Virginia-Carolina Freight Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 1, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 447 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

VIRGINIA-CAROLINA FREIGHT LINES, INC . 447
Virginia-Carolina Freight Lines, Inc. and James C. Burkett. Case
No. 5-CA-2984. November 1, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 23,1965, Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting memorandum in support
of cross-exceptions and in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this
case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Brown and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and memorandum,
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the follow-
ing addition.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent's discharge
of employee Burkett was motivated in principal part by the fact that
Burkett threatened to and did seek the assistance and advice of the
Board, and that a discharge for that reason violates Section 8(a) (4)
and (1) of the Act.
The Respondent had a contract with Teamsters Local Union No. 22
which contained grievance and arbitration provisions. Pursuant
thereto, an arbitrator had determined that the Respondent was justified
in discharging Burkett. The Respondent contends that the arbitra-
tor's determination should be upheld by the Board.
In his decision, the arbitrator found that Burkett, who had been dis-
puting the interpretation placed upon a certain provision in the con-
tract, on August 8, 1964, informed Crews, the personnel director of the
Respondent, that he was going to consult the National Labor Relations
Board in regard to this matter; and, on August 21 told Crews and
Koontz, the Respondent's director of labor relations, that he had gone
to the Board office. On this same date, August 21, the Respondent dis-
charged Burkett for, as stated on his discharge notice, "Uncalled for
threats of action against your employer." The arbitrator concluded
155 NLRB No. 52.
448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Burkett had violated his duty to his employer because, among
other reasons, he sought the assistance of a Federal agency in a dispute
with his employer.
As the discharge of an employee for seeking the assistance and advice
of the Board is violative of Section 8(a) (4) and (1) of the Act," we
find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the arbitrator's decision is not
entitled to deference because it is on its face repugnant to the purposes
and policies of the Act.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein, and orders that the Respondent, Virginia-Carolina Freight
Lines, Inc., Martinsville, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as so modified :
1. Add the following as paragraph 2(b), the present paragraph
2(b) and those subsequent thereto being consecutively relettered:
"(b) Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement
upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces."
1 Precasion Fittings , Inc, 141 NLRB 1034, 1035.
The Trial Examiner states in his Decision that the General Counsel amended the com-
plaint at the hearing to include an allegation that Burkett 's discharge was also violative
of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. The amendment alleged, in fact, that Burkett was dis-
charged because he engaged in or threatened to engage in protected concerted activity
in violation of Section 8(a)(1). In any event, we find it unnecessary in the present case
to pass upon this allegation as the remedy would not be affected thereby.
2 Spielberg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed November 12, 1964, and an amended charge filed Novem-
ber 23, 1964, by James C. Burkett, herein referred to as Burkett or the Charging
Party, the Regional Director for Region 5 of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board , issued a complaint on February 12, 1965, on behalf of the
General Counsel of the Board against Virginia -Carolina Freight Lines, Inc., herein-
after referred to as the Respondent or Company alleging violations of Section 8(a) (4)
and (1 ) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151
et seq. ), herein called the Act. In its duly filed answer to the aforesaid complaint
Respondent , while admitting certain jurisdictional allegations of the complaint,
denied commission of any unfair labor practices."
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman
in Martinsville , Virginia, on April 28, 1965. All parties were represented and afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence , to present oral argument
and to file briefs . Oral argument was waived. Counsel for the General Counsel
filed a brief.
1 At the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel amended the complaint to include an
8(a) (3) allegation wherein it is alleged that the Respondent discharged Burkett because
the latter engaged in or threatened to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
VIRGINIA-CAROLINA FRED BHT LINES , INC. 449
Upon consideration of the entire record hi this case and upon my observation of
the demeanor of each of the witnesses who testified before me, I make the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Virginia corporation having its principal office and terminal
at Martinsville, Virginia, where it is engaged in the transportation business as a
common carrier by motor vehicle. During the 12-month period immediately preced-
ing the issuance of the complaint herein, a representative period, the Respondent
derived in excess of $2 million for its services, of which in excess of $1 million was
derived from interstate hauling and from operations which constitute a link in the
chain of interstate commerce.
It is admitted, and I find and conclude, that the Respondent is, and has been at all
times material herein, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of
the Act. It is further concluded that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction and issues
The complaint alleges generally, and the General Counsel contends specifically,
that the Respondent discharged employee James C. Burkett because the latter
threatened to and did seek advice from the Board with regard to a dispute over the
administration of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Respondent and
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 22,
hereinafter called the Union, the bargaining agent of the Respondent's employees.
An amendment to the complaint, as noted, added an additional allegation that
Respondent discriminatorily discharged Burkett for engaging in protected concerted
activity in asserting claims under the aforesaid contract.
The Respondent's answer admits Burkett's discharge but denies all other material
allegations of the complaint and, although not specifically alleged, contends, in effect,
that Burkett was discharged for lawful reasons.
Thus the factual issues are (1) was Burkett's discharge attributable, at least in part,
to his going to the Board to register his complaint and seek advice, and (2) was he
discharged for protesting and presenting claims under and pursuant to the collective-
bargaining agreement and an aid thereof?
The legal issues are (1) assuming that Burkett was discharged for presenting
his claim to the Board and seeking advice, was this a proscribed discharge within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (4) of the Act, and (2) assuming Burkett was discharged
because he asserted a claim under the contract, was he engaged in such protected
concerted activity as would give him immunity from discharge for asserting the claim?
B. The facts
For some years, the Respondent has been party to a collective-bargaining agree-
ment, known as the Virginia Furniture Hauler's agreement, with the Union. The
latest agreement, dated March 1, 1964, contains some changes in the manner in which
over-the-road truckdrivers are paid, changing the pay computation for some of the
hauls from an hourly to a mileage basis and changing the pay computation of "lay-
overs" from actual arrival time to scheduled arrival time. The latter change was
adopted as a safety measure so that drivers would take the full scheduled time between
point of departure and arrival. This latest agreement was presented to the member-
ship by James H. Arrington, secretary-treasurer and business agent of the Union and
was, upon presentation, ratified by the membership.2
James C. Burkett, the Charging Party herein, was hired by the Respondent on
October 14, 1963, as an over-the-road driver and worked for the Respondent until
August 21, 1964, the date of Burkett's discharge, On numerous occasions after the
execution of the latest collective-bargaining agreement, as noted above, Burkett made
many complaints to the Respondent's personnel director, William B. Crews, and to
Arrington, the Union's business agent. Burkett's complaints for the most part con-
cerned the administration and interpretation of the contract as it applied to his pay.
There was a difference of opinion over the way the Union and the Respondent under-
stood the contract and the way in which Burkett understood it. Burkett was reading
the contract one way whereas actually, according to Arrington, the contract was
negotiated and had a meaning a different way. Burkett's complaints became so
2 All of the foregoing from portions of the testimony of Arrington and Ben F. Koontz,
the Respondent's director of labor relations, which were uncontroverted and which I
credit.
450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
numerous and so frequent that Arrington finally told Burkett that the latter was not
happy with the representation Arrington was giving him and that if Burkett could
become a union steward he could handle his own complaints . As a result Burkett was
made a steward . He filed about a half dozen written grievances during the period
from the date he was appointed steward, which date is not shown in the record, and
the date of his discharge . However, during the same period of time, Burkett made
about five times that number of personal complaints to the Company and to the
Union. Although some of the grievances concerned other employees, the majority of
the grievances and the complaints registered by Burkett concerned his own personal
differences over the interpretation of the contract and the manner in which payment
was made pursuant thereto. The frequency of these complaints registered was such
that on practically every Saturday afternoon, and at other times also, Burkett would
visit Crews to register his complaints.3
Finally, on August 8, 1964, Burkett had a conversation with Crews over a claimed
$25.51 shortage in pay. The dispute was over whether a haul from Richmond, Vir-
ginia, to Fredericksburg, Virginia , should be paid on an hourly basis or on a mileage
basis. Burkett claimed hourly, the Respondent claimed mileage Finally Crews told
Burkett that the Respondent had no intention of paying Burkett's claimed shortage.
Burkett thereupon told Crews that because there were shortages before this (based,
of course, upon the differences of interpretation of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment) Burkett was going to the National Labor Relations Board since he could
receive no satisfaction from the Union . Crews wished Burkett luck and Burkett left.
When Buckett was leaving he overheard Crews tell the dispatcher that Burkett was
upset and going to take the matter to the Board.
The following day, Sunday, August 8, Burkett left on a scheduled run for the
Respondent. When he returned on Thursday, August 13, at 5.30 p.m, and checked
in with the dispatcher, Burkett was told by the latter to go home and remain there
until he heard from Koontz; that he was relieved of duty as of that period Burkett
informed the dispatcher that he was going to go to Washington on the following day
and that therefore Koontz should not call him at that time. The following day
Burkett went to Washington and spoke to a field representative of the Board. The
Board representative informed Burkett that the Board does not handle matters of
interpretation or administration of contracts.
On August 18 Burkett called Crews and asked the latter if he, Burkett, was being
discharged. Crews said he was not at liberty to tell Burkett. Burkett asked Crews if
he should look for another job and Crews told Burkett that this would not be a bad
idea. At the same time, and during the same conversation, Burkett told Crews that
Burkett had been to the Board in Washington and that he also had an appointment
with the "Federal Attorney" in Roanoke, Virginia. Crews then informed Burkett
to meet with Crews and Koontz the following Friday, August 21.4
At the meeting of Friday, August 21, Koontz reprimanded Burkett for going to the
Board and told Burkett that the reason the latter was taken off dispatch was his threat
to go to the Board on a matter over which the Board had no jurisdiction. Koontz
then asked Burkett if the latter was put back on dispatch what his position would be,
regarding pursuing these matters of dispute , with the Board and other outside agen-
cies. Burkett told Koontz that he was within his legal rights and that he could go to
the Board any time he wanted. He also informed Koontz he wanted to be paid for
the week he was off dispatch.
Crews and Koontz thereafter left the room and remained away for approximately
half an hour. Then Crews returned and informed Burkett that the latter was dis-
charged. Crews gave Burkett a notice of discharge reciting as the reason for dis-
charge "uncalled for threats of action against your employer, Virginia-Carolina
Freight Lines, Inc." At the same time he gave Burkett his final paycheck.5
Both Koontz and Crews in testifying denied that Burkett was discharged for going
to the Board. Both testified, in substance, that Burkett was discharged because he
did not agree with the contract nor did he agree with the way the Company paid for
"runarounds" or "layovers." Crews specifically testified that Burkett was discharged
for being an unhappy employee, for disagreeing with the contract, and to the extent
that he voiced this disagreement continuously. Koontz testified that Burkett was dis-
8 The foregoing from the uncontroverted and credited testimony of Arrington and Crews.
It should be noted that Burkett was present in the hearing room when the foregoing
testimony was given and that he was not called on rebuttal to deny it.
* All of the foregoing from the credited testimony of James C. Burkett which was not
directly denied by Crews.
6 From the credited testimony of Burkett. Neither Koontz nor Crews denied this testi-
mony but merely confined their testimony to what they claimed to be the reasons why
Burkett was discharged.
VIRGINIA-CAROLINA FREIGHT LINES, INC. 451
charged because he stated that he was not going to live with the contract or abide by
the contract and that he was going to incite other employees to think the way he,
Burkett, was thinking.
Immediately after his discharge , Burkett reported the matter to Arrington who
made contact with Crews . The latter refused to enlighten Arrington as to the reason
for Burkett 's discharge . Thereafter , Arrington met with Koontz and Crews and was
unable to effectuate Burkett's reinstatement . Thereafter , Arrington filed a formal
grievance which was taken to arbitration . The matter was eventually heard by an
arbitrator who rendered a decision , the germane part of which stated that Burkett
violated his duty to Respondent and to the Union in that he completely disregarded
the interest and welfare of both and sought the assistance of a Federal agency (the
Board ) in order to compel the Respondent and the Union to accept his individual
interpretation of the contractual provisions existing between the Respondent and the
Union.
C. Conclusionary findings
As noted above , the General Counsel contends that Burkett was discharged
because he sought the assistance of the Board in ascertaining what he thought to be
his rights pursuant to the collective -bargaining agreement between the Respondent and
the Union . The Respondent , on the other hand, contended , as stated in the testimony
of Crews and Koontz, that Burkett was discharged because he was an unhappy
employee and because he disagreed with the contract that the parties were obligated
to follow to the extent that he voiced it continuously and, moreover, because Burkett
stated that he was not going to live with the contract or abide by it and that he
was going to incite other employees to think the way he thought . I agree with the
contention of the General Counsel.
It is clear that Burkett had made numerous complaints to the Respondent through
Crews, and to the Union through Arrington , to the extent that the repetition of these
complaints continued virtually every week of Burkett 's employment . In this respect,
Burkett undoubtedly became "a thorn in the side" of his employer . There is no
question that Burkett had become such a burden to Arrington , the union business
agent, that Arrington appointed Burkett as a shop steward in order to in some way
mollify this aggressive employee. However, as much of a burden as the Respondent
might have thought Burkett to be, nothing was done with regard to the employment
relationship until Burkett's last argument with Crews on August 8, when Burkett
threatened Crews that he, Burkett , was going to go to the Board. Within a week
following that threat, Burkett was taken off dispatch . Then, at the interview between
Burkett , Koontz, and Crews on August 21 , Koontz reprimanded Burkett for going
to the Board and told Burkett the reason the latter was taken off dispatch was his
threat to go to the Board on a matter over which the Board had no jurisdiction.
Following this reprimand Burkett was discharged and the discharge slip recited, as
the reason for the discharge , Burkett's threats of action against his employer. Among
the threats that Burkett had made was, of course, the threat to go to the Board which,
in fact , by this time Burkett had actually done.
From the foregoing , I conclude and find that the discharge of Burkett was moti-
vated, at least in large part , by his having threatened to seek aid from the Board and
his actually having sought such aid and asserting that he would continue to do so.
Moreover , in the light of these circumstances , I do not credit Crews' and Koontz'
denial that Burkett's threat to seek the Board's aid , and actually going to the Board,
were the motivating causes of his discharge . I conclude , in the light of all of the cir-
cumstances , even assuming that Burkett would have been discharged sooner or later
for having been an overly aggressive , and perhaps obnoxious , employee, that but for
his threats and his going to the Board , Burkett would not have been discharged at
the time that the Respondent terminated his employment . In coming to this conclu-
sion I have considered the decision of the arbitrator to the effect that he was satisfied
and persuaded that Burkett seriously violated his duty to the Respondent and to the
Union by seeking the assistance of the Board to compel the Respondent and the
Union to accept Burkett 's interpretation of the contract . The arbitrator made his
decision upon the same or similar testimony to that presented at the hearing herein
and came to a like conclusion as to the reason for the discharge that I come to in
this decision.6
8It is a well -accepted doctrine that the Board will not be bound by decisions in arbi-
tration which are repugnant to the purposes and the policies of the Act. Spielberg
Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080 . Because of my decision herein that a discharge
for going to the Board for advice is violative of Section 8(a) (4) of the Act, I find that
the arbitrator's decision is repugnant to the purposes and policies of the Act and I there-
fore find that the Board is not bound by the same.
212-809-GO-vol. 155 30
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Having found that Burkett's discharge was motivated in principal part by his having
threatened to seek aid from the Board and his actually having sought such aid and
asserting that he would continue to do so, it remains to be decided whether a discharge
under these circumstances constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act.
While it is true that Burkett's activity did not literally fall within the exact wording of
Section 8(a) (4),7 I find and conclude that this activity fell within the protection of
Section 8(a) (4) merely because Burkett did seek the counsel of a Board agent con-
cerning his dispute with the Respondent.
The Board has long held that clearly inherent in the employee's statutory rights
is the right to seek vindication in Board proceedings.8 Moreover, it has been con-
sidered by the Board to be discriminatory where an employer has discharged an
employee because such employee sought to vindicate his and other employees'
statutory rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act.9 Additionally, although Section
8 (a) (4) specifically states the type of activity which is protected by that section, i.e.,
the filing of charges or giving testimony under the Act, the Board has broadly inter-
preted the language of Section 8(a) (4) to include testimony of employees who have
testified before the Board regardless of the nature of the proceedings, such objections
to elections proceedings or other types of representation proceedings not encom-
passed in the exact language of Section 8(a) (4).10 Additionally, the Board has held
as protected activity the appearance of an employee at a Board hearing even though
that employee did not testify.ll Moreover, the Board considers the unhampered
access to its processes as a valuable right to be given the utmost protection.12
Thus it would seem that public policy requires that protection be afforded to one
who seeks information from the Board relative to a problem which he considers
within the Board's competence, even though he is informed in seeking such informa-
tion that the Board has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. To withhold protec-
tion from an employee under such circumstances would be tantamount to placing
a prohibitive burden upon those seeking redress through the Board. To hold other-
wise would be to make it incumbent upon such a prospective litigant to decide the
legal question of whether the matter upon which he goes to the Board is one cog-
nizable under the Act. It is far more to the public good to permit employees to seek
out the information from the Board and in seeking such information to grant them
the protection contemplated by Section 8(a)(4) of the Act. Otherwise, the policy
would tend to discourage employees from coming to the Board to seek information
or file charges, thus depriving them of their protected rights and impeding Board
processes
Accordingly, I find that by discharging Burkett, at least in part, for the activity
of seeking the assistance and advice of the Board, Respondent violated Section 8(a)
(4) of the Act.13
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connec-
tion 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 thereof.
9 Section 8(a) (4) reads as follows,
It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-
s x s n s s s
(4) to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has
filed charges or given testimony under this Act;
$ Better Monkey Grip Company, 115 NLRB 1170-1171.
0 Salt River Valley Water Users Association, an Arizona Corporation, 99 NLRB 849
10 See Precision Fittings, Inc., 141 NLRB 1034, 1035, footnote 3 See also Dal-Tex
Optical Company, Inc., 131 NLRB 715-730, enfd. 310 F 2d 58 (C.A. 5) and cases cited
therein in footnote 10 of the Intermediate Report.
11 See Tennessee Packers, Iiic, Frosty Morn Division, 153 NLRB 1411, page 7 of the
Intermediate Report (Helen Latta).
liLoeal 158, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO (Charles S Skura),
148 NLRB 679; H. B. Roberts, Business Manager of Local 925, International Union of
Operating Engineers and Local 925, etc. (Wellman-Lord Engineering, Inc.), 148 NLRB
674, affd. 350 F. 2d 427 (C.A.D.C.), in which the court held that the public interest
requires keeping open the channels of access to the National Labor Relations Board.
13 Under these circumstances, I find it unnecessary to dispose of the second contention
of the General Counsel that Burkett was discharged for asserting his rights under the
collective-bargaining contract and for enlisting and/or threatening to enlist the support
of other employees in this undertaking.
VIRGINIA-CAROLINA FREIGHT LINES, INC.
IV THE REMEDY
453
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom , and take affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that James C. Burkett was discharged discriminatorily with respect
to his hire and tenure of employment , I shall recommend that the Respondent be
ordered to offer him immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority and other rights and privileges,
and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered because of the
discrimination against him by payment of a sum equal to the amount he normally
would have earned as wages from the date of his discharge to the date of the offer
of reinstatement , less his net earnings during this said period, with backpay computed
on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294, with interest thereon payable in accordance with
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co ., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(4) and ( 1) of the Act by discriminatorily
discharging James C. Burkett.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , it is hereby recommended that Virginia-Carolina Freight
Lines, Inc., its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for having
threatened to seek aid from the National Labor Relations Board or having sought
such aid and asserting that he would continue to do so.
(b) In any like or similar manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to join or assist or to support or
oppose any labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing , and to engage in any other concerted activity for any purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all
such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer James C. Burkett immediate and full reinstatement to his former or 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 as a result
of his discharge , in the manner set forth in the above section entitled "The remedy."
(b) Preserve and, 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 data helpful in analyzing backpay
due and the rights of reinstatement under the preceding provision.
(c) Post at its terminal in Richmond , Virginia , and all other terminals, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix ." 14 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 5, shall , after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent , be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that said
notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
"In the event that this Recommended Order Is adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words " a Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and
Order."
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing, within 20 days from the
receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.15
le In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be
modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee for
threatening to seek aid, or actually seeking such aid, from the National Labor
Relations Board or for maintaining his right to do so.
WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the rights of self-organization, to join or assist
or to support or oppose any labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any such activity.
WE WILL offer James C. Burkett immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered
as a result of his discharge.
WE WILL notify James C. Burkett if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
VIRGINIA-CAROLINA FREIGHT LINES, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provi-
sions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor,
707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone No. 752-8460, Extension
2100.
Local 1291 , International Longshoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO
and Northern Contracting Company
Local 1242 , International Longshoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO
and Northern Contracting Company. Cases Nos. 4-CC-324-1
and 4-CC-324-2. November 1, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 22 , 1965, Trial Examiner Jerry B. Stone issued his Decision
in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the above -named Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair laborZn Z=
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam-
155 NLRB No. 46.