Union Bus Terminal of Dallas

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 1977

231 N.L.R.B. 347 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

UNION BUS TERMINAL OF DALLAS
Union Bus Terminal of Dallas, Inc. and Union Bus
Terminal Steering Committee. Case 16-CA-6646
August 11, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND WALTHER
On May 11, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Richard L. Denison issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party
filed a limited exception and supporting and answer-
ing briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Union Bus
Terminal of Dallas, Inc., Dallas, Texas, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD L. DENISON, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at Dallas, Texas, on October 20, 1976,
based on a charge filed June 18, 1976, and a complaint
issued on August 11, 1976, and amended at the hearing,
alleging that on or about May 28, 1976, Union Bus
Terminal of Dallas, Inc. (herein Respondent),' threatened
its employees with discharge for engaging in union and
concerted activities, advised employees that it knew the
identity of those passing out union cards thereby creating
an impression that these activities were under surveillance,
' The name of Respondent appears as amended at the hearing.
2 All dates are in 1976.
231 NLRB No. 63
on or about June 10 interfered with its employees' selection
of a collective-bargaining representative by refusing to
allow a representative of the Union to sit in on a contract
grievance meeting, and threatened orally that employees
would be fired if a representative of the Union continued
to come to Respondent's facility.2 In its answer Respon-
dent denied the commission of any of the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint. At the conclusion of the
hearing the General Counsel argued orally. Oral argument
was waived by Respondent and the Charging Party, both
of whom filed briefs. All briefs and arguments have been
carefully considered. 3 Upon the entire record in the case,
including my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
As alleged in the complaint and admitted in the answer, I
find that Respondent is now, and has been at all times
material herein, a Delaware corporation maintaining an
office and place of business at 1500 Jackson Street, Dallas,
Texas, where it is engaged in the sale of intrastate and
interstate bus passenger tickets, and intrastate and inter-
state package express services. During the preceding 12
months, Respondent in the course and conduct of its
business rendered interstate bus passenger and package
express services valued in excess of $50,000. During the
same period of time Respondent received gross revenues
valued in excess of $250,000 from its services. I find that
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
1l. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The Union Bus Terminal Steering Committee, and the
Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, are each
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
IIl. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent's employees are represented by the Union
Bus Terminal Steering Committee, an independent union,
hereafter referred to as the Committee. This case arises in
the context of an effort by the Amalgamated Transit
Union, hereafter referred to as the A.T.U., to become the
bargaining agent. Thus, on April 27, 1976, David Stoops,
an organizer for the A.T.U., contacted certain of Respon-
dent's employees by telephone, and later met with them in
his room at the Baker Hotel. An organizing drive was set
up to obtain signed authorization cards from employees in
order that the A.T.U. could petition for a Board-conducted
election. Stoops estimated that between the commence-
ment of the campaign in April and June 10, he made
approximately 12 or 13 visits to Respondent's terminal to
discuss the Union with employees Ellen Beard, Erven
Davis, Linda Trent, and James Carter. These conversations
3 Certain errors in the transenpt have been noted and are hereby
corrected.
347
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
averaged about 10 minutes each and occurred either on
their breaks in the cafeteria and in other areas of the
terminal. On May 10 Stoops filed a petition for representa-
tion on behalf of the A.T.U. Since he had only the hotel
address in Dallas, Stoops used Ellen Beard's address on the
petition. It is undisputed that Beard was one of the most
active employees in the Union's card-signing drive, that her
activities were known to Respondent, and that Stoops was
known to Respondent as the A.T.U. organizer who was
contacting employees at the terminal.
On May 28, according to Beard, when she arrived at
work about 1:45 p.m., she was called to the table of
Information Director Saporia Harris who accused her of
being constantly late for work. Beard insisted she was not
late, and offered to take Harris to the timeclock to prove
that she had arrived at work on time. Harris responded that
this was not necessary, and stated that there had been a lot
of discussion lately and that they were going to lay off all
the troublemakers.
Harris denied having made any remark to Beard
concerning troublemakers. She testified that Beard had
been late quite often, and that on at least three occasions in
April and May she discussed the matter with Beard. On
one occasion Harris told Beard that she was clocking in at
her regular worktime, but not reporting to her work station,
and that this had to stop. At another time, which earlier in
her testimony she described as having occurred in June,
Beard phoned in to work sick, and when Harris said Beard
would need a doctor's statement Beard yelled into the
phone, "I am so sick and tired of being treated this way
because I want the union here. No one else has to bring in
a doctor's statement." According to Harris, she replied
"Yes, they do have to. I have never mentioned union to
you. I see no reason why you should mention union to me."
When Beard reported for work the following day Harris
told her that she felt Beard owed her an apology because
she had never said union to Beard and saw no reason why
Beard should mention the Union to her. According to
Harris, Beard replied "I think I am getting paranoid. I'm
sorry. I apologize."
Beginning around I p.m. on May 28, Respondent's area
general manager, Floyd Holland, and Terminal Manager
James M. Poe met with the Steering Committee for a
period of between I and 3 hours. Also present for the
Company was Assistant Terminal Manager Ted Burk.4
Those present for the Steering Committee were Linda
Trent, Erven Davis, Mitchell Gurst, James Carter, O. B.
Gates, and Betty Reitchy. According to Terminal Manager
Poe, Respondent knew that Stoops was the representative
of the A.T.U. who had been talking to employees, trying to
interest them in A.T.U. representation. Holland spoke to
the Committee about being quite concerned about an
outside union trying to infiltrate the Company. Holland
said that the Steering Committee should remain indepen-
dent and not go with some outside International union
affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Poe spoke, agreeing with
Holland's position. In his testimony Poe admitted that he
had seen Stoops talking with Respondent's employees, that
he suspected employees were using their working time for
union discussions, and that he tried to stop it by circulating
around the work areas to see what was going on. Poe
expressed the position at the meeting that the Steering
Committee should have exercised their leadership in an
effort to keep the outside union out. Then Linda Trent
spoke up in defense of the Committee, and stated that the
union cards were distributed by employees before the
Steering Committee was ever contacted. At this point Poe
interjected, "Ellen Beard for one." Then Trent continued,
stating that the Committee should not be blamed for the
organizing, and that they only wanted to have an election
to allow the employees to voice their opinion.
Trent's testimony concerning the remark made by Poe
about Beard is corroborated by the testimony of Mitchell
Gurst. Poe did not deny making the remark. He admitted
"circulating" through the terminal in an effort to discover
who was talking with Stoops. Although he asserted that his
interest in these activities was directed toward putting a
stop to the conduct of union activities on working time, no
evidence was adduced to show that Respondent had any
rule previously in effect which prohibited such conduct in
the bus terminal. There is ample evidence in the record,
concerning the criticisms by Poe and Holland at the May
28 meeting, of the Committee's failure to thwart the A.T.U.
campaign to show that the Respondent was primarily
interested in stopping the employee movement which
sought to substitute the A.T.U. for the Steering Committee
as bargaining representative. Under these circumstances I
find that Poe's remark to the effect that he knew "Ellen
Beard for one" was passing out cards for the A.T.U.
constituted a threat that the Respondent knew the names
of employees who were active on behalf of the A.T.U.,
thereby creating the impression that it was keeping the
union activities of its employees under surveillance. The
validity of this conclusion is reinforced by Poe's testimony
about how he "circulated" around the terminal. Thus, Poe
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I also find that Saporia Harris violated Section 8(a)(l) in
that the credited testimony of Ellen Beard reveals that she
threatened her with discharge on May 28 by telling her that
the Company was going to lay off the troublemakers. I find
this statement, considered in the light of Poe's testimony, to
be a clear reference to Beard's activities in soliciting card
signatures for the A.T.U. Beard impressed me as a precise
and candid witness, while the testimony of Harris was
confused and evasive. When pressed on cross-examination,
Harris gradually changed her testimony in the direction of
that given by Beard. Although she admitted having
knowledge of a card-signing campaign, she denied knowing
that Beard had any association with the A.T.U. drive. I
find this incredible in view of Poe's admitted knowledge
acquired from observing activity in the terminal, and in
view of Harris' testimony that in one of their conversations
she accused Beard of punching her timecard but not
reporting promptly to her work station, thereby implying
that Beard was in some way misusing this time.
On June 10 the Steering Committee met with Poe
pursuant to the contractual grievance procedure, with
respect to the grievance of one Ricky Moore. The
4 Holland and Burk did not testify.
348
UNION BUS TERMINAL OF DALLAS
testimonies of Poe and Stoops are in substantial agreement
with respect to the incident which followed. After the
Steering Committee entered Poe's office, Stoops entered.
No introductions were made. Poe recognized Stoops as the
representative for the A.T.U., but no one asserted that
Stoops had been designated to act as spokesman at the
grievance session on behalf of either Moore or the
Committee. According to Poe, as Stoops entered he asked
if he could help him. Stoops replied, "Yes, sir. I'm coming
in with these people." Poe replied, "No, sir. We do not
recognize Amalgamated Transit as our bargaining agent,
and therefore I will not allow you at this hearing." Then,
according to Poe, Stoops told Steering Committee Chair-
man Davis that he would see him after the hearing, and
left. Stoops testified that as he entered Poe's office Poe
stood up and said, "You're not sitting in on any hearing
with me." Then, Committee Chairman Erven Davis said
"May I ask why?" Poe responded, "Yes. We do not have a
contract with the Amalgamated Transit Union. We have a
contract with the Steering Committee, therefore, I'll meet
with no one but the Steering Committee." Then Stoops
said, "Well, go ahead with your procedures." At this point
Stoops thanked Poe, told Davis he would talk with him
later, and left the office.
Paragraph 7(c) of the complaint alleges that Respondent,
through Poe, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the selection of their collective-bargaining
representative by refusing to allow Stoops to sit in on a
contract grievance meeting on June 10. I find, to the
contrary, that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by Poe's conduct at this meeting. From the
testimony of both Poe and Stoops, it is clear that neither
Stoops or any member of the Committee took any action at
the outset of the meeting which would have obligated
Respondent to meet with Stoops. Although Poe knew that
Stoops was a representative of the A.T.U., no one in the
room at any time asserted that the Committee had selected
Stoops to appear as a spokesman either for Moore or for
the Committee, or made any attempt to protest Poe's
exclusion of Stoops. I shall recommend that this allegation
of the complaint be dismissed.5
Following the June 10 grievance meeting, between 3 and
5 p.m., Erven Davis was called to Poe's office. Poe told
Davis to tell Stoops that if he kept coming around the bus
station he was going to cause someone to get fired. Davis
asked, "Who? Are you trying to say me?" Poe answered,
"No, I'm not talking about any particular person." Poe
testified that he told Davis that he wanted him to advise
Stoops "not to come on the premises during the guys'
working time and talk with them. If he continued to do so
and caused them not to do their work, that someone could
get fired from not doing their work."
I credit Davis' version of this conversation and find that
Poe violated Section 8(aX (1) of the Act by restricting Stoops
from the premises. Davis' version is consistent with Poe's
expressed concern that Respondent wished to stop the drift
of its employees' sentiment toward the A.T.U. No evidence
I Neither is there any evidence that Poe had received any official notice
concerning the outcome of an employee vote on or about June I on the
question of affiliating with the A.T.U.
6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
whatsoever was adduced concerning the existence of any
rules promulgated by Respondent in advance of the A.T.U.
drive which would have properly restricted any classifica-
tions of persons from the terminal, either during employ-
ees' working time or at other times. Moreover, the evidence
clearly shows, when considered against the background of
other credible evidence in this case, that Poe announced to
Davis the restriction on Stoops' access to the premises for
the explicit purpose of interfering with his efforts to
promote the A.T.U. among Respondent's employees.
Against this background, Poe's threat to discharge employ-
ees if Stoop continued to come to the terminal to talk with
them violated Section 8(aX)(1) of the Act as alleged in
paragraph 7(d) of the complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union Bus Terminal Steering Committee, and
the Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, are
each labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening employees that Respondent knew the
identity of an employee engaged in union organizing
activities, thereby creating the impression that its employ-
ees' union activities were under surveillance, Respondent
violated Section 8(aX)() of the Act.
4. By threatening employees with discharge because of
their union activities, Respondent violated Section 8(aX)()
of the Act.
5. Respondent has not violated the Act in any respects
other than those specifically found.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I find it
necessary to order it to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act, including the posting of an appropriate
notice at its Dallas, Texas, facility.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 6
The Respondent, Union Bus Terminal of Dallas, Inc.,
Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees that it knows the identity of
employees engaging in union activities, thereby creating
the impression that employees' union activities are under
surveillance.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
349
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) Threatening employees with discharge because of
their union activities.
(c) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Dallas, Texas, facility, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." ?7 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 16,
shall be signed by an authorized representative of Respon-
dent and posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all locations where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Company to insure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
in all other respects.
7 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence, it has been decided that we violated
the law, and we have been ordered to post this notice. We
intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the
following:
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we know
the identity of employees who engage in union
activities, thereby creating the impression that the
union activities of our employees are under surveil-
lance.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge
because of their union or protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to engage in union activities
on behalf of any labor organization, or concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection. Our employees are also free to refrain from
any or all such activities.
UNION Bus TERMINAL OF
DALLAS, INC.
350