South Jersey Coach Lines

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 18, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 791 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of SOUTH JERSEY COACH LINES and AMALGAMATED Asso-
CIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES
OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L.
Case No. 4-CA-338.-Decided December 18, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 26,1950, Trial Examiner Bertram G . Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto . Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermedi-
ate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the ex-
ceptions and brief , and the entire record in the case and hereby adopts
the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner
with the following additions.
The record in this case shows that at the time of the hearing in the
earlier unfair labor practice case involving this Employer,2 Healy was
on vacation and that he actively participated in those proceedings.
He not only testified therein in support of the complaint against the
Respondent, but sat at the counsel table with the representative of the
General Counsel for a substantial part of the proceedings . The rec-
ord in the earlier case disclosed an expressed intention of the Employer
to "find . . . the (Union ) instigator . . . if he ( had) to fire each one
individually," and that the. Respondent had in fact discriminatorily
discharged two employees.
With this background in mind, the evidence surrounding Healy's
discharge becomes highly significant . Upon return from his vacation,
spent in part in assisting the General Counsel in his prosecution of
the earlier case, Healy was , without convincing explanation, trans-
ferred from the desirable Atlantic City-Wilmington run to a less
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three -member panel [ Chairman Herzog
and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
2 South Jersey Coach Lines , 89 NLRB 1260.
92 NLRB No. 129.
791
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
desirable position as alternate for other drivers on the Bridgeton-
Millville run. Men junior to Healy remained on the Wilmington-
Atlantic City run. When a sufficient number of drivers had returned
from their vacation to obviate the necessity of a regularly employed
relief driver. on the Bridgeton run, Healy was discharged. The Re-
spondent contends that Healy in fact quit. The Trial Examiner
credits Healy's testimony that he was discharged. We see no reason
'for disturbing this finding. Our belief in this matter is buttressed by
the fact that at the time of the termination of his employment by
Respondent, Healy was given a week's severance pay, an action not
consonant with the Respondent's contention that Healy had quit.
As the Intermediate Report shows, there was admittedly sufficient
work for Healy.
Under all the circumstances we conclude that the Respondent first
transferred Healy from the Atlantic City-Wilmington run and then
discharged him because of his testimony in the prior proceeding.
Accordingly, we find that his transfer and subsequent discharge was
in violation of Section 8 (a) -(3) and (4) of the Act 3
The Remedy
As recommended by the Trial Examiner, we shall order the Re-
spondent to offer to the discharged employee listed in our Order,
reinstatement with back pay from the date of the discrimination
against him. The Board has adopted a method of computing back
pay different from that prescribed by the Trial Examiner.4 Con-
sistent with that new policy, we shall order that the loss of pay be
computed on the basis of each separate calendar quarter or portion
thereof during the period from the Respondent's discriminatory action
to the date of reinstatement or a proper offer of reinstatement. The
quarterly periods, hereinafter called "quarters," shall begin with the
first day of January, April, July, and October. Loss of pay shall be
determined by deducting, from a sum equal to that which this employee
would normally have earned for each quarter or portion thereof, his
net earnings,5 if any, in other employment during that period. Earn-
ings in one particular quarter shall have. no effect upon the back-pay
liability for any other quarter.
9 Underwood Machinery Company, 79 NLRB 1287; Sandy Hill Iron and Brass Works,
69 NLRB 355.
4 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
By net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working
elsewhere , which would not have been incurred but for this unlawful discrimination, and
the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere . Crossett Lumber Company,
8 NLRB 440. Monies received for work performed upon Federal , State, county , municipal,
or other work-relief projects shall be considered earnings. Republic Steel Corporation v.
N. L. R. B., 311 U. S. 7.
SOUTH JERSEY COACH LINES 793
We shall also order, in accordance with the Woolworth decision,
supra, that the Respondent, upon request, make available to the Board
and its agents all pertinent records.
We expressly reserve the right to modify the back-pay and rein-
statement provisions if made necessary by circumstances not now
apparent.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labot Th lations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, South Jersey
Coach Lines, Bridgeton, New Jersey, a New Jersey corporation, its
agents, officers, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Amalgamated Association of
Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America,
A. F. of L., or in any other labor organization of its employees, by
discharging, refusing to reinstate, or by discriminating in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condition of
employment;
(b) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Amalgamated Association of
Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America,
A. F. of L., or any other organization, 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 as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain
from such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
effected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organi-
zation as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to John Healy, Jr., immediate and full reinstatement as
a bus operator on the Atlantic City, New Jersey, to Wilmington, Dela-
ware, route or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole
in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy" for any
loss of pay which he may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's
discrimination against him;
(b) Upon request, make available to the' Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, time cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
929979-51-vol. 92-52
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the
right of reinstatement under the terms of the Order;
(c) Post at its office in Bridgeton, New Jersey, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked Appendix e Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, after being
signed by representatives of the Respondent, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it
for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form labor organizations, to join or assist AMALGAMATED AS-
SOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EM-
PLOYEES OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., or any other labor organization,
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, and to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL oFFER to the employee named below immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent po-
sition without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss
of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
John Healy, Jr.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
afore-named union or any other labor organization. We will not
6 1n the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted in the notice before the words , "A Decision and Order," the words
"A Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
SOUTH JERSEY COACH LINES 795
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment against any employee because of mem-
bership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
SOUTH JERSEY COACH LINES,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By ------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for sixty (60) days from the date
hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Julius Topal, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Harry Adler, Esq., of Bridgeton, N. J., for Respondent.
Mr. Charles D. Ciccivlno and Mr. Ellwyn McGirr, for the Petitioner, Amal-
gamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of
America, A. F. of L.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric
Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, A. F. of L., herein called the
Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor, Relations Board, respectively
called herein the General Counsel and the Board, by the Regional Director
of the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued a complaint dated
May 11, 1950, against.South Jersey Coach Lines, herein called the Respondent,
alleging that the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (3),
and (4), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that the
Respondent (1) did on or about November 12, 1949, discriminate against John
Healy, Jr., employed in its bus operations by transferring him to less desirable
work and by decreasing the amount of his pay; and (2) did on or about
December 25, 19t9, discharge John Healy and failed and refused to reinstate
him for the reason that he gave testimony under the National Labor Relations
Act and that he joined or assisted the Union or engaged in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.
The Respondent filed an answer in which it denied the commission of any
unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Bridgeton, New Jersey, July 5, 1950,
before the undersigned Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the Re-
spondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by its representatives.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. The General
Counsel offered a mimeographed copy of the Board's Decision and Order in
Case No. 4-CA-168 in evidence which was admitted without objection. At the
close of the whole case the General Counsel moved to conform the pleadings
to the proof, as to names, dates, and minor variances. The motion was granted.
Counsel for Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint at the close of the
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Counsel's case and again moved at the close of the whole case on the
grounds that the General Counsel had failed to establish a prima facie case.
These motions were denied.
The General Counsel and the Respondent waived oral argument before the
Trial Examiner at the close of the hearing. Though all parties were afforded
an opportunity to file briefs or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law, or both, with the Trial Examiner, Counsel did not avail themselves of
this opportunity.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a New Jersey corporation, with its principal office and
place of business at Bridgeton, New Jersey. It is engaged in the transportation
of passengers and baggage for hire; maintaining a scheduled routine of busses
to and from points in the State of New Jersey with terminals at Atlantic City
in the State of New Jersey and Wilmington in the State of Delaware. It also
charters busses in New Jersey for passengers seeking to travel to points and
places in other States.
During the year 1949, the total approximate revenue of the Respondent from
its operations was $75,000. Of this amount, approximately $45,000 was obtained
from interstate bus operations between Wilmington, Delaware, and Atlantic
City, New Jersey, and $15,000 was obtained from bus operations from the State
of New Jersey to and through other States of the United States.
During the same year the Respondent paid bridge and ferry tolls from and to
the State of New Jersey amounting in value to approxiniately $9,000 and ex-
pended the sum of approximately $15,000 for fuel, principally gasoline, which
originated outside the State of New Jersey. The Respondent concedes that it is
engaged in interstate commerce.'
The Trial Examiner finds that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
IL THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Association of Street , Electric Railway and Motor Coach Em-
ployees of America, A . F. of L., is a labor organization which admits to member-
ship employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The surrounding facts and circumstances
On November 8, 9, and 10, 1949, a hearing was held at Bridgeton, New Jersey,
by the Board in which the parties in this case were also the charging party and
Respondent respectively. The Board thereafter and on May 15, 1950, adopted
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner who found
that Respondent had violated inter alia, rights of employees guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act in engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
'South Jersey Coach Lines, et al ., 89 NLRB 1260, 4-CA-338. The Board on May 15,
1950, adopted a Trial Examiner 's Report and found inter alia that Respondent Is engaged
In commerce and that its operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act.
SOUTH JERSEY COACH LINES 797
John Healy, Jr., the dischargee herein, an employee of Respondent, was on
vacation at the time when that hearing was held and attended all the sessions.
He was called as a witness by the General Counsel on two different days. He
was consulted by the General Counsel during the course of the hearing and
made suggestions to him of questions to be asked of Respondent's witnesses.
Healy had been employed as a bus operator on Respondent's Atlantic City,
New Jersey, to Wilmington, Delaware, route, from the date of his first employ-
ment by Respondent in September 1946 to November 12, 1949, the expiration
of his vacation.
Healy at the end of his vacation on November 12 and after the close of the
hearing on November 10, reported for work and was assigned by Johnson,
coowner with his wife of Respondent, to the Bridgeton-Millville route. John-
son gave him no reason for his transfer from the Atlantic City-Wilmington
route. The route was a comparatively short one requiring only 1 hour for a
round trip, while the Atlantic City-Wilmington route was scheduled for 1 round
trip a day. Some of the schedules on the Atlantic City route consumed only
7 hours for the round trip while others required 8, 9, and 10 hours. The At-
lantic City-Wilmington drivers rotated on these schedules so that each had
the benefit of shorter hours on certain of, the trips when his turn came. The
operators were paid at the rate of $7.84 a round trip and had the further ad-
vantage throughout the summer of making additional trips, while the operators
on the Bridgeton-Millville route had to complete 10 round trips of 1 hour each
to receive $7.84 for the day's work. Healy was kept on after the Board hearing
in November 1949 as an operator during the vacations of the Bridgeton-Millville
operators until December 25, at which time the vacations came to an end. At
.the November hearing held by the Board in Case No. 4-CA-168, Healy testified
credibly as follows : "Well he asked me what we was trying to do to him;
asked me if I joined the Union. I said 'No.' He said: `Well, did you sign the
card?' I said `No I didn't see no cards around there.' . . . He says he will
get to the bottom and find out who the instigator is if he has to fire each one
individually." 8
B. The discharge of John Healy
On Sunday, Christmas day, 1949, Healy reported for work at the usual morn-
ing hour and spoke to Johnson as to Monday's assignment, as he knew that
the vacations were then over. He testified as follows :
A. Day after, on a Monday, he (Johnson) said he didn't know. He
said, "Stop back in at two o'clock when you get done work" ; which I did.
Q. (By Mr. TOPAL.) Tell us what conversation you had with Mr. Johnson at
two o'clock that afternoon?
A. He says he didn't have nothing for me. He says he didn't know what
I was going to do. He says "I understand that you got another job that
you are going to which I told him, it wasn't the truth, because I had nothing
in view or looked for anything." He says, "Well, I don't know what you are
going to do, I haven't got nothing for you and you had better look for
another job." So I says, "What does that mean, I am finished?" He says,
"That is about the size of it." I asked him if he wanted me to turn my
tickets in now. He says "Wait until Tuesday morning when the office is
open."
Q. Do you recall what day of the week that was?
A. A Sunday.
2 South Jersey Coach Lines, et al., 89 NLRB 1260, May 15, 1950.
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On Tuesday morning Healy went to the office of Respondent and spoke to
Mrs. Johnson . He testified as to that conversation as follows :
A. I said good morning to her and she said good morning, and I handed
her in my tickets, all my cash earnings and she checked me out for them,
to make sure everything was right, and I asked her, I said, "Do you know
why I am getting fired," and she says "No, I don't." I didn't know nothing
about it until Edwin and I was discussing it the other night about changing
drivers around and he told me he let you go.
I said , "Well, if you don't know I will inform you." Due to the fact that
I testified for the Government at the hearing. She says, "Well, I don't know
nothing about it." She says, "I am sorry." I asked her to pay me off for
the three days' work that I did. She asked me if I had my pay slip ready
and I said, "Yes." She says. "Do you want the money now or do you
want to wait until Saturday?" I said, "No, I may as well take it now be-
cause I don't know where I will be Saturday." She gave it to me. Then
I said to her, "Isn't it customary to give a person a week's notice when you
are going to let. him go for no reason at all or to pay him for that week?"
She said she didn't know. She said she would have to see Edwin, and
she went over to the garage and talked to Edwin and gave me a week's notice
pay.
Respondent's contention was threefold: (a) In that it had withdrawn one
of the busses on the Atlantic City-Wilmington line and for that reason there
was no further need for Healy's services after the vacation period was over;
(b) that he had intended to quit and had accepted a job elsewhere; (c) and
that he had no right to assume that he had been discharged by reason of any.
talk which he had with Johnson on Christmas day but on the other hand he had
left of his own volition and did not report for work on the following day.
It is undisputc' 1 that one of the schedules on the Atlantic City-Wilmington
route had been discontinued for the winter. The following quoted testimony
of Johnson :
Q. Well, if you-did you intend to dismiss him?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you intend to keep him?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you intend to put him on the Atlantic City run, if necessary?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you have found a place for him?
A. Yes, I would have found a place for him.
and that of Mrs. Johnson :
J
Q. So there were no further drivers for him to fill in after that week?
A. There was still busses to be greased in the garage ; there was still
busses to be worked on; there was plenty of work.
Q. There was plenty of work?
A. There was work that he could have done.
leads to the conclusion that Healy's discharge was not occasioned by the
withdrawal of a bus schedule.
Conclusions
The Trial Examiner finds by credible substantial evidence that John Healy,
Jr., was discriminatorily discharged as an employee of Respondent by Edwin
Johnson, president and coowner of Respondent on Christmas day, 1949, by
SOUTH JERSEY COACH LINES 799
reason of the fact that he had appeared and was examined as a witness on
behalf of the National Labor Relations Board in the matter of South Jersey
Coach Lines and Amalgamated Association of Street , Electric Railway and
Motor Coach Employees of America , A. F. of L., Case No. 4-CA-338 . at a hearing
held by said Board from November 8 to 10 , 1949, inclusive at Bridgeton, New
Jersey. Healy took an active part thereat in assisting and advising the General
Counsel while conducting the hearing into alleged violations of the provisions
of the Act.
The Trial Examiner believes and finds that Healy is an honest and believable
witness and his version of the conversations had with Johnson on the day of his
discharge is to be credited . His narration of the circumstances of his discharge
are in many respects confirmed and supported by the testimony of Mr. and Mrs.
Johnson. He was given a week's pay after his discharge by Mrs. Johnson which
was authorized by Johnson . • Such a payment is rather unusual to be made to
an employee who quits employment voluntarily.
The act of Johnson in assigning Healy to the Bridgeton-Millville route on
his return from his vacation several days after the hearing in Case No. 4 -CA-338,
was, in the Trial Examiner 's opinion , done by Johnson to retaliate against Healy
for his activities as a witness and advisor to the General Counsel in the pre-
paration and prosecution of the complaint against the Respondent for its alleged
violations of the Act.
The questionable or possible contention of Respondent that Healy had taken
or was about to take another job seems unreasonable and hardly merits con-
sideration . Healy denies any such contention . The Trial Examiner finds that
there is no believable evidence supporting such contention of Respondent. He
never told Johnson that he was going to resign . He had no other job in sight.
He had told and discussed with fellow employees at various times his desire to
sell his furniture so that he could get out of debt and return with his family to
his father's home some 10 miles from Bridgeton. His rent in Bridgeton was
$60 per month . After his discharge he got in touch with Mr. McGirr and Mr.
Reed of the Union. He was out of work for a period of 9 weeks following his
discharge . The charge dated January 5, 1950, was made by the Union within
a short space of time after his discharge.
The Trial Examiner has not discussed in detail the testimony of Respondent's
witnesses Georges, Moore, Craner , De John , and Eller as he is of the opinion that
it is of no materiality either in the refutation of the dischargee's claim of his
discriminatory discharge by the Respondent or in confirmation of the testimony
of Johnson and his wife at the time of Healy's discharge.
There is substantial evidence in the record which preponderates in favor
of Healy that he was discharged by Respondent because of his appearance as
a witness and took an active part in the presentation of grievances against
Respondent at a hearing held by the Board. The transfer of Healy to the
Bridgeton -Millville route and his discharge by Respondent on Christmas day,
1949, were unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 ( a) (1), (a) (3 ), and (a ) ( 4), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above , occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close , intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the Trial Examiner will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent's fixed intention to defeat its employees' efforts toward self-
organization , as manifested by the discharge of John Healy, Jr., after he had
appeared and testified at a hearing conducted by the Board, thereof indicates
such a disregard of its employees' rights under the Act as to convince the Trial
Examiner that there exists a danger of the repetition of like violations in the
future and of the commission of other unfair labor practices proscribed by the
Act. Unless the recommended order is coextensive with the threat, the pre-
ventative purposes of the Act will be thwarted. Accordingly, in. order to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act, to make more effective the interdependent guarantees
of Section 7, and to deter the Respondent from future violations of the Act,
it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing
in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
As to the discriminatorily discharged employee, it will be recommended that
the Respondent offer him immediate and full reinstatement as a bus operator
on the Atlantic City, New Jersey, to Wilmington, Delaware , route or to a sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him by payment to him of
a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages
from the date of his discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings during said period.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach
Employees of America, A. F. of L., is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
John Healy, Jr., thereby discouraging membership in Amalgamated Association
of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, A. F. of L.,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (4) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]