West Pak, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1980

248 N.L.R.B. 1072 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
West Pak, Inc. and Local 150, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America. Case 20-CA-
14567
April 9, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
On November 30, 1979, Administrative Law
Judge Jerrold H. Shapiro issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and Respondent filed cross-exceptions and a brief
in opposition to the General Counsel's exceptions.
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, West Pak, Inc.,
Sacramento, California, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order.
i In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation to dis-
miss the complaint allegation concerning employee Schweizer's dis-
charge, we find it unnecessary to pass on the propriety of his discussion
of the circumstances in which it may be inappropriate to impute a super-
visor's knowledge of an employee's union activity to higher management.
Here, the Administrative Law Judge refused to impute a supervisor's
knowledge of Schweizer's activity to Blakeslee, the official who made
the decision to discharge. We are satisfied, however, that even assuming
knowledge on Blakeslee's part the record as a whole does not establish
that Respondent terminated Schweizer for reasons proscribed by the Act.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERROLD H. SHAPIRO, Administrative Law Judge: The
hearing in this case was held October 18, 1979, and is
based on unfair labor practice charges filed on May I,
1979, by Local 150, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, herein called the Union, and a complaint issued June
29, 1979, on behalf of the General Counsel of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by
the Regional Director for Region 20, alleging that West
248 NLRB No. 141
Pak, Inc., herein called the Respondent, has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(I) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act,
herein called the Act, by discharging employee James
Schweizer because of his union activities, interrogating
employees about their union activities and sympathies,
and threatening employees with discharge if they sup-
ported the Union. Respondent filed an answer denying
the commision of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record, from my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the
post-hearing briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent operates a trucking company which spe-
cializes in transporting shipments under 500 pounds in
California and Nevada. During the time material herein
it operated seven terminals. The Sacramento, California,
terminal is the one involved in this case. James Picucci is
the manager of that terminal. Picucci is subordinate to
Jerry Blakeslee, Respondent's vice president and general
manager, who is responsible for the day-to-day oper-
ations of the Company's several terminals. His office is
located at the Company's Emeryville, California, termi-
nal.
During the latter part of February2 and early in
March, several of the Company's Sacramento employees
on three occasions met at the home of employee James
Schweizer where they discussed their employment griev-
ances. The result was that at one of the meetings at
Schweizer's home a union representative met with the
employees who indicated they favored union representa-
tion. On February 28 the Union filed a representation pe-
tition with the Board's Regional Office seeking to repre-
sent the employees employed at the Sacramento termi-
nal. On April 26 a secret-ballot election was conducted
by the Board. The record does not reflect the results of
the election.
In the middle of March, General Manager Blakeslee
and another management official, Bill Horn, met with
the Sacramento employees and spoke to them about the
representation election. In addition, Horn held a second
meeting with the employees in April, prior to the repre-
sentation election, and spoke to them about the represen-
tation election. At these meetings Blakeslee and Horn
stated it was the employees' right to vote for the Union
and that Respondent "could not" and "would not"
threaten them with the loss of their jobs if they voted for
union representation; Respondent could not promise
them anything to dissuade them from supporting the
Union; and Respondent did not intend to ask them how
they felt about the Union, as that was the employees'
I In its answer Respondent admits the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act. Also, Respondent admits that
it meets the Board's applicable discretionary jurisdictional standard and is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2 Unless otherwise specified, all dates herein refer to 1979.
WEST PAK, INC. 1073
own business. During these meetings, which were the
only preelection meetings held by management with its
employees, the employees were not told that manage-
ment wanted them to vote against union representation.
At the outset of the Union's organizational campaign,
General Manager Blakeslee sent a memorandum to Ter-
minal Manager Picucci instructing him on how to con-
duct himself during the campaign. The memorandum
which was written in the same vein as management's
preelection speeches to the employees, among other
things, stated:
1. Written or Oral Communications to Employees
b. You must not threaten an employee or em-
ployees with harm or reprisals (economic or other-
wise) if they decided to join or vote for the Union.
d. You should not ask any employee whether or
not he favors the Union. The NLRB thinks this is
an important question. Again, the courts do not nec-
essarily agree with the NLRB on this, but in your
own interest I think it is a good question to avoid.
In fact, you should not question an employee at all
about his attitudes or activities relating to the
Union, or those of other employees.
4. Employees Engaged in Union Activity. I doubt
that I need to say this, but I will mention it in pass-
ing just to make sure that it is not forgotten. It is
the right of each of your employees to favor or not
favor a union as he sees fit. Therefore, you may not
discharge or otherwise discriminate against any em-
ployee because he favors or does not favor a union
which is attempting to organize at ESP. I am sure
you would not consciously violate this rule, but
there is one practical consequence which you must
remember. Once a union organizational campaign
starts and you are aware of it, you must be very
careful concerning all discharges or other disciplin-
ary measures. You must be sure that you have good
cause for any discharges or discipline and that the
cause is completely unrelated to any union consider-
ations. It is very embarrassing to a company to dis-
charge an employee for a borderline reason and
then to find out that he was the leading union ad-
herent in the campaign. The NLRB is very suspi-
cious in such circumstances that the discharge was,
in fact, based upon union considerations.
This does not mean that you should not run your
company properly even though a union comes upon
the scene, but it does mean that your cause for dis-
cipline or discharges should be good, and you
should be able to document the cause.
B. The Interrogation of Employees and the Threat To
Discharge Employees
1. The evidence
The complaint alleges that Respondent, through Ter-
minal Manager Picucci, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by interrogating employees about their union sympa-
thies and activities and by threatening them with dis-
charge if they supported the Union. The evidence per-
taining to these allegations follows.
Soon after discovering several employees had met and
decided to remedy their grievances through union repre-
sentation, Picucci summoned several of the employees
separately into his office and questioned them about this
matter. Employees Thomas Doll, Gregory Ruzic, Fred
Anderson, James Schweizer, and Curtis Trujillo testified
about their interviews.
Doll testified Picucci asked why the employees
"wanted to do that" or why Doll "wanted to do it."
Doll answered that he was tired of getting the "shaft." 3
Ruzic testified Picucci asked "why he was not in-
formed as to the decision to go union." Ruzic answered
that the union representative told the employees it would
not be wise to inform Picucci.
Anderson testified Picucci stated, "I realize you don't
have to answer anything, but I would like to know
whether you are going to be going for the Union or
against it," and told Anderson "he was going to try to
give priority to the ones who do not want the union of
assuring their jobs, that they'll have their jobs." Ander-
son answered that he did not really know where he
stood on the question of union representation.
Schweizer testified Picucci stated, "I understand you
had a union type meeting at your house this weekend."
Schweizer answered, "Yes." Picucci then asked, "How
come you guys did not come to me first." Schweizer re-
plied that the employees were not trying to get into trou-
ble with Picucci but just decided to do it without going
to Picucci first. Picucci then asked whether Schweizer
intended to vote for the Union. Schweizer answered,
"the way he voted was his own business."
Trujillo testified Picucci asked why the employees did
not come to him first before they did "this." Trujillo an-
swered that it was nothing personal but the employees
were tired of getting the "shaft."4
Picucci testified he questioned several employees be-
cause they had not come to him with their grievances
and had not given him an opportunity "to explain"
before they sought the Union's assistance. Picucci did
not testify about the separate conversations he had with
the employees. He generally denied asking the employ-
ees "why they went to the Union"; rather, he testified
"that basically what I asked" was "why haven't you
I It is plain from the context in which this interrogation occurred. par-
ticularly from Doll's answer, that Doll realized Picucci was asking why
the employees had decided to seek the assistance of the Union to remedy
their grievances.
4 It is plain from the context in which this interrogation occurred. par-
ticularly Trujillo's answer, that Trujillo realized Picucci was asking him
why the employees had decided to seek the Union's assistance to remedy
their grievances rather than first consulting Picucci
WEST PAK, INC.
B. The Interrogation of Employees and the Threat To
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
given me a chance."" He did not specifically deny asking
Anderson or Schweizer whether they intended to sup-
port the Union, nor did he deny asking if the union
meeting was held at Schweizer's house or informing An-
derson that the employees who did not support the
Union would be assured of their jobs. Anderson and
Schweizer impressed me as credible witnesses when they
gave this testimony.
2. Conclusions
As described supra, Terminal Manager Picucci sum-
moned employees Anderson, Doll, Ruzic, Schweizer,
and Trujillo into his office to question them about the
Union. Doll was asked why he or the other employees
wanted the Union's assistance. Ruzic was asked why he
had not notified Picucci about the employees' decision to
support the Union. Schweizer and Trujillo were asked
why the employees did not come to Picucci first before
they sought the Union's assistance. Thus, it is clear that
Picucci in these four instances, believing that the em-
ployees involved had sought union representation, decid-
ed to interrogate them about the reasons for their atti-
tude. The interrogation, which took place in Picucci's
office, was not made for a permissible purpose and was
not accompanied by assurances against reprisals. Further-
more, implicit in the questioning is the idea that Picucci
did not look with favor on employees who, without con-
sulting him, engaged in union activities. It is for these
reasons that I conclude that, by seeking out employees
Doll, Ruzic, Schweizer, and Trujillo and interrogating
them as to the basis for their union adherence, Picucci
engaged in the kind of conduct which reasonably tends
to have a coercive effect and thus intruded into the em-
ployees' Section 7 rights. I therefore find that by engag-
ing in this conduct Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act. Fred Jones Mfg. Company, 239 NLRB No. 9
(1978); CBS Records Division of CBS, Inc., 223 NLRB
209 (1976); Didde-Glaser, Inc., 233 NLRB 765 (1977).
Likewise, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
when Picucci asked whether employee Anderson intend-
ed to support the Union and whether employee
Schweizer intended to vote for the Union, and whether
the union meeting was held at his home. This interroga-
tion, which took place in Picucci's office was not made
for a permissible purpose and was not accompanied by
assurances against reprisal. Quite the opposite, Picucci,
when he questioned Anderson, advised him that the em-
ployees who did not support the Union would be assured
of their jobs. This constitutes a veiled threat that em-
ployees who supported the Union would not be assured
of their jobs and, as such, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
8 To the extent that this testimony controverts the testimony of em-
ployees Doll, Ruzic, Schweizer, and Trujillo, as described supra I reject
it inasmuch as the employees impressed me as more credible witnesses on
this matter.
C. Schweizer's Discharge
1. The evidence
The alleged discriminatee, James Schweizer, was em-
ployed by Respondent from November 6, 1978, until
April 18, 1979, at its Sacramento terminal. He worked as
a dockworker, loading and unloading trucks, and as an
overflow driver, delivering freight that the Company's
regular drivers were not able to deliver.
In late February and early March, several of the Sac-
ramento terminal workers met at Schweizer's house and
decided to seek the assistance of the Union to improve
their terms and conditions of employment. Early in
March, Terminal Manager Picucci learned about these
meetings and that at least one of them had been held at
Schweizer's home. 6
On April 16 at approximately 9:15 a.m., Schweizer,
while driving a company truck, was involved in an acci-
dent with another motor vehicle. It was his first motor
vehicle accident while in Respondent's employ. He was
stopped at a stop sign behind an automobile and, when
he took his eyes off the road to look at the paperwork
on his front seat in order to check the address for his
next delivery, his truck rolled forward into the rear end
of the automobile, damaging the rear bumper of the
automobile. Schweizer apologized to the driver of the
car and gave the driver his name, driver's license
number, truck license number, and the terminal's phone
number. Schweizer then phoned the terminal for the pur-
pose of informing Picucci about the accident, but when
no one answered the phone" he returned to work and
made the remainder of his deliveries without making any
further effort to phone Picucci about the accident. Later
that morning the driver of the automobile which
Schweizer had damanged phoned the terminal and spoke
to Picucci and advised him about the accident. She de-
scribed the accident and asked for the name of the Re-
spondent's insurance carrier and what the Respondent in-
tended to do about the damage to her car. Picucci took
down the person's name and address, the driver's license,
and a description of what occurred. Due to the location
of the accident, Picucci knew that Schweizer was the
driver involved.
On April 16 at approximately 5 p.m., Schweizer re-
turned to the terminal. Picucci was not there. Present
was driver Greg Ruzic, who had apparently also re-
turned from making his deliveries. 8 Schweizer told
6 Based on the credible and undenied testimony of Schweizer and em-
ployee Santos that on March 5, Schweizer admitted to Picucci that a
union meeting had been held at his home and that Picucci on March 8
admitted to Santos that he knew a union meeting had been held at
Schweizer's home.
I The record shows that Terminal Manager Picucci is frequently away
from the terminal and that drivers who phone the terminal frequently re-
ceive no answer even though there is an answering service that is sup-
posed to answer the phone. Picucci was unable to recall whether he was
present at the terminal on April 16 for the entire morning.
8 There is a dispute about Ruzic's status. Schweizer testified that, on
April 16, Ruzic was the terminal's lead driver. Ruzic, a witness for the
General Counsel, corroborated this testimony. Ruzic was not a persua-
sive witness, however, as his testimony on this subject was often vague
and evasive and in several instances self-contradictory. In fact, he initially
testified that he occupied the position of lead driver for 2 months, Octo-
Continued
WEST PAK, INC. 1075
Ruzic about the accident. There is a dispute whether
Schweizer left a note about the accident for Picucci on
one of the desks in Picucci's office. Schweizer and Ruzic
testified that the door to the office was unlocked and
that Schweizer left a note on Picucci's desk. Picucci tes-
tified that he did not find such a note on his desk when
he returned the evening of April 16 and that Schweizer
could not have left a note there because Picucci had
locked the office on April 16 when he left the terminal
on account of the petty cash in his desk and the paper-
work on his desk which he did not want to be disturbed.
Picucci impressed me as a credible witness on this
matter, whereas Schweizer and Ruzic did not; thus, I
have rejected their testimony and find that on April 16
the terminal office was locked 9 and that Schweizer did
not leave a note for Picucci advising him about the acci-
dent.
The morning of April 17 at approximately 7 a.m., Pi-
cucci questioned Schweizer about the accident. He asked
why Schweizer had not contacted him about the acci-
dent. Schweizer stated he had phoned the terminal but
there was no answer and left a note in Picucci's office.
Picucci stated he had not found a note and that it was
not possible for Schweizer to have left a note because
the office was locked when Picucci left the terminal
April 16 and was still locked when he returned that
evening. Picucci asked for a description of the accident.
Schweizer told him what had happened and in describ-
ing the accident stated in substance that the truck had
moved forward into the automobile not because of any
negligence on his part but because the clutch had mal-
functioned.10 Later that day Picucci personally tested
the clutch and directed the employee who normally
drove the truck, Curtis Trujillo, to also test the clutch.
Picucci found nothing wrong with the clutch which
would have caused the truck to roll forward as described
by Schweizer. The result of his inspection was corrobo-
rated by Trujillo's inspection.
On April 17 and 18, Picucci on several occasions
spoke to General Manager Blakeslee over the telephone
about Schweizer's accident. Picucci informed Blakeslee
he had received a telephone call from a person notifying
him of an accident involving one of the Company's driv-
ers and that the driver, James Schweizer, had not noti-
fied Picucci about the accident or filled out an accident
report. In subsequent conversations Picucci described the
accident to Blakeslee and told him that Schweizer had
ber 1978 through December 1978, and at another point testified that it
was in 1978 that he was relieved of this job. Employee Santos, a witness
called by the General Counsel, testified that Ruzic was the terminal's
lead driver from about October 1978 to December 1978. Under the cir-
cumstances and since Santos impressed me as a more reliable witness than
either Ruzic or Schweizer. I find Ruzic was not the lead driver durng
the period material to this case.
9 General Counsel's witness, Patrick Doyle, as a rebuttal witness, testi-
fied in effect that Picucci's office door was locked on April 16 but that
Doyle opened the door for Schweizer, using an office key. I reject this
testimony because it does not jibe with either Schweizer's or Ruzic's ver-
sion of what allegedly occurred. I cannot believe that, if Doyle on April
16 unlocked Picucci's office for Schweizer, that Schweizer or Ruzic
would not have remembered this and corroborated his testimony.
i' Picucci and Schweizer testified about this conversation. Where their
testimony conflicts I have credited Picucci, who impressed me as the
more credible witness.
stated that he was not responsible for the accident be-
cause a faulty clutch had cause the truck to roll forward.
Picucci indicated that Schweizer was not telling the
truth because an inspection of the clutch by Picucci and
Trujillo, the driver who normally used the truck, did not
support Schweizer's story.
On April 18 at approximately 7 a.m., Picucci sum-
moned Schweizer into his office and asked him to fill out
an accident report form. Schweizer did so and in the
portion which asks, "briefly describe accident,"
Schweizer wrote, "clutch did not hold at stop sign."
On April 18 at the end of the workday, Picucci
handed Schweizer a slip of paper which informed him
that he was terminated. The termination slip, signed by
Picucci reads:
Due to you accident on 4/16/79 you are being ter-
minated .... The reasons are failure to report an
accident as required by company policy, falsifica-
tion of an accident report, and carelessness on your
part as a driver.
Picucci apologized to Schweizer, stating that he was not
responsible for Schweizer's discharge, that Schweizer
was a good worker, and Picucci would not have dis-
charged him. Schweizer read the termination slip and left
without saying anything.
Respondent's general manager, Blakeslee, who is re-
sponsible for the day-to-day operations of the Company's
several terminals, testified that, based on the information
he had received from Picucci about Schweizer's acci-
dent, as described supra, he decided to discharge
Schweizer after consulting with another management of-
ficial, Bill Horn, and the Company's lawyer. Despite the
lawyer's recommendation against terminating
Schweizer, t Blakeslee testified he discharged Schweizer
for having "a chargeable accident [an accident for which
the Company's driver is responsible] that involved a
rear-end collision"; failing "to report the accident at the
time it occurred or at the first available opportunity";
and lying about the cause of the accident by blaming it
on a faulty clutch. Blakeslee then directed Picucci to ter-
minate Schweizer for the aforesaid reasons.
2. Conclusions
As described supra, James Schweizer was employed
by Respondent for only 5 months when he rear-ended an
automobile while driving a company truck. He did not
notify Terminal Manager Picucci about the accident
until the next day and only after Picucci confronted him
about it. 12 Schweizer in describing the accident attempt-
I Respondent's lawyer advised against terminating an employee just
before the scheduled union representation election because it would mean
certain litigation for the Company in view of the small size of the termi-
nal.
12 The credible testimony of Blakeslee and employee Thomas Doll, a
witness called by the General Counsel, establishes that management ex-
pected a driver who was involved in an accident to promptly notify the
terminal manager about it. The record also establishes that when a driver
was involved in an accident he usually notified the terminal manager the
same day, even if it meant phoning the home of the manager in the even-
ing. Schweizer was aware of this policy, as is evidenced by his attempt
Con tin ued
WEST PAK, INC.
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ed to cover up his negligence by giving Picucci a false
reason for the accident. These are the reasons that Gen-
eral Manager Blakeslee testified motivated him to dis-
charge Schweizer. Plainly, Blakeslee had ample justifica-
tion for this decision. The question, however, is whether
Blakeslee used Schweizer's misconduct as an excuse to
discharge him because of his union activities. I am per-
suaded that the record fails to establish that Schweizer's
discharge was pretextual. In reaching this conclusion I
was influenced by the following considerations, in their
totality.
Blakeslee, the person who made the decision to dis-
charge Schweizer, credibly testified he was without
knowledge of Schweizer's union sentiments or activities.
Nor is there sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant
the inference that Blakeslee knew about Schweizer's
union activities or sentiments. Likewise, the evidence
fails to establish that Terminal Manager Picucci, who
knew about Schweizer's union activities, played a part in
Blakeslee's decision to terminate Schweizer.' 3 This is not
a situation in which an employee is discharged based on
an adverse report or recommendation by a low level su-
pervisor, which report or recommendation the evidence
shows was discriminatorily motivated.
Since Schweizer was discharged by Blakeslee rather
than Picucci, the animus of Picucci toward the employ-
ees for seeking union representation did not enter into
the Respondent's decision to discharge Schweizer, espe-
cially where, as here, the record shows that Respon-
dent's management was not hostile toward union repre-
sentation. Blakeslee and Horn, the Company's principal
officials,14 in speaking to the employees about the repre-
sentation election did not even suggest that the employ-
ees vote against union representation; rather, they told
the employees that it was their right to vote for union
representation and that Respondent did not intend to ask
them how they felt about the Union because this was the
employees' own business and that Respondent would not
threaten them with the loss of their jobs if they voted for
union representation.
The record fails to establish that, in discharging
Schweizer, Respondent treated him differently than
other employees who engaged in similar misconduct. I
have considered the fact that in the past Respondent did
not discharge several employees involved in automobile
accidents for which they were at fault, but instead im-
posed lessor discipline and in certain instances allowed
the negligent driver to pay for the damages in lieu of dis-
cipline and in one instance imposed no discipline.' 5
on April 17 to pursuade Picucci that he had left a note about the accident
the previous day on Picucci's desk.
13 The record as a whole does not controvert Blakeslee's testimony
that he made the decision to discharge Schweizer and that Picucci played
no significant part in that decision. Indeed, Blakeslee's testimony is sup-
ported by Picucci's remarks to Schweizer when he handed him his termi-
nation slip and by the fact that prior to Schweizer's discharge Blakesle,
rather than the terminal manager, disciplined or discharged employees
who were involved in motor vehicle accidents.
14 I note Blakeslee is responsible for the management of Respondent's
labor relations.
15 In the instances where no discipline was imposed the record indi-
cates that Blakeslee was never notified about the accidents by the termi-
nal manager as (I) the driver paid for the damages or (2) the victim of
These cases are not comparable to the instant situation
which involves a driver who negligently rear-ended an-
other motor vehicle, did not notify Respondent about the
accident until the next day when confronted by the ter-
minal manager, and in order to cover up his negligence
lied to management about the cause of the accident.
The serious nature of Schweizer's misconduct, the lack
of disparate treatment, the lack of union animus on the
part of Respondent's management, and the lack of
knowledge of Schweizer's union activities or sympathies
by the persons who discharged him, persuade me that
the General Counsel has not established that the reasons
advanced by Respondent for Schweizer's termaination
were pretextual. I, therefore, shall recommend that the
allegation of the complaint herein pertaining to
Schweizer's discharge be dismissed. 6
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, con-
clusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER 7
The Respondent, West Pak, Inc., Sacramento, Califor-
nia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees about their union member-
ship, sympathies or activities.
(b) Threatening to discharge employees if they join or
give their support to a union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its place of business located in Sacramento,
California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix."'s Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed
by Respondent's representative, shall be posted immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Respon-
dent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
the accident did not claim damages or (3) a malfunction of the truck
which the driver was driving caused the accident.
' I need not decide whether a lack of circumstantial evidence to infer
that Picucci's knowledge of Schweizer's union activities had been com-
municated to Blakeslee warrants, by itself, the dismissal of this allegation.
But see Delchamps Inc. v. NL.R.B., 588 F.2d 476 (5th Cir. 1979). 1 am
of the opinion that, assuming Blakeslee knew of Schweizer's union activi-
ties, the record, for the other reasons set forth supra, fails to establish that
the reasons advanced by Respondent for Schweizer's discharge were a
pretext designed to conceal an illegal motive.
17 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
18 In the event that 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National labor Relations Board."
WEST PAK, INC. 1077
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not spe-
cifically found.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT question our employees about
their union membership, sympathies, or activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees if
they join or give support to a union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act.
WEST PAK, INC.