Edward G. Partin, Bus. Agent, Local No. 5, Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 4, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 819 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

EDWARD G. PARTIN, BUS. AGENT, LOCAL NO. 5, ETC. 819
men. On the only two occasions when a working foreman has re-
quested the removal of an employee from his crew, the requests were
granted.
As there appears to be no difference between the authority and re-
sponsibility exercised by the foremen and that exercised by the work-
ing foremen, other than what may be attributable to the size of their
crews, we find that the status of the working foremen is not signifi-
cantly distinguishable from the status of the exempt foremen. As the
latter are excluded from the certified unit as supervisors, we see no
reason why the former should not also be excluded.
[The Board clarified the certification issued herein on October 12,
1943, by specifying that working foremen in the transmission and
distribution department are excluded from the unit as supervisors.]
Edward G. Partin , Business Agent, General, Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 5,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Ind. [Ryder
Truck Lines , Inc.] and Calvin C. Clary. Case No. 15-CB-69?.
September 4, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 30, 1964, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that he cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's De-
cision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to portions of the
Trial Examiner's Decision, and the General Counsel filed a brief in
answer thereto.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the General Counsel's brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
148 NLRB No. 88.
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order, the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,'
with the following additions :
Add the following sentence to paragraph 2(a) of the Trial Exam-
iner's Recommended Order:
Notify the above-named employee if presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstate-
ment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948,
as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
The following is added as -the third indented paragraph, in Ap-
pendix A attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision :
I WILL notify Ryder Truck Lines that I have no objection to the
reinstatement of Calvin C. Clary.
Add the following immediately below the signature line in Ap-
pendix A :
I WILL notify the above-named employee if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full re-
instatement upon application in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act
of 1948, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
i In the absence of exceptions thereto, the Board adopts the Trial Examiner 's recom-
mendation that Respondent make 'Calvin C. Clary whole for any loss suffered as a result
of Respondent 's violations of the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding, brought under Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended ( 61 Stat.. 163, 73 Stat . 519), was heard at Baton Rouge , Louisiana, on
March 17 and 25, 1964 , pursuant to due notice . The complaint, issued on August 13,
-1963 , by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on a charge
dated January 12, 1963 , alleged in substance that Respondent Partin engaged in un-
fair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2 ) of the Act by attempt-
ing to cause and by causing Ryder Truck Lines, Inc ., herein called Ryder, to discharge
Calvin C. Clary for reasons unrelated to his failure to tender or pay the periodic dues
and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining mem-
bership in Local No. 5, herein called the Union. By its answer filed on August 28,
Respondent denied the allegations of unfair labor practices.'
- i Respondent 's answer was filed by victor H. Hess, Jr., Esq ., of the firm of Jackson &
Hess , of New Orleans , Louisiana , who withdrew as counsel on February 18, 1964. Upon
the opening of the hearing on March 17, William C. Bradley , Esq., entered his appearance
as counsel for Respondent , and upon his motion, a continuance was granted to March 25
in order to enable Bradley to prepare for the hearing . When the hearing was resumed
on March 25 , no one appeared for Respondent . On April 1 , George Bokat, Chief Trial
Examiner , wrote Bradley ( see Appendix B hereto ) seeking an explanation of his failure
EDWARD G. PARTIN, BUS. AGENT, LOCAL NO. 5, ETC. 821
The only issue is whether, as alleged in the complaint, Respondent caused and
attempted to cause Ryder to discharge Clary for some reason other than his failure
to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required by the Union.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
Ryder, a Florida corporation with its principal office in Jacksonville, Florida, is a
certificated common carrier of general commodities in interstate commerce by motor
vehicle. It maintains a truck terminal in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the only terminal
involved in this proceeding. During the 12 months prior to this proceeding, Ryder
derived from its Baton Rouge terminal gross revenues in excess of $50,000 for serv-
ices performed in interstate commerce. Ryder is therefore engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No . 5 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The evidence
Calvin C. Clary was formerly employed by Herrin Transportation of Baton Rouge,
but went with Ryder in May 1961 as a city pickup and delivery driver in Baton
Rouge . There was no break in his employment between the two jobs . He joined
Local No. 5 in January 1959 while with Herrin, and his dues were deducted from the
payroll.
Ryder was a party with the Southern Conference of Teamsters to a local freight
forwarding pickup and delivery agreement which was in effect from February 1,
1961, to January 31, 1964, and which contained the following union-shop provision:
All present employees who are members of the Local Union on the effective
date of this subsection or on the date of execution of this agreement whichever
is later, shall remain members of the Local Union in good standing as a condi-
tion of employment. All present employees who are not members of the Local
Union and all employees who are hired hereafter shall become and remain mem-
bers in good standing of the Local Union as a condition of employment on and
after the 31st day following the beginning of their employment or on and after
the 31st day following the date of execution of this subsection, whichever is the
later ... .
The contract also contained a checkoff clause under which the employer agreed to
deduct the union dues of employees upon written authorization, signed by the em-
ployee, to be delivered to the employer by the Union and upon a certified list, to be
furnished to the employer each month by the Union, of such of its members who had
signed authorizations.
Though Clary's dues were not under a checkoff authorization when he first went
with Ryder, he signed such an authorization at Ryder's office on June 1, 1961, on
forms which were supplied by the Union, and the original was forwarded, along with
Clary's employment application, to Ryder's Houston office. Under the normal prac-
tice which the Union followed, the job steward would bring two copies of the signed
forms back to the Union's office. In addition to signing the required number of
authorization forms, Clary also gave the Union on May 31 his personal check for $5,
covering a month's dues.
to appear in view of the fact that the continuance was granted on his motion. On
April 28, when this Decision was being typed, Chief Trial Examiner Bokat received a
reply from Bradley, dated April 25 (see Appendix C hereto), representing that he did not
appear at the reconvened hearing because he received some message (from an unverified
and undisclosed source) that the hearing had been canceled and would be rescheduled and
in which he requested that the matter be continued so as to permit Respondent to present
its evidence and file a brief
That request, referred to me by the Chief Trial Examiner , is now hereby denied as I
find that Bradley's letter lays no adequate basis for his request, whether it be considered
as- a motion for a continuance or as a motion to reopen the hearing
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
So far as Ryder was concerned, all that an employee was required to do in order
to have his dues deducted was to sign the authorization certificate. However, under
the practice which Ryder and the Union followed, Ryder made the deductions of
union dues only from a monthly checkoff list when furnished by the Union, and it
never challenged either the names or the amounts listed by the Union.
When Clary learned that his dues were not being checked off, he spoke to Partin
about it some month and a half after May 31, explaining that he had signed an
authorization form but that evidently either the Company or the Union had lost it.
Partin assured Clary that if he had proof (concerning the authorization) he need not
worry about it and the matter would be taken care of. It was not taken care of, how-
ever, and Clary went to the union office on October 4, 1961, to pay his arrearages
(then $20), but the clerical employee on duty refused to accept his check, stating
that it would have to be okayed by Partin, because after 3 months Clary was auto-
matically suspended from the Union.
In the meantime, and sometime after going with Ryder, Clary had been the first
signatory on a petition which a former business agent or assistant business agent was
circulating and which sought the investigation by "authorities" of Partin's alleged
mishandling of union funds and ill treatment of union members. Sometime after
October 4, Clary again spoke to, Partin;, showing Partin his, check for $20 and ex-
plaining that his dues were still not being deducted despite the authorization. Partin
asked Clary about the petition which Clary had signed, expressed disappointment
that Clary had signed, and requested Clary-to sign a counterpetition which Union
Steward Efferson was circulating in Partin's behalf. Partin also told Clary in the
presence of Assistant Business Agent Crow Peele that if he would keep his mouth
shut Partin would take care of Clary's union book and Clary could go,-back to work
and need not worry about the matter. Peele testified that he was aware of the ani-
mosity and ill feelings between Partin and Clary and knew that it arose because
Clary opposed Partin's activities in the Union.
Sometime before Christmas 1961, Clary's wife, Patricia, was called first by Peele
and later by Partin. Partin told her that he was very disappointed about Clary turn-
ing against him by signing the petition, that he wanted Clary to withdraw his name,
that Clary should come by the union hall and talk with him, that he could pick up his
union book and everything would be straightened out, but that if Clary did not with-
draw (from the petition), he would never work for a freight line in Baton Rouge
again and would probably be hurt
In January 1962, Partin informed Bert L. Rooker, Ryder's terminal manager, that
Clary was not a union member and suggested that Rooker replace him. Rooker in
turn informed Clary of the pressure being put upon him to replace Clary with a
union member and recommended that Clary see Partin and get his dues straightened
out. Rooker also suggested that Clary take along Don Partin, Partin's brother, also
a Ryder employee, and allowed Don Partin to accompany Clary to Partin's office.
Clary showed Partin his own signed copy of the dues authorization form, and Partin
said, "This is what I've been waiting for. I'll fix it up. Don't worry about anything."
Nothing further was done, however, and on June 21 Partin wrote Rooker as
follows:
Please be advised that Calvin Clary has been' suspended for months from
Local Union #5.
Local #5 requests that Ryder Truck Lines terminate the service of Calvin
Clary, according to our contract with your company immediately.
Rooker acknowledged. receipt of that letter on June 25, but questioned its authen-
ticity because it did not appear to bear Partin's personal signature and because it was
not sent in the customary mailing manner for communications between them.
Rooker also showed Partin's letter to Clary and recommended that Clary pay the
reinstatement fee of $50. Although Clary felt that he did not owe the reinstatement
fee, he obtained from his bank a certified check for $50 and sent it to Partin on
July 18 by certified mail, return receipt requested. Clary's letter was receipted for
on July 25 in Partin's behalf by Earl Jones, an assistant business agent of Local 5.
However, the envelope was later returned to Clary, unopened, in a larger envelope,
and Clary subsequently removed the check and cashed it himself.
On July 20, Partin wired Ryder as follows:
THIS IS TO ADVISE YOU THAT WE WISH TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHT
UNDER THE CONTRACT WITH YOUR COMPANY AND ASK YOU TO
REPLACE CALVIN CLARY WITH A MEMBER THAT WILL COINCIDE
WITH OUR CONTRACT WITH YOU HE HAS BEEN SUSPENDED SINCE
JUNE 1961 AS YOU REMEMBER I HAVE ALREADY SENT YOU ONE
EDWARD G. PARTIN, BUS. AGENT, LOCAL NO. 5 , ETC. 823
LETTER DATED JUNE 21 1962 IN REGARDS TO THIS MATTER
PLEASE REFER TO THIS LETTER HE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO PAY HIS
DUES UNTIL IT BECAME KNOWN THAT WE WERE ASKING HIS
TERMINATION . HE STILL HAS NOT OFFERED TO PAY HIS DUES
THAT WE KNOW OF.
Rooker delayed compliance with Partin's demand and on July 30, received a fur-
ther letter from Partin as follows:
This is to advise you for the third time that we wish to exercise our rights
under the Contract with your company and ask that you replace Calvin Clary
with an employee that will coincide with our Contract with your company.
As we told you before, he has not paid his dues since June, 1961.
We had numerous conversations with you regarding this matter before and
each time you said you would talk to Clary, but nothing ever came of it.
On June 21 , 1962, we sent you a letter regarding the matter at your request.
Again on July 20, 1962 we sent you a telegram.
This all came about after all efforts to get him to pay his dues had failed and
he only offered to pay his dues after he thought that he was in jeopardy under
the contract for non-payment of dues.
He had knowledge of the entire situation surrounding this matter as he had
made remarks several times on the dock concerning the matter.
Rooker called Clary in , informed him of Partin 's demand, and told him that Ryder
had no alterantive except to honor it,or else to be faced with a strike. Clary in turn
told Rooker of his attempts to obtain reinstatement . During the course of that con-
ference, Rooker placed a call to Partin , who asked to speak to Union Steward Effer-
son. In that conversation , which Clary overheard (apparently over a conference
telephone hookup ), Partin told Efferson he had gone as far as he was going and that
if Clary punched the timecard the next morning the Union would strike Ryder at
9 o'clock. Rooker again informed Clary he had no alternative but to discharge him
and handed Clary a formal dismissal letter along with his final check.2
Other relevant evidence concerned the practices which Partin and the Union fol-
lowed in handling the collection of arrearages and the reinstatement of delinquent
members. Ann Smith, a secretary in the office of Local No. 5 from 1959 to 1961,
testified that the customary reinstatement fee at that time was $50, but she gave some
four examples of members who had been out of membership for periods from 1 to
2 years and who were reinstated with Partin 's approval for a fee of $5 each. One
of those was Prentiss Moak, whose membership was terminated during the period
from September 1959 to June 1961 . Moak, who was assistant business agent of the
local from October 1951 until October 1958, and vice president for some 4 years
until 1958 under Partin , testified that during his term in office there were several occa-
sions when members who _ had been dropped from the Union were reinstated without
payment of a reinstatement fee.
Finally, Rooker testified that Clary's name never appeared on any checkoff list
which Partin submitted and that though other employees were sometimes shown as
in arrears from 1 month up to and including 4 months, no request for discharge was
made by Local 5 . Indeed , as late as February 8, 1963, Partin wrote Rooker as
follows:
Due and error [sic ] in our records , several of your employees did not have
their union dues taken out for several months. It has been brought to my atten-
tion that most of them have been neither terminated nor laid off during the past
three ( 3) or four ( 4) months. The men that were left off of the check -off list
shall be billed for partial payments on the regular monthly check -off list until
they have caught up.
B. Concluding findings
The foregoing evidence plainly established the complaint allegations . Although
Clary became delinquent in the payment of his union dues shortly after going with
Ryder, he had done all that was required of an employee to insure the payment of
his dues by payroll deductions under his signed checkoff authorization (see Ferro
Stamping and Manufacturing Co., 93 NLRB 1459, 1461-1462, 1506, 1508); and
2 Although Rooker testified that on April 4 and 13 he issued warning letters to Clary
concerning two separate "preventable accidents " and that on July 5 he issued a third
warning concerning "agitation or controversial conversation" with other employees, there
is no indication from the record that those warnings formed any part of the basis for
Clary's discharge or of Partin 's demand for his discharge
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under the practices which is employer and the Union followed, it was the Union's
failure to include Clary 's name on the monthly checkoff list which alone accounted
for the delinquency. But that fact might not alone have negated the possibility of a
valid request for Clary's discharge after the termination of his membership if it were
truly based on the ground of Clary's failure to pay or to tender his dues.
The evidence shows, however, that such was not the case; that Clary was in fact
in disfavor with Partin (Shear's Pharmacy, Inc., 128 NLRB 1417, 1419; 137 NLRB
451, 452-453 ( Supplemental Decisions )) because Clary had openly aligned himself
with other members of Local 5 in opposition to Partin and to his management of the
affairs of the Local; and that Partin repeatedly sought to have Clary withdraw from
such opposition , both by promises to straighten out his dues arrearages and by threats
made to Clary' s wife of blacklisting and other harm to befall Clary, meanwhile re-
fusing to accept Clary's tender of his back dues
When those efforts failed , Partin began a persistent campaign to cause Ryder to
discharge Clary, still refusing to permit Clary's reinstatement despite Clary 's tender
of a fee which it had not been the Union 's practice uniformly to require of delin-
quent members . Furthermore , even were it assumed that Clary 's delinquency had
its origin in error, it was the Union's error, and, most significantly , one of the same
type as that which Partin acknowledged in his letter of February 8, 1963, to Rooker
and which he corrected by directing partial payments on simple arrearages without
requiring a reinstatement fee or any other penalty.'
Under the foregoing circumstances , and particularly in view of Partin 's repeated
assurances that he would straighten out the matter of the dues checkoff , it would be
grossly inequitable and contrary to the spirit of the Act to permit Partin to lawfully
request Clary 's discharge . Cf. Philadelphia Sheraton Corp., 136 NLRB 888, 896.
The holding in General Motors Corporation , Packard Electric Division, 134
NLRB 1107 , also supports the conclusions here reached . Initially, it is to be noted
that contrary to the situation there , Clary had tendered a full reinstatement fee prior
to any operative or lawful request for his discharge .3 But even assuming arguendo
that Clary's tender were untimely , the question to be determined , as the Board held
in General Motors, is the reason underlying the discharge . In that case the Board
found that the request for discharge was made solely because of the dues delinquency
of the employee and that there was absent any other evidence of unlawful purpose
warranting an inference that the request was for some undisclosed reason other than
the delinquency . Concluding that a belated tender after a lawful request is insuffi-
cient standing alone to warrant such an inference , the Board stated that in all such
cases it will . look to the record to determine the real reason for the parties' sub-
sequent conduct.
The present record contained the.evidence of unlawful purpose which was absent
from General Motors, i.e ., that Partin caused Ryder to discharge Clary because Clary
was aligned with members of the Union who opposed Partin . I conclude and find
that that was the real reason for Partin 's conduct and that it was unrelated to the
fact of Clary's dues delinquencies . I therefore conclude and find that Partin, by
attempting to cause on July 20 and 30 ,4 and by causing Ryder on July 30, to dis-
charge Clary for the aforesaid reason , engaged in unfair labor practices proscribed
by Section 8(b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that he cease and ' desist therefrom and that be take certain affirmative
action which is conventionally ordered in such cases, as provided in the Recom-
mended Order below, which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effects of
the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., the employer herein , is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act.
2. Respondent Edward G. Partin is business agent of General Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 5, affiliated with Inter-
3 The envelope addressed to Partin contained a post office stamp showing that the
addressee was given a first notice of the letter on July 19
4I make no finding concerning an earlier attempt to cause on June 21, as alleged In the
complaint, for that date was outside the limitation period provided in Section 10(b).
EDWARD G. PARTIN, BUS. AGENT, LOCAL NO. 5, ETC. 825
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Ind., which local is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By causing and attempting to cause Ryder to discharge Calvin C. Clary, whose
membership had been terminated on a ground other than his failure to tender the
periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring
or retaining membership in Local No. 5, Respondent engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of
the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby recommend that the Respondent,
Edward G. Partin, Business Agent, General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, Local No. 5, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., his agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., to discriminate
against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, or to discriminate
against any employee with respect to whom membership in' Local No. 5 has been
denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to tender the periodic
dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retain-
ing membership.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees of Ryder
Truck Lines, Inc., in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment in accordance with Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Notify Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., in writing, that he has no objection to the
reinstatement of Calvin C. Clary.
(b) Make whole Calvin C. Clary for any loss of pay which he may have suffered
by payment to him of a sum of money equal to that which he would normally have
earned from July 30, 1962, to the date of Respondent's notice to the Ryder Truck
Lines, Inc., as provided in the foregoing paragraph, less his net earnings during said
period (Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 240, said backpay to be computed on
a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W.=Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
(c) Post in his office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 15, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by him for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where he customarily posts notices
to members of Local No. 5. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to in-
sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Deliver to the Regional Director for Region 15, signed copies of said notice in
sufficient number to be posted by Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., the Company being willing.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing, within-20 days from
the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith .6
51n the event that this Recommended Order' be adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced
by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and
Order."
6In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 5, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS; WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF
AMERICA, IND.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, I hereby notify you that:
I WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., to discriminate
against any employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, or to discriminate against any employee with respect
to whom membership in Local No. 5 has been denied or terminated on some
ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees
uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership.
I WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of
Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in
accordance with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
I WILL make whole Calvin C. Clary for any loss of pay he may have suffered
by reason of the discrimination against him.
EDWARD G. PARTIN, BUSINESS AGENT, GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 5, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF
AMERICA, IND.
Dated-------- -------
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola, New Orleans, Louisiana, Telephone No.
529-2411, Extension 6396, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.,
APPENDIX B
April 1, 1964
Re: Edward G. Partin, et al.
William C . Bradley, Esq. Case No . 15-CB-622
3010 - Ray Weiland Drive
Baker, Louisiana -
Dear Mr. Bradley:
At the convening of this hearing on March 17, 1964 , at Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
you appeared for the Respondent , Edward G. Partin, represented to the Trial Exam-
iner that you had just been retained as Counsel for Mr. Partin , and asked for and
was granted a continuance in order to have more time to prepare your defense. The
stenographic transcript of hearing of March 17 reflects your statement that you would
be prepared upon reconvening to go forward with the matter , whether Mr . Partin
was present or not. (Tr. p. 14).
You did not appear when the case was reconvened on March 25 after another trip
by the Trial Examiner from Washington , D.C., to Baton Rouge; nor did your client
or anyone else on his behalf. No explanation was offered for your non-appearance;
no notification was given to the prosecutor or the Trial Examiner of your with-
drawal from the case, or of your client's intention not to appear.
In the circumstances it is felt that an explanation is in order.
cc: David L. McComb, Esq.
T-6024, Federal Building
701 Loyola Avenue
New Orleans , Louisiana
Roy Maughan and J . H. Bankston, Esqs.
Maughan and Bankston
4539 Plank Road
Baton Rouge , Louisiana
Very truly yours,
George Bokat
Chief Trial Examiner
THE COLSON CORPORATION
APPENDIX C
WILLIAM C. BRADLEY
Attorney at Law
3010 Ray Weiland Drive
Baker, Louisiana
April 25, 1964
AIR MAIL
Honorable George Bokat, Chief Trial Examiner
National Labor Relations Board
Washington 25, D.C.
Re: Edward G. Partin, et al.
Case No. 15-CB-622
827
Dear Mr. Bokat:
I desire to reply to your recent favor concerning the above captioned, and further
to request an opportunity for my client, Edward G. Partin, Business Agent General
Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 5, Affili-
ated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, Ind., to be given an opportunity to present evidence and further
to extend the time accordingly in which we might present our briefs in this matter.
When this case was re-convened on March 24, 1964, I did not appear and did not
present any evidence nor give any explanation for this non-appearance at that time,
nor ask for a continuance for the reason that on the morning of the re-convened hear-
ing, March 24, 1964, a message was left at my office stating that this hearing had
been cancelled and passed without date and would be re-scheduled. I had no reason
to doubt the veracity of this message, and accordingly, I did not appear.
As you are aware, the hearing was held with the complainant, Calvin C. Clary,
presenting testimony through his witnesses. I did not have an opportunity to cross-
examine any of these witnesses. Although I appreciate it to be impossible for these
witnesses to be recalled in order that I might cross-examine them, I consider it only
fair that we be permitted to at least be given an opportunity to adduce testimony of
our own in support of our position.
I will appreciate your good offices in allowing this matter to be continued so as to
permit us to present our evidence, and further to be continued a reasonable time
thereafter in order that we might submit a brief covering our position.
With all best wishes, I am
Yours very truly,
/s/ William C. Bradley
WILLIAM C. BRADLEY
WCB:jfd
cc: David L. McComb, Esq. Mr. Edward G. Partin,
T-6024, Federal Building Business Agent
701 Loyola Avenue Teamster Local Union No. 5
New Orleans, Louisiana 1675 Airways Drive
Roy Maughan and J. H. Bankston, Esqs. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Maughan and Bankston
4539 Plank Road
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
The Colson Corporation and International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 14-CA-3075. September 4, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 20, 1964, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his De-
cision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
148 NLRB No. 89.