Wentworth Bus Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 16, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1356 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter Of NVENTWORTH Bus LINES, INC.. and RAYMOND F.
WENTWORTH D/B/A WENTWORTH SALES COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL 633
Case No. 1-CA-4l1.Deoided January 16, 1951
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 20, 1950, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain Apnf air labor
practices, and recommending that- it cease and desist therefrom, and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor
practices, and recommended dismissal of these allegations of the com-
plaint. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the.exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations."
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Wentworth Bus Lines, Inc.,
and Raymond F. Wentworth d/b/a Wentworth Sales Company,
1 Although the Trial Examiner recommended dismissal of the complaint insofar as it
alleged that the Respondent discriminated with respect to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Frank Skinner, the General Counsel filed no exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
8In adopting the Trial Exami'ner's finding that the discharge of Alfred Hall was dis-
criminatory , we, unlike the Trial Examiner , do not rely on the fact that on an earlier
occasion, before the advent of the Union, the Respondent had merely reprimanded Hall for
having damaged a bus motor.
• 92 NLRB No. 195.
1356
WENTWORTH BUS LINES, INC. 1357
Dover, New Hampshire, and its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
Local 633, or in any other labor organization of its employees, by dis'
charging any of its employees, or by discriminating in any other man=
ner in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of their employment;
(.b) Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliation,
activities, sympathies, and votes in representation elections, threaten-
ing economic reprisals against its employees or threatening to close its
business because of their union membership, affiliation, and activity;
and threatening its employees with economic reprisals for voting in
favor of a labor organization;
-
,(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
Local 633, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives-of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mu-
tual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment, 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 : •
(0'-Offer to Edward Monat, Alfred Hall, ' Philippe Cuturier, and
Albert Jousset immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges;
(b) Make whole said Edward Monat, Alfred Hall, Philippe
Cuturier, and Albert Jousset in the manner 'set forth in "the section of
the Intermediate Report entitled "The remedy," for any loss of .pay
that they may have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimina-
tion against them;
(c) 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 rec-
ords . necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay, and the right of
reinstatement under the terms 'of this Order;
1358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Post at its plant at Dover, New Hampshire, copies of the
notices attached hereto, marked Appendix A.4 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the Respondent or its representative, be
posted. by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-.
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be and it hereby is,
dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent discriminated with
respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Frank Skinner.
APPENDIX A
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 discourage membership in INTERNATIONAL BROTH-
ERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL 633, or in any other labor organization,
by discharging any of our employees, or by discriminating in any
other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment or
any term or condition of their employment.
WE WILL offer Edward Monat, Alfred Hall, Philippe Cuturier,
and Albert Jousset immediate and, full. reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions without' prejudice to
any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make each of them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
affiliation, activities, sympathies, and votes in representation elec-
tions, threaten them with economic reprisals or threaten to close
our business because of their union membership, affiliation, and
* In the event this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be inserted , before the words, "A Decision and Order," the words , "A Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing."
WENTWORTH BUS LINES , INC. 1359
activity , threaten our employees with economic reprisal for voting
in favor of a labor organization , or in any other manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right
to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTER CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , AFL, LOCAL 633 , 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 pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement re-
quiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the
above-named union or any other labor organization . We will not
discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment against any employee because of member-
ship in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
WENTWORTH Bus LINES, INC.,
and
RAYMOND F. WENTWORTH D/B/A
WENTWORTH SALES COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By ------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Mr. Joseph Lepie, for the General Counsel.
Mr. Henry Parr, of Manchester, N. H., for the Union.
Hughes & Burns. by Mr. Walter A. Calderwood, of Dover, N. H., for Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, Local 633, herein called
the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts), issued his
complaint dated May 9, 1950, against Wentworth Bus Lines, Inc., and Raymond
F. Wentworth d/b/a Wentworth Sales Company, herein jointly called Respond-
ent, and also referred to as Bus Lines and Sales Company, respectively, alleg-
ing that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat.
1360 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint, the charges, and notice
of hearing thereon were duly served upon Respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended alleges
that Respondent: (1) Had discharged five-named employees because of their
union membership,' and (2) had interrogated its employees concerning their
union affiliations ; warned them to refrain from assisting, joining, or remaining
members of the Union ; had threatened them with discharge and other reprisals
if they joined or assisted the Union; and had threatened to close its business
operations if the Union were successful in its organizational campaign.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Dover, New Hampshire, from May
31 to June 6, 1950, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, Martin S. Bennett,
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and Re-
spondent were represented.by counsel and the Union by its representative. All
parties participated in the hearing and were. afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. At the outset of the hearing the undersigned denied a motion
to dismiss, filed by Respondent prior to the commencement of the hearing, which
in substance. challenged the jurisdiction of the Board. Respondent then filed a
document entitled "Special Appearance, Answer and Motion to Dismiss." This
pleading, insofar as it constituted a motion to dismiss, was denied. It was
proffered and accepted as Respondent ' s answer and , inter alia , denied the com-
mission of any unfair labor practices. The respective motions to dismiss were
renewed at the conclusion of the hearing, ruling was reserved, and they are hereby
denied. At the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned granted a motion by
the General Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to purely
formal matters. The parties argued orally before the undersigned and were
advised of their right to file briefs, proposed findings of fact, and proposed con-
clusions of law. A request for proposed findings and conclusions was duly
received from Respondent , has been considered , and the undersigned rules as
follows with respect to these proposals : The undersigned accepts Nos. 1-8, 10-12,
16-17, 19-21, 23-24, 26-27, 53-54 and rejects Nos. 14-15, 28-51, 56-57. Nos. 9, 13,
18, -22, 25, 55, and 5840 are not accepted as they do not permit of precise
resolution.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT'
Raymond F . Wentworth d./b/a Wentworth Sales Company is a dealer in
new automobiles and a franchised agent of Chrysler Corporation for the sale
of Chrysler and Plymouth automobiles. He has no employees and personally
conducts and operates this business from a garage and salesroom located at
Dover, New Hampshire . This is the same building from which Wentworth Bus
Lines, Inc., conducts its operations, described below. During the year 1949,
Sales Company purchased new automobiles and parts valued at $136,229, and
during the same period sold new Chrysler and Plymouth automobiles priced at
$171,969. The undersigned finds that Sales Company , as a franchised dealer
3 Their names and dates of discharge are as follows : Edward Monat-May 2, 1949,
Alfred Hall-May 10, 1949, Frank Skinner-June 28, 1949 , Philippe Cuturier-July 16,
1949; Albert Jousset-July 16, 1949 . Monat , Cuturier , and Jousset are also referred to in
the transcript as Monet , Couturier, and Joussettes , respectively.
WENTWORTH BUS LINES, INC . 1361
in new automobiles, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
N. L. R. B. v. Townsend, 185 F. 2d 378 (C. A. 9), decided September 11, 1950;
Johns Brothers, Inc., 84 NLRB 294; Harry's Cadillac-Pontiac Company, Incor-
poratcd, 81 NLRB 1; and Adams Motors, Inc., 80 NLRB 1518.
Wentworth Bus Lines, Inc., is a New Hampshire corporation whose principal
office and place of business is located at Dover, New Hampshire, where it is en-
gaged in the operation of a bus line between Dover and several communities, all
in the State of New Hampshire, under a certificate from the New Hampshire
Public Service Commission. This area, which has a population of 40,000 to 50,000,
is presently serviced by Bus Lines with 12 busses, with 9 generally in operation,
although at the time material herein Bus Lines owned 18 busses and usually
operated 12. All the stock of Bus Lines is owned by Raymond F. Wentworth
who, as appears above, is the sole owner of Sales Company, and operates both
businesses from the same premises, a 1-story building. He is president and
treasurer of Bus Lines and his brother, Cecil Wentworth, is clerk of the cor-
poration, these 2 comprising the board of directors. Raymond F. Wentworth
is also general manager and the sole supervisor of Bus Lines.
During the year 1949, Bus Lines expended $88,167 for supplies, parts, gas,
and oil, all purchased within the State of New Hampshire, and during the same
period its revenues totaled $76,849. It carries no mail or national advertising,
does not stop at any railroad stations, and has no direct connections with any
other bus lines. Eight drivers, 8 mechanics, 1 helper, and 1 painter, a total of
15, comprise its personnel.
Although its bus routes are short, the largest being but 15 miles in length,
the routes pass close to and in some instances stop directly at the premises of
a number of plants engaged in interstate commerce. The Board has previously
exercised jurisdiction over some of these concerns which include American
Woolen Company and General Electric Company. In fact, Bus Lines sells tickets
entitling the bearer to transportation between "Dover and General Electric."
Bus Lines runs a special bus in the morning and again in the afternoon to and
from the premises of Dover Film Company which is located approximately -one-
half mile from the highway where Bus Lines vehicles customarily pass. This
concern, as the record indicates, is also engaged in interstate commerce.- Further-
more, in Case No. 1-RC-961, Bus Lines entered into a stipulation appearing on
the consent election agreement that it ". . . services many plants which are
engaged in inter-state commerce being the only means of transportation between
the plants & cities. . . The present record demonstrates affirmatively that
passengers are picked up and deposited at a number of such plants.
Although it appears, under the recent decisions of the Board, that Bus tines
as such asengaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, TV. C. King,
d/b/a Local :Transit Lines, 91 NLRB 623, El Paso-Ysleta Bus Company, Inc.,
91 NLRB 590, and Wichita Transportation Corporation, 90 NLRB No. 70, the
record is replete with evidence that Bus Lines and Sales Company constitute
one single integrated enterprise: under common ownership, management, and
control. Accordingly, the totality of these operations is relevant to a determina-
lion of.interstate commerce:
Thus, Raymond F. Wentworth personally manages and directs both companies.
-Sales Company has no employees and the employees of Bus Lines are subject
,only to the direction of Wentworth, there being no other supervisory employees.
He personally handles all buying of parts and supplies for both concerns. The
services required by Sales Company in connection with-the'sales and servicing
1362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of new automobiles, repairs to used cars, and other repairs are performed by Bus
Lines mechanics under the express direction of Wentworth. Furthermore, Sales
Company also utilizes Bus Lines employees in the unloading of new automobiles
which arrive in Dover by railroad freight car consigned to Sales Company, as
well as to other automobile dealers in the State of New Hampshire. These
services are billed by Bus Lines to Sales Company, and in 1949 amounted to over
$1.1,000, the latter figure not necessarily representing the sums billed to the
respective customers.
Wentworth in his individual capacity owns the one-story building at Dover
which houses both concerns. These premises are leased by him in their entirety
to Bus Lines which, although entirely owned by Wentworth, pays rent to Went-
worth as an individual. Then, as proprietor of Sales Company, Wentworth
reimburses Bus Lines for that portion of the building 'which Sales Company
allegedly utilizes. The building, which has various entrances for vehicles and
persons, does in fact have one main entrance which feeds into all departments
of both businesses, including the sales office for new cars, the so-called outer
office where bus matters are handled, and the so-called inner office where Went-
worth allegedly handles Sales Company matters. The fact is, as the record amply
demonstrates, that Wentworth alone conducts the two businesses from both inner
and outer offices and personally supervises all business operations, as set forth
above.
The undersigned finds, in view of the above, and the ownership by Raymond
F. Wentworth of both concerns, his personal and direct operation of both from
one common place of business, the absence of any Sales Company personnel,
and the joint utilization by both companies of Bus Lines personnel, that Bus
Lines and Sales Company constitute integral parts of a unitary enterprise and
that they are a single employer which is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act. Hill Transportation Company, et al., 75 NLRB 1203, entd.
without opinion December 7, 1948 (C. A. 1) ; Morgan Packing Company, Inc., 91
NLRB No. 104; Huttig Sash and Door Co. of Texas, Incorporated, 90 NLRB No.
291; Launderepair Company, 90 NLRB 778; Gifford-Hill & Company, Inc., et al.,
90 NLRB 428; Commercial Automotive Corporation, 90 NLRB 1224; The Mc-
Mahon Transportation Company, Inc., 89 NLRB 1652; Island Photo-Engraving
Company, 89 NLRB 971; Albany Novelty Corporation, 85 NLRB 1083; and
Atlanta Brick and Tile Company, 83 NLRB 1154.
U. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL, Local 633, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
The issues herein are in substance : (1) Whether Respondent has interfered
with, restrained , and coerced its employees by interrogating them concerning their
union affiliation and membership , and warning and threatening them with re-
prisals for assisting and engaging in union activities; and (2 ) whether Respond-
ent has discriminatorily discharged the five above-named employees for their
union activities and membership.
WENTWORTH BUS LINES, INC. 1363
The conduct alleged herein to be violative of the Act took place during and
after April 1949, contemporary with the attempts of the Union to organize the
employees of Bus Lines. The union activity actually commenced in mid-March
1949, when Harry Parr, president of Local 633, was contacted by Edward Monat,
later to be discharged on May 2, 1949. Parr gave Monat some union application
cards for distribution among the employees of Respondent. These were signed
and returned to Parr by Monat some days later. On or about April 4, 1949, the
Union mailed to the Regional Office of the Board a petition for certification as
bargaining representative of the employees of Respondent. On or about the
same (late, Basil French, secretary-treasurer of Local 633, wrote to Raymond F.
Wentworth as president of Bus Lines, and notified him that the Union had filed
the petition and urged that he agree to a "consent" election in order to save
effort and time?
A consent election agreement was entered into on or about May 18, 1949, and
an election held on May 27, 1949, the results of which are not disclosed, al-
though it is apparent that the Union was not certified as a result thereof. It was
during this period of April and May that the following incidents took place.3
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
In the early part of April, Wentworth approached Edward Monat, while the
latter was in the garage, and informed him that he had received a letter from
the Board concerning the election and the Union. Wentworth stated that he
.. was going to tell everyone else that if the Union got in, that we would be
looking for a job, he would close his doors, because there wasn't going to be
any racketeers or communists going to tell him what to do ." Approximately
1 week later , Mount and Wentworth were discussing business conditions and
the Union in Wentworth's office. Monat informed him that "conditions" on
the busses were poor ; suggested that if Wentworth were to place someone in
the bus department who was familiar with busses he would not have his
present difficulty with the Union ; and stated that "With the Union there it
would be better for him (Wentworth) and for the men. . . ." Wentworth
replied that he "ran that whole outfit . . . Didn't think that he needed anyone
else to do it . . ." and that the Union was ". . . no . . . good . . . a bunch of
racketeers , communists and grafters and there was no one going to tell him
how to run that ( bus) line." 4
2 Wentworth testified that be had no recollection of seeing the letter, a copy of which
was introduced in evidence. Both Parr and French credibly testified concerning its
authorization and transmittal. Monat, then in Respondent's employ, credibly testified that
he signed the receipt for the registered letter and put it in with the regular mail received
on the day in question. Furthermore, as appears below, Wentworth- -almost immediately
demonstrated familiarity with the organizational activities of the Union. His testimony is
therefore not credited.
3 Findings which follow are based.upon the credited testimony of Monat, Alfred Hall,
Frank Skinner, Philippe Cuturier, Albert Jousset, and James Lewis. Wentworth in sub-
stance denied that he threatened his employees with reprisals for engaging in union
activities. Ile was, however, an unreliable witness who patently attempted to evade
giving responses to questions which he deemed potentially damaging. Hence his dehials
are not accepted and, as elsewhere, little reliance can be attached to his testimony.
41n the findings that follow hereinafter, this second conversation between Monat and
Wentworth is construed in the light of the earlier conversation. The undersigned does not
credit Wentworth's testimony that on or about this date Monat offered to "bust up" the
Union if he were made a supervisor. Not only has Wentworth been found an unreliable
witness, but his further testimony that he was not interested in Monat' s offer to break up
the Union is entirely inconsistent with Wentworth's own efforts in that direction, as shown
above and- below.
:1364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Early in April, while driver Alfred Hall was cashing in his bus receipts in
Wentworth's office, the latter stated that he had heard a.union "was coming in";
that he, Hall, could do as he pleased ; but that if he voted for the Union he
would be "voting himself" out of a job because he, Wentworth, would not have
anything to do with a union and would "close the doors." Mrs. J. V. Downes,
one of two clericals employed by Bus Lines, was present during this incident,
according to Hall, but was not called as a witness herein.
During the latter part of April, Hall and Wentworth again entered into a
discussion of the pros and cons of unions. Wentworth became incensed and
.accused Hall of being a "weak-kneed ____________" (obscenity deleted) who
followed men like O'Brien and President Parr of Local 633, whom he termed
gun-carrying gangsters.` The conversation turned to the identity of those who
had started the Union. Wentworth stated that he knew their identities and
when Hall inquired who they were, Wentworth replied "Sprague and Monat."
Hall informed Wentworth that he was in error and Wentworth asked Hall to
disclose the identities of those who had started the organizational campaign.
Hall refused to do so and Wentworth then commented on the union button
which Hall wore in his coat lapel. Noting that the button was reversed with
only the fastener showing and the face of the pin hidden, Wentworth asked Hall
whether "he was afraid to wear it on the outside." Hall replied that he did
not have any such fear but that he had been advised to wear it in this manner
because "anything to do with the Union antagonized Mr. Wentworth." As in
the prior incident, Mrs. Downes was present, although only during parts of this
conversation.
Three or four weeks before the election of May 27, while employees Philippe
Cuturier and Peter Menounas were' working in the grease pit, Wentworth
approached them and stated, according to Cuturier, that ". . . the Union's
coming in" and that if "you vote for the Union youse fellow [sic] got to look
for a job; you're all done." Menounas , although called as a rebuttal witness
for the General Counsel, was not questioned concerning the incident or the one
set forth below. On May 27, after the holding of the election on that date,
'Wentworth again spoke to Cuturier and Menounas. He stated, according to
Cuturier, that he would put no more 'new parts in the busses and that he
intended to sellout because "the Union had come in."
Frank Skinner was hired by Wentworth on May 12, 1949. Wentworth, after
informing him of the wages and hours, stated that a union was coming in and
.asked Skinner how he felt about it. Skinner replied that he had no interest in
labor organizations and was interested only in a job, whereupon Wentworth
stated that he ":. had spent $5,000 to keep It out before, and he wasn 't going
to do it again ; he would close the doors first." °
Approximately, 2 days before the election, Wentworth approached Skinner
while the latter was in the garage and after pointing out that the election was
impending stated, "I am not threatening you because I don't threaten anyone,
but 'there is plenty of room on that fence that Hall and Monat are leaning
8 The identity of O'Brien is not disclosed by the record. There is no evidence of the
carrying of weapons by Mr. Parr or anyone else connected with the Union.
6 Sprague and Mount were both bus drivers. As stated above; it was Monat who.. had
'first interested Parr in organizing the employees of Respondent.
This apparently' referred to earlier. attempts by labor organizations to organize the
employees of Respondent. The records of the Board reveal prior proceedings involving
Respondent.
WENTWORTH BUS LINES, INC. 1365
against, so if you vote for the Union you will vote yourself out of your own
job." Skinner replied that he did not care whether the Union was successful
or not.' Two days after the election, Wentworth spoke to Skinner in the
garage and asked whether Monat had frightened him. Skinner replied in the
negative, whereupon Wentworth stated that "I guess you know you voted your-
self right out of your job." Skinner disputed this and, when Wentworth became
angry, left the vicinity.
James Lewis was hired as a bus driver during the first part of May 1949.
On this occasion Wentworth asked him if he was interested in the Union, and
Lewis replied that he was not at that moment. Wentworth stated that if Lewis.
voted "no" in the election he would be recommended for a better position, but
that if he voted in favor of the Union, Lewis "would be out of a job and he
(Wentworth) would be shut down." Just before the election, Wentworth again
spoke to Lewis while the latter was in Wentworth's office and reminded him
that the election was scheduled for the following day. He asked Lewis "Do
you know how you stand?", and when Lewis replied in the affirmative, Went-
worth asked him "to vote the right way."' Several days after the election
while two unidentified persons were present, Wentworth stated to Lewis that
he knew how Lewis had voted but that he wanted Lewis in person to reveal
the nature of his vote. Lewis refused, whereupon Wentworth asserted that
Lewis had voted in favor of the Union. Wentworth inquired whether: Mount
had "scared" him into voting in favor of the Union ; Lewis replied that such
was not the case and that he "had to vote the right way."
Albert Jousset was hired by Wentworth in May 1949 prior to the election.
Wentworth, after inforpning him of his wages and hours, stated, "There is a
matter of a union coming in here. If the Union comes in, you will be out of
a job." Wentworth then resumed his discussion of working conditions. Two
or three days after the election while Jousset was in the office, Wentworth
asked him if he had joined the Union. Jousset; who in fact had joined 1 or 2
weeks earlier, admitted that he had. Wentworth reminded him of his earlier
warning that he, Jousset, would be out of a job if he joined the Union. Went-
worth on this occasion also asked Jousset if he had been threatened by Mount.
Conclusions
As set foith above, the Union commenced the organization of Respondent's
employees late in March 1949, and on or about April 4 filed a petition for
certification of representatives with the Board and notified Respondent of its
action. Almost immediately Wentworth countered with a campaign of interroga-
tion and threats which. were patently violative of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act. The undersigned finds that by the statements of Went-
worth, as detailed above, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Old Town
Shoe Company, 91 NLRB 240; Patterson Fire Brick Company, 90 NLRB 660;
Rub-R-Engraving Company, 89 NLRB 475; International Shoe Co., 87 NLRB
479, and Standard-Coosa=Thatcher Company, 85 NLRB 1358.
8 Hall and Monat had previously been discharged , as appears below in more detail, on
May 10 and May 2, respectively . It appears that they and other union adherents on oc-
casion would meet in the vicinity of a fence near a local cafe known as Stoney's Diner. -
B In the findings that follow , this conversation is construed in the light of the earlier
conversation between Lewis and Wentworth at the time of the former's hiring.
1366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. The discharges
1. Edward Monat 10
Monat originally entered Respondent's employ as a bus driver approximately
2 years prior to his discharge on May 2, 1949. He left of his own volition after
about 1 year, but was rehired by Wentworth in September 1948. There is no
evidence of any complaint or criticism of his ability as a driver and the manner
in which he operated the busses, except for the incident preceding his discharge.
As appears hereinabove, Monat was the motivating force behind the union
organizational campaign in the plant. It was he who in mid-March of 1949
interested President Parr of the Union in the organization of Respondent's em-
ployees. Monat took the initiative of distributing union application cards among
the employees, and collected and returned a number of signed cards to Parr late
in March as well as thereafter. Not only was Wentworth aware that Monat had
belonged to a labor organization prior to his initial employment by Respondent,
but there is affirmative evidence of Wentworth's knowledge of Monat's union
activities in 1949 and of his displeasure therewith. Thus, in April, Wentworth
told Monat that he would go out of business if the Union was successful in
organizing his employees. In the latter part of April, Wentworth stated to
Alfred Hall that he believed blonat to be one of those who had started the
Union. And at the election, held, approximately 31/2 weeks after Monat's dis-
charge, Wentworth refused to permit Monat to serve as an observer for the
Union, stating that Monat was the cause of his troubles and but for Monat
the "Company wouldn't have the Union in there." Similar statements indicating
Wentworth's belief that Monat had been the prime mover behind the organiza-
tional campaign were made by Wentworth at about the same time to other
employees, as set forth above:
On Saturday, April 30, while on his regular trip, Monat experienced difficulty
with Bus 68. Noticing that the oil gauge was not working properly, he stopped
the bus and discovered that the main oil line was broken. He called the garage
for assistance and mechanic Cuturier was dispatched to the scene. Cuturier
observed that the oil reservoir contained 5 to 6 quarts of oil, patched up the oil
line, and instructed Monat to start the motor. Noting that the motor was
knocking, Cuturier directed that it be turned off and the bus was towed to the
garage. It was then discovered that the engine had a burned bearing and it
was replaced with a new engine. Monat continued his run on that same day
with a replacement bus and also worked a regular shift on the following day,
May 1, without any comment from Wentworth on either day despite the fact
that Wentworth, in view of his custom of being at the garage every evening
presumably was aware of the incident.
On Monday morning, May 2, Monat went to the office for his pay. Wentworth
accused him of having burned out the bus engine on Saturday. Monat denied
it, but Wentworth informed him that he was discharged. Monat stated that
this was a good excuse, claiming that Wentworth had discovered that he was
active in the Union, and Wentworth replied "That is as good an excuse as any."
It was Wentworth's testimony that he discovered the motor of this bus
had been run without oil ; that the oil line had either been broken or pulled off;
and that he had heard in the shop that Monat had stated the bus would not
10 Findings herein ate based upon the credible testimony of Monat, Cuturier, Basil French,
and Peter Menounas. Wentworth, as elsewhere, was an unimpressive witness and his
testimohy was improbable and inconsistent concerning the case of Monat, as in the cases
described below.
WENTWORTH BUS LINES, INC. 1367
return from the trip under its own-power . However, there is no evidence. that
such a statement had ever been made by Monat , and Wentworth did not identify
the source of his information. In fact, the only attempt to adduce testimony
of this nature was during the cross -examination of mechanic Menounas by
Respondent and Menounas • credibly testified that he had never heard a state-
ment of this nature made by or attributed to Monat.
Furthermore , the record impels a finding that Monat was not at fault on this
occasion and that Wentworth was aware of this fact . For several months
before the incident, the drivers had regularly complained that Bus 68 would
not stay in high gear and that it could be held only in first or second speed.
On four separate occasions during this period work had been done on the bus
because of this condition . In fact, mechanic Cuturier credibly testified that
prior to the breakdown he had informed Wentworth that the transmission on
the main shaft was worn ; that this resulted in inability to keep the bus in high
speed; and that Wentworth , indicating that he was aware of the numerous
complaints concerning this bus, informed him, Cuturier , that he was unwilling
to invest in new parts and directed him to reinstall the old parts.
The testimony of Cuturier and Menounas , both of whom worked on the bus,
reveals that constant driving of the bus in low speeds because of the worn trans-
mission resulted in strain on the engine and excessive overheating . This is
coupled with the fact that Wentworth, who ordered replacement parts, had
previously replaced the original damaged oil line with a gasoline line not de-
signed to stand the pressures customarily placed on an oil line. Morever, the
changed line, when inspected by Cuturier and Menounas , appeared to be broken,
as they testified , and not as Wentworth claimed, broken or torn. in sum, it
follows that Wentworth was well aware that this bus had serious engine trouble .
which could cause and did cause difficulties of operation , that the engine had
an oil line of below standard strength , and that he was sending the bus out
in an improper if not dangerous state of repair . Furthermore , the record
indicates that it was not uncommon for these substandard oil lines to break.
Although Wentworth claimed that the motor had been run without oil, there
is no evidence to support this contention . On the contrary , even after the line
had broken and presumably some oil lost , both mechanics who inspected the bus
found the oil reservoir to be one-half full. In addition , the record reveals that
similar mishaps had happened to at least two other drivers and that they were
not discharged therefor . Driver Hall who, in February 1949, had seriously
damaged a motor in like fashion, had merely received a reprimand by telephone.
At about the same time, driver Gates had a similar accident and the record
does not indicate whether or not he even received a reprimand . Significantly,
driver Jousset, whose case is discussed below, had run a bus off the road several
hours after he entered Respondent 's, employ, demolishing it and causing se-
rious injury to a passenger ; yet he was merely transferred to other work.
It is noteworthy that at one point in the hearing Respondent advanced an.
other basis for the discharge , namely, that Monat was hot-headed and had
engaged in a fight with another employee . However, this contention was ap-
parently abandoned.
In view of the above , the undersigned is convinced that Wentworth relied
upon this incident as a pretext for eliminating the leading union protagonist
from his employ . Although the damage to the bus was not minor , the con-
clusion is inescapable that injuries of this nature would and did result from
the worn condition of the equipment together with the improper parts used in
the oil lubrication system. Furthermore , similar incidents had not resulted in
1368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharge of the offenders, and the undersigned believes that, absent other
factors, Monat would not have been discharged on this occasion. In sum,
considering Monat's outstanding union activities, Wentworth's oft expressed
animosity to Monat and the latter's union activities, the disparity of Went-
worth's treatment of Monat and others who suffered similar mishaps, and
the lack of substance to the reasons advanced by Respondent for the discharge,
and under all the circumstances detailed above, the undersigned finds and
concludes upon a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent discharged
Edward Monat because of his prominent activities on behalf of the Union,
thereby discriminating with respect to his hire and tenure of employment in
order to discourage membership in a labor organization and also thereby in-
terfering with, restraining, and coercing his employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.. Hill Transportation Company, et at.,
supra; N. L. R. B. v. Bird Machine Company, 161 F. 2d 589 (C. A. 1) ; N. L. R. B.
v. Ford Bros., 170 F. 2d 735 (C. A. 6) ; N. L. R. B. v. Geraldine Novelty Co.,
173 F. 2d 14 (C. A. 2) ; Victor Mfg. and Gasket Co. v. N. L. R. B., 174 F. 2d 867
(C. A. 7) ; N. L. R. B. v. Dixie Shirt Co., 176 F. 2d 969 (C. A. 4) ; N. L. R. B. v.
Electric City Dyeing Co., 178 F. 2d 980 (C. A. 3) ; N. L. R. B. v. Greensboro Coca
Cola Bottling Co., 180 F. 2d 840 (C. A. 4), and Eastman Cotton Mills, 90
NLRB 31.
2. Alfred Hall
. Hall entered Respondent's employ as a bus driver in September or October
1947 and was discharged on May 10, 1949. His work was apparently exemplary
during this period of approximately 1'1/2 years, save for one instance in Janu-
ary or February 1949. On that occasion, although Hall ruined a motor when
a piston broke on a bus he was driving, he merely received a telephone repri-
mand from Wentworth.
Hall signed an application card for membership in the Union on or about
March 27, 1949, and late in April he signed up another employee in the Union.
As previously found, Wentworth threatened Hall early in April with discharge
if he voted for the Union in the impending election, and also threatened to
close down his business on the ground that he, would have nothing to do with
-the Union. Furthermore, in the latter part of April, Wentworth accused
Hall of being a "weak-kneed ____________" (obscenity deleted) who was under
the influence of President Parr of the Union. On this occasion Wentworth also
questioned Hall in vain concerning the identity of the union leaders among the
employees, and accused Hall of cowardice because he wore his union button
reversed with the face hidden and only the fastener showing.
On May 9, shortly after the above-stated threats to Hall, an incident took
place which Respondent advances as the basis for its discharge of Hall, namely,
that he allegedly threatened a bus passenger. The facts, which are somewhat
involved, are as follows : Hall was informed on the evening of May 9 by driver
Page that he, Page, had just had an argument with Frank Andrews, a pas=
senger on his bus. The fact is that an argument had taken place ; according
to Andrews, a highly excitable individual who testified herein, he had instructed
Page to cease venting his opinion of Wentworth and discussing the Union
while operating. the bus. - Page did not testify herein, and according to Hall,
he was advised by Page that Andrews had made some statement that Monat,
whose case is described above, was selling out the Union to Wentworth. It is
deemed. unnecessary to determine precisely what was said between Andrews
and Page..
WENTWORTH BUS LINES, INC. 1369
In any event, Hall became disturbed lest the union organizational campaign
receive undesired publicity and decided to get to the bottom of the trouble
between Page and Andrews. Hall, who was accompanied by, his wife and was
off duty and in his own car, proceeded to follow a bus driven by driver Sprague,
which was carrying Andrews to Dover ; there the bus stopped momentarily and
then proceeded to Andrews' home a short distance from the center of town.
Andrews alighted from the bus and Hall pulled to the curb in the space vacated
by the departed bus. According to Hall, and the undersigned so finds, he asked
Andrews what was the difficulty between him and Page. Andrews, who could
not see clearly because of the darkness and his badly impaired vision, became
agitated and threatened to call the police. Hall immediately departed."
Andrews reported the incident to Wentworth that evening by telephone.
Wentworth urged Andrews to report the matter to the police, but Andrews was
unwilling to do so. Wentworth then stated that he intended to call the police,
and Andrews replied that he did not wish the police called. Andrews sug-
gested that Wentworth merely reprimand Hall, but Wentworth insisted on
reporting the matter to the police and did so. The police apparently never
took any action in the matter. On the following morning, May 10, Hall reported
for work and was discharged by Wentworth who informed him that he would
not tolerate any interference with his business. Respondent's position is that
Hall was discharged for threatening a passenger.12
There are a number of factors which cause the undersigned to seriously ques-
tion the bona fides of the reason assigned by Wentworth. Firstly, as stated
above, the passenger was unwilling to press any charges with the police and in
fact urged Wentworth to merely reprimand Hall. Nevertheless, Wentworth in-
sisted upon making and did make a report to the police, viewing the incident
much more seriously than Andrews. Secondly, in curious contrast, Wentworth
was, but for the case of Monat, willing to tolerate serious injuries to equipment,
for in January or February before the advent of the Union, Hall ruined a motor
resulting in the replacement cost of a new motor. This, in marked contrast to the
present incident, merited only a reprimand of Hall by telephone. Likewise,
driver Jousset had overturned a bus, demolishing it and seriously injuring a
passenger, several hours after he was hired, but was merely transferred to other
work.
Thirdly, in at least two aspects Wentworth's testimony as to this incident is
contrary to the fact. Thus, Andrews testified that he had never seen Hall before
this incident, which is not unlikely .in view of the state of Andrews' vision,
although Andrews did describe Hall's general physique to Wentworth. The
latter, on the other hand, attributed to Andrews in the telephone conversation
of May 9 the statement that he, Andrews, knew Hall because he had ridden as a
passenger on busses driven by him. In another instance, both Andrews and Hall
testified that the bus which deposited Andrews at his home, driven by Sprague,
had pulled away and was departing as Hall's vehicle stopped at the place along
the curb vacated by the bus. Obviously, driver Sprague could not have heard
11 The above findings are based upon the testimony of Hall who impressed the under-
signed with his straightforward demeanor. His testimony was corroborated by that of
his wife who; despite the close relationship, impressed the undersigned as an honest
witness. Andrews' version that Hall had ordered him to shut his mouth and stated that
"We are going to get you," is not credited for the reason that Andrews was in a state of
high excitement, a chronic condition which he also demonstrated on the witness stand.
12 At one point in his testimony, Wentworth claimed-that Hall had been slow in turning
in his receipts promptly. This claim was later abandoned, Wentworth stating that the
discharge was caused by the above incident.
929979-51-vol. 92-88
1370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any conversation between Hall and Andrews. Wentworth, on the other hand,
testified that he had promptly verified Andrews' story with driver Sprague and
that the latter had informed him that Hall had "hollered" at Andrews and had
"threatened" him. Significantly, Sprague although available, was not called as
a witness.
In view of Hall's tenure with Respondent, the lightness with which Wentworth
treated an allegedly serious injury to equipment by Hall before the advent of
the union campaign, the malice with which Wentworth insisted upon making
this a police matter, and the obvious attempts of Wentworth in his testimony
to embellish the incident, the undersigned does not believe that the discharge was
carried out for the reason assigned. When consideration is given to Hall's union
membership and activity, the threat to discharge him if he voted for the Union,
and the accusation shortly before the discharge that he was a coward for hiding
the face of his union button and was a weakling under the influence of the presi-
dent of the Union, the undersigned is of the belief that absent his union activities
Hall would not have been discharged on this occasion. Considering, too, the
campaign of interference, restraint, and coercion being conducted at the time,
and the similar manner in which Monat had been eliminated from the plant 1
week earlier, it is believed and found that Wentworth seized upon this incident
as an opportunity for eliminating another union adherent from the plant, thereby
discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Alfred Hall.
in order to discourage membership in a labor organization and also thereby in-
terfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Hill Transportation Company, at al.,
supra; N. L. R. B. v. Bird Machine Company, supra; N. L. R. B. v. Ford Bros.,
supra; N. L. R. B: v. Geraldine Novelty Co., supra; Victor Mfg. and Gasket Co.
v. N. L. R. B., supra; N. L. R. B. v. Dixie Shirt Co., supra; N. L. R. B. v. Electric
City Dyeing Co., supra; N. L. R. B. v. Greensboro Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra;
and Eastman Cotton Mills, supra.
3. Philippe Cuturier
Cuturier, a motor mechanic of many years' experience, was hired by Wentworth
approximately 1 month before Christmas, 1947. At the time he was informed
that he was to recondition Respondent's then fleet of 18 busses. He did recon-
dition 3 of them, finishing the third shortly after Christmas that year, at which
time Wentworth decided not to-proceed with the reconditioning project. Cuturier
was then assigned to general mechanical duties including work on rear ends,
transmissions, and motors of busses. The 3 busses reconditioned by Cuturier
operated satisfactorily thereafter. On or about July 9, 1949, Wentworth in-
formed Cuturier that he would have to look for a new position, this apparently
constituting a 1-week notice, and on or about July 16, 1949, Cuturier was dis-
charged. According to Wentworth, the chief reason for the discharge was
lack of work, and secondly, his claim that Cuturier was a small man who had
difficulty in lifting heavy objects.
Cuturier signed an application card for membership in the Union on or about
March 29, 1949." As found above, 3 or 4 weeks before the election of May 27,
Cuturier was threatened with discharge by Wentworth if he voted for the Union.
And, after the election, Wentworth informed Cuturier that he intended to sell
out because the Union had organized the employees.
" This card was identified by Cuturier and was introduced in evidence. Cuturier else-
where testified, apparently in error, that he thought he signed the card in May.
WENTWORTH BUS LINES, INC. 1371
Turning to Respondent's primary reason, namely, that Cuturier was discharged
for lack of work, it immediately appears that this contention is not supported
by the record. Wentworth testified that Cuturier was hired for a special job
of rebuilding the motors of 18 busses ; that Cuturier was discharged after only
2 were finished ; and that the first unit was satisfactory but the second was not.
The fact is, however, as. Cuturier credibly testified, that he had done 3 units,
the last of which was concluded shortly after Christmas 1947, and that he then
continued as a mechanic all during 1948 and until his discharge on July 16,
1949. Clearly, and the undersigned so finds, Cuturier had been installed as
a regular motor mechanic on Respondent's staff late in December 1947 and had
functioned in that capacity for approximately 19 months.
Wentworth contended that business conditions were poor at the time of
Cuturier's discharge on July 16 ; that Cuturier was selected for discharge because
he was the last man hired ; and that Cuturier was never replaced. The fact is,
however, that two mechanics were hired on June 28 and July 11, 1949, Paradis
and Campbell, respectively. Although Campbell had formerly worked for Re-
spondent, a considerable period of time had elapsed since his prior period of
employment, and for all practical purposes, he and Paradis were new employees.
In sum, then, Cuturier, contrary to Wentworth's contention, actually was re-
placed but this was accomplished by hiring two new employees just before his
discharge. Hence, Wentworth's primary contention is rejected as being simply
contrary to the fact as is his contention that Cuturier was released because he
was the last man hired. It is found, therefore, that Cuturier was a regular
motor mechanic at the time of his discharge, that he was in fact replaced, and
that there was sufficient work at the time, as demonstrated by the fact that
Wentworth had hired two new employees.
According to Cuturier, his work was not criticized until after he joined the
Union. There was no evidence of any specific complaints relating to his mechani-
cal duties other than Wenthworth's claim that Cuturier was too small for the
type of work he did. However, Peter Menounas, who worked with Cuturier and
is still in Respondent's employ, described Cuturier's work as very satisfactory
and as competent as that of another mechanic, Farley, still in Respondent's
employ. Menounas did complain to Wentworth that Cuturier was too small
a man, but never complained concerning the amount of work turned out by
Cuturier or the manner in which he did it. Also, Menounas denied, under cross-
examination by Respondent, that he had continually complained to Wentworth
that he was unable to do his work because he found it necessary to help
Cuturier. The undersigned, therefore, credits Cuturier's testimony that Went-
worth had never complained to him about his small stature and that he had,
in fact, lifted heavy objects. In fact there is no affirmative evidence of any
assistance to Cuturier of the type alleged by Wentworth but denied both by
Cuturier and Menounas.
Wentworth at one point in his testimony contended that Cuturier had meddled
with a group of generators, this not being within the scope of his duties. Menou-
nas, under cross-examination by Respondent, credibly testified that Cuturier
had not destroyed any electrical equipment and that he, Menounas, had not
complained concerning Cuturier's working on such equipment. There is some
evidence by Menounas that Cuturier was called down for filing some rods which
were unsatisfactory, and that he had worked on the electrical equipment, but
that Cuturier had not damaged the latter.
Finally, although Wentworth claimed herein that the prime reason for
Cuturier's discharge was lack of work, Wentworth flatly stated in a statement
1372 DECISIONS -OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
given to the field examiner that Cuturier was released because of poor work.
This affidavit was read, initialed, and signed by Wentworth, and the under-
signed does not credit his testimony that he also told the field examiner that.
Cuturier was released for lack of work. For that matter, Wentworth at the
hearing controverted his affidavit as well because he testified that he would
have retained Cuturier in his employ had there been sufficient work. In view
of the two hirings just before Cuturier's discharge, Wentworth's testimony
herein as elsewhere must be rejected.
In sum, the undersigned finds that the reasons advanced by Respondent herein
for the discharge of Cuturier are not only variable and mutually inconsistent,
but contrary to the facts. It is concluded that the true reason for Cuturier's
discharge was his union membership, and that Wentworth intended to eliminate
those whom he believed to be in favor of the Union or to have voted for the
Union, consistent with his threat to Cuturier before the election to discharge
anyone who voted in favor of the Union. The undersigned finds that by dis-
charging Cuturier, Respondent has discriminated with respect to the hire and
tenure of his employment in order to discourage membership in a labor organi-
zation, and thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
4. Albert Jousset 14
Jousset entered Respondent's employ as a bus driver on or about May 10, 1949.
Several hours later, while on his initial trip, he lost control of the bus resulting
in its turning over and being demolished as well as the causing of serious injury
to a passenger. Ike was immediately taken off driving by Wentworth, who
assigned him to work as a mechanic's helper pending an investigation of the
accident. Some time thereafter, Jousset's license to drive was restored to him
and he asked Wentworth to return him to driving. Wentworth replied that he
was to continue as a mechanic's helper, which Jousset did until his discharge
on July 10, 1949. According to Wentworth, the discharge was caused by lack
of work.
As found above, Jousset, when hired, was informed by Wentworth that he
would lose his position "if the Union comes in." Nevertheless, he signed a union
card at the behest of Monat 1 or 2 weeks before the election. Two or ' three
days after the election, Wentworth asked Jousset if he had joined the Union,
and Jousset admitted that he had. Wentworth then reminded him of his prior
threat that the advent of the Union would result in the loss of his job.
Turning to Respondent's defense herein, namely, that Jousset was discharged
for lack of work, it will be recalled that a similar defense was raised in the
case of Cuturier, treated above, who was discharged on the same date, July 16,
1949, for an identical reason which the undersigned has found not to be sup-
ported by the record. Similarly, if there was in fact sufficient work for Went-
worth to hire two mechanics shortly before Cuturier's discharge, it automatically
follows that there was also sufficient work for a mechanic's helper, bearing in
mind that the mechanics were hired before Jousset was discharged. Further-
more, the fact that Respondent, in September, saw fit to hire a trainee, Clarence
Abbott, who was presumably new to the work, is evidence of the fact that there
was actually need for a helper in the garage. It is clear, therefore, that there
was need for a helper in July, when, according to Wentworth, business conditions
were poor and also in September when a replacement was hired.
14 Findings herein are based upon the credited testimony of Jousset.
WENTWORTH BUS LINES, INC. 1373
Respondent.also attempted to develop testimony along the lines that (1)
Jousset's transfer to work as a mechanic's helper was merely a temporary
move, and (2) the work he did was not that of a mechanic's helper but rather
that of a janitor. The record does not support either of these claims. For
while it may be, as Wentworth testified, that he removed Jousset from bus
driving until there had been an investigation of the accident, the fact is that
Jousset's license was later restored and when he asked to return to bus driving,
Wentworth informed him that he was to remain in the garage and continue
helping the mechanics. This obviously constituted a manifestation of intent
at the time to ignore the accident and to retain Jousset in Respondent's employ
as a mechanic's helper. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Jousset was
anything but a competent mechanic's helper or of any criticism of his work.
Respondent further attempted to adduce testimony that Jousset actually did
janitorial work rather than that of a mechanic's helper. The record indicates,
however, that Jousset performed duties usually done by a mechanic's helper in-
cluding the assisting of mechanics in the installation and repair of parts as well
as general servicing and cleaning of busses and automobiles. While Jousset
testified that, on an average, 11/, days of his workweek were devoted to in-
terior cleaning and sweeping, the undersigned is of the belief that this is not
incompatible with the work of a helper in so small an establishment as this.
It is accordingly found that Jousset was a full-scale mechanic's helper and was
competent in the performance of his duties as such.
In sum, when consideration is given to Jousset's union membership, threats
by Wentworth that the advent of the Union would result in the'loss of his em-
ployment, Wentworth's questioning of Jousset and learning that he had joined
the Union, and the over-all lack of substance to Respondent's defense that Jous-
set was released for lack of work, the undersigned concludes on a preponderance
of the evidence that Jousset was discharged for his union membership and
activity, thereby discriminating with respect to his hire and tenure of em-
ployment in order to discourage membership in a labor organization and thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing the employees of Respondent in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
5. Frank Skinner
Skinner entered Respondent's employ as a- bus driver on or about May 12,
1949. He was terminated on or about June 28, 1949, and it is contended by
Wentworth that Skinner actually quit. Skinner had joined the Union 3 or 4
days after the election on May 27, and, as stated above, had been questioned by
Wentworth concerning his union sympathies, warned that a vote for the Union
-would result in his discharge, and told that he had voted himself out of a job.
Skinner's termination took place. under the following circumstances. Ac-
to Skinner, whose testimony was substantially corroborated by that of
James Lewis; he reported for work on June 28, and discovered that he was to
operate Bus 37 on his 2 :30 p. m. trip. Skinner, who had driven that particular
bus'onl•the previous day and had' found the brakes defective, protested and asked
if another bus was available ; he learned that there was no other in operating
condition. He decided to wait for Wentworth; and when the latter presently
arrived, Skinner informed him that he would not drive Bus 37 because of its
defective brakes:
Wentworth instructed Skinner, to try, the brakes and Skinner entered the bus
and started up the motor. In doing so, Skinner raced the motor because of its
known propensity to stall. This angered:Wentworth-who immediately shouted,
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"That's the trouble with you goddamn greaseballs, always racing the motor,
that's why you are alway burning out engines." Skinner immediately turned off
the engine and asked Wentworth to try it himself. Wentworth asked Skinner
if that was the way he felt about it, and the latter replied in the affirmative.
Wentworth then informed him that he was discharged.
Wentworth's version differs somewhat from that of Skinner and Lewis. He
gave some dubious testimony about Skinner refusing to try the brakes and that
Skinner did not even start the motor. He contended that he discharged Skinner
for refusing to drive the bus. It is clear, however, that Skinner did not drive
the bus on that day and that the garage painter, Casey, took out the bus-
and operated Skinner's usual trip. To detail in full the conflict between the
testimony of Lewis and Skinner on the one hand, and that of Wentworth on the
other, would serve no useful purpose. Although, as elsewhere, Wentworth was
an unimpressive witness, the record makes clear that Skinner was discharged'
after he, in effect, refused to follow Wentworth's instructions.
The fact is that this was the only bus available. True, it had a history of
defective brakes and driver Lewis had experienced difficulty with the brakes:
earlier that same afternoon. On the other hand, it does not follow, if Went-
worth chose to operate this type of equipment, that his termination of Skinner
for refusal to drive the bus was violative of the Act. Persuasive herein is the
fact that this was an existing condition which other drivers were compelled
to tolerate. Although the record is not entirely free from the doubt that Went-
worth may have utilized this occasion to constructively discharge Skinner, a
preponderance'of the evidence does not support the allegations of the complaint
herein. Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that the case of Skinner
be dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent , set forth in Section III, above , occurring in
connection with the operations of Respondent, set forth 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.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent was discriminating in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Edward Monat, Alfred Hall, Philippe Cuturier, and
Albert Jousset , it will be recommended that Respondent offer to each immediate
and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position ss and
make each whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of Respond-
ent's discrimination against him by payment to each 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 Respondent 's offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings
during said period 16 Loss of pay shall be computed on the basis of each
separate calendar quarter or portion thereof-during the period from Respondent's
36 The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, an Juan, Puerto Rico, Branch, 65
NLRB 827.
18 Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB.440.
I
WENTWORTH BUS LINES , INC. 1375
discriminatory action to the date of a proper offer of reinstatement. The
quarterly periods, herein 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 each employee would normally have earned
for each such quarter or portion thereof , his net earnings , if any, in any other
employment during that period. Earnings in one particular quarter shall have
no effect upon the back -pay liability for any other quarter." It will also,be
recommended that Respondent , upon reasonable request, make available to the
Board and its agents all payroll and other records pertinent to an analysis
of the amounts due as back pay.
The unfair labor practices found above reveal on the part of Respondent such
a fundamental antipathy to the objectives of the Act as to justify an inference
that the commission of other unfair labor practices may be anticipated in the
future, and it will be recommended , therefore , that Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case , the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL, Local 633, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of Respondent. °
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Edward
Monat, Alfred Hall, Philippe Cuturier, and Albert Jousset, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By such discrimination and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
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 unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent has not discriminated with regard to the hire and tenure of
employment of Frank Skinner within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
11 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.