Central American Airways

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 161 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

CENTRAL AMERICAN AIRWAYS 161
Central American Airways and International Brother-
hood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 281 , AFL-CIO.
Case 10-CA-9579
June 14, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On February 16, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Jerry B. Stone issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.
The Respondent also 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 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, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge except
as modified herein.
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge, for
the reasons stated by him, that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by failing and refus-
ing to hire two of its predecessor's employees, Ives
and Spader Sr., because of their active role in support
of the Union.'
We also agree with the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that Respondent's obligation as a successor
employer to bargain with the Union 2 which repre-
sented its predecessor's employees did not mature un-
til after May 3 or 4, when Respondent hired its full
complement of employees consisting of 9 of its
predecessor's 12 employees whom Respondent knew
to be represented by the Union.' The Administrative
Law Judge, therefore, correctly concluded that Re-
spondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act when, on May 2, 1972, it established the initial
terms and conditions of employment for its operation
which was scheduled to begin on May 5. Since there
is no evidence that these terms were changed after
Respondent's obligation to bargain had matured on
or about May 4, we also agree with the Administrative
Law Judge that Respondent did not unlawfully
change the existing terms and conditions of employ-
ment when it implemented its previously established
initial working conditions upon commencing opera-
tions on May 5.
We disagree, however, with the Administrative Law
Judge's finding that, in the circumstances here, the
Union was required to renew its demand for recogni-
tion and bargaining after Respondent's obligation to
bargain had matured. In our opinion, the facts of this
case, particularly the statements by Respondent's
President Paris to Union Steward Ives on May 2 that
it would not bargain in any manner or enter into a
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union war-
rants a finding that a renewed request would have
been futile.4 We find, therefore, that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by its refusal
to recognize the Union on or about May 5, 1972, when
it commenced operations with a work force consisting
for the most part of former Hallmark employees who
were represented by the Union. Accordingly, we shall
order that Respondent recognize and, upon request,
bargain with the Union regarding terms and condi-
tions of employment promulgated after Respondent's
obligation to bargain had matured.
' Ives and Spader Sr., as well as Snyder, were the only employees of
Respondent's predecessor , Hallmark Aviation , Inc., not hired by Respon-
dent They were also the only elected union officials at the Hallmark opera-
tion. No exceptions were taken to the Administrative Law Judge's finding
that Snyder did not file an employment application and for that reason was
not hired.
Respondent , however, has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's
finding that Ives and Spader Sr. were discriminatorily denied employment.
These findings are based entirely on the Administrative Law Judge's credibil-
ity resolutions . It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule an Admin-
istrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear
preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolu-
tions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d
362 (C A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis
for reversing his findings.
2 The Union was certified on May 19, 1971, in a bargaining unit consisting
of all full-time and regular part -time employees employed by Hallmark Avia-
tion , Inc., at the Valdosta Municipal Airport, excluding all office clerical
employees , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Central American Airways, the Respondent, is
an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oil-
ers, Local 281 , AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times
material herein , a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time employees
3 N L.R.B. v. Burns International Security Services, Inc., 406 U.S. 272
(1972); Hecker Machine, Inc, 198 NLRB No. 161.
4 Roadway Express, Inc, 170 NLRB 1446, 1448.
204 NLRB No. 25
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employed by Central American Aviation at the Val-
dosta Municipal Airport, excluding all office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
.;ollective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. The above-named labor organization has been
and now is the exclusive representative of all employ-
ees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on or about May 5, 1972, and at all
times thereafter, to recognize and bargain with the
Union in the previously described appropriate unit,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
6. By refusing to hire Von E. Ives and Daniel L.
Spader, Sr., Respondent has discouraged membership
in a labor organization by discriminating in regard to
tenure of employment, thereby engaging in unfair la-
bor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Cen-
tral American Airways, Valdosta, Georgia, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and, upon request, bar-
gain with International Brotherhood of Firemen and
Oilers, Local 281, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit
described below with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions
of employment.
All full-time and regular part-time employees
employed by Central American Airways at the
Valdosta Municipal Airport, Valdosta, Georgia,
excluding all office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the act.
(b) Refusing to hire or otherwise discriminating
against employees in regard to hire or tenure of em-
ployment, or any term or condition of employment
because of their union or protected concerted activi-
ties.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by law-
ful agreements in accord with Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain with the
Union as the exclusive representative of all the em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment, and embody in a signed
agreement any understanding reached with the
Union.
(b) Offer to Von E. Ives and Daniel L. Spader, Sr.,
immediate employment as flight instructors, or, if
such positions no longer exist, to substantially equiva-
lent positions , without prejudice to their seniority, or
other rights previously enjoyed, and make each whole
for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimi-
nation against him in the manner described in the
section entitled "The Remedy" of the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision.
(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 Order.
(d) Post at Respondent's place of business at Val-
dosta, Georgia, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 5 Copies of said notice, on forms provid-
ed by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being
duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by Respondent for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here-
with.
5 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 Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
CENTRAL AMERICAN AIRWAYS
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to hire or otherwise dis-
criminate against employees in regard to hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition
of employment because of their union or protect-
ed concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and upon re-
quest to bargain collectively concerning rates of
pay, wages, hours and other terms and conditions
of employment with the International Brother-
hood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 281, AFL-
CIO as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the bargaining unit described below:
All full-time and regular part-time employ-
ees employed by Central American Aviation at
the Valdosta Municipal Airport, excluding all
office clerical employees, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Von E. Ives and Daniel L.
Spader, Sr., immediate employment as flight in-
structors or, if such positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority or other rights previously
enjoyed, and make each whole for any loss of pay
suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him.
WE WILL recognize and, upon request, bargain
with the International Brotherhood of Firemen
and Oilers, Local 281, AFL-CIO as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described herein, with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours and other terms and conditions
of employment and, if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining members of any
labor organization.
CENTRAL AMERICAN AIR-
WAYS
(Employer)
Dated By
163
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Peachtree Building, Room 701, 730
Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Tele-
phone 404-526-5760.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERRY B. STONE, Administrative Law Judge: This proceed-
ing, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, was tried pursuant to due notice on De-
cember 5, 1972, at Valdosta, Georgia.
The charge was filed on May 12, 1972. The amended
complaint in this matter was issued on October 27, 1972.
The amended complaint was further amended on Novem-
ber 17, 1972. The issues concern whether Central American
Airways is a successor to Hallmark Aviation, Inc.; whether
Central American Airways since on or about May 5, 1972,
has refused to bargain with the Union in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act; whether Central American
Airways made unilateral charges in wages and hours of
work of its employees on or about May 5, 1972, in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act; and whether Central
American Airways discriminatorily refused to hire, on or
about May 5, 1972, the following individuals, Von E. Ives,
Daniel L. Spader, Sr., and Stanley W. Snyder.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate
in the proceeding. Briefs have been filed by the General
Counsel and Respondent and have been considered.'
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa-
tion of witnesses, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The facts herein are based upon the pleadings and admis-
sions therein.
'Respondent's brief alludes to a letter from employees to the Regional
Director of Region 10 relating to a request for a decertification election This
referred-to letter is not in evidence. General Counsel 's motion of February
1, 1972, alluding to the Respondent's brief and moving to strike such portion
of the brief is granted . General Counsel 's motion is deemed marked as ALJ
Exh. I and is received into the record.
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Central American Airways, the Respondent, is, and has
been at all times material herein, a Kentucky corporation,
with its principal office and place of business located at
Louisville , Kentucky , where it is engaged in the operation
of a fixed-based flying service. Only Respondent's opera-
tion at Valdosta Municipal Airport, Valdosta, Georgia,
herein called the airport, is involved in this proceeding.
Respondent, during a 1-year representative period, will
provide flying instruction services, pursuant to written con-
tract, for the United States armed forces at bases located in
Georgia, valued in excess of $50,000.
As conceded by Respondent and based upon the fore-
going, it is concluded and found that the Respondent is, and
has been at all times material herein , an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),(6), and (7)
of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local
281, AFL-CIO, is and has been at all times material herein
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary Facts
Supervisory Status 2
The following-named individuals , occupying the posi-
tions set opposite their respective names, are and have been
at all times material herein, except as indicated , supervisors
of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act:
Wilbur Pans-President
Glen Armstrong-Facility Manager , Webb Air Force
Base
Parker Slocomb-Flight Supervisor Terminated
7/19/72
B. The Successorship Question 3
From on or about February 22, 1971, until on or about
May 4, 1972, Hallmark Aviation, Inc. (hereinafter called
Hallmark), pursuant to a written contract , provided flying
instruction services at the Valdosta airport for the United
States Air Force. This program was and is known as the
T-41 contract program.
All full-time and regular part-time employees employed
by Hallmark at the Valdosta Municipal Airport, excluding
all office clerical employees , guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act, constituted a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
On May 19, 1971, the Regional Director for Region 10 of
the National Labor Relations Board certified the Union
(International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local
281, AFL-CIO) as the exclusive bargaining representative
for the employees in the unit described above.
After the Union was organized and had become the col-
lective-bargaining representative of Hallmark 's employees,
Von E. Ives was elected union steward . Daniel Spader, Sr.,
and Stanley W. Snyder were elected bargaining committee-
men. There were no other local officers elected from the
Hallmark employees.
During the period of time that the Union was bargaining
with Hallmark concerning a collective -bargaining agree-
ment, all of Hallmark 's employees went on a strike in sup-
port of the Union's contract demands. The strike lasted for
2 days and occurred around October 11 and 12, 1971.
On or about October 14, 1971, the Union and Hallmark
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement, expiring
February 15, 1972, covering the employees in the unit de-
scribed above. From February 15, 1972, until May 5, 1972,
Hallmark continued in effect the same terms and conditions
of employment for the employees in the bargaining unit
described above.
Excepting for the union strike which occurred for 2 days
around October I1 and 12, 1971, there were no significant
problems with respect to the United States Air Force Flight
Instruction T-41 program at Valdosta, Georgia. United
States Air Force officers on the scene, Lt. Colonel Scheuring
and Captain Verno, kept abreast of the Valdosta program
and reported on the same to Colonel Wilkerson, based at
San Antonio, Texas. Wilkerson, on occasion, visited the
Valdosta operation. In February 1972, Colonel Wilkerson
checked with Lt. Colonel Scheuring about the Valdosta op-
eration, and asked about the three union representatives
(Ives , Spader Senior, and Snyder). Wilkerson and Scheuring
discussed these matters and the flight instruction program
(called the T-41 program) in general . The overall facts re-
veal that Scheuring had and has high regard for Spader's
abilities and services. Wilkerson told Scheuring in effect
that it appeared that Spader would be rehired when the new
contract was let but that the other two (Ives and Snyder)
would not be rehired because they were troublemakers.
Paris, Respondent's President, credibly testified to the
effect that as of February 1972 he had not been in contact
with the United States Air Force about the upcoming T-41
contract at Valdosta, Georgia."
4Considenng the nature of Scheuring 's testimony as to what Wilkerson
had related concerning a contractor's potential hiring of Spader and refusal
2 The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein . to hire Snyder and Ives and the credited testimony of Pans indicated above,
3 The facts are based upon the pleadings and admissions therein , stipula- I find such evidence to fail to reveal that Respondent indicated to the Air
bons, exhibits, and credited testimony of witnesses. The facts are not in real Force in February 1972 that it would hire Spader and not hire Ives and
dispute except where indication is made . Snyder because they were troublemakers.
CENTRAL AMERICAN AIRWAYS
During the several months before May 5, 1972, the Unit-
ed States Air Force went through procedures designed to
obtain a new T-4l contract for the services performed by
Hallmark as described above . Hallmark initially submitted
a bid for such contract but later withdrew its bid . Respon-
dent also submitted a bid for such contract during this
period of time.
While the bids by various companies were pending, the
Union on March 17, 1972, sent the following letters to the
Respondent:
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN
& OILERS
AFL-CIO
LOCAL 281
MOODY AIR FORCE BASE , GEORGIA
17 March 1972
Central American Airways
Attn: Mr. Wilbur Paris
Bowman Field
Louisville, Kentucky
CERTIFIED MAIL
Sir:
It has come to our attention that you are a prospective
bidder on the next USAF T-4I Primary Training con-
tract commencing on or about 5 May 1972.
We wish to inform you that we are presently employed
with Hallmark Aviation, Inc.: San Antonio, Texas un-
der a Union successor type Labor Agreement as recog-
nized by the National Labor Relations Board and
pertinent laws thereof.
Should you be the newly favored contractor we desire
that you be aware that the present employee force as
a group will be available to man the operation for you.
We would welcome the opportunity, at your conve-
nience, to discuss with you particulars to assure a fu-
ture mutually satisfactory relationship.
165
The Respondent did not respond to this letter from the
Union. Around this time, March or April 1972, Respondent
placed an advertisement in a trade journal soliciting appli-
cations for employment as flight instructors.5 The exact
details of such advertisement were not revealed by the evi-
dence presented by the Respondent. Paris's credited testi-
mony, however, revealed that this advertisement did not
allude to the Valdosta operation. Paris's testimony further
did not reveal whether Respondent specified the terms and
conditions of employment that the advertisement con-
cerned.
Pans credibly testified to the effect that he received about
150 applications for employment as Flight Instructors from
the trade journal advertisement. Paris further credibly testi-
fied to the effect that he considered 100 of such applications
to be from qualified applicants. The facts reveal that Re-
spondent did not hire any of these applicants for the Val-
dosta operation when it commenced work on May 5, 1972.
In mid-Apnl 1972, Respondent was orally advised by the
United States Air Force that it would receive the contract
for providing flight instruction services at the Valdosta air-
port. Respondent then placed the following advertisement
in a local Valdosta, Georgia, newspaper on April 25, 1972.
INSTRUCTOR PILOTS
Applications are being accepted for flight instructors
and ground personnel in connection with USA T-41
training program.
CENTRAL AMERICAN AIRWAYS
P. O. BOX 5637
BOWMAN FIELD
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40205
The Union, on April 26, 1972, sent the following letter to
the Respondent:
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN
& OILERS
AFL-CIO
LOCAL 281
MOODY AIR FORCE BASE, GEORGIA
26 April 1972
Yours truly,
Sammy A. May Secretary CERTIFIED MAIL,
Route I Central American Airways
Attn: Mr Wilbur ParisRay City Georgia .,
Ph 912/244-8785 P. O. Box 5637
Von E. Ives, Steward Bowman Field
c/o Hallmark Aviation, Inc. Louisville, Kentucky
Valdosta Municipal Airport
Valdosta, Georgia 31601 5 Based upon the credited testimony of Parts
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sir:
It has come to our attention that you are the favored
bidder on the next USAF T-41 Primary Training con-
tract of Moody Air Force Base commencing on or
about 5 May 1972. We also note your recent advertise-
ment in the Valdosta Daily Times newspaper accepting
applications for employees.
We advised you by letter of 17 March 1972 of the
availability of the present work force and solicited your
reciprocal communication . We have received no re-
sponse from you. The door is still open!
Yours truly,
Sammy A. May, Secretary
Route 1
Ray City , Georgia
Ph 912/244-8785
Von E. Ives, Steward
c/o Hallmark Aviation, Inc.
Valdosta Municipal Airport
Valdosta , Georgia 31601
Ph 912/242-4162
The Respondent did not reply to the Union 's letter of
April 26, 1972.
The Respondent received the T-41 contract from the
United States Air Force concerning the providing of flight
instruction services at Valdosta, Georgia, on Saturday,
April 29, 1972. Such services were scheduled to commence
on May 5 , 1972. It appears that although Hallmark's con-
tract expired on May 4, 1972, actual flight instruction
classes ceased on or about May 2, 1972.
On May 2, 1972, Respondent 's officials went to Valdosta,
Georgia , for the purpose of interviewing applicants and of
hiring employees for its work force to carry out its contrac-
tual duties . Prior to going to Valdosta , Georgia , Respondent
notified two individuals (Mansfield and Carpenter) who
worked for Respondent at Louisville , Kentucky , that they
would be hired as flight instructors for the Valdosta opera-
tion.
Respondent notified Hallmark's supervisors to tell
Hallmark 's employees that Respondent 's officials would be
at the Holiday Inn in Valdosta , Georgia, for the purpose of
interviewing applicants for employment on May 2, 1972.
Respondent 's officials , as indicated , were at the Holiday
Inn in Valdosta , Georgia , on May 2 , 1972, for the purpose
of interviewing employees for employment in its upcoming
operation . None of the Hallmark employees showed up for
applications or interviews until after 5 p.m. Prior to that
time , however, Ives , a Hallmark flight instructor , had talked
over the telephone with President Paris . Walser, not an
employee of Hallmark , apparently in answer to
Respondent's advertisement in the Valdosta newspaper,
was interviewed and hired by Respondent as a flight in-
structor during the afternoon of May 2, 1972.
On May 2 , 1972, Hallmark's Manager Fitzgerald told
Ives that Respondent 's President Paris would be in town all
day long for the purpose of accepting applications. Ives
thereafter telephoned Paris . What occurred is revealed by
the following credited excerpts from Ives' testimony.
A. I had a telephone conversation with him about
one p .m. on the same day for the purpose of arranging
a meeting.
Q. How did you know that Mr. Paris was at the
Holiday Inn?
A. Early on the same morning of the same day, Mr.
Scott Fitzgerald , manager of the T-41 operation, told
all the T-41 employees that Mr. Paris was in town for
the purposes of accepting applications all day long.
Q. Do you recall what was said during this phone
conversation?
A. I first asked him when would be a convenient
time for an interview. And, his answer was that he was
not going to make any package deals, that he would
deal with each individual on an individual basis, and
that he had a lot of applications to process and needed
to get on with it.
So, I again asked him when would be a convenient
time, and he said he first had to go to Moody Air Force
Base for a meeting with Colonel Katuh , and he would
be back sometime after 3 p.m.
Ives then conferred with local union officials, Heinz and
May, and with bargaining committeemen , Snyder and
Spader . It was decided that Ives would go to see President
Paris at the Holiday Inn.
During Paris' conversation with Ives on the telephone,
Paris indicated to Ives that he couldn't wait much longer to
interview the employees , that he was going to "chop it off"
at 5 p .m., that he had a backlog of applications and that he
had to do his hirings in time to commence operations on
Friday.
Ives saw Respondent's officials at the Holiday Inn
around 5 p.m. What occurred is essentially revealed by the
following credited excerpts from Ives' testimony:
Q. And, what time did you meet Mr. Paris at the
Holiday Inn?
A. At 5 p.m. on the same date, May 2.
Q. And , did you speak with anyone else connected
with Central American , other than Mr. Paris?
A. Not directly: Mr. Armstrong . We retired to an-
other room . Room 367, where Mr. Bill Armstrong was.
No direct conversation with him as such. He made a
few remarks but nothing significant.
6 The facts are not in real dispute.
CENTRAL AMERICAN AIRWAYS
Q. When you finally talked with Mr. Paris, who else
was in the room?
A. Mr. Bill Armstrong.
A. Well, after we sat down, I asked him, I told him
that the union had wondered why we had no response
from his company, and he stated that he hadn't been
able to make any commitment until that time due to the
fact that he did not have the Air Force contract in hand
until the previous Saturday, I believe, 29 April 1972.
And, he asked me what my qualifications were and I
gave him a brief verbal resume of my flying experience
and pilot certification.
And, after that, he stated that he had already some
local labor response, although not as much as he had
anticipated; and if the local employees of the T-41
operation did not respond or cooperate, that he had a
backlog of other available employees that he would call
in and begin upgrading on Friday.
After that, I made a statement to him or asked him
how he felt about negotiating for wages or hours and
working conditions, and he stated that he would not
bargain in any manner of that type. However, he did
volunteer that he was offering $725 a month to the
instructor pilots with Air Force holiday pay.
I asked him did he think that maybe the employees
might be sitting home during bad weather without pay.
He said he did not think they would have to do that.
I asked him about the prospects of future pay raises,
and he said well, there may be possibly in a future
contract. Of course, he could not promise anything of
that nature. At that, I informed him that the ufiion had
a contract with Hallmark Aviation and asked him
would he consider such being made an agreement.
And, he said emphatically not, that he had built his
business more or less on his own and he didn't need any
outside help to help him run it.
After that, I asked him would he consider a group
job application. I told him I had the paper in my hands
of the names of all 12 employees, and he reiterated
again that he would not accept a group application,
that he would consider only the individual application
of each employable person.
And, at this point, he seemed somewhat ruffled and
said as far as he was concerned the purpose of this
meeting was to discuss my employment and he would
not discuss the subject any further. Whereupon, I re-
ceived a job application from him and asked him when
he would like it back, and he said that same night or
early the next morning.
As I went out the door, Mr. Armstrong was showing
a T-41 Hallmark guard employee in, I assume for an
interview.
Thereafter and for the next several days, Hallmark em-
167
ployees went to the Holiday Inn, were interviewed by
Respondent's officials, and filled out applications. Some of
the employees took applications home overnight and re-
turned the application to Respondent the next day. One of
Hallmark's employees, apparently, a flight instructor, was
not interviewed, was out of town, but was hired because of
a strong recommendation apparently by one of the supervi-
sors who was hired. One of Hallmark's employees, Black, a
mechanic, was not interviewed or told that he was hired.
Black reported to work on May 5, worked, and filled out an
application for work a day or two after May 5, 1972. In
short, Black was hired. Snyder was interviewed, took his
application home and filled it out. Snyder testified to the
effect that he returned the next day to the Holiday Inn, did
not find Respondent's officials in the conference room
where he had been interviewed, slipped his application un-
der the door, realized that something was wrong, waited
awhile, did not check at the Holiday Inn desk as to the
whereabouts of Respondent's officials or as to retrieval of
his application, and left. Snyder later went to the Valdosta
airport and although in the presence of Respondent's offi-
cials, did not tell them of his apphcation.7
The Respondent completed its determination of employ-
ees to be hired either late on May 3 or on the morning of
May 4, 1972. Before commencing work on May 5, 1972,
Carpenter decided upon other plans and did not report to
work at Respondent's Valdosta operation. An individual
named Rogers was hired to fill the spot left vacant as a result
of Carpenter's failure to take a job. The record does not
reveal exactly when Rogers was hired or reported to work.
The job of flight instructor required meeting certain U.S.
Air Force requirements and tests. Rogers was found as a
result of such testing to be unqualified and thus apparently
was released from employment.
The facts as to the supervisors and employees of Hall-
mark prior to May 5, 1972, the employees and supervisors
hired by Respondent as of May 4, 1972, and the employees
and supervisors of Respondent that commenced work on
May 5, 1972, may be set forth as follows:'
On May 3, 1972, or on May 4, 1972, United States Air
Force officers Scheuring and Vemo were at the Valdosta,
Georgia airport and spoke to Respondent's supervisors
Armstrong, Driver and Parker Slocumb. Lieutenant Colo-
7 Paris credibly testified to the effect that he did not receive an application
from Snyder . I do not credit Snyder's testimony that he returned and left his
application for employment As indicated later, Snyder was with Ives when
Ives turned his application in Ives credibly testified to such effect. Snyder
did not appear a truthful witness as to these points.
8 The facts are based upon stipulations , credited testimony of witnesses,
and a fair inference therefrom Ives' credited testimony reveals that the total
Hallmark employee complement is as indicated herein. The parties stipulated
in effect that all but Ives, Spader Senior, and Snyder were hired. Further,
Pans' testimony revealed that Respondent did not intend to hire all of the
mechanics and only had three flight instructor openings. Black , a mechanic,
however, was also hired as indicated.
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hallmark Central American Airways Central American Airways
Pre. May 5, 1972 hired as of May 4, 1972 commenced work as of
May 5, 1972
Supervisors
General Manager
Scott Fitzgerald
Flight Instructor
C. H. Driver C. H. Driver
Supervisors
Parker Slocumb
Flight Instructor
Parker Slocumb
Scott Fitzgerald
Parker Slocumb
Scott Fitzgerald
Von E. Ives
Daniel L. Spader, Sr.
Stanley W. Snyder
Stephen K. Farner
Earl E. Garlick
Emory L. Naismith
Donald 0. Davis
Norman F. Conant, Jr.
Walser
Mansfield
Carpenter
Stephen K. Farner
Earl E. Garlick
Emory L. Naismith
Donald 0. Davis
Norman F. Conant, Jr.
Walser
Mansfield
Rogers 9/
Stephen K. Farner
Earl E. Garlick
Emory L. Naismith
Donald 0. Davis
Norman F. Conant, . 10/
George L. Barnasky George L. Barnasky George L. Barnasky
Mechanics
John R. Bkack
James W. Maine James W. Maine
Daniel L. Spader, Jr. Daniel L. Spader,
nel Scheuring and Captain Verno , having responsibilities
concerning the T-41 contract, were interested in
Respondent's hiring plans. 12
Armstrong told Scheuring of Respondent's hiring plans,
told Scheuring that most of the Hallmark employees except-
ing Ives , Spader Junior, and Snyder were being hired, told
Scheuring that he disagreed with his bosses , told Scheuring
that he felt that they should either bring in an entire new
work force or bargain with the Air Force so that higher
9 It is not clear whether Rogers reported to work on May 5, 1972
10 Norman F Conant , Jr., at some date after May 5, 1972, was made a
supervisor.
John R Black was not hired before May 5, 1972. Black , however, report-
ed to work , worked , and was hired within a day or two after May 5, 1972
As far as pay purposes , Black was paid for his work on May 5, 1972, and
thereafter.
it The facts are based upon a composit of the credited aspects of the
testimony of Scheuring, Verno, Armstrong, and Driver and a fair inference
therefrom . Vemo testified to the effect that Armstrong expressed dis-
agreement with his bosses' plans, expressed that Respondent should have
hired an entire new work force or bargained for higher wages , and expressed
that "they had wanted us to break up the Union." Scheunng's and Driver's
testimony was to the effect that they did not recall hearing such remarks by
Armstrong Armstrong denied making such remarks. Verno had no interest
in this proceeding and appeared to be a truthful witness I credit his testimo-
ny and discredit inconsistent testimony of the other witnesses Driver and
John R. Black 11/
James W. Maine
Jr. Daniel L. Spader, Jr.
wages coul1 be paid, and told Scheuring that "they" wanted
us to break up the Union."
The facts are clear that Respondent notified on May 2,
3, and 4, most, if not all, of the employees to be hired of
Respondent's determined wages and working conditions. It
is clear that these terms and conditions were different from
the conditions in effect between Hallmark and the employ-
ees of Hallmark.
As of May 4, 1972, the Respondent had determined not
to hire Ives and Daniel Spader, Sr., as flight instructors, did
not consider Snyder as a flight instructor since it did not
receive his application for employment, had decided to hire
Walser as a flight instructor who had responded to its Val-
dosta newspaper advertisement, had decided to hire or
transfer Mansfield and Carpenter as flight instructors from
one of its other operations, had decided to hire only two
Scheuring may not recall or may not have heard the remarks . I am persuaded,
however, that Verno's testimony is truthful , that the remarks were made as
indicated.
iJ It is not clear whether "they " referred to Respondent officials or to
higher-ups in the United States Air Force. As indicated , I credit Verno as to
Armstrong's remarks about breaking up the Union. I discredit Armstrong's
denial of such remarks . Scheuring's testimony as to what occurred , although
not recalling Armstrong's remarks as indicated, reveals facts of a logical
consistency with such remarks
CENTRAL AMERICAN AIRWAYS 169
mechanics, Maine and Daniel L. Spader, Jr., had not con-
sidered Black since he had not made application. It devel-
oped that * Carpenter could not transfer to Valdosta,
Georgia, and on May 5, 1972, or thereafter Respondent
hired Rogers as a flight instructor. It developed that Rogers
was not qualified for such job, and he was later terminated.
Black, as indicated, showed up for work, worked, and in
effect was hired.
The General Counsel alleged in his complaint (para. 11)
that "on or about April 25, 1972, Respondent was awarded
a service contract for the performance of all flight instruc-
tion services at the airport for the United States Air Force,
for the period May 5, 1972, through May 4, 1973, such
services being essentially the same as those which had been
previously performed by Hallmark."
The facts overwhelmingly support a finding that such
allegation is supported. It is so concluded and found. As to
precise details, the details are revealed by the following
excerpts from the record of stipulation thereto:
JUDGE STONE. How about Paragraph l l?
MR COHEN It is my understanding with the follow-
ing reservation or additional stipulation counsel for the
respondent will stipulate as to the facts contained in
Paragraph 11 with the following reservation: that
Hallmark's contract ended as of May 4th, 1972 and
that Central American did not assume the contract of
Hallmark in any way. Additionally, that the only duties
called for under the Air Force contract with Hallmark
and Central American was to provide flight instruction
for Air Force personnel, that the equipment and facili-
ties used by both Hallmark and Central American were
not facilities and equipment of the contractors.
JUDGE STONE: Let me see if I am keeping up with you.
Hallmark contract ended on May 4. Respondent did
not assume the Hallmark contract. The only duties of
both contracts were to provide flight instruction ser-
vice, and what was the last part?
MR. COHEN: And that the equipment and facilities
used in the flight instructions by both Hallmark and
Central American were not the equipment of the con-
tractors.
JUDGE STONE Were not the equipment of the contrac-
tors.
MR COHEN. Correct. The flight equipment was that
of the Air Force, and it is my understanding that the
physical facilities are owned by the city of Valdosta Air
Port on a lease.
JUDGE STONE: Is that a stipulation?
MR. BAUMANN: Adding to that, that the repair parts
and so forth required were supplied by the respondent.
He did not assume any or take over any of the equip-
ment of the previous contractor.
JUDGE STONE. All right, is that correct?
MR COHEN• Just with the understanding that take
over the equipment that it did not use, purchase, lease
or use the equipment that was Hallmark's equipment.
They may have used the same equipment but it was not
Hallmark's equipment. It was either the Air Force's or
leased from the city of Valdosta.
MR BAUMANN We will stipulate that the planes were
the same, yes.
JUDGE STONE The repair parts required by the con-
tract were the respondents and were not acquired or
purchased from Hallmark.
MR COHEN Correct.
JUDGE STONE And the only equipment used was the
equipment of the Air Force and the facilities of the city
of Valdosta.
MR. BAUMANN. Right.
JUDGE STONE Is that a stipulation by all the parties?
MR COHEN That is correct, Your Honor.
Considering all of the foregoing, it is clear that on May
3 or 4, 1972, Respondent had hired substantially the same
employees as had worked for Hallmark, and that Respon-
dent commenced operations on May 5, 1972, with substan-
tially the same employees doing the same work at the same
location as had Hallmark's employees. It is clear that
Respondent's obligation to bargain with the Union matured
on or about May 3 or 4, 1972, and was in effect on May 5,
1972.
Respondent contends that it had a good-faith doubt as to
the Union's representation rights. This contention is reject-
ed. The Union was certified as bargaining representative of
such employees on May 19, All of such employees had
supported the Union during the October 1971 strike. None
of the Hallmark employees responded to Respondent's ad-
vertisement in the Valdosta, Georgia, newspapers. None of
the employees showed up for interviews until Ives had seen
Respondent's officials on May 2, 1972, about a group appli-
cation. It is clear that Respondent knew the employees had
been represented by a union. It is also clear that Respon-
dent, by its interviews, knew who were Hallmark's employ-
ees. Respondent contends that its doubt could be presented
under such circumstances. Considering the objective facts
set out above, I would not credit Paris' testimony that he
had a good-faith doubt. The status of the Union, the con-
duct of the employees in support of the strike,14 and the
failure of employees to seek interviews until the group appli-
cation idea had been rejected, overwhelmingly establish
that there was not a basis for a good-faith doubt of the
Union's collective-bargaining status after the employee
complement was hired.
The question presented is whether Respondent has re-
fused to bargain collectively with the Union in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
The facts reveal that the Union on March 17, 1972, and
April 26, 1972, requested Respondent to engage in collective
bargaining. Ives, on May 2, 1972, inquired as to whether
Respondent would negotiate, and asked for a group appli-
cation for employment.
This case presents ramifications of the issues presented in
the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in
William J. Burns International Security Services, 406 U.S.
272 (1972).
In Burns, the Supreme Court indicated in dictum the
14 The facts also reveal that all employees had executed dues checkoff
cards which were still in effect until May 5, 1972
170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
following:
Although Burns had an obligation to bargain with the
union concerning wages and other conditions of em-
ployment when the union requested it to do so, this
case is not like a § 8(a)(5) violation where an employer
unilaterally changes a condition of employment with-
out consulting a bargaining representative . It is diffi-
cult to understand how Burns could be said to have
changed unilaterally any pre-existing term or condition
of employment without bargaining when it had no pre-
vious relationship whatsoever to the bargaining unit
and prior to July 1, no outstanding terms and condi-
tions of employment from which a change could be
inferred . The terms on which Burns hired employees
for service after July 1 may have differed from the
terms extended by Wackenhut and required by the
collective-bargaining contract, but it does not follow
that Burns changed its terms and conditions of employ-
ment when it specified the initial basis on which em-
ployees were hired on July 1.
The Supreme Court, in Burns, rejected the theory that
there is a unilateral change in wages , etc., when a replace-
ment employer initiates different wage scales and set forth
that there would not be a unilateral change in wages etc.
unless the replacement employer set wage scales and then
changed such without bargaining when said employer has
an obligation to bargain . Instead , the dictum set out above
indicates that where it is initially clear that the replacement
employer has an obligation to bargain because he plans to
employ all of the employees of the former employer, it is
appropriate to have the replacement employer initially con-
sult with the Union before fixing the terms and conditions
of employment. The Board made this dictum Board law in
Howard Johnson Company, 198 NLRB No. 98.
In the instant case the facts reveal that Respondent did
not hire all of Hallmark's employees. The General Counsel
contends in effect that Respondent planned to hire all of the
employees excepting three, that these three were excepted
from hiring because of discriminatory reasons , and that
Respondent intended to destroy the Union. The General
Counsel contends in effect that Respondent was obligated
to bargain with the Union before fixing the initial terms and
conditions of employment.
Considering all of the facts, I am not persuaded that
Respondent's plans concerning the hiring of employees was
so fixed that it may be said that it was clear that
Respondent's complement would be one represented by a
Union. The facts reveal that Respondent had fixed its initial
terms and conditions of employment prior to May 2, 1972,
intended to hire a complement of employees who would
accept employment on such basis, that Respondent intend-
ed to give preference in employment opportunities to most
of Hallmark's employees, that Respondent had, however,
made arrangements to insure that it could man the Valdosta
operation with or without the former Hallmark employees.
It is clear that Respondent was not sure that the Hallmark
employees would accept employment on its terms.
I have carefully considered the fact that Armstrong made
a statement on or about May 3 or 4, 1972, to the effect that
"they" wanted us to break up the Union.
Considering all of the facts, I am not persuaded that this
statement reveals that the initial wage scale was decided
upon for such reason. In my opinion, Respondent's initial
wage scale and its backlog of other applications require a
finding that Respondent was unsure of what its ultimate
employee complement would be.
Applying the principles of Burns and Howard Johnson
Company, I am persuaded that Respondent's obligation to
bargain had not matured on May 2, 1972, and that Respon-
dent was free at that time to set its initial terms and condi-
tions of employment. Accordingly, I conclude and find that
Respondent's setting of its initial terms and conditions of
employment on or before May 2, 1972, did not constitute
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
The General Counsel contends that Respondent, on or
about May 5, 1972, unilaterally and without notice to or
consultation with the Union, changed existing wages and
hours of work of employment in the appropriate bargaining
unit.
The facts reveal that Respondent set its initial wages and
working conditions for its employees at a time, on or before
May 2, 1972, when it was not obligated to bargain with the
Union. There is no evidence that it made changes in the
wages and working conditions for its employees between
May 2 and 5, 1972. Accordingly, it is concluded and found
that Respondent has not violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act, as alleged.
Burns reveals that there is no obligation for the replace-
ment employer to notify and consult unless the facts reveal
circumstances that indicate the obligation is clear at the
time that hiring commences. If there is a hiatus of a clear
fixed obligation to bargain, the obligation to notify and con-
sult does not appear even if the obligation to bargain ma-
tures. This is true even where there is no hiatus in actual
employment. Thus, in Burns, the Supreme Court indicates
that when the obligation to bargain matures, the union has
to make a demand for bargaining or the replacement em-
ployer is free to proceed with his determined initial wages
and other conditions of employment. The same reasoning
indicates that a premature bargaining demand by the Union
would lack vitality and must be renewed after the bargain-
ing obligation has matured.
In sum, the facts are insufficient to reveal that Res on-
dent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.t
C. The Discrimination Issues
The General Counsel alleges and contends that Respon-
dent discriminatorily refused to hire Von E. Ives, Daniel L.
Spader, Sr., and Stanley W. Snyder, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The Respondent denies that it
discriminatorily refused to hire Spader and Ives, and con-
tends in effect that it did not consider Snyder for employ-
ment since it did not receive his application for
employment.
The facts relevant to the discriminatory issues as to Ives,
Spader, and Snyder may be summarized as follows.
Ives, Spader, and Snyder worked for Hallmark during
15 At a later date, Respondent changed the wage scale for employee Black.
I do not find under the facts of this case that such was presented in support
of the complaint issues.
CENTRAL AMERICAN AIRWAYS
Hallmark's time of performing the T-41 contract services
for the United States Air Force at the Valdosta, Georgia,
airport. Ives, Spader, and Snyder were among the highest
skilled and highest paid flight instructors for Hallmark and
were the union leaders at Hallmark, being the only employ-
ees at Hallmark holding elected union positions. Ives was
the elected union steward, and Snyder and Spader were
elected as bargaining committeemen.
Respondent, as of May 3 or 4, hired all of Hallmark's
flight instructors excepting Ives, Spader, and Snyder, and
hired two of Hallmark's mechanics. The overall facts reveal
that Respondent as of May 2, 1972, intended to hire such
Hallmark employees as it could, upon their application and
its consideration, excepting that Respondent did not intend
to hire Ives, Spader, and Snyder.
Ives, Spader, and Snyder were interviewed by Respon-
dent and made aware of Respondent's wages and working
conditions. Ives and Spader submitted applications for em-
ployment with Respondent.
Snyder testified to the effect that he attempted to leave
an application for employment with Respondent at the con-
ference room at the Holiday Inn. I do not believe or credit
his testimony. Snyder's testimony was to the effect that on
May 3, 1972, he did not find Respondent's officials at the
Holiday Inn at the conference room where he had been
interviewed, that he slid his application under the door, that
he waited a period of time, that he realized in effect that
something might be wrong in leaving the application in such
a manner, that he did not see anyone at the Holiday Inn or
elsewhere to ascertain where Respondent's officials were or
to retrieve his application, that he saw no Respondent's
officials that day, that he only saw President Paris on the
next day, and that he did not mention his application to
Respondent's officials. Ives' credited testimony reveals,
however, that on May 3, 1972, he (Ives) gave his application
to Respondent's officials at the Valdosta airport and that
this was done in the presence of Snyder and Spader. Presi-
dent Paris credibly testified that he did not receive Snyder's
application.
Respondent had clear knowledge of Ives' connection with
the Union by virtue of receipt of the Union' s letters in
March and April 1972. Thus, such letters noted that Ives
was the local union steward. Further, Ives' conversation
with President Paris on May 2, 1972, clearly revealed his
continued support of the principles of collective bargaining.
Respondent does not deny that it had knowledge of Ives'
union connection.
Respondent denies that it knew of Daniel Spader, Sr.'s
union position or activities. I do not credit Paris' testimony
to such effect. Paris did not impress me as being a truthful
witness when he testified to such point. Further, the facts
reveal that Lieutenant Colonel Scheuring argued to
Respondent's officials that Spader should have been hired,
that if they were trying to break up the Union that they were
doing it the wrong way. In this context, Armstrong com-
plained that he disagreed with his bosses, that he felt they
should have hired an entire new force, or bargain for higher
wages with the Air Force, and that they wanted them to
break up the Union. I am persuaded that this reveals that
Armstrong was explaining why Respondent had not hired
Spader and Ives and that the reason was that Respondent
171
wanted to break up the Union.I"
Respondent's President Pans testified to the effect that he
decided not to hire Ives because of his attitude in the May
2, 1972, interview, that he decided not to hire Spader be-
cause he believed Spader would be unhappy with the salary
offered and that Spader was more qualified for a larger
airplane and would be dissatisfied using the smaller planes.
Paris also testified that he was not discriminatorily motivat-
ed in his refusal to hire Ives and Spader. I do not credit his
testimony to such effect. I did not find such testimony to be
presented with a truthful ring. Ives' conversation with Paris
in the May 2, 1972, interview in essence consisted of state-
ments to indicate a desire to have collective bargaining
rights and constitutes protected concerted activity.
Spader submitted an application for employment on
Respondent's terms. Respondent, it is noted, hired other
flight instructors who, similar to Spader, would receive less
pay from Respondent than they had at Hallmark.
Considering all of the foregoing, I am persuaded that the
preponderance of the evidence reveals that Respondent dis-
criminatorily refused to hire Ives and Spader for employ-
ment on May 2, 1972.
Considering all of the above facts, I conclude and find
that the facts do not establish that Snyder made an applica-
tion for employment. It follows that the evidence is insuffi-
cient to reveal that Respondent has discriminatorily refused
to hire Snyder in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. It is so concluded and found.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondent iefused to hire
Von E. Ives and Daniel L. Spader, Sr., in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, the recommended Order will
provide that Respondent offer them employment as flight
instructors, and make them whole for loss of eanrings within
the meaning and in accord with the Board's decisions in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, except as specifically modified
by the wording of such recommended Order.
Because of the character of the unfair labor practices
16
Respondent's questions at the hearing indicate an argument that the Air
Force might be the "they" wanting to break up the Union. It is just as illegal
for Respondent to act discriminatorily because of the Air Force's desires as
it is for Respondent to act discriminatorily on its own
172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
herein found, the recommended Order will provide that the
Respondent cease and desist from in any other manner
interfering with , restraining , and coercing employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent , Central American Airways, is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Lo-
cal 281 , AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material
herein , a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. By refusing to hire Von E. Ives and Daniel L. Spader,
Sr., Respondent has discouraged membership in a labor
organization by discriminating in regard to tenure of em-
ployment, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has engaged in unfair
labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]