Alterman Transport Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 54 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alterman Transport Lines , Inc. and Karl .Duane
Hicks. Case 12-CA-3790
March 5, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, as herein modified.
1. Substitute the following for the third indented
paragraph in the Notice to All Employees:
WE WILL offer Karl Duane Hicks his job
back without loss of seniority or other rights or
privileges and we will pay him for any loss of
pay he may have suffered since we fired him.
On November 9, 1967, Trial Examiner John F.
Funke issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding,-finding that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter the Respondent and the General Coun-
sel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion and supporting briefs. Subsequently, the
General Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
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 'Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, as herein modified.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Al-
terman Transport Lines, Inc., Tampa, Florida, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns,- shall take
We hereby correct the following minor errors in the Trial Examiner's
Decision which do not , however, affect his ultimate findings and conclu-
sions ( i) the Trial Examiner indicated -that James Mullis was called as a
witness by the General Counsel, whereas the record shows that Mullis was
called as a witness by the Respondent, (2) the Trial Examiner erroneously
stated that Homer Beckner was employed by Respondent from March
1966 until March 17, 1967, whereas the record shows that Beckner was
employed from about November 1, 1966, until March 27, 1967
We find no merit in the respective exceptions of the Respondent and the
General Counsel to certain credibility findings made by the Trial Examiner
it is the Board's established policy not to overrule the Trial Examiner's
resolutions with respect to credibility unless , as is not the case here, a clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolu-
tions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd.
188F2d362(CA 3)
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner. Upon a charge
filed March-27,_ 1967,' by Karl Duane Hicks, herein
Hicks, against Alterman Transport Lines, Inc.,
herein Alterman or the Respondent, the General
Counsel issued complaint alleging Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by
discharging Hicks on March 24. The General Coun-
sel amended his complaint on June 20 to expand
his allegations as to the jurisdictional issue. The
answer of the Respondent' set forth affirmative
defenses and denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
This proceeding, with the General Counsel and
Respondent represented was heard before me at
Tampa, Florida, on August 22,1967. After the con-
clusion of the hearing the General Counsel sub-
mitted a brief but clarifying statement in support of
his theory of the case. (G.C. Exh. 3.)1
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses while testifying, I make
the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Florida corporation having its
principal place of business at Miami, Florida, where
it is engaged in motor freight transportation. It
operates terminals at several cities in Florida, in-
cluding the Tampa terminal,, the one 'involved in
this proceeding. It also has terminals in cities out-
side of the State of Florida and during a representa-
tive year Respondent will derive revenues in excess
of $50,000 from interstate shipment.
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, herein the Teamsters, is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
Unless otherwise noted all dates refer to 1967
a The General Counsel's motion, dated September 15, to correct the
record is hereby granted -
170 NLRB No. 12
ALTERMAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. 55
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. The Facts
Background testimony indicates that sometime in
1966 an organizational campaign was conducted by
the Teamsters among employees of Respondent in
Florida, that an informal election was held, that the
Teamsters were defeated, and that as a part of the
election agreement the Teamsters were to withhold
from organizational activities for i year from the
date of the election.3
The naked chronology . of critical events
established in the record is as follows:
Karl Duane Hicks was hired by Respondent as a
dockworker in January.
On February 17 Robert Burger, director of indus-
trial relations for Respondent, held a meeting at the
Tampa terminal for the Tampa employees. Mr.
Meeks, fleet manager from Miami, addressed the
employees on the maintenance program and Burger
spoke on the working conditions for drivers. At this
meeting Burger read from parts of an article
identified as having been published in the "Com-
mercial Car Journal. "4 This was an anti-Teamsters
article.
At this meeting Hicks interrupted Burger and
both became angry. (What was said is disputed by
the witnesses.)
On March 19 Hicks was promoted from
dockworker to driver.
On March 21 Hicks was making a delivery to a
restaurant known as the Golden Triangle. The
parking places were filled so Hicks pulled up under
the canopy leading to the entrance. The truck
knocked out at least two lights under the canopy.
As a result of this accident Hicks was, on March
22, demoted to dockworker.
On March 24 he was terminated.
Testimony as to what was said at the meeting
conducted by Meeks and Burger on February 17 is
in conflict. Hicks testified that Burger, admittedly
opposed to the Teamsters and their threat of reor-
ganizing the employees at the end of the "truce
year," reminded the employees that Hoffa was in
jail and that their dues would be used to get him
out; that the Teamsters would organize the men
from terminal to terminal; that the Teamsters
would brainwash them; and that he (Burger) had
proof that the Teamsters had contracts with em-
ployers under which the men received less than
they had before the contracts were made. Hicks
then spoke up and said he was for the Teamsters
and that the Respondent was itself brainwashing the
men. Burger then told him he was not lying "like
they will" and when Hicks replied that he did not
know Burger told him, "If you don't like anything I
say here, there is the door, you can get out any time
you want."
Immediately following the meeting Hicks went
back and asked Burger "why he got mad at me at
the meeting" and also asked him if he had any con-
tracts to show employees at other companies
received less pay after joining the Teamsters.
Burger told him he would let him see them on Wed-
nesday but Hicks never saw the contracts.
Homer Beckner testified that he was employed
by Respondent as terminal manager at Tampa until
March 17, 1967.' In February he posted a notice of
the meeting to be held on February 17 and also
notified the employees individually. It was held in
the morning and both Meeks and Burger spoke.
According to Beckner, Burger spoke of the benefits
the employees were receiving and then mentioned
that the union question would be coming up again.
He spoke of the trial and conviction of Hoffa and
strongly opposed the Teamsters. When Burger
asked for questions at the end of his speech Hicks
spoke upe and Burger told him he did not have to
listen but could leave the room. Beckner testified
that both Burger and Hicks appeared angry when
he (Beckner) left the room to answer a telephone
call. Shortly after the meeting Burger and Beckner
had a conversation in which Burger told Beckner
that Hicks was a troublemaker and to get rid of
him. Beckner then informed Burger that Hicks was
one of the best dockworkers he had and that he was
next in line for city driver
Gustavo Vasquez, employed as a dockworker,
also attended the February 17 meeting and
generally substantiated the testimony of Hicks and
Beckner that Burger's speech was antiunion and
that Burger and Hicks exchanged words toward the
end of the meeting. Vasquez did testify that Hicks'
"interruption" came after Burger had concluded
his speech.7
Robert Burger testified that a meeting of em-
ployees was called for the Tampa terminal on
February 17, that Meeks discussed the maintenance
program and that he discussed personnel changes.
He also said he had an article with him from the
Commercial Car Journal and that he read from
parts of it at the meeting. Hicks interrupted his
speech and said, "I don't have to listen to that crap;
you sound like a union organizer." Burger told
Hicks he did not have to listen, he could go back to
work. Other employees asked questions at the con-
clusion of the speech but the questions related to
benefits and working conditions, not to the Team-
sters. After the meeting Hicks came to him and
' The agreement was not offered in evidence nor was the date of the elec-
tion fixed
i Resp. Exh D
Beckner appeared as a witness for the General Counsel. He admitted
that at the time he left Alterman there was a dispute concerning the
amount of pay due him
" According to Beckner , Hicks asked Burger why the men should believe
him any more than they should believe the Union
7 James Mullis , called by the General Counsel and an employee of Alter-
man, testified that Hicks interrupted Burger before he had finished his
speech to tell him that the Union had as much right to talk to the men as
Burger did
56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
asked him why he (Burger) had gotten "mad" at
him. Burger denied being "mad" but told Hicks it
was rude to interrupt him. Burger admitted that
later he asked Beckner who Hicks was and told
Beckner he sounded like a troublemaker. He
testified that he thought Hicks was emotionally un-
stable because he could not contain himself but had
interrupted him (Burger ) when he knew there
would be a question and answer period following
the meeting. Burger also expressed his displeasure
that Hicks was wearing a goatee and mustache and
told Beckner to keep an eye on him. (None of the
other employees wore either a goatee or
mustache.) Burger denied that Hicks told him he
was in favor of the Union and also denied telling
Beckner to get rid of him. Burger had full, authority
to fire Hicks (Beckner did not) and could have got-
ten rid of him himself.
Certain facts are without substantial contradic-
tion . Burger's speech on February 7 was definitely
anti-Teamsters, he was interrupted by Hicks and
both became angry," and there was further discus-
sion between the two after the meeting . As to what
Hicks said I must credit the testimony of Burger
that Hicks never told him that he was in favor of
the Union and that the gist of Hicks' remarks was
that Alterman was no better than the Union in its
propagandizing tactics.9 I do not credit the
testimony of Burger that Hicks told him he did not
have to listen to such "crap."" I credit Burger's
testimony that he did not tell Beckner to get rid of
Hicks. i i
On March 19 Hicks was promoted from
dockworker to driver by Beckner on the recom-
mendation of Frank Walker, dockworker foreman.
This promotion was approved by Miami. (Resp.
Exh. C.) Hicks had been driving when needed dur-
ing the previous 2 weeks.
On March 21 Hicks was directed to make a
delivery to a restaurant named the Golden Triangle.
His testimony as to what happened reads:
Yes, sir. On March 21, I had a bill-I was on a
truck, I had a bill with me-had Golden Trian-
gle on it but had no street address. I called the
office and talked to Harry Strickland who was
the office manager, asked him for the address.
He gave me an address of the Golden Triangle
at 8001 East Broadway. I went to this address
and there was a parking lot there, and there
was cars parked in the parking lot. I had to pull
I I credit Burger 's testimony that Hicks interrupted the speech and did
not wait for the question and answer period. This is corroborated by Mullis,
a witness for the General Counsel, and the testimony of other witnesses was
uncertain on this point Burger 's testimony on this point was emphatic
0 This testimony is corroborated in substance by that of employees
Vasquez and Mullis, both called by the General Counsel
10 Further resolving the credibility issues I do not find that Hicks told
Burger he did not have to listen to his "crap " None of the other witnesses
testified to the use of such language and Beckner specifically denied hear-
ing Hicks make the remark I believe that the use of such language to an im-
portant supervisor at a formal meeting of the employees would have
remained within their memories
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under a canopy or overhang, or what you want
to call it, and there were two Neon lights up
there hanging from the bottom of the roof, or
ceiling, what you call it. I pulled under there
and knocked them down. I got out of the
truck, I looked at them and I started going in-
side the bar, and this lady that was tending
bar-I supposed she was tending bar-she
came out and asked me what address I was
looking for and I showed her what I had on my
ticket. She said the stuff was not for her. We
went inside and I called the office, talked to
Mr. Strickland, and he put Mr. Beckner on the
phone; Mr. Beckner told Strickland to take it
again because he had to make out the accident
report. I told Mr. Strickland what happened. I
asked him for the right address, which he gave
me; and he talked to the lady there at the bar.
He notified Beckner of the accident and the next
day filed an accident report with Strickland, the of-
fice manager. On Friday, March 24, which was
payday, Beckner told him that a Mr. Kerr from the
Miami office wanted to see him.12 Hicks waited for
Kerr and Beckner later came out and told him Kerr
was busy and asked him into his office. There he
told Hicks that accidents were costing Alterman
too much money, that the Golden- Triangle was
threatening to sue "them" and that'Miami'had told
him to terminate Hicks. He was given two checks
and left. He and his brother drove to the Golden
Triangle where they talked to the manager, Barney
Kelley. Kelley told them he had no intention to sue
but that the barmaid may have told Beckner this
was his intention.13
Henry J . Singleton , owner of the premises on
which the Golden Triangle was located, and Barney
Kelley, the lessee, both testified that they sought no
damages from Alterman and none were received.
Certain testimony with respect to the past prac-
tices of Alterman was educed. Robert Norden, em-
ployed by Alterman as driver from 1962 to 1965,
testified that during his employment he had about
four accidents, some of which were chargeable and
some were not.l" As discipline for the chargeable
accidents he was put on the dock for 9 or 10
months.' (The record does not reveal the extent of
damage involved in Norden's accidents.) ' '
Beckner testified that during the time he' worked
for Alterman (from March 1966 until March 17,
1967) no driver was ever discharged as the result of
11 As Burger stated there was no need for him to give such a direction to
Beckner Apart from this there is the uncontradicted fact that Hicks not
only remained in the employ of the Respondent for another month but was
promoted during that period
1' Kerr at that time was terminal coordinator for Alterman He sub-
sequently resigned from their employ after a dispute and was not called by
either part as a witness, presumably because of unavailability.
13 Hicks testified that while he and his brother were talking to Kelley an
"estimator" arrived from Alterman but his testimony as to what transpired
is too obscure to permit a finding.
1' A chargeable accident was one in which the responsibility was, after
investigation, fixed upon the driver
ALTERMAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. 57
a single accident . During that period a driver
named Criss had a rear-end collision accident,
chargeable to Criss. The damage amounted to
about $ 35, Criss was not discharged , and whether
any disciplinary action was taken against him is not
revealed . Johnny Cloud , another driver , chipped a
mirror on another car and was not discharged.
Bruno Stein , director of personnel and safety,
testified to the general safety policy of Alterman
and its efforts to reduce its accident rate . Regarding
the Hicks accident , Stein testified as follows:
When we received information in Miami that
this accident had occurred , it was my responsi-
biiity as safety director to obtain whatever
facts were available to try to determine the
cause of this accident. I had conversation with
Mr. Beckner, and as a result of the discussion
with Mr. Beckner, I came to the conclusion
that there was an error in judgment and that
there was an emotional factor which would
have been emotional immaturity or emotional
instability, I am not in a position to say, but the
fact remains that as a result of my general
discussion with Mr. Beckner, the matter of at-
titude which reflects in emotional stability was
reported on the recommendation for termina-
tion.
Following Stein's discussion of the accident with
Beckner he recommended that Hicks be removed
from active driving until further notice and
prepared a notice which was placed in Hicks' file.
(Resp. Exh. G.)
Following this discussion with Beckner and the
recommendation to return Hicks to the docks Stein
had a second conversation with Beckner and
recommended that he be terminated. He stated the
accident was not the sole reason and his testimony
reads:
I also took into consideration the matter as
stated before, that Mr. Beckner had indicated
this man 's attitude was not as it should be
towards safety, and also had to look at it from
the' viewpoint of personnel; this man had not
been with us very long, he had not demon-
strated any professional experience as a driver,
that in view of this comment on attitude by the
terminal manager- in view of the fact he had
an error in judgment-I saw no justification to
continue him in a situation which in the
beginning didn 't indicate he would make a
professional driver. From past experience, we
have found that employees in a driving capaci-
ty who have accidents, where there is a
question of emotional stability or maturity plus
lack of judgment , in the beginning of their
work experience, invariably become involved
in major accidents if allowed to continue.
These discussions with Beckner were, according to
Stein , related to Burger. Stein had heard "in a
general way" that Hicks and some others had
spoken up at Burger 's meeting but stated that this
played no part in his decision which as concurred in
by both Burger and Kerr , terminal coordinator.
Burger , after testifying to the Respondent's pol-
icy of promotiong dockworkers to drivers, then
testified that in February Respondent 's annual
financial report showed that it had netted only
$33,000 from $12 million in revenue . He was in-
formed by Respondent 's president that the operat-
ing ratio was bad , that personnel cuts would be
made throughout the system , and that there would
be no extra fat "laying around."
As to Hicks, Burger testified that he approved
the promotion on March 19 although he identified
Hicks as the employee who spoke up at the Februa-
ry meeting . Burger accepted the responsibility for
the discharge of Hicks. He gave his reasons as fol-
lows:
Q. (By Mr. Alley) I want you to tell the
Trial Examiner the basis of the termination of
Mr. Hicks.
A. Well, the basis of the termination of Mr.
Hicks was the fact that I reviewed all of the
documents that you have before me, primarily
A, which is the application for employment; B,
which is the P-15, payroll record, which shows
that he was hired; C, which is the payroll
record that shows his promotion from a dock
worker to a driver; E, which is an accident re-
port ; and G , which is Mr. Stein 's statement that
was in the personnel folder
TRIAL EXAMINER: Let me see G _
THE WITNESS : Upon reading all of these and
listening to the driver trainer and Mr . Stein's
statements as to what took place and reviewing
them, I was inclined to agree with his recom-
mendation and the driver trainer 's, we didn't
believe this man had much of a future with the
company, and authorized the termination. I
might add that there was another item -that was
in my mind at the time, and that was the
economic factor approaching the slower part
of the season and trying to do without one
extra employee.
Q. (By Mr. Alley) All right , sir. What con-
sideration did you give to the fact that the
Safety Department had recommended that this
man not be permitted to drive, if any?
A. Well, the fact that if he wasn 't going to
be able to drive he would be stymied as a dock
worker , and if he was going to be a permanent
dock worker , he would have to take a cut in
pay. And I just don 't believe in demotiong a
person unless it is strictly voluntary because I
haven 't found any place yet where a man is
happy working for a lower rate of pay once he
has had a higher rate of pay. The same thing
goes for these positions . If a man is supervisor
of a department or can't perform , you have
usually lost him as an employee; you can't
demote him and get a satisfactory effort out of
him.
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
This summarizes the testimony which has any
substantial relevance to the issue.
B. Conclusions
The decision here, as it must in so many cases in-
volving alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act, will rest upon testimony which is
confused and contradictory. The correctness of the
decision in such cases will inevitably and unfortu-
nately too often depend upon sheer chance.
Turning to the case at hand there are persuasive
arguments on -both sides. It is admitted that Burger
was angered at Hicks' interruption of his speech
and that he did not approve of the goatee and
mustache Hicks was wearing at that time, a feeling
which might not be uncommon in the trucking in-
dustry. There is also the fact that Burger was antiu-
nion and that Hicks, had he not been prounion,
would hardly have interrupted the speech. 15 It is
safe to assume Hicks' prounion stand did nothing to
assuage Burger's feelings at the time. The next
thing that occurred to Hicks was his promotion,
hardly to be construed as an act of discrimination.
It is true that the promotion originated in Tampa
but it is also true that it was approved in Miami,
that Burger knew of it and did nothing to block it.16
Hicks' fault in the accident at the Golden Trian-
gle was admitted and no claim has been made by
the General Counsel that his reduction to
dockworker was discriminatory. The stress which
Respondent placed upon this accident in terminat-
ing Hicks provokes an alert. The damage was so
minimal that the Golden Triangle made no effort to
collect and while the barmaid may have told
Beckner or Strickland that it would it is unlikely
that the barmaid's opinion would be considered as
a threat of a suit by the Golden Triangle. It is to be
remembered that Hicks reported the accident
promptly and did ' nothing to absolve himself of
blame. At this point then, we have nothing except a
minor accident with no damage to Respondent's
truck and no threat to collect damages from either
the owner or lessee of the premises. Such minor ac-
cidents are generally treated as routine where the
operation of constantly moving vehicles is con-
cerned. Despite the absence of any claim for
damages Respondent asserts that it was at this time
trying to reduce its accident ratio and accident
costs, and that this influenced its decision to release
Hicks. I cannot accept the theory that this type of
accident would have any impact on either effort.
Stein, the safety director, testified that he "evalu-
ated" the emotional stability of Hicks through
discussions with Beckner after the accident and
came to an adverse conclusion as to Hicks' ability
to drive.17 As a result of these discussions and those
with Burger, Burger decided to discharge Hicks
although he had already been taken off driving.
Here again Burger's explanation that he did not
want to continue a driver as a dockworker at
reduced pay seems porous. Norden testified that he
had spent 9 to 10 months on the dock as a result of
accidents so that it is clear that no fixed company
policy existed. Burger 's testimony that the financial
situation of Alterman required personnel reduc-
tions wherever possible is equally suspect. _ The
discharge of one driver would have little effect on a
company whose gross revenues were $12 million
annually. There is testimony by Beckner to the ef-
fect that the men were forced to work long hours to
such an extent that part-time employees were used.
There is no evidence that a reduction force policy
was either in effect or contemplated.
The question remains as to the true motive for
the termination of Hicks for a company need give
no reason for the discharge of an employee. The
General Counsel must-establish that the motive was
discriminatory-so much is axiomatic. While the
issue is certainly pregnant with doubt, I believe the
General Counsel has sustained his burden, This is
based on the discrediting of Respondent's asserted
reasons for discharge, its open hostility toward the
Teamsters, and Hicks' open stand identifying him-
self as at least sympathetic toward the Teamsters."'
It is true that Respondent's promotion of Hicks,
approved at Miami, is inconsistent with a finding of
discrimination. The answer to that is, and it is not
the best in the world, that at the time of the promo-
tion it had no excuse for blocking the promotion.
Two days later the accident provided the necessary
pretext for discharge. This decision need not be
belabored by further argument. There is only so
much testimony and no decision will be
strengthened by exaggerating its implications.
It is my conclusion that the reasonable inferences
to be drawn from the facts and testimony support
the General Counsel's case.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found the Respondent engaged in and is
engaging in a certain unfair labor practice , I shall
recommend that it cease and desist from the same
and take certain affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act
" An employee who was not prounion would have no reason to interrupt
such a speech One of the few safe conclusions to be drawn herein is that
Hicks identified himself as prounion in the mind of Burger by his conduct
during and following the speech
11 Note should also be made of the fact that Beckner , when Burger com-
plained of Hicks , told him that Hicks was one of his best workers and was
next in line for promotion Burger made no comment The inference I draw
is that even on the 17th he had an open mind on Hicks as to his work
1' Stein 's testimony indicates that he "evaluated" Hicks upon receipt of
Beckner 's report of the accident and then , within a day or two , reevaluated
Hicks and recommended his discharge
1" Reliance is also placed on the inconsistency in Respondent 's action in
returning Hicks to the docks as a result of the action and then discharging
him 2 days later because of his asserted lack of qualifications as a driver I
have already found the Respondent had no policy of not retaining an em-
ployee in a reduced status Beckner testified that Hicks seemed concerned
about his job after the accident and after his demotion and was willing to
accept a return to status as a dockworker
ALTERMAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. 59
Having found that Respondent unlawfully
discharged Karl Duane Hicks because of his union
or other concerted activity and in order to
discourage membership in a labor organization, I
shall recommend that Respondent offer him full
and immediate 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
by reason of the discrimination practiced against
him. Backpay shall be computed in accordance
with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Coin-
pany, 90 NLRB- 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Because only a single violation of the Act has
been found, and because the evidence to support
that violation is far from overwhelming, the broad
cease-and-desist order usually recommended in
remedying violations of Section 8(a)(3) will not be
recommended herein.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in this case, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Karl Duane Hicks because of
his union or other concerted activity and in order
to discourage membership in or action on behalf of
the Teamsters, Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an un-
fair labor practice within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is hereby recommended that Alterman Trans-
port Lines, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discriminating against any employee in re-
gard to his hire or other term or condition of em-
ployment to discourage membership in the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
--Warehousemen and Helpers of America, by
discharging him.
(b) Discharging any employee for engaging in
union or concerted activity for mutual aid and pro-
tection guaranteed to him by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessa-
ry to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Karl Duane Hicks full and immediate
reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniori-
ty or other rights and privileges and make him
whole for any loss of pay or other monetary loss he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
practiced against him in the manner set forth in
that part of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Karl Duane Hicks if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of his
right to full reinstatement upon application in ac-
cordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board or its agents, for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its terminal at Tampa, Florida, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."19 Co-
pies of said notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 12, after being duly
signed by the Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.20
1e In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order"
2O In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 12, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee to
discourage membership in the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee
because he has engaged in union activity or
other concerted activity protected by Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL offer Karl Duane Hicks his job
back with loss of seniority or other rights or
privileges and we will pay him for any loss of
pay he may have suffered since we fired him.
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All our employees are free to become or remain, United States of his right to full reinstatement upon
or to refrain from becoming or remaining , members application in accordance with the Selective Ser-
of the above -named or any other labor organiza- vice Act and the Universal Military Training and
tion . Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the
ALTERMAN TRANSPORT Armed Forces.
LINES INC. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
(Employer ) tive days from the date of posting and must not be
Dated By altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this
(Representative ) (Title) notice - or compliance with its provisions , they may
communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office , Room 706, Federal Office Building, 500
Note : We will notify the above-named employee Zack Street , Tampa, Florida 33602, Telephone
if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the 228-7257.