A, B
and C, received by Rihr). All of the election and other material
involving the Employees Association bears the name "Pennsylvania
44 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Greyhound Lines, Inc." (Board Exhibits 60-63, 65, 75-86), and the
name of the Association is "Employees Association of the Pennsyl-
vania Greyhound Lines, Inc." (Resp. Exhibit 6 ). The list of main-
tenance employees eligible to vote as members of the, Association
contains the names of the nine employees involved in the case and
describes them and the others as the "maintenance employees of the.
Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc." (Board Exhibit 78.))_ The
classification list posted in the Pittsburgh garage begins, as, follows :
"The Management of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines has decided on
a General Classification of Maintenance employees " ( Ii4esp, Exhibit
3). The men at the garage are paid by the Pennsylvania Greyhound
Lines, Inc. Officials of the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc..
have the right to discharge the maintenance employees at the garage:.
Duvall's letter recommending Maxwell-"who has been in the eni-
ploy of this company"-is on the stationery of the "Pennsylvania
Greyhound Lines, Inc." and is signed "Pennsylvania Greyhound
Lines", by Duvall (Board Exhibit 44). With regard to the Pitts-
burgh garage , both companies file as employers under the, Pennsyl-
vania Workmen's Compensation Act.
It is clear from the above that the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines,.
Inc. is the employer of the men in the Pennsylvania Greyhound!
System, including the men discharged. Moreover, it is. the, com-
pany which mainly participates in the Employees Association of the,
Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. In regard to employment,, the
function of the Greyhound Management Company is apparently that
of a personnel department and it handles general employee problems.
common to the various companies forming the Greyhound Lines_
As such, it obviously acts on behalf of and in the interest of the-
Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. and is therefore an "em-
ployer" within the meaning of Section 2, subdivision (2),. More-
over, since on various documents the Greyhound Management Com-
pany is listed as the employer of the men involved and in many of
their dealings with or in regard to their employees the respondents,
do not make any effort to be precise in the designation of the em-
ployer, both companies must be regarded as employers for the, pur-
pose of this case. Since they function as one integrated system and_
since their activities are so related and commingled , the order of the
Board in order to be effective must of necessity run against both
respondents.
RULINGS MADE DURING THE HEARING
The respondents appeared specially to attack the jurisdiction of
the Board on stated constitutional grounds ( Resp. Exhibit 1).
These objections to the jurisdiction of the Board were overruled,
at the hearing. After having reviewed the objections at greater
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 45,
length the Board feels that the ruling was proper. With the ex-
ception of the ruling discussed below, the other rulings at the hear-
ing do not require discussion.
The respondents at the commencement of the hearing moved to,
dismiss the complaint on the ground that since the charge was made
by Division No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Association of Street,
Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America and not
by any of the employees involved or by Division No. 1063 as their
representative, it is not justified by the National Labor Relations
Act. This contention finds no support in the Act or the Rules and_
Regulations of the Board. Section 10, subdivision (5) of the Act
states that "whenever it is charged" that any person has engaged:
in any unfair labor practice the Board shall have power to issue
a complaint. The type of person or organization making the charge
or the relationship between such person or organization and the
individuals involved in the acts complained of are not limited by
the Act. The Rules and Regulations do not impose any limitations,
in this regard. Section 1 of Article II states that "a charge that
any person has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labor prac-
tice affecting commerce may be made by any person or labor organ-
ization". The motion of the respondents was therefore properly
denied. Moreover, it is obvious from the record that Division No..
1063 does represent these employees..
CONCLUDING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In addition to the above findings of fact, upon the record in the.
case, the stenographic report of the hearing and all the evidence,
including oral testimony, documentary and other evidence offered
and received at the hearing, the following concluding findings of, fact.
are made by the Board.
1. The Greyhound Lines is a nation-wide integrated system en-
gaged in the interstate and foreign transportation for hire of per--
sons and property by motor buses.
2. The respondent, Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., a Dela-
ware corporation, is an integral part of the Greyhound Lines. Fifty
per cent of its common stock is owned by the Greyhound Corporation,
the chief holding corporation of the Greyhound Lines, and the re-
maining fifty per cent and all of its preferred stock are owned by the
American Contract and Trust Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The respondent, Pennsylvania
Greyhound Lines, Inc., owns all of the common stock of Pennsyl-
vania Greyhound Lines of Indiana, Inc.; Pennsylvania Greyhound
Lines of Illinois, Inc.; Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines of Virginia,
Inc. ; Peoples' Rapid Transit Co., Inc. ; Montgomery Bus Co., Inc.;
and Pennsylvania Greyhound Transit Co., bus operating and termi-
46 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nal companies. Through these wholly-owned subsidiaries, the Penn-
sylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., owns, operates, manages and con-
trols a bus system for the interstate transportation for hire of persons
and property of approximately 5,000 miles in length, extending from
New York, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Atlantic
City, New Jersey; to Chicago, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; and
St. Louis, Missouri; and known as the Pennsylvania Greyhound
System.
3. The respondent, Greyhound Management Company, a Delaware
corporation, is an integral part of the Greyhound Lines, and its stock
is wholly owned by the Greyhound Corporation. The Greyhound
Management Company prepares schedules and tariffs, handles group
insurance and performs managerial, personnel, legal, advertising
and other services for the corporations forming the Greyhound Lines,
including the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., which employs it
as managing agent.
4. The Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. owns a garage at
California and St. Ives Streets, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which is
leased to and operated by the Pennsylvania Greyhound Transit Co.,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines,
Inc. Pittsburgh is an important terminus in the Pennsylvania Grey-
hound System and connects by direct bus routes, operated mainly by
this System, with New York, New York; St. Louis, Missouri; Wash-
ington, D. C.; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Detroit, Michigan;
Scranton, Pennsylvania; Buffalo, New York; Cleveland, Ohio; and
Charleston, West Virginia. The Pittsburgh garage is operated as an
integral part of the Pennsylvania Greyhound System and is strategi-
cally located to serve that System. The garage, which is open at all
times, services the Greyhound buses traveling from, through and to
Pittsburgh on these routes. The servicing, repairs, and mechanical
maintenance work performed at this garage on these buses is per-
formed while the buses are operating on their regular interstate
schedules and are necessary to continuous, safe and effective operation
of the buses on, such • schedules., Major maintenance and repair work
are performed at the garage when the buses are idle. The garage also
services interstate buses of other lines.
5. As described in paragraph four above, the transportation opera-
tions at the Pittsburgh garage occur in the course and current of
transportation among the states and are an integral part of the opera-
tions of instrumentalities of such transportation. The maintenance
employees engaged in such operations are directly engaged in the
course and conduct of transportation among the states and because
of their services in connection with and upon instrumentalities of
such transportation are an integral part of the operations of instru-
mentalities of such transportation.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 47
6. The maintenance employees so engaged at the Pittsburgh garage
in the servicing, repair and mechanical maintenance of motor buses
are employed and paid by the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc.
The employees engaged in the operations of the Pennsylvania Grey-
hound System are employed and paid by the Pennsylvania Grey-
hound Lines, Inc. The Greyhound Management Company also holds
itself out as the employer of all these employees and acts in the
interest of the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lilies, Inc. in regard to
them.
7. On July 30, 1935, the respondents, by their officers and agents,
while engaged in the operations described above, discharged Chester
Lehman, an electrician, Albert McKelvey, a mechanic, Stephen Mitch-
ell, a mechanic, Lester Moberley, a body-repair man, and on July
31, 1935 John Rihr, a mechanic. All of these men were employed
by the respondents at the Pittsburgh garage as maintenance men
and were engaged in the operations described above.. None of these
men has been since reinstated by the respondents.
8. Each of the employees so discharged, as stated in paragraph
seven above, was discharged for the reason , individually, that each
of them had joined and assisted a labor organization known as
Division No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Elec-
tric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, and had
engaged in such concerted activities for their mutual aid and
protection.
9. By said discharges the respondents have interfered with, re-
strained and coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
10. By said discharges the respondents did discriminate in regard
to tenure of employment and have thereby discouraged membership
in the labor organization known as Division No. 1063 of the Amal-
gamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach
Employees of America.
11. Following are the wage rates at which these employees were
paid at the time of their discharge and the amounts they have since
earned through employment elsewhere, as of the date of hearing.
None of these employees has obtained any other regular and
substantially equivalent employment.
Employee
Wage rate
per hour
(for 8-hr
day)
Amount
earned
Cents
Lehman ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -.78
McKelvey---------------------------------------------------------------------
74
Mitchell------------------------------------------------------------------------
68
Moberley----------------------------------------------------------------------- 68
Rthr----- ----------------- ------------ -------- --------------- ------------------- 68
Dollars
30
145
100
103-104
Nothing
-48 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
12. The respondents, by their officers and agents, while engaged
,in the operations described above, and after July 5, 1935, have con-
-tinuousily urged, persuaded and warned their maintenance em-
ployees at the Pittsburgh garage to refrain from becoming or re-
maining members of a labor organization known as Division No.
1063 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway
and Motor Coach Employees of America, have threatened such em-
ployees with discharge if they became or remained members of such
.organization and have maintained surveillance of the meetings and
meeting places of such organization and of the activities of their
,employees in connection with such organization.
13. By such urging, persuading, warning, threatening and sur-
veillance, as described in paragraph 12 above, the respondents have
interfered with, restrained and coerced their employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
14. The respondents, principally the Pennsylvania Greyhound
Lines, Inc., by their officers and agents, in the fall of 1933 instituted,
formed and sponsored a labor organization of their employees, in-
cluding the employees of the Pennsylvania Greyhound System,
known as the Employees Association of the Pennsylvania Greyhound
-Lines, Inc.
15. The respondents, principally the Pennsylvania Greyhound
Lines, Inc., by their officers and agents, while engaged in the opera-
tions described above, are dominating and interfering with the ad-
ministration of a labor organization of their employees, including the
maintenance employees at the Pittsburgh garage and the employees
.of the Pennsylvania Greyhound System, known as the Employees As-
sociation of the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., by arranging,
supervising and conducting the elections of the employee repre-
sentatives, held on company time and on company property; con-
trolling the meetings of the employee representatives with the
management representatives in such a fashion as to make such
meetings no more than the presentation of grievances to an official
of the management and so as to prevent them from being a forum
for collective bargaining and genuine employer-employee discus-
sions; controlling the type of matter which may be discussed by the
-employee representatives with the management representatives
through a system of "Joint Submissions" which requires the consent
.of an official of the respondents before a matter may be submitted
for such joint discussion; making any change in the form, purpose
or activities of the Employees Association dependent upon the ap-
proval of the respondents through a provision in the By-Laws of
the Association requiring a two-thirds vote of an equal number of
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 49
management and employee representatives for any change in the By-
Laws; and by the activities enumerated hereafter; and are contribut-
ing financial and other support to such labor organization by paying
the employee representatives for any time lost by reason of their
activities as such representatives and for their expenses and trans-
portation while so engaged; supplying stenographic services, elec-
tion material and forms; and by defraying all of the expenses of the
Employees Association.
16. The aforesaid acts of respondents occurred in the course and
current of -transportation among the states and directly and im-
mediately affected employees engaged in operations in the course and
conduct of such transportation and who, because of their services in
connection with and upon instrumentalities of such transportation,
are an integral part of the operation of instrumentalities of such
transportation.
17. The aforesaid acts of respondents, and more especially the acts
enumerated in paragraphs 7 and 12 above, tended to lead to a strike
-of the maintenance employees and drivers at the Pittsburgh garage
which would have crippled the operation of respondents' interstate
bus transportation schedules, thereby causing a cessation of and
otherwise impairing the operation of instrumentalities of transpor-
tation among the several states and thus burdening and obstructing
-such transportation, and of impairing the safety and efficiency of
instrumentalities of such transportation and would have led to such
a strike had not the maintenance employees and drivers at the Pitts-
burgh garage been persuaded by the President of Division No. 1063
'of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and
Motor Coach Employees of America to present their grievances to
the National Labor Relations Board and a United States Commis-
tsioner of Conciliation.
18. The aforesaid acts of respondents, and more especially the acts
enumerated in paragraphs 7 and 12 above, created and tend to
create a condition of unrest and fear on the part of their employees
at the Pittsburgh garage, including bus drivers, which impaired
.and tends to impair their efficiency and consequently, because of the
nature of their work, the safety and efficiency of instrumentalities
-of transportation among the several states.
19. Interference by employers with the activities of employees in
-forming or joining labor organizations results and tends to result in
labor disputes and other forms of industrial unrest which burden
and obstruct commerce among the several states and the free flow
thereof and which in the field of transportation have the effect of
impairing the safety and efficiency of the instrumentalities of trans-
portation among the several states.
50 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
20. On July 30, 1935, the respondents, by their officers and agents,
while engaged in the operations described above, discharged Albert
Burns, a greaser, and Emil Law, a mechanic; on August 13, 1935
discharged Erwin D. Matthews, a. mechanic, and on September 18,
1935, discharged Robert Maxwell, a touch-up painter, all mainte-
ance men employed by the respondents at the Pittsburgh garage
and engaged in the operations described above. None of these four
employees was discharged by respondents by reason of his member-
ship in the labor organization known as Division No. 1063 of the
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employees of America, or for any activities in connection
therewith.
21. Upon the basis of the foregoing the Board finds and concludes
as a matter of la,w :
(a) Respondents, by discharging Chester Lehman, Albert McKel-
vey, Stephen Mitchell, Lester Moberley, and John Rihr, and each
of them, and by interfering with, restraining and coercing their
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act, as set forth above, have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (1) and Section 2,
subdivisions (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
(b) Respondents, by discouraging membership in the labor organ-
ization known as Division No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Association
of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America
by discharging Chester Lehman, Albert McKelvey, Stephen Mitchell,
Lester Moberley, and John Rihr, and each of them, said discharges
constituting discrimination in regard to tenure of employment, as
set forth above, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, sub-
division (3) and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
(c) Respondents, by their domination of and interference with
the labor organization known as the Employees Association of the
Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. and by their contribution of
financial and other support to such labor organization as above set
forth, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8, subdivision (2)
and Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
ORDER
On the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
pursuant to Section 10, Subdivision (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 51
the respondents, Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. and Greyhound
Management Company, and their officers and agents, shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing their employees, including the employees of the
Pennsylvania Greyhound System, in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act;
2. Cease and desist from discouraging membership in Division
No. 1063 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Rail-
way and Motor Coach Employees of America, or any other labor
organization of their employees, including the employees of the
Pennsylvania Greyhound System, by discrimination in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment;
3. Cease and desist from in any manner dominating or interfering
with the administration of the Employees Association of the Penn-
sylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., or any other labor organization of
their employees, including the employees of the Pennsylvania Grey-
hound System, and from contributing financial or other support to
the Employees Association of the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines,
Inc., or to any other labor organization of their employees, including
the employees of the Pennsylvania Greyhound System, except that
nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the respondents from per-
mitting their employees to confer with them during working hours
without loss of time or pay;
4. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Offer to Chester Lehman, Albert McKelvey, Stephen Mitchell,
Lester Moberley, and John Rihr immediate and full reinstatement,
respectively, to their former positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed;
(b) Make whole said Chester Lehman, Albert McKelvey, Stephen
Mitchell, Lester Moberley and John Rihr for any losses of pay they
have suffered by reason of their discharge by payment, respectively,
of a sum of money equal to that which each would normally have
earned as wages during the period from the date of his discharge
to the date of such offer of reinstatement, computed at the wage rate
stated in the findings of fact as the rate each was paid at the time
of discharge, less the amount which each earned subsequent to dis-
charge as shown in the findings of fact;
(c) Withdraw all recognition from the Employees Association of
the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. as representative of their
employees, including the employees of the Pennsylvania Greyhound
52 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
System, for the purpose of dealing with respondents concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or conditions of work;
(d) Post notices in conspicuous places in all of the places of busi-
ness wherein their employees, including employees of the Pennsyl-
vania Greyhound System, are engaged, stating that said Association
is so disestablished and that respondents will refrain from any such
recognition thereof;
And it is further ordered that,
5. The complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed with respect to
the discharges of Albert Burns, Emil Law, Erwin D. Matthews, and
Robert Maxwell.