Atlas Truck Rental & Leasing

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 30, 1986

280 N.L.R.B. 54 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Atlas Trucking, Inc. d/b/a Atlas Truck Rental &
Leasing and Anthony Joseph Long. Case 7-
CA-24206
30 May 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
On 23 October 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Benjamin Schlesinger issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge 's rulings , findings,1 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Atlas
Trucking, Inc. d/b/a Atlas Truck Rental & Leas-
ing, Wyoming, Michigan, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Order.
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951).
Although we do not attach as much weight to the wording of the Re-
spondent's 1 August 1984 separation notice to Charging Party Long as
does the judge in resolving credibility, we conclude, after careful exami-
nation of the entire record, that there is no basis for reversing the judge's
credibility findings.
Also, in adopting the judge's finding that the Respondent had knowl-
edge of Charging Party Long's union activity, we do not rely on the pre-
hearing statement to the Board of former Night Shift Foreman Steve
Arnold.
A. Bradley Howell, Esq., for the General Counsel.
John H. Gretzinger, Esq., and Bradley K. Glazier, Esq.
(Clary, Nantz Wood, Hofus, Rankin & Cooper), of
Grand Rapids, Michigan, for the Respondent.
Anthony Joseph Long, of Kentwood , Michigan , for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
BENJAMIN SCHLESINGER, Administrative Law Judge.
On 1 August 19841 Charging Party Anthony Joseph
Long either resigned from his position as the second-shift
1 Unless otherwise stated, all dates refer to the year 1984
tire mechanic2 for Respondent Atlas Trucking, Inc.,
doing business as Atlas Truck Rental & Leasing, or was
terminated from his position in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by
Respondent's acceptance of a resignation, which Long
testified that he did not make.3
The resolution of this issue depends on my determina-
tion of the credibility of the various witnesses. What is
not at issue is jurisdiction. Respondent admits, and I find,
that Respondent is a corporation duly organized under
and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Michi-
gan. Respondent has maintained an office and place of
business at Clay Avenue, Wyoming, Michigan, where it
is engaged in the daily and long-term leasing of commer-
cial trucks.4 At that location, as well as about 17 other
branches that Respondent maintains in Michigan, during
the calendar year ending 31 July, which period is repre-
sentative of its operations, Respondent provided services
valued in excess of $50,000 to enterprises within Michi-
gan which purchased and received goods and products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers locat-
ed outside of Michigan. I conclude, as Respondent
admits, that Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act. I also find and conclude, as Respondent admits,
that General Teamsters Union, Local No. 406, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (Teamsters) and
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) are
each labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
Long testified that on 31 July about 3 p.m. he called
Roger Glas, his second-shift supervisor, to advise that he
did not believe he would be able to get to work because
he was in the process of repairing his car. Glas suggested
that Long get a ride from a neighbor or somebody else
to bring him in, and Long agreed that he would do so if
he were really needed. Glas said that he really could use
Long but agreed to call Long if he needed him. Long
then told Glas that he had received a job offer that day,
he did not think he would accept the offer because it
was for less money, but he wanted to get more details
and would talk to Glas the next day. Glas replied that if
Long decided to accept the job Glas hoped that Long
would give Respondent 2 weeks' notice.
Immediately after this conversation, Long telephoned
James Hitts, who was Respondent's first-shift supervisor5
and whose duty was to give the second-shift supervisor
instructions on what work was left over to do. Long told
Hitts about his conversation with Glas and asked wheth-
8 The second shift is scheduled from 330 p.m. to midnight As a me-
chanic, Long repaired , mounted , dismounted , and balanced tires.
8 The relevant docket entries are as follows the unfair labor practice
was filed on 21 January 1985; complaint issued on 20 March 1985; and
the hearing was held in Grand Rapids, Michigan , on 19 and 20 June
1985
4 Another of Respondent's divisions, M&K Truck and Trailer (M&K),
located at Clyde Park, Wyoming, Michigan , refurbishes and repairs the
trucks used in Respondent 's rental operations
S The General Counsel stipulated that notwithstanding Hitts' job title
he was not a supervisor within the meaning of Sec 2(11) of the Act.
280 NLRB No. 6
ATLAS TRUCK RENTAL 55
er there was anything pressing that required him to come
in Hitts replied that there was nothing pressing and that
Hitts would finish up the work Hitts testified and cor-
roborated this part of his conversation with Long 6
I find that Long was prepared to work on 31 July if
Respondent could not have done without him If he had
really resigned from his job, he would not have called
Hitts to inquire about whether he was needed In addi-
tion, from Long 's past employment history , it appears
that Long was attentive to the responsibilities of his job
and that his absentee record was good In fact , earlier in
his employment , Long had called in sick but he had
agreed to work, despite his illness, if he were really
needed Of even greater significance , Glas corroborated
that Long did not resign on 31 July but merely made
known that he had just returned from a job interview
and was seriously considering taking that job
David Mitchell, Respondent's branch service manager,
recalled almost the same conversation as Glas did
Mitchell testified that Long called Glas at 3 25 p m, and
Mitchell was in the same room as Glas Mitchell over-
heard or learned from Glas that Long had car trouble,
that Glas asked Long to have a relative or neighbor or
taxi bring him to work because there was a lot of tire
work to be done that night , and that Long had just come
from a job interview and was seriously considering the
job Mitchell spoke with John Meyermg (Meyering), Re-
spondent's district manager, about 4 p in and made ar-
rangements to get the most important tire work done by
having the second-shift trailer man take care of any
emergency that came in that night
The following day at 9 am , according to Mitchell, he
and Meyering discussed how to cover the tire repair
work if Long did not come back to work They decided
to call Long to find out if he would be back Mitchell
said that it was not until between 11 am and noon that
he called Long, to whom he said that he was calling to
"confirm that you have quit, or if you are coming back "
Long said that he had quit Mitchell asked where he was
going to work, and Long replied that he was going to an
overhead door company on 28th Street Mitchell asked
him why he was leaving , and Long said that he had a
better paying job, with more room for advancement
Mitchell accepted his resignation and asked him to come
to the facility and sign a separation notice Long said he
did not wish to come in and asked Mitchell to mail it to
hun With that, the conversation ended, and Mitchell re-
ported to Meyering that Long had quit Mitchell and
Meyering decided that the second -shift trailer man
should do any emergency repairs and that they would
schedule as much tire work as possible for the first shift
Mitchell then prepared a separation notice for Long
About 2 hours after the earlier telephone conversation,
again according to Mitchell , Long called back He said
that he had not quit Mitchell reminded him of their ear-
lier conversation Long repeated several times that he
had not quit, but Mitchell said that Respondent had ac-
cepted his resignation and it stood
Hitts denied , however, Long's testimony that Long also told him
about the other job opportunity that Long had been offered Hitts also
said that his conversation with Long took place between 2 30 and 3 p m
Between that second conversation and the first , Mitch-
ell, believing that Long 's mention of another job was just
a ploy to get a raise, told Meyering that if Long should
want his job back Mitchell felt that Respondent should
not give the job back because Long 's work performance
was not as good as it could be, that Long was not inter-
ested in the job that he had, and that he was looking for
another job and would probably leave anyway
Meyering's recollections were similar, but different,
too On 31 August Glas reported to him that he had just
received a phone call from Long , who said that he was
not coming to work because of trouble with his car Glas
asked him whether he could get a ride from a friend, to
which Long replied that he had just come home from an
interview with an overhead door company and he was
seriously considering another job Meyering stated that
Respondent had to arrange for another employee to stay
over into the second shift because of the great amount of
work that had to be done
The next day, about 11 am , Mitchell reported to
Meyeting that he had called Long , that he said to Long
that he had been scheduled to work the previous day,
that he telephoned 5 minutes before he was due to start
work, and that he did not come to work Mitchell stated
that Glas said that Long might have another job, and
Mitchell asked Long what his intentions were, was he
quitting, to which Long said yes, and Mitchell then ac-
cepted his resignation
About 2 hours later, Mitchell received another phone
call from Long Mitchell told Meyering that Long was
on the line and that he said he had changed his mind and
was asking for his job back Meyermg told Mitchell to
tell Long "No way, Jose, anyone that is going to leave
us like that, the day before certainly is not going to
have his job back "
When Long reported to work that afternoon, Meyer-
ing pulled Long's timecard from his hand , stating "What
you pulled on us There is no way we are going to let
you come back here You are done , and it is over "
Long recalled two telephone conversations with
Mitchell on 1 August , but his recollections were substan-
tially different He claimed that Mitchell 's call woke him
up about 8 30 am , and Mitchell announced that Re-
spondent had decided to accept his resignation Long
asked him whose bright idea that was and told him that
he had not resigned Mitchell said that he was just told
to make the call and to tell Long that he did not have to
report to work, and Long replied that he would get back
to Mitchell, that he was not even awake , and that he
"wanted to give it a little thought " About an hour later,
Long called Mitchell and stated again that he had not re-
signed, that he did not intend to resign, that he would
report to work that afternoon , and that, if Respondent
would not permit him to work , Respondent would have
to lay him off or fire him True to his word , Long re-
ported to work at 3 p m and was about to punch in his
timecard , when John Meyering ran out of his office,
grabbed the timecard from Long 's hand, and said that
Long no longer worked there Thereafter , Long com-
plained to Mitchell that he knew he was not permitted to
work only because of his union activities Mitchell re-
56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plied that nobody had said anything about that to hun,
but, even if someone did, he could not say anything be-
cause it would jeopardize his own job.
I find none of the testimony wholly appealing. Long
had been attempting to obtain a wage increase since June
and was obviously disappointed that he did not get one.
He had heard that another employee obtained an in-
crease by threatening to quit, so Long decided to do
something similar . I find it improbable that he would
have told Glas on 31 July, in addition to the offer of an-
other job, that the job was for less money and that he
did not think he would accept it. That would not have
put pressure on Respondent to rethink its position about
Long's wage increase. On the other hand, I note that
Long said to Glas that he was going to get more details
on the job the following day and would notify Glas
about it, thus keeping Respondent in some form of sus-
pense.
I have also considered Long's testimony about his two
telephone conversations with Mitchell on 1 August. I
have difficulty understanding why Long would call back
Mitchell to give him the very same message as Long had
given in his first conversation. I also do not know what
prompted Long's desire to have time to think about
Mitchell' s message in his first conversation, unless he
was thinking about quitting or ascertaining whether an-
other job was actually available.
But I have even greater reservations about Respond-
ent's narration because it contradicts the separation
notice written by Mitchell on 1 August, which stated:
Tony called at 3:25 P.M. on 7-31-84 and said he
was accepting another job. Did not report to work.
Shift started at 3:30 P.M.
No matter what other differences may appear in the tes-
timony in this proceeding, the facts set forth in the sepa-
ration notice are clearly false. No one, not even Mitchell,
corroborated that Long stated on 31 July that he was ac-
cepting another job. The notice completely avoids the
events of 1 August and Mitchell's alleged call to Long
shortly before Mitchell wrote the notice. Instead, the
notice states that Long said on 31 July that he was ac-
cepting another job, a patently false statement, and im-
plied that because he was accepting the other job (and
thus quitting his employment with Respondent), he did
not report to work when his shift started at 3:30 p.m. All
witnesses conceded that Long said only that he could
not report to work because his car had broken down.
Another problem with Respondent's case arose with
its attempt to boltser its reason for accepting Long's res-
ignation by showing that he was not a good worker.
Mitchell made clear that, between his first and second
conversations with Long, Mitchell discussed with
Meyering the possibility that Long might change his
mind and decide to return to work. They discussed
Long's work record and determined that he was a poor
worker, unworthy of a second chance. In addition, they
decided that once Long had quit without giving 2 weeks'
notice, he had lost Respondent's good will and should
not be permitted to return to work. From this testimony,
I had assumed that, before the second conversation,
Long's employment status had been fully settled.
That, however, turned out to be wrong, at least if I
am to credit Meyering, who went into detail about his
presence when Long's second telephone call was re-
ceived and Mitchell's turning to him to announce that
Long was calling and wanted to return to work, and
Mitchell's looking to Meyering for advice, to which
Meyering made his "No way, Jose" comment. I find that
Meyering's explanation that his remark was merely a
final confirmation that Respondent would not take Long
back does not jibe with Mitchell's testimony about his
conversation with Meyering earlier in the day, a conver-
sation which Meyering corroborated only that he "prob-
ably" talked about Long's work record "generally." If
Mitchell were to be credited, Mitchell would not have
sought Meyering's counsel and would have rejected out
of hand Long's request to revoke his prior quit. In addi-
tion, Respondent offered evidence to the effect that,
once an employee quit without notice, he lost Respond-
ent's good will and was not eligible for reinstatement. If
that was Respondent's firm and immutable rule, there
was no reason for Mitchell to discuss with Meyering
what should be done if Long changed his mind. Indeed,
I believe that no such discussion took place . Meyering
did not testify to such a conversation.
I discredit Respondent's attempt to justify its accept-
ance of Long's alleged resignation. I fmd the separation
notice to be without factual basis. In particular, I found
Meyering an evasive witness, who became nervous on
cross-examination , as shown by his frequent repetition of
questions that were asked of him . Respondent's witnesses
were improperly led on direct examination by counsel,
even after warning by me. What particularly sticks out is
Respondent's attempt to justify the factual basis of the
written separation notice. Although Meyering conceded
that Respondent knew only on 1 August that Long was
quitting, he also testified that:
We had every indication to believe that he was
done on the 31st . . . (Me said [then] that I just
talked to an overhead door company, and more op-
portunity, more pay, I am seriously considering
taking this job. Then the guy does not show in to
work that night after you ask him to come in. That
is a good indication to me that the guy is done.
Meyering was the only witness who stated that on 31
July Long mentioned an overhead door company and a
job with more pay and more opportunity. Mitchell said
that was mentioned in his first conversation on 1 August.
Long denied that it was ever said on 1 August, and I
fmd that more accurate . In sum, Respondent 's case falls
on the separation notice ; the remainder of its testimonial
position is a contrivance to fit more in line with the facts
that it seeks to have me believe . I cannot.
In addition , Respondent points to no incident of recent
date that would suggest that Long was not a capable em-
ployee or was a disciplinary problem. Long had been
employed since February 1983. He had received favor-
able work evaluations and pay increases on 6 July 1983
and 20 February 1984. He was reprimanded for talking
ATLAS TRUCK RENTAL 57
with a customer on 11 June 1984 and for refusing to stop
talking with that customer despite John Meyermg's di-
rective to return to work, but that appears to be the only
meaningful blemish on his record' except for his union
activities which Long thought, and the General Counsel
urges, was the true reason Long is no longer working for
Respondent
Long testified that he had been involved in attempts to
organize Respondent's employees at its Clay Avenue fa-
cility as well as other of Respondent's branches In early
April he net with Clay Avenue employees about their
interest in being represented by a union In late April he
obtained the names and telephone numbers of other em-
ployees at other branches and telephoned them from his
home Sometimes, he spoke to other employees who had
called him at his work station at the Clay Avenue facili-
ty, and he placed a few telephone calls from there, too,
but that stopped in mid-May when Respondent placed a
wooden box with a steel rod over the receiver at his
work station Long asked Lee Siemens, Respondent's
branch manager, why the telephone, which Long often
required for his work, was locked Siemens replied that it
was a precaution that Respondent was taking, but Sie-
mens refused to give Long any detailed reason but as-
sured him that it did not involve hum 8
About 13 June, Long contacted Teamsters Representa-
tive Roy Piper and arranged for a meeting several days
later Piper wanted to be assured that there was enough
employee interest in the Teamsters and wanted Long to
get support from at least one or two employees from
each of Respondent 's departments As a result, Long,
with the help of some other employees, began to contact
employees at other branches He distributed Teamsters
authorization cards during breaks Long's organizing ef-
forts continued into July and consisted of telephone com-
munications from his home as well as from work 9 In
early or mid-July, Long learned that the M&K employ-
ees had already contacted the UAW, and he telephoned
UAW Representative Kurt Hatfield in mid-July to offer
his aid in coordinating the organizing drive Hatfield sug-
gested that Long arrange for a meeting with as many of
Respondent's employees as he could get If there were
enough employee support, then their efforts could be co-
ordinated Thereafter, Long attempted to arrange for
that meeting, but his efforts lapsed when he lost his job
Respondent contends in its brief that there is no proof
that it knew of Long's efforts to organize its employees,
but I find sufficient evidence that it did First, I note that
none of Respondent's witnesses specifically denied that
they knew of Long's involvement with the union cam-
paign When I asked Mitchell what he knew of Long's
activities, Respondent's counsel objected to the question
as being outside the scope of direct examination I with-
drew my question Second, there had been rumors
spread around Respondent's shop that there was a union
organizing effort, and it appears that Respondent had
some idea of Long's involvement Siemens, who did not
testify, asked Long in early June whether he had heard
anything about the "union rumors going around " Steve
Arnold, who was M&K's night-shift foreman , testified
that he was aware of union organizing at M&K in Janu-
ary and February, he had a conversation with employee
Jeff Spielmaker and Long about the Union, and he knew
that Long was supporting the union drive He also testi-
fied that Carl DeVries, Respondent's operation manager,
told him that he suspected that Long was involved in the
union campaign He also admitted that Jack Meyering,
Respondent's president, instructed him to find out every-
thing he could about the union campaign and that he
made every effort to report to higher management what
he found out Although Arnold equivocated about
whether he told Respondent 's management about Long's
activities or whether he had conversations with them in
which Long's name was mentioned, it appears reasonable
to infer that, if Arnold knew about Long and made
every effort to tell higher management about the union
campaign , Arnold did so
Furthermore, I found Arnold 's oral testimony, which
was inconsistent with and contradicted major conces-
sions contained in an investigatory affidavit10 that he
gave to the Regional Office, to be less than candid He
admitted being loyal to Respondent and disliking Long
Although he was laid off from M&K, he received help
from John Meyering and Chuck Meyering, Respondent's
maintenance director, in obtaining a higher paying job at
Fruehof Trailer, which performs truck repair work for
Respondent Arnold appeared to me to be couching his
testimony to favor Respondent 11 I find his affidavit
more reliable and credit it See generally Administrative
Law Judge Ries' discussion in Salem Leasing Corp, 271
NLRB 86 (1984), and particularly the reference to
United States v Leslie, 542 F 2d 285 (5th Cir 1976), on
which I particularly rely Assuming that Arnold's affida-
vit was not given under oath "subject to the penalty of
perjury" within the meaning of Rule 801(dXl) of the
Federal Rules of Evidence, it is a statement which, in
light of Arnold's present bias, "is more probative on the
point for which it is offered than any other evidence
which [the General Counsel] can procure " Rule 803(24)
I, therefore, find that both Chuck and John Meyering
advised Arnold that they knew that both Spielmaker and
Long were involved in the union organizing effort Joe
LeBlanc, an admitted statutory supervisor, advised
Arnold to start locking the M&K gate so that anyone
who was attempting to organize the employees would
have to see Arnold first LeBlanc also advised Arnold
that the phones would be removed to keep Long and
Respondent's work rules provide for progressive discipline Even if I
credited the facts leading to this reprimand (Long testified that Mitchell
termed the warning "chicken shi "), it alone was insufficient to justify
Long's discharge
a A few days later, the lock was broken Respondent then installed a
device that could switch off the telephone from its front office
a There was another telephone available for Long to make these calls
from work
10 I note that the affidavit was mailed to Arnold and not signed in the
presence of the subscribing Board agent Nonetheless , Arnold testified
that he gave the affidavit under oath and he signed it under a printed
portion in which he certified to the truth of its contents Arnold also read
the affidavit in full and made corrections where he felt such were neces-
sary
a i Arnold met with Respondent's representatives the night before the
hearing and gave them his affidavit While he was testifying, Arnold ap-
peared to be checking his answers with John Meyermg by smilin g at him
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Spielmaker from telephoning M&K employees. Arnold
also testified on direct examination that his supervisor,
Jim Soule, admitted that Long's phone was removed to
prevent him from calling M&K and talking about the
Union.' 2 Although Arnold's affidavit identifies these
conversations as taking place before March, it appears
probable, and I so find, that the conversations took place
closer to the time when Long's telephone was first
locked in mid-May.
Respondent contends that the locking of Long's tele-
phone and subsequent removal of it was not caused by
Long's union activities. Rather, John Meyering testified
that unauthorized and expensive telephone calls were
being made, and Respondent was merely attempting to
save money. Respondent, however, never produced its
telephone bills to corroborate its claim. Furthermore,
Meyering claimed that calls were being made on all
three shifts, while at the same time he contended that the
telephone bills that were not produced did not show the
times when the telephone calls were made.' 3 There was,
accordingly, no basis for his claim that calls were being
made on any particular shift. I also note that Long's
workplace was physically separated from all other work
stations. But for the suspicions that Long was involved
in union activities, there appears no reason to lock his
phone because no one could see him. Meyering also
claimed that it was not necessary for the second shift to
have use of a telephone, but Long and Hitts testified that
calls had to be made and received on the second shift.
Indeed, up to that time, the telephone had been at his
workplace for 6 years and had never been removed or
locked. When the telephone was first locked, Hitts asked
Siemens what the reason was. Siemens replied that it had
nothing to do with the first shift, but just the second
shift. 14 Siemens explained that calls were being made by
the second shift to other branches, and to the outside,
which did not pertain to company business . Three or
four days later, Hitts said to Siemens that he had never
seen this kind of security "on just the telephone" and
asked whether it related to the union activity. Siemens
said : "[W]ell, it could, but . . . I am not allowed to dis-
cuss it."
Another indication of Respondent's knowledge of
Long's union activities and its discrimination against him
related to Long's attempt to obtain a wage increase. In
mid-June he filled out a three-part form that Respondent
had used for employees to request wage increases, but
Siemens told him that it was no longer necessary to fill
out that form and that Respondent would evaluate the
employees when they felt like doing so. Later, Long
pressed Hitts for a wage increase, and Hitts approached
Siemens and Mitchell: "[H]ow does a guy go about get-
ting a raise around here?" Mitchell asked whether the
raise was for Hitts; Hitts replied that it was not, but it
Is Arnold, who was subpoenaed and testified as a witness for the Gen-
eral Counsel , later denied this on cross-examination. However, I credit
his first admission.
is In addition , the phone was connected to Respondent's other
branches , including M&K, by an intracompany line. Calls to other
branches are not individually billed
14 Long was the only employee on the second shift who would have
had access to this phone , which was not locked on the first shift.
was for Long and Tom Whitfield, another employee.
Siemens said that Whitfield recently got an increase, and
Hilts then said : "[H]ow about Tony?" Siemens asked
Hitts what he knew about Long' s "union involvement";
and Hitts replied that Siemens knew more about it than
Hitts did, that Hitts had heard only rumors but did not
know of any "involvement." Mitchell remarked that:
"[W]ell we don't want a union in the shop anyhow"; and
Siemens questioned Hitts about Long's earlier use of Re-
spondent's telephone for "non-company business." Hitts
denied any knowledge of such use.
I find ample evidence that Respondent knew of a
union campaign and of Long's involvement. Respondent
first attempted to thwart Long's activities by removing
his access to its other branches by locking his phone and
locking the M&K gates. The facts indicate that Respond-
ent withheld consideration of Long's request for a wage
increase because of his union activities. When Long's ac-
tivities continued, Respondent seized on an alleged
"quit" to which Long was not a party. It is wholly im-
probable that Long would represent that he was quitting
to take a higher-paying position, when in fact his next
job paid him far less. Respondent offered in evidence no
compelling reason why Long was terminated. Wright
Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.
1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in
NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393
(1983). Its claim that Long did not give 2 weeks' notice
when he quit makes no sense, because Long did not
quit.' s Its claim that Long's work performance was bad
was unsupported by any credible evidence' a and contra-
dicted Mitchell's written reason for Long's termination.
In any event, what little Mitchell and Meyering were
able to relate was inconsistent and clearly contradicts the
earlier fine work evaluations that Long had received.
The only reason remaining in this record for Long's ter-
mination is his union activities, and I conclude that his
termination violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The activities of Respondent set forth above, occur-
ring in connection with its business operations, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes, burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be or-
dered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
is Because of this finding, it is unnecessary to consider whether Re-
spondent had a policy of refusing to reinstate employees who had quit
without notice . For the same reason , Respondent's citations of decisions
involving a quit-U.O.P., Inc., 235 NLRB 621 (1978); Rich's of Plymouth,
Inc, 232 NLRB 621 (1977), enfd in part 578 F 2d 880 (5th Cir. 1978)-
are inapposite . I note that Meyermg 's testimony about former employee
Darwin Honeysette was inconsistent . First he stated that because Honey-
sette quit without notice "that's all we need," and that there was no need
to consider his past work record. Later, he said that Respondent did con-
sider his work record.
16 If, as Mitchell claimed , Long constantly talked with other employ-
ees and wasted time on the job for a 2-week period, I cannot believe that
Mitchell would not have issued a written reprimand , especially because
he did so for the alleged 10- or 15-minute incident of 11 June
ATLAS TRUCK RENTAL
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act. Having found that Respondent laid off Anthony
Joseph Long because of the union activities in which he
was engaged, I shall recommend that Respondent be or-
dered to offer immediate and full reinstatement to Long
to his former position or, if it is no longer available, to a
substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges and make him
whole for any loss of earnings or any monetary loss he
may have suffered from 1 August 1984, as a result of Re-
spondent's unlawful conduct, less interim earnings, if
any. The amount of backpay shall be computed in the
manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest as prescribed in Florida Steel Corp.,
231 NLRB 651 (1977).17 I shall also recommend that Re-
spondent remove from its files any reference to Long's
discharge or "quit." Sterling Sugars, 261 NLRB 472
(1982).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed'8
ORDER
The Respondent, Atlas Trucking, Inc. d/b/a Atlas
Truck Rental & Leasing, Wyoming, Michigan, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging its employees because they supported
and assisted General Teamsters Union, Local No. 406,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Internation-
al Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultur-
al Implement Workers of America and in order to dis-
courage the membership in and support and assistance of
these Unions by its employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Anthony Joseph Long immediate and full re-
instatement to his former position or, if that position is
no longer available, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings
he may have suffered as a result of his discharge by Re-
spondent, in the manner set forth in the remedy section
of the decision.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the dis-
charge or "quit" of Anthony Joseph Long and notify
him in writing that this has been done and that evidence
of his unlawful termination will not be used as a basis for
future personnel actions against him.
17 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
r e If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
po
59
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its place of business in Wyoming, Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 1 e
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
19 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees because they
supported and assisted General Teamsters Union, Local
No. 406, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America and Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America and in order to
discourage the membership in and support and assistance
of these Unions by our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
WE WILL offer Anthony Joseph Long immediate and
full reinstatement to his former position or, if that posi-
tion is no longer available, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss
of earnings he may have suffered as a result of his dis-
charge by us, with interest.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the
discharge or "quit" of Anthony Joseph Long 'and notify
him in writing that this has been done and that evidence
of his unlawful termination will not be used as a basis for
future personnel actions against him.
ATLAS TRUCKING, INC. D/B/A ATLAS
TRUCK RENTAL & LEASING