Central Greyhound Lines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1940

27 N.L.R.B. 976 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter Of CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW YORK and
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN
In the Matter of CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW YORK and
HENRY DAVIS
In the Matter Of CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW YORK and
ARTHUR D. LE VIEN
Cases Nos. C-1396 to C-1398 inclusive.-Decided October 19, 19440
Jurisdiction : motor bus transportation industry. -
Unfair Labor Practices
In General: employer responsible for anti-union activities of its chief dispatcher,
garage dispatcher, divisional manager and confidential secretary.
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion: constant disparagement of the Union;
threatening or critical remarks concerning the union, attempts to veer loyalties
and affiliation away from the union to other unions.
D.scrimination: discharges because employees joined and assisted the union ;
charges of refusal to reemploy an employee following a lay-off, dismissed ;
charges of discriminatory revocation of bonuses belonging to an employee
because he joined and assisted the union, dismissed.
Remedial Orders : reinstatement and back pay awarded.
Mr. Albert Ornstein, for the Board.
Mr. Ivan Boiven', of Minneapolis, Minn., and Bond, Schoeneck do
King, by Mr. Tracy H. Ferguson, of Syracuse, N. Y., for the
respondent.
Mr. A. G. Johnson, of Chicago, Ill., for the B. R. T.
Mr. Henry Davis, of New York City, appearing in his own behalf.
Mr. Woodrow J. Sandler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMEND OF THE CASE
On April 11, 1938, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, herein called
the B. R. T., filed charges 1 and on February 6, 1939, amended charges
i Case number C-1396, herein called the B R. T case
27 N. L. R. B, No. 163.
976
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW YORK 977
with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City),
alleging that Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., New York City,2 herein
called the respondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of the National La-
bor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On April 11,
'1939, Henry Davis 3 and on April 18, Arthur D. Le Vien,4 individually
filed similar charges with the Regional Director. On April 15 and
April 21, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 37 (b) of National La-
bor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
ordered that the above-mentioned cases be consolidated for the purpose
of hearing and for all other purposes. _
On March 18, April 18,, and April 22, 1939, the Board, by the Re-
gional Director, issued separate complaints in the B. R. T., Davis and
Le Vien, cases, respectively, alleging in each complaint that the re-
spondent had engaged in lied was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Concerning the unfair labor prac-
tices, the complaint in the B. R. T. case, as amended at the hearing,
alleged in substance that the respondent, on or about July 13, October
25, and November 10, 1937, discriminatorily discharged Earle West-
brooke, Edward A. Metz, and Clifford Bruner, respectively, because
they joined and assisted the B. R. T.; in the Davis case, the complaint
alleged, in substance, that the respondent, on or about November 1 and
November 30, 1937, discriminatorily refused to reemploy Henry Davis,
because he joined and.assisted the B. R. T.; and in the Le Vien case the
complaint alleged in substance that the respondent, on divers dates
commencing on August 12, 1937, discriminatorily revoked bonuses
belonging to Arthur D. Le Vien,.because he joined and assisted the
B. R. T. All three complaints further alleged, in substance: (1) that
the respondent, since on or about April 1, 1936, had urged, persuaded,
and warned its employees to refrain from becoming or remaining mem-
hers of the B. R. T., threatened them with discharge and other repris-
als therefor, and kept under surveillance the meetings and meeting
places of its employees who were B. R. T. members; and (2) that by
the aforesaid and other acts, the respondent interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2 The address of the respondent as alleged in the complaint is Syracuse , New York.
The respondent's vice president testified at the hearing , however, that the "general office
of the company" is in New York City ,
2 Case number C-1397, herein called the Davis case.
* Case number C-1398,,herein called the Le Vien case. -
323428-42-vol 27 63
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Copies of the complaints and accompanying notices of hearing were
duly served upon the respondent, the B. R. T., Davis, and Le Vien.5 On
March 23, April 24, and April 27, 1939, the respondent filed separate
answers in the B. R. T., Davis, and Le Vien cases, respectively, wherein
it admitted the allegations of the complaints concerning the character
of its business, denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor
practices, and interposed affirmative defenses to the allegations of
unfair labor practices. -
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at New York City from
April 24 through May 25, 1939, before Webster Powell, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the respond-
ent were represented by counsel; all participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
At the hearing the respondent moved to dismiss the complaints, inter
alia, on the grounds that they were vague, indefinite, uncertain, and,
not supported by the evidence. The Trial Examiner reserved deci-
sion on said motions. Subsequently, in his Intermediate Report, the
Trial Examiner denied said motions except in so far as they related
to that portion of the Davis complaint which alleged that the respond-
ent discriminatorily refused to reemploy Davis and to that portion
of the Le Vien complaint which alleged that the respondent discrim-
inatorily revoked bonuses belonging to Le Vien. In these latter
respects the Trial Examiner granted the motions to dismiss. These
rulings of the Trial Examiner are hereby affirmed. At the close of
the Board's case, counsel for the Board moved to dismiss the B. R. T.
complaint without prejudice in so far as it alleged that the respondent
had discriminatorily discharged Earle Westbrooke. The respondent
requested that the motion be granted with prejudice. At the hear-
ing, the Trial Examiner granted the motion of counsel for the Board
and denied the motion of the respondent. In his Intermediate Re-
port, however, the Trial Examiner reversed said ruling, denied the
Board's motion, and granted the motion of the respondent to dismiss
said portion of the B. R. T. complaint with prejudice. -The B. R. T.
did not except to this ruling and said ruling is hereby affirmed.
At the close of the Board's case and at the close of the hearing,
the Trial Examiner granted a motion of the Board's attorney to con-
form the pleadings to the proof. During the course of the hearing
the Trial Examiner made numerous rulings on other motions and
on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
5 Neither Davis nor Le Vien was served with a copy of the complaint in the B R. T.
case as neither had filed charges at the time the complaint was served . For,the same
reason, Le Vien was not served with a copy of the complaint in the Davis case.,'
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW YORK 979
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On October 25, 1939, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties, in
which he found that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act by discriminatorily dis-
charging and refusing to reemploy Edward A. Metz and Clifford
Bruner and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
,Act. The Trial Examiner further found that the respondent had
not engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging Earle West-
brooke, by refusing to reemploy Henry Davis, or by revoking bonuses
belonging to Arthur D. Le Vien. The Trial Examiner recommended
that the respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices
and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies
of the Act, including reinstatement of Metz and Bruner to their for-
mer or substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their
seniority and other rights and privileges together with compensation
from the dates of their respective discharges to the dates of such
reinstatement.
Thereafter, the respondent and Henry Davis filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report, and on Decembeh 15, 1939, pursuant to leave
granted by the Board to all. parties, the respondent filed a brief in
support of its exceptions. On June 13, 1940, pursuant to request
f herefor by the respondent, the B. R. T., and Henry Davis, and upon
notice, thereof to all parties and their counsel, a hearing was held
before the Board in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of oral
argument. Counsel for the respondent, a representative of the B. R. T.,
and Henry Davis appeared and participated therein.
The Board has considered the exceptions filed by the respondent
and by Henry Davis, and, save as they are consistent with the find-
ings, conclusions, and order set forth below, finds no merit in them.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., of New York, is a
New York corporation, engaged in the business of transporting by
motor bus for hire passengers, baggage, mail, express, and newspapers,
under regularly published tariffs, through the States of Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and other States of
980 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the United States. Its gross revenue in the year 1937 was $3,531,-
000.54, and in 1938, $3,998,767.79.
The respondent maintains regional offices in New York City, Buf-
falo, and Syracuse, New York, in Cleveland, Ohio, and in Boston,
Massachusetts, and maintains divisional offices in Albany and Ro-
chester, New York, and in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The respondent's
New York City offices are maintained at and its busses all have their
New York City terminal at the Capitol Theatre Bus Terminal, herein
called the Capitol terminal, owned by Capitol Theatre Bus Terminal,
Inc.,' New York City. During the year 1937, the respondent operated
200, and during 1938, 211 busses for the safe and regular operation of,
which it maintains garages'' and repair shops in the various cities
along its routes.
All the stock of the respondent is owned by Central Greyhound
Lines, Inc., a Delaware corporation. Several Greyhound companies 8
including the respondent, are "serviced" by the Greyhound Manage-
ment Company, a Delaware corporation, herein called Greyhound
Management, whose offices are in Cleveland, Ohio. Greyhound Man-
agement has in its employ certain "specialty men" who perform serv-
ices for the various operating Greyhound companies.' The salaries
and expenses of Greyhound Management are prorated among the
Greyhound operating companies. The respondent is closely affiliated
with other Greyhound corporations through ownership of stock,
identity of officers, and directors, or both, and, by means of joint
operating traffic and facility arrangements with other Greyhound cor-
porations and interchange arrangements with independent bus lines,
it operates as a closely- coordinated part of an integrated bus trans-
portation system.
We find that the respondent is engaged in traffic, commerce, and
transportation among the several States and that its bus operators,
maintenance and garage employees, and dispatchers are directly en-
gaged in such traffic, commerce, and transportation.
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
i
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is a labor organization ad-
mitting to its membership bus drivers employed by the respondent
and by other bus operators.
-of 800 issued shares of stock in Capitol Theatre Bus Terminal, Inc , 300 are owned
by the respondent's parent corporation, Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., 300 by Pennsyl-
vania Greyhound Lines, Inc, and 200 by an individual.
The respondent's New York City garage is located in the Borough of Queens.
8 Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., Central Greyhound Lines, Inc, of New York, New Eng-
land Greyhound Lines, Inc., Eastern Greyhound Lines, Inc., Illinois Greyhound Lines, Inc.,
Canadian Greyhound Lines, Inc, and Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc
O For example, Marcus Dow, in the employ of Greyhound Management, is the manager
of the respondent's Safety and Personnel Department
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW YORK 981
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employees of America; herein called the Amalgamated, is a
,labor organization admitting to its membership bus drivers
employed by'the respondent and by other bus operators.
Interstate Motor Coach Employes Association, Inc., a New Jersey
corporation, herein called the Interstate, is an unaffiliated labor
organization, admitting to its membership bus drivers and mainte-
nance and clerical employees of the respondent.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
A few days after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States in National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel
Corp.10 on April 12, 1937, two of the respondent's drivers, Herbert
Hart and Arthur D. Le Vien, inquired of J. L. Sheppard, the
respondent's vice president, "just what the situation was in regard
to labor organizations." Both Hart and Le Vien testified that, in
response to their inquiry, Sheppard told them that he wanted them
to join the Amalgamated, "as it was a good organization, and .. .
the company would do business with them." Sheppard did not
specifically deny this testimony at the hearing, but testified that he
told the two drivers that it was their own choice whether or not to
join a union. Hart, at the time he testified, was under subpena, was
still in the employ of the respondent, and was a member of no labor
organization. We credit his testimony and find, as did the Trial
Examiner, that Sheppard made the statements substantially as
testified to by Hart and Le Vien.
On the night of April 24, 1937, pursuant to the respondent's per-
mission, a meeting was held in the drivers' room of the respondent's
New York garage, attended by about 30 or 40 drivers, some dispatch-
ers and some office employees, to consider the formation of a labor
organization. Philip McCormick, Sheppard's secretary, also at-
tended the meeting. Before the meeting started, Hart told McCor-
mick that he "thought it was a little out of the ordinary for him to
be there, due to his being secretary to the vice-president, at a pro-
posed labor organization meeting." Hart testified at the hearing,
that McCormick replied "that it wasn't of his doings; that he wasn't
there of his own accord." , McCormick did not deny at the hearing
that,he had said this to Hart, but testified merely that he had not
told Sheppard that he was going to the meeting. We find, as did
10 N. L R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp , 301 U S 1 , rev'g 83 F . ( 2d) 998 ; and enf'g
Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation and Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Beaver Valley Lodge No 200 , 1 N. L R B. 503
982 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the_ Trial Examiner, that McCormick made the statement attributed
to him by Hart. The reasonable inference to be drawn from
McCormick's statement is that the respondent had directed him to
attend the meeting, and ,we so find. The employees were addressed
first by B. R. T. and Amalgamated representatives, and then by W. A.
Bourdage, the respondent's chief garage dispatcher in New York
City. Bourdage told the employees that "the Brotherhood was not
the outfit to get in . . . was not a bus organization " and was "out to
ruin the bus industry."
On the same night B. R. T. and Amalgamated representatives
addressed a meeting of the respondent's employees at its Scranton,
Pennsylvania, divisional headquarters. While the meeting was in
progress, A. C. Weinstock, the respondent's Scranton divisional
manager, called Burt J. Millard, a driver, away from the meeting,
and asked him "which organization he preferred." Millard replied
that he preferred the B. R. T. Weinstock then told Millard that the
"Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen had spent plenty of money
through lobbyists in Washington to legislate against the bus indus-
try." He also told Millard that he had asked a few drivers to solicit
their fellow drivers to sign "authorization forms" for the Amal-
gamated, and asked Millard to do the same. Millard did not respond
to this request. Weinstock left Scranton that day and did not return
until April - 28. During his absence, • approximately 30 of the 42
Scranton drivers signed "authorization forms" for the B. R. T. at
the request of Sam Wrienus, a driver. When Weinstock returned,
he asked Millard "what happened to the Scranton drivers, that they
signed up with the B. R. T.,'" and said that he thought it was a "dirty
trick" for the drivers to "wait until he left town to sign up with the
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen." He added, ". . . I can't see
what the men want in the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; .. .
that organization had only helped the railroad employees and could
not help the drivers any." At Weinstock's request Millard agreed
to persuade the drivers who had not as yet paid their initiation fees
to the B. R. T. not to do so. During the following week Millard,
at the request of James Breslin, a New York driver temporarily in
Scranton, procured thej signatures of all but a few of the Scranton
drivers to membership applications in the "Association of Inter-
state Motor Coach Employees." 11 While he was doing this, Weinstock
11 The applications read , in part • "I , the undersigned, do hereby apply for membership in
the ASSOCIATION OF INTERSTATE MOTOR COACH EMPLOYES. which organization is to be
formed for the purpose of improving the conditions of all employees of the Associated
Greyhound Lines . This organization , which, after its formation , became incorpo-
rated under the name of "Interstate Motor Coach Employes Association , Inc," subse-
quently became a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the respondent covering
maintenance and clerical employees.
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW YORK 983
asked him several times "how the boys were signing up for the inde-
pendent union." The foregoing findings with respect to Weinstock
are based on the uncontradicted testimony of Millard, which we find
to be substantially true.
On April 30, Paul McClure, a driver and B. R. T. member, took a
furlough in order to do organizational work for the B. R. T.
Shortly thereafter, Bourdage asked McClure how he was "making
out" and said, "Why don't you get wise to yourself? . . . You know
the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen will never go to bat for you
bus drivers ... You know the Greyhound Lines will never recog-
nize the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen as the bargaining agent
for the drivers ...
In May 1937 Lodge 682 of the B. R. T. was chartered for the bus
drivers employed by the respondent, and Breslin 12 and McClure, re-
spectively, were elected president and secretary thereof. ' At about this
time Breslin took several days off to do organizational work for the
B. R. T. among the respondent's drivers. While thus engaged he
met Bourdage who said to him, "Jim, you better be careful how you
are signing these men up . . . We know that you are taking these
men up there, filling them up with whiskey, and then having them
sign applications, and if you don't stop, you will be taken to court
on that." ' Breslin did not reply to this and walked away.
In the middle of May 1937 Clifford Carper, then a. dispatcher in
the New York garage, referring to the Interstate, asked Millard "how
the Scranton drivers were accepting the independent union." Millard
asked Carper whether Carper "knew anything" about the "independent
union." Carper said, "Yes, I feel more or less responsible for origi-
nating this particular plan." He told Millard that he (Carper) "had
been called into Mr. Sheppard's office on two or three different oc-
casions"; that Sheppard had asked him and Bourdage why they were
"having difficulties in getting drivers to sign up with Amalgamated";
that Sheppard had told him to "go back and sell the drivers Amalgam-
ated"; and that when he (Carper) had later suggested to Sheppard
that an independent union be formed, Sheppard replied, "Oh, all right.
Anything for the present." 13 Carper further told Millard that he
had "contacted" Bush, Chambers, and Terhaar, three New York
drivers, and that Bush and Chambers "planned to cover the entire
Central Greyhound system to try to secure authorization forms for
12 Breslin had joined the Interstate the night of April 24 , 1937. Within 2 weeks there-
after he joined the B. R, T and resigned from the Interstate
'a This conversation between Carper and Millard was testified to by Millard. Carper
did not testily Although Sheppard testified , he did not deny any of the testimony con-
cerning his conversations with Carper.
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this Interstate Association."" Millard asked Carper "why the com-
pany was so persistent about the Amalgamated Association at this
time." Carper replied, "I believe all the company is interested-in is
allowing the Amalgamated Association to collect dues, and they will
iun the union."
Early in June 1937 Millard told Weinstock that he had heard that
the "Interstate . . . was to be turned over to the Amalgamated at a
later date." Weinstock replied that he knew nothing about it and
added that the "Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen legislated against
,the bus industry and always had and always would," and that he could
not understand why the drivers "would contribute to an organization
that was only going to do them out of jobs at a later date." Millard
thereafter ceased his activity in behalf of the Interstate.
At about the same time McCormick told McClure, "We will never
sign a contract, a closed shop contract with-the Brotherhood of Rail-
road Trainmen . . . the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is not
an organization for the bus drivers . . . Furthermore, why don't you
fellows, if you want to join a bona fide organization, why don't you go
into the Amalgamated, as we feel we can deal with them. However,
we would all be better off if we joined the Interstate." On another
occasion, McCormick told driver Edward A. Metz that "if we knew
what was good for us, we would get into this. Interstate."
In July 1937 McCormick told drivers Michael Ryfun and Metz
that "Greyhound had a sinking fund; that they would use every
penny to keep the Brotherhood out"; and that the B. R. T. was "out
to get the men's jobs and take the buses off the road" and was "going
to come, in and ruin Greyhound."
On or about August 10, 1937, the respondent posted a notice through-
out its various properties addressed to "all employees," concerning
"affiliation of employees with various labor organizations." The
notice set forth some of the rights of employees as provided for in
the Act and concluded as follows :
In the event an election is held, all employees should exercise
their right to vote in order that the result may be truly represen-
tative of the sentiment of all employees of the company entitled
to vote in the election. It is asswmed, of cowrse, that in voting
the employees will take into consideration their own welfare as
well as -,that of the industry with which they are connected.
[Italics supplied.]
14 Bush and Chambers , arguing that "the Brotherhood of Railroad trainmen were trying
to ruin the bus industry ," solicited drivers' memberships in the Interstate until October 6,
1937.
I
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW YORK 985
As the employees had previously been advised that the B. R. T. was
"out to ruin the bus industry" and would "never go to bat for you
bus drivers" the respondent's reference in the notice to the welfare of -
the employees "as'well as that of the industry with which they are,
connected" was clearly a warning to the employees not to join or vote
for the B. R. T.
At about this time, Weinstock told Walter Jayne, a Scranton driver,
that he (Weinstock) did not-know what the drivers "wanted of the
B. R. T. for a union organization, because it was a railroad organiza-
tion; it' was always bucking the buses."
During this same period and at a time when Weinstock was again
away from Scranton, Millard recommenced his activity in Scranton
in behalf of the B. R. T. and obtained signed application cards for
membership in that organization from nearly all the Scranton drivers.
When Weinstock returned, he said to Millard: "Burt, what the hell
happened around here? I understand that all the drivers have again
signed up with the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen . . . It's a
dirty trick that you fellows have to always wait till I get out of town
-to sign authorization forms to join any unions." Millard explained
that the men were-joining the B. R. T. because of rumors that "this
driver or that driver will be fired if they don't stay in the Interstate
union ..."
On September 14, 1937, the Board certified the B. R. T. as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of the bus drivers of
the respondent and of other Greyhound companies.' Sheppard,
however, did not learn of the B. R. T. certification until September 16.
On September 15 at a banquet held by the respondent for its New
York drivers, Sheppard told them in substance that he "hoped that we
would continue to have a happy organization and not allow outside
influences to interfere with our happy feelmg or organization."
On October 6, 1937, representatives of the respondent and of the
B. R. T. met in Cleveland, Ohio, to negotiate an agreement covering
the wages, -hours, and working conditions of the respondent's bus
drivers. Negotiations failed at the very outset, however, and as a
result the B. R. T. scheduled a strike for October 10. On October 7,
the respondent posted throughout all its properties notices addressed
to all its employees setting forth what it claimed to be the reasons
for the breakdown in negotiations and the threatened strike. The
notices also contained the following with reference to the Brotherhood
and the strike :
16 Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound, Lines at al. and The Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen, 3 N. L. R. B. 622, 651. _
986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The employees of this company, before determining their course,
should seriously consider this threat to their welfare and the
sources back of it. Mr. Harvey is a railroad man and assistant
to the President of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen which
has a claimed membership, of approximately 150,000 railroad
men. The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen has fought the
development of the bus industry with all its power ever since
highway transportation has started to grow.
Regardless of the past antagonism of the Brotherhood of Rail-
road Trainmen towards the bus industry this company has ac-
cepted the Order of the Labor Board designating the railroad
organization as the duly constituted bargaining agency for bus
operators.
. The company stands ready to negotiate. What is the
purpose then of the strike called by the Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen? Is it to tie up bus operations and drive our pas-
sengers to our competitors for the benefit of railway employees?
At about the same time, the respondent interrogated individual driv-
ers as to whether or not they intended to go on strike. The respond-
ent paid each of those who stated that they intended to work during
the strike $20. Just prior to October 10, however, the representatives
of the respondent and of the B. R. T. agreed to reopen negotiations
and the strike was called off.
On November 24, 1937, because of another breakdown in the nego-
tiations between the respondent and the B. R. T., B. R. T. members
employed by the respondent and other Greyhound companies went on
strike. Twelve of the respondent's drivers in the New York City
region 16 picketed the Capitol Terminal together with five additional
drivers who joined the B. R. T. during the strike. The strike was
terminated on December 1, 1937, ,when the B. R. T. signed a contract
with the respondent and other Greyhound companies for, 1 year, cov-
ering the wages, hours, and working conditions of their bus drivers.
Michael Ryfun, a bus driver, testified that, in February 1938 Shep-
pard, noticing that he was wearing a B. R. T. button, said to him,
"Harry (sic), why don't you put a banner on and be done with it?"
and that Ryfun replied, "I did not know you felt that way about the
Brotherhood." Ryfun further testified that a few minutes later, Mc-
Cormick, Sheppard's secretary, told him that he (Ryfun) "should
never had said that" and that Sheppard "did not like it." Sheppard,
at the hearing, could not recall the incident testified to by Ryfun. He
10 There were approximately 120 drivers in the New York City region at this time.
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW YORK 987
did not deny Ryfun's testimony, however, nor did McCormick, and
we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the conversations occurred
substantially as testified to by Ryfun.
In March 1938, Harry J. Wilkins, the respondent's operating super-
visor in New York City, with power to hire and discharge drivers in
that region, called Ryfun into his office to discuss a checker report 17
according to which Ryfun had violated several of the respondent's
rules on one of his trips. In the course of the conversation, Wilkins
remarked, "Just because you belong to the Brotherhood don't think
you are going to get away with this." ,
Joseph P. Smigelskis, a driver in the respondent's employ, testified
in substance without contradiction, and we find, that in the summer of
1938 he saw a notice of the respondent at the New York garage stating
that the B. R. T. had sponsored legislation "ruling trucks ... off the
highways on holidays and week ends and that the next step may be
the same for the buses."
Early in October 1938 Sheppard told Millard that he understood
why Millard took "the-stand that he did in unions"; that it was because
Millard had been compelled to leave college for financial reasons, and
that since that time he had been "sore at the world."
On or about November 10, 1938, the respondent posted throughout
its properties notices addressed to its drivers stating (1) that the
respondent's contract with the B. R., T. would expire on December 1,
1938; (2) that the respondent would, after that date, maintain the
then existing "pay and working conditions"; and (3) that "the Com-
pany, however, does not now recognize the right of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Trainmen to Act as the representative of the Drivers for
the negotiation of any new Agreement. The Company also considers
its recognition of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen as'the spokes-
man for the Drivers under the present Agreement, to expire and be
terminated December 1, 1938."
On December 1, 1938, the respondent's parent corporation, Central
Greyhound Lines, Inc., signed a 1-year contract with the Amalgamated
as the "sole representative of all of its members" employed by the
respondent.
B. Conclusions
The respondent contends that Bourdage, Carper, A. C. Weinstock,
and Philip McCormick are not supervisory employees and that there-
fore it is not responsible for their statements or activities.
17 Drivers employed by the respondent and other Greyhound companies are checked by
anonymous "checkers ," who ride the busses, observe the driver 's conduct on the trip, and
prepare a report thereon Wilkins testified that he did not know which Greyhound com-
pany employed the checkers
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As stated above, Bourdage was the respondent 's chief garage dis-
patcher until , October 1 , 1937 , and Carper was a dispatcher prior to
that date and chief dispatcher thereafter . The chief dispatcher has
supervision over the other garage dispatchers . In addition to having
the ordinary duties of a dispatcher , he assigns "runs" to the drivers,
draws up their trip schedules , and certifies as "supervisor" the "work
sheets" which show the actual number of hours they have driven.
The respondent 's garage dispatchers maintain direct supervision' over
-the drivers and are responsible for their departure from the garage
in order to maintain running schedules . In connection with their
duties, the dispatchers are responsible for the personal neatness of the
drivers prior to their departure from the garage and for the reassign-
ment of runs in the absence of regular drivers. In the respondent's
"Manual of Rules for Bus Operators ," dispatchers are referred to
together with "other authorized supervisory official ( s)"; (Rule as to
"charter trips") and in a notice addressed to the respondent 's regional
manager by the manager of the Department of Safety and Personnel
on October 3, 1939, dispatchers are referred to together with "other
representative ( s) of the Company " and as "officials ." We find, as
did the Trial Examiner, that the chief dispatcher and the garage dis-
patchers are supervisory employees , representing the respondent in its
relations with its bus drivers. 8
Weinstock is manager and in, complete charge of the respondent's
Scranton division , and there supervises the employees who come under
his jurisdiction . We find that Weinstock is a supervisory employee
for whose activities as above set forth the respondent is responsible.
McCormick is secretary to J. L . Sheppard , the respondent's vice
president, and at the time of the hearing had occupied that position
for 7 years . His duties were described by Sheppard at the hearing
as "secretarial" and the evidence shows that he is a confidential secre-
tary. His salary- in' 1937 was $190 per month , and at the time of the
hearing $205.
McCormick has no power to hire or discharge , or to recommend
hiring or discharging , and the record does not show that he has
any supervisory authority over the respondent 's drivers. An em-
is See Matter of Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines et al and The Brotherhood of Railroad
Trainmen, 11 N L R. B. 738 ; International Association of Machinists, Tool and Die Makers
Lodge No. 35, affiliated with the International Association of Machinists , and Production
Lodge No 1200, affiliated with the International Association of Machinists v. National
Labor Relations Board, 110 F. (2d) 29 (App. D. C.), cert. granted, 60 Sup . Ct. 721, enf'g
Matter of The Serrick Corporation and International Union, United Automobile Workers
of America, Local No. 459, 8 N. L. R. B. 621; and Consumers Power Company, a corpora-
tion v. National Labor Relations Board, June 27, 1940 (C. C. A. 6), enf'g Consumers Power
Company, a corporation and Local 740, United Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers of
America, 9 N L. R. B. 701.
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW.YORK 989
ployer's responsibility for the anti-union activities of an employee,
however, does not depend merely upon the existence or absence of
factors of this nature. As stated by the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia :
The statute, we think purposely, does not define the particular
methods or agents by which the employer may intermeddle unlaw-
fully. Had it done so, easy escape would have been opened from
the Act's provisions. Nothing in it requires that such representa-
tion be limited to officials having any particular kind or degree
of authority, such as "hiring and firing," "disciplinary power"
or even "supervisory capacity." These evidences of authority
make more plain the connection of the actor with the employer,
but their absence does not preclude the existence of such a
connection .s
In the instant case, the respondent's drivers could have looked upon
McCormick's statements only as emanating from the respondent, in
view of McCormick's position as secretary to the vice president, his
length of service as such, and the similarities between his statements
concerning the B. R. T., those uttered by others actually having super-
visory status, and those contained in notices posted by the respondent 20
Since the respondent placed McCormick in a position where his state-'
nients were with reason viewed by its drivers as its own,"t without tak-
ing any steps to dispel the impression that he was acting in its behalf,
19 International Association of Machinists , Tool and Die Makers Lodge No 35 , affiliated
with the International Association of Machinists , and Production Lodge No. 1200 , affiliated
with the International Association of Machinists v National,Labor Relations Board, 110
F (2d) 29 ( App D C ), cert granted , 60 Sup Ct 721, enf'g Mattel of The Serrick Cor-
poration and International Union, United Automobile IPorLeis of America, Local No 459,
8 N L It B 621 . See also 110 F (2d) 29 , 44, footnote 32, where the Court said
when other evidence of the actor ' s agency for the employer is lacking , "supervisory
or "disciplinary " authority supplies it But lack of such authority only makes it
necessary to show the agency in other ways It does not negative the possibility that
the agency may exist
10 Driver Hart's expression of surprise at McCormick ' s attending a labor organization
meeting and McCormick ' s use of the ttord "we ' ( referring to the respondent ) in his con-
versation with McClure in June 1937 illustrate further McCormick 's identification with
the management
n In Consumers Power Company , a corporation v National Labor Relations Board, June
27, 1940 (C. C. A 6), enf'g Consumers Power Company, a corporation and Local 710
United Electrical, Radio it Machine IVoihers of America , 9 N L It B 701 , the Court said
It would seem to us , in view of the public rights involved and the remedial nature
of the proceeding designed for their preservation and protection , that acts of coercion
and intimidation by supervisory employees may be restrained and their resumption
interdicted by appropriate action of the Board , even in the absence of clear demon-
stration of prior authorization or subsequent ratification , at least where the circum-
stances are such as to induce in subordinate employees a reasonable apprehension that
the acts condemned reflect the policy of the employer . [ Italics supplied.]
This reasoning is equally . applicable to employees who exercise no supervision but are in
positions close to the management
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent is responsible
for McCormick's activities.22
From the foregoing we find that the respondent, beginning in April
1937, by its constant disparagement of the B. R. T., by the threatening
or critical remarks to the drivers concerning the B. R. T. on the part
of Sheppard, Wilkins, Weinstock and Bourdage and by the attempts
of Sheppard, Weinstock, McCormick 23 and Carper to veer the drivers'
loyalties and itl$liations away from the B. R. T. and to the Amalgamated
or the Interstate, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
C. Discrimination in regard to hire and tenure of employment
1. Edward A. Metz
Metz was employed'by the respondent on July 3, 1936, and was a
"regular extra" driver L4 from that date until October 25, 1937, the
date of his discharge. He was furloughed on a number of occasions
during this period, at times clue to slack periods in the respondent's
business and at other times due to the illness of himself or his wife.
. Metz had been involved in only one slight accident, while working
for the respondent, which occurred over a year prior to his discharge.
That accident, however, did not deter Bourdage 'from giving Metz a
letter of recommendation when he was furloughed shortly thereaftei'.
Moreover, shortly after he returned to work from a furlough in 1937
Metz was awarded a "6-month no-accident button" by the respondent.25
23 In Matter of Capitol Theatre Bus Terminal, Inc. and Transport Workers Union of
9 meric'a, 16 N. L. R. B 104, we held that the evidence in that case was insufficient to
show that McCormick 's position as Sheppard 's secretary "was such as to make his acts
those of the respondent ." ( Sheppard is also vice president of Capitol Theatre Bus Ter-
minal, Inc ) However , in that case , McCormick's "activities" consisted of one brief
conversation with an employee and there is thus lacking the element of repetition suffi-
cient to establish a course of conduct , which is present in the instant case ; there was no
evidence in that case that the respondent had campaigned against the complaining union,
and no basis for inferring that McCormick 's statements therein reflected the policy of the
respondent Moreover , evidence set forth hereinabove , not present in the Capitol case,
leads us to the conclusion that the employees must have viewed McCormick as identified
with the management rather than with the drivers
"The fact that McCormick was a member of the Interstate until October or November
1937 , and may have been motivated to disparage the B R T at and prior to that time by
his interest in the Interstate does not negate the respondent ' s responsibility for his state-
ments On the contrary , in view of the respondent 's interest in and sponsorship of the
Interstate , this factor would serve only to identify McCormick still more closely with the
respondent.
21 Drivers, when first hired by the respondent , do not "own " regular runs but fill in as
"extra drivers" for regular drivers who for one reason or another are not available for
their regular runs Eventually , extra drivers bid for and are awarded regular runs,
piincipa ] ly on a seniority basis
2' This is a bronze button which is awarded by the respondent to a driver who has com-
pleted 6 months of service without an accident . If the driver has been involved in an
accident during the 6 -month period, the respondent may award the button despite the
occurrence of the accident , because of its triviality . Wilkins subsequently claimed, in a
letter to the Board's Regional Office dated April 29, 1938, that Metz had been "at fault"
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, -INC., OF NEW YORK 991
On two or three occasions in April and May Bryan Park, the re-
spondent's superintendent, of maintenance, telephoned Wilkins and
complained about the way Metz handled his bus when leaving the
garage, but no disciplinary action was taken against Metz on these
occasions. Metz received no bonus revocations for speeding or reck-
less driving during his period of service with the respondent.26 We
find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Metz had a good record as a
driver.
Metz joined the B. R. T. about May 1,9 7, and was the second
driver in the New York region to join. Between that time and the
time of his discharge, he solicited the memberships of approximately
20 other drivers. He also attended B. R. T. meetings regularly.
After May or June 1937 he wore his B. R. T. button openly. On
one occasion, Jerry Forrester, the respondent's dispatcher 2i at Kings-
ton, New York, told Metz that "the Brotherhood vas not an organiza-
tion for bus drivers . . . that they,would never sign a contract with
it" and that he thought "the Interstate . . . would be the bargaining
agent." Driver Ryfun testified that 2 weeks before Metz was dis-
charged, McCormick told Ryfun to "get on the right side of the
fence," and to join the Interstate. According to Ryfun, McCormick
added that "Greyhound had a' way of getting rid of their men,"
would "get rid" of anyone who joined the Brotherhood, and the re-
sj?onclent was "going to get rid of Edward Metz . . . for joining the
Brotherhood." Ryftui later repeated to Metz what McCormick had
told him. McCormick did not deny this testimony, but testified that
he did not "know" Metz in 1937. In view of other testimony that
McCormick had spoken to Metz in 1937, undenied by McCormick, his
contention that he did not "know" Metz in that year is incredible.
In any event, the statement attributed to McCormick might consist-
ently have been made by one who was not personally acquainted with
Metz. In view of McCormick's failure to deny Metz' testimony, we
credit Ryfun's testimony, and find, as did the Trial Examiner, that
McCormick made the statements substantially as testified to by Ryfun.
Metz was discharged by the respondent on the night of October 25,
1937, after he 'had driven an empty coach from the garage across the
in his one accident and that he had not been disciplined by the respondent because the
resultant damage was minor and no claims had been filed with the respondent as a result
thereof We do not credit this belated contention , in view of the fact that after the acci-
dent Metz was given the letter of recommendation and the safety award hereinabove
described
20 The respondent 's drivers are paid by the mile In addition to their regular mileage
rate , they are paid a bonus of one-quarter cent per mile provided they are performing their
duties correctly . The drivers are "credited " with this bonus payment beginning with the
time when they are first employed , and it is thereafter subject to revocation for varying
periods of time because of the improper performance of duties
27 Sheppard testified that Forrester , at this time , "worked at Kingston, New York, as a
supervisor "
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Queensboro Bridge to the Capitol terminal in New York City 28
preparatory to driving a \ run to Buffalo.. Wilkins followed Metz
across the bridge, and discharged him after they arrived at the
terminal. The respondent contends ' in its brief that Metz was dis-
charged because he "was an incompetent driver, unsafe for the com-
pany to have on its pay roll, and . . for . . . the flying trip that lie
made on the night of October 25. 1937."
On that night, at about 10: 50 o'clock, Wilkins followed Metz' bus
from Queens Plaza, Long Island City, across the Queensboro Bridge
to Manhattan and thence to the Capitol terminal. Wilkins testified
that Metz' bus, in violation of the respondent's rules and city
ordinances, entered Queens Plilza against the red light, that it was
driven in a reckless manner over the Queensboro Bridge, traveling
over part of that bridge at the unlawful rate of 48 miles per hour,
narrowly missing some trucks that were proceeding across the bridge
in the same direction, and that the bus on occasions traveled at an
excessive rate of speed between the end of the bridge and the terminal.
When he reached the terminal, Wilkins inquired as to who had been
operating the bus and was informed by Metz that it was he. Wilkins
then told Metz that he" could not drive a Greyhound bus in that
fashion, that he had made the trip in 10 minutes, adding, "You are
not going to drive a Greyhound bus and kill anybody," and told
Metz that he was discharged. Metz denied to Wilkins,that it had
taken him only 10 minutes to make the trip and at the hearing, while
he did not deny that he had exceeded the speed limit, he testified that
at no time on the trip had he traveled as fast as 39 miles per hour.
He also denied that he had passed through the red signal light at
Queens Plaza. The evidence. shows that Wilkins' statement of the
length of time it had taken Metz to cross the bridge was a mere
guess.
The Trial Examiner, who observed and heard Metz and Wilkins
testify, found that "Metz was not driving recklessly . . . 'although
it is undoubtedly true that Metz violated company rules and city
ordinances on said trip . . ." On the basis of all the evidence, we
find that although Metz was speeding on the trip and thereby violat-
ing the respondent's rules, he was not driving recklessly.
Although Metz exceeded the,legal speed limit, the record shows
that the respondent did not rigorously enforce • its rule as to
speeding.29 Thus, in October 1938, drivers who were observed by
Wilkins to be speeding up to 55 miles per hour were merely
's The respondent's garage is located in the Borough of Queens, New York City, and
the terminal is located in the Borough of Manhattan.
20 "Speed Equipment of this Company must be operated within the legal speed limit ..
Bur AT NO TIME SHALL ANY EQUIPMENT or THIS COMPANY BE OPERATED • IN EXCESS of 45
MILES PER HOUR Violation will be cause for dismissal."
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC'., OF NEW YORK 993
reprimanded,30 while others who were seen driving between 55 and 60
miles per hour suffered bonus revocations but were not discharged.
We note, in addition, that there were no passengers in Metz' bus
when he drove to the terminal; that there is no testimony that traffic
on the bridge was "heavy" at the time; and that no accident occurred
and no injury to person or property resulted. We are of the opinion
that these are extenuating factors that the respondent ordinarily
would have taken into consideration in disciplining a clriver.31
After his discharge, Metz picketed at the Capitol terminal during
the November B. R. T. strike. On January 8, 1938, Wilkins refused
to discuss Metz' -case with the B. R. T. grievance committee. In
February 1938 Metz in person applied to Wilkins for reinstatement.
On this occasion, Wilkins told Metz that it was "against the policy
of the company to reinstate a nian after-he had been discharged."
We note, however, that in December 1938 the respondent did reinstate
three Scranton drivers whom it had discharged in November 1937.
Our conclusions as to the respondent's discharge of Metz are set
forth herein after a consideration of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the discharge of Bruner.
2. Clifford Bruner
Bruner was hired by the respondent 32 in 1933. At the time of his
discharge on November 10, 1937, he "owned" a regular run between
New York and Boston, had driven 167,678 miles for the respondent,
and had never previously been discharged or furloughed. While in
the respondent's employ Bruner never received a "ticket" for any
traffic violation, and had had only one "at fault" accident. In Febru-
ary 1937 the respondent awarded Bruner a 3-year non-accident button
and a metal plaque for having completed a safe driving record for 3
years. Fred Bride, a fellow driver who had driven a "second sec-
tion" behind Bruner, testified that Bruner was a "consistently slow"
driver. At the time of his discharge, Bruner had not- yet been
3° The speeding involved in these instances appears to have occurred on the "open road"
and not within "city limits. Nevertheless, these instances show that the respondent's
rule as to speeding was not enforced to the letter
31 While it is true that the respondent's rule book sets forth that it is immaterial for
disciplinary purposes whether a driver's infraction of a rule did or did not result in an
accident, we have already noted that the respondent's actual practices are not always in
conformity with the letter of the rule book Additional proof of this fact is furnished in
Wilkins' letter to the Board's Regional Office concerning Dietz, (,See footnote 25, supra)
in wwhicli Wilkins said of the one slight accident Dietz had had
Inasmuch as this was a teat-end collision, it was undoubtedly an "At Fault" acci-
dent on.the part of our driver as lie failed to allow sufficient breaking distance between
his bus and the vehicle which he followed However no disciplinary action was
taken in this case due to minor damage and also due to the fact that no claims, either
personal snfury or property damage resulted from the accident . [ Italics supplied )
33 Brunei testified that lie \\as first employed by the respondent "or its predecessors" in
1933, and that his seniority with the respondent dates from that time.
323428-42-vol 27-64
o
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
awarded "stars." 33 However, he testified that prior to his discharge,
Wilkins had said to him, "Cliff, I have looked up your record and
your record is very good, and I will send to Cleveland a request for
your stars." Wilkins did not deny this testimony, but testified that
he did not recall such a conversation. We find that Wilkins made
the statement substantially as testified to by Bruner. We furthei
find, as did the Trial Examiner, that Bruner had an excellent record
as a driver.
Bruner joined the B. R. T. in September 1937 and thereafter wore
his B. R. T. button openly. In the early summer, of 1937, he had
declared to Carper, then a garage dispatcher, his hostility to the
Interstate. Carper, in the dispatcher's office at the garage, had
showed Bruner a list of Interstate officers and had asked him his
opinion of the men listed. Bruner replied, "Well, personally, I
don't think much of it. Frankly, I will be the last man in the New
York region to join any outfit controlled by any outfit like that."
Towards the end of September 1937 Bourdage observed Bruner's
B. R. T. button and said to him, "It is a wonder that the Brotherhood
of Railroad Trainmen don't make those buttons a little bit larger
than they are." About 2 weeks before Bruner's discharge, McCor-
mick approached Bruner and an out-of-town driver, at the Capi-
tol terminal, and said, "Well, boys, how are the unions coming
along? ... You fellows had better get together and make up your
mind as to what you intend to do, because Mr. Sheppard will never
stand for the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen." Bruner replied,
"My mind is made up," and walked away.
Bruner was discharged by Wilkins on November 10, 1937,31 on the
basis of a checker report 35 concerning his run from Boston to New
York on Sunday, November 7. The most serious charges in this
report were as follows :
Note #8. After leaving the station, in Boston, the Operator,
started out with a sip and tear, 'and exceed [sic] the speed limit,
at certain points of the city, anywhere from ten to fifteen miles
per hour, but was more careful, than in the latter part of the run.
Nearing Port Chester, he was an entirely, different driver, com-
pared to the earlier part of his trip. For some reason or other,
he lost his patience, and became very careless and reckless, the
rest of the run . . . -
as Drivers who received a 3-year no-accident award and who had received no bad checker
reports were awarded "stars" by the respondent and became "star drivers." As a result
of being awarded stars, a driver was paid, in addition to his bonus, an additional one-
fourth of a cent per mile
as The discharge was effective as of November 15. °
as See footnote 17, supra
0
0
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW YORK 995
Note #13. On numerous occasions , when operating on a three
lane highway , the Operator , gave no signal when passing over-
taken vehicles . . .
Note #17. Throughout the later part of the trip, when the
Operator, seemed to be somewhat upset, he took dangerous chances
of passing vehicles , when vehicles approaching from the opposite
direction , were but a. short distance away. There were times,
when it seemed that, he was going to collide with either the vehicle
passed or with the one approaching , but was fourtunate [sic] in
regaining the right lane, however , there were only a few inches
to spare in either case. -
Note #23. Where ever the Operator, saw an opening in the
lanes of traffic, he did not hesitate, but forced the coach to a
greater limit-of speed so that, at times, the coach exceed the speed
limit, of towns, by at least fifteen miles.
Note #24. Operating through the city of New York, vehicles,
both large and small, were passed, at numerous street intersections.
At 184th Street and approaching 183rd, the coach was operated
in the right lane, but when in about the center of the block the
Operator, started to cut the coach into the left lane, in front of
other vehicles of the left lane. He gained the left lane and
stopped, due to the traffic light, changing to red, hesitated a
moment, and started the coach into motion again, passing a street
car on the left side, and at 183rd Street, turned left. All the other
vehicles, were awaiting the traffic light, when this happened:,
* * * * * * *
Note #33. Very few vehicles, en route, were given the right of
way. Most generally, when a vehicle signaled the Operator, that
it desired to pass, he made all effort to outdistance same. In
the later part of the trip, vehicles, at times, were obliged to stop
and make way for the coach, otherwise be run into.
On the afternoon of November 10, 1937, Wilkins called Bruner to
his office and read to Bruner the checker's report of the November 7
trip. Bruner made no comment, except with reference to one or two
minor violations mentioned therein. 'At the end of the reading,
Wilkins said, "Well, I guess this washes you up." Bruner replied,
"Harry, this may wash me up as you say, but I know this is not the
reason I amn being washed up." At the hearing, Bruner denied that
he had been guilty of the serious charges that had been made against
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him.36 The Trial Examiner found that "From the evidence, it is
impossible to determine whether or not Bruner actually drove as stated
in said report. Undoubtedly he violated some of the rules of the
company on the trip from Boston to New York." We concur in this
finding.
After his discharge, Bruner picketed at the Capitol terminal during
the November B. R. T. strike. On January 8, 1938, the B. R. T. griev-
ance committee asked Wilkins to reinstate Bruner. Wilkins "admitted
that Bruner had a good safety record" but stated that he did not want
"to take the responsibility of putting this man back to work."
In the early part of February 1938, Bruner saw Sheppard at his
office and asked for reinstatement. Bruner testified *ithout contra-
direction and we find that the following conversation-ensued:
BRUNER. Do you feel as though justice was done to me in firing
me on that checker's report?
SHEPPARD. Yes, I feel so.
BRUNER. Well, Mr. Sheppard, you have some of your best
drivers in the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
SHEPPARD. Who, for instance?
BRUNER. Freddie Bride, Herb Hart . . .
SHEPPARD. Don't give me Fred Bride or Herb Hart to me.
At one time I could not find a pedestal high enough to place
these two men on. Now I don't know of anything lower or that
crawls on the ground than Fred Bride or Herb Hart. After they
have faithfully promised that they would have nothing to do
with the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, they go out and in
one or two days start walking out down in front of the terminal
with signs "Unfair to Union Labor."
BRUNER. I am sorry, Mr. Sheppard, that we can't come to some
terms to straighten this matter out.
SHEPPARD. Well, you are over sixteen and so are the rest of
the fellows. You have had plenty of time to think this thing
over, and what you do-you should know what you are doing. -
As Bruner started to leave the office, Sheppard said, "If there is any
time that I can help you to get another job, don't be afraid to call
on me."
As to "Note #11," "Note # 17," (second sentence ) and Note # 24 (first sentence),
Bruner could not recall whether he had driven as charged . Concerning "Note #13,"
Bruner testified that the only 3-lane highway between Boston and New York was a 1%
to 2-mile stretch of road ending at the Massachusetts-Rhode Island State line. Concerning
"Note #24 ," ( second , third and fourth sentences ) Bruner testified that he had been sig-
naled by a police officer to make the left turn
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW YORK
3. Conclusions as to Metz and Bruner
997
The respondent's precipitate dismissal of Metz, who had earned
a safety award and had never before been disciplined, and of Bruner, ,
who had an excellent driving record, must be viewed against the back-
ground of the respondent's campaign to discourage its drivers from
becoming or remaining members of the B. R. T.
As stated above, Metz and Bruner had good safety records which
had been recognized by the respondent. Although we have found
that each had violated the respondent's rules on the occasion of his
discharge, in no sense can it be said that such violations had been
flagrant or repeated on the part of either drier. The evidence shows
that speeding violations did not necessarily lead to discharge; more-
over, as set forth above, there were extenating factors present in
the case of Metz.
In Matter of Harry G. Beck,37 we said :
It is undoubtedly true that these discharged employees were
guilty of some of the offenses charged against them. How-
ever, .. . experience has shown this Board that there is no field of
employment where employers can so easily find means to cloak
their real motives for discharging employees as in the employment
of bus or truck drivers. In practically every case which has come,
before us involving such employees, it has been charged and
proven that the discharged employees have exceeded the speed
limit, left their route or made stops not strictly in line with their
duties. But from the very nature of the work of bus or truck
drivers it is apparent that an employer has only to follow any
truck or bus driver for a comparatively short time, to find him
guilty of many such violations. We are, therefore, not impressed
with the sincerity of an employer who advances such reasons for
a discharge, where he fails to show that such violations were fl,;
grant or repeated and where the surrounding circumstances indi-
cate that the employee was active in union activities to which the
employer was opposed.
Both drivers were B. R. T. members and known by the respondent
to be such. McCormick's remark that the respondent was "going to
get rid of Edward Metz for joining the Brotherhood" is significant
as evidencing 'the impression of an employee closely- identified with
the respondent, of the respondent's attitude toward its B. R. T.
drivers. The'respondent's anti-B. R. T. activity in 1937 and 1938
87 Matter of Harry G . Beck, trading as Rocks Express Company , and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Stablemen, and Helpers of America, Local Union
No. 355, 3 N. L . R. B. 110.
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
further evidences such attitude, as does Sheppard's statement to
Bruner that he knew nothing "lower or that crawls on the ground"
than the two drivers who had broken their promise to him that they
.would "have nothing to do with the Brotherhood of Railroad Train-
men" and who had picketed at the Capitol Terminal. Moreover, Shep-
pard's remark to Bruner directly thereafter, made in response to
Bruner's statement of regret that the question of his reinstatement
could not be "straightened out," that "you are sixteen and so are the
rest of the fellows. You have had plenty of time to think this thing
over, and what you do-you should know what you are doing," was
tantamount to a statement that Bruiser's B. R. T. affiliation had mili-
tated against him .311
-The Trial Examiner found that the "alleged reason of reckless
driving on the night of October 25 for the discharge of Metz was but
a pretext," and that the respondent discharged Metz because of his
affiliation with the B. R. T. He further suited in his Intermediate
Report that he was "not impressed with the reasons advanced for Wil-
kins' summary dismissal of Bruner, particularly in view of the excel-
lent record which this driver had with the company up to the very
day of the report purported to be the basis of his discharge," and
found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged Bruner. We
concur in these findings of the Trial Examiner and find that the re-
spondent discharged Metz and Bruner because they joined and
assisted the B. R. T.
We find that by the discharges of Metz and Bruner on October 25
and November 10, 1937, respectively, and the subsequent failure to
reinstate them the respondent has discriminated against there in
regard to hire and tenure of employment thereby discouraging mem-
bership in the B. R. T. and interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section
7 of the Act.
Both Metz and Bruner testified that they desire to be reinstated
to the respondent's employ.
We find that the respondent's conduct described above in Section
III4 A to C 3, tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
38 The respondent contends that neither Metz nor Bruner was particularly active in the
B R T, and emphasizes that all the B. It. T. members who picketed ` at the Capitol Ter-
minal in November are still in the respondent's employ However, a discriminatory motive
in the discharge of an employee is not negated by the fact that the employee failed to
discharge other or more active union members ( See Mooresville 'Cotton Mills v N. L.
R B, 94 F . ( 2d) 61 , enf'g as mod Matter of Mooresville Cotton Mills and Local No 1221,
United Textile Workers of America, 2 N. L R B 952 ) Nor does the fact that the re-
spondent did not discharge any B R T picketers atter the signing of the contract on
December 1, 1937 , negate a discriminatory motive in the discharges of Metz and Bruner
which occurred prior to December 1, 1937.
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OF NEW YORK
4. Henry Davis
999
The complaint in the Davis case alleges and the respondent denies
that on or about November 1 and 30, 1937, the respondent dis-
criminatorily refused to reemploy Henry Davis.
Davis was hired' by the respondent on September 3, 1937, as a
"2100 man" or emergency driver.39 Thereafter he was laid off, re-
hired, and again laid off on October 21, 1937. In the meantime he
had joined the B. R. T. on September 10, 1937. No claim is made
that Davis' lay-off on October 31 was for any reason other than the
respondent's slack business.
Davis testified that 2 weeks before Thanksgiving of,1937, he asked
Wilkins at the Capitol terminal whether Wilkins could use him for
the Thanksgiving "rush," and that Wilkins replied "that he did not
think he will be able to use me due to the fact that I pass remarks
that in case of a strike that I will know what to do when the time
comes." Wilkins denied at the hearing that he had ever said this to
Davis. We find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict in testimony.
inasmuch as it is uncontroverted that Wilkins thereafter offered
Davis employment while the Thanksgiving strike was in progress.
Davis at that time refused to work for the respondent during the
strike but offered his services after the strike was over.
The record shows that the respondent employed no "2100 men"
during 1938 or 1939. Of the seven "2100 men" employed by the
respondent in 1937, including Davis, only two were employed during
November 1937. Only one, C. Pettinger, was eventually employed
by the respondent as a regular driver, and this was on Pettinger's
own subsequent application. There is no evidence that Davis ever
applied to the 'respondent for employment after the November strike,
either directly or through the B. R. T. grievance committee.
We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent did not
discriminatorily refuse to reemploy Davis.
5. Arthur D. Le Vien
The complaint in the Le Vien case alleges, and the answer denies,
that the respondent, on divers dates commencing on August 12, 1937,
discriminatorily revoked bonuses belonging to Arthur D. Le Vien,
because Le Vien joined and assisted the B. R. T. The Trial Examiner
found that the said bonuses had not been discriminatorily revoked by
*2 Drivers referred to as "2100 men" are hired by the respondent in emergencies when
there is a shortage of regular and regular extra drivers Unlike regular and regular extra
drivers , "2100 men" are not supplied with a regulation Greyhound uniform or set of tools,
and do not acquire seniority rating They do not have to take and pass the course given
in the respondent 's "safety school" in Cleveland , Ohio , as a condition of being accepted
for employment , and their application forms are not forwarded to Cleveland, Ohio, for
approval.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as
to Le Vien. Neither Le Vien nor the B. R. T. took exception to such
finding and recommendation. Upon an examination of the record
we find that it does not support the allegation of the complaint in
the Le Vien case to the effect that the respondent discriminatorily
revoked bonuses belonging to Le Vien.
We find that the respondent has not discriminated with regard to
the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of em-
ployment of Arthur D. Le Vien.
IV. THE REMEDY
We have found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices and shall order it to cease, and desist therefrom. We
shall also order the respondent to take certain affirmative action
which we find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent discriminatorily discharged
Edward A. Metz and Clifford, Bruner. We shall order the respond-
ent to reinstate Metz and Bruner to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges. We shall further order the respondent to
make Metz and Bruner whole for any loss' of pay they have suffered
by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them by pay-
ment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of money equal to the
amount which he normally would have earned as wages from the
date of the discrimination against him to the date of the offer of
reinstatement, less his net earnings 4° during said period.
We have found that the respondent did not discriminate as to the
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment of Henry Davis or Arthur D. Le Vien. We shall accordingly
dismiss the complaints as to them.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Amalgamated Association
of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of Amer-
10 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses , such as for transportation, room,
and board , incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and working else-
where than for the respondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2590 , 8 N L. R B 440 . Monies received for
work performed upon Federal, State, county , municipal , of other work -relief projects are
not considered as earnings , but as provided below in the Order, shall be paid over to the
appropriate fiscal agency of the Federal, State, county , municipal, or other government
or governments which supplied the funds for said work-relief project,,
CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, INC., OI NEW YORK 1001
ica, and Interstate Motor Coach Employees Association, Inc., are
labor organizations, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of Edward A. Metz and Clifford Bruner, thereby discouraging
membership in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the
meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid, unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
.5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act with respect to Henry Davis
and Arthur D. Le Vien.
• ORDER
-Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Central Greyhound Lines, Inc., of New York, and its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Brotherhood of Railroad Train-
men or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging
or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or in any other manner
discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage 'in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act : ,
(a) Offer to Edward A. Metz and Clifford Bruner, respectively,
immediate and full reinstatement to their former or_ substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges ;
(b) Make whole said Edward A. Metz and Clifford Bruner for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discrimination against them by payment to each of them, respec-
tively, of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally
have earned as wages from the date of the respondent's discrimina-
tion against him to the date 'of the respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less his net earnings 41 during said period ; deducting, however,
from the amount otherwise due to each of the said employees, monies
received by him during said period for work performed upon Fed-
eral, State, county, municipal, or other work-relief projects, and pay
over the amount so deducted to the appropriate fiscal agency of the
Federal, State, county, municipal, or other government or govern-
ments which supplied the funds for said work-relief projects;
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its prop-
erties, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive
days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating : (1)
that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is
ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this
Order; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (3) that the
respondent's employees are free to become or remain members of
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and the respondent will not
discriminate against any employee because of membership or activity
in that organization;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaints be, and they hereby
are dismissed in so far as they allege that the respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act with respect to Henry Davis and Arthur D. Le Vien.
41 See footnote 40, supra.