Holmes Transportation, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 26, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 253 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

HOLMES TRANSPORTATION, INC.
Holmes Transportation , Inc. and Leroy C. Teal
Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(Holmes Transportation, Inc.) and Leroy C. Teal.
Cases 3-CA-4773 and 3-CB-1813
April 26, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY , AND PENELLO
On January 24, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas F. Maher issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the
Respondent Union filed exceptions and supporting
briefs, and the Respondent Employer submitted a
statement to serve as exceptions to the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondents, Holmes Transportation,
Inc., Watervliet, New York, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, and Local 294, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Albany, New York, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the ac-
tion set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's rec-
ommended Order.
i In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's Decision, we note that he
inadvertently referred to 1963 instead of 1969 as the year that Teal unsuccess-
fully sought a withdrawal card from the Union , used the term "Discrepancy
Charge" when referring to a delinquency charge, and found that the Respon-
dent Union violated Sec. 8 (a)(2) instead of Sec 8 (b)(2) of the Act However.
these minor misstatements do not affect our conclusion herein
In addition , it is quite clear that Teal's continued employment by Respon-
dent Employer was conditioned on payment to the Union of all dues, fines,
and assessments As the Union would not accept a partial payment, i e .
which excluded the $84 reinstatement fee, any tender by Teal to the Union
of such an amount would have been futile However, there is undisputed
testimony in the record that Teal did offer to pay $42 back dues and a $5
reinstatement fee to the steward, Mosley, whom the Union had designated
to inform Teal of his financial obligations, and that Mosley told Teal that
he was not permitted to accept less than the total amount
253
The Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule
an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544,
enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C.A. 3) We have carefully examined the record and find
no basis for reversing his findings.
2 We accept the Administrative Law Judge 's paraphrasing of the holding
in International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No. 139 (Camosy Con-
struction Co, Inc), 172 NLRB 173, enfd . on other grounds 425 F.2d 17 (C A
7)i only as it applies to the facts of this case To the extent that our finding
herein is in conflict with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit in Camosy, we respectfully disagree and adhere to our
view until such time as the United States Supreme Court has passed on the
matter
Furthermore , in agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge that the
Respondent Employer violated Sec. 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, we do not
adopt his rationale insofar as it may imply that the terms of a union-security
agreement can expand the statutory limitations in the second proviso to Sec.
8(a)(3) of the Act upon the fees which a union may insist be paid as a
condition of membership.
3 The Respondent Employer seeks modification of the Order to limit its
backpay liability to the period between November 5, 1971, and December
15, 1971 Although revision of the Order appears unnecessary , we note that
the Respondents' backpay liability terminates December 15, in view of the
Administrative Law Judge's finding that on that date Teal was offered full
reinstatement with his former seniority and other benefits, following the
Respondent Union's letter of December 10 informing the Respondent Em-
ployer that he was then in good standing.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS F. MAHER, Administrative Law Judge: Upon
charges filed by Leroy C. Teal, an Individual, on January
31, 1972, against Holmes Transportation , Inc., the Respon-
dent Employer herein, and Local 294, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, and Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, the Respondent Union herein, the Re-
gional Director for Region 3 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, herein called the Board, issued a consolidated
complaint on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board
on March 20, 1972, alleging violations of Sections 8(a)(1)
and (3) and 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.), herein
called the Act. In duly filed answers, the respective Respon-
dents , while admitting certain allegations of the complaint,
denied the commission of any unfair labor practice.
Pursuant to notice the trial was held before me on May
18, August 8, and November 8, 1972, at Albany, New York,
where all parties were present, represented, and afforded a
full opportunity to be heard.
Upon consideration of the briefs submitted, and upon the
record made herein, and specifically upon my observation
of witnesses appearing before me (Bishop and Malco, Inc.,
159 NLRB 1159, 1161), 1 make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYER
Holmes Transportation, Inc., Respondent Employer
herein , is a Maine corporation with its principal office and
place of business at Framingham, Massachusetts, and an-
203 NLRB No. 53
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other place of business in Watervliet, New York, the site of
the incidents referred to herein. At the aforementioned
places of business, Respondent Employer is engaged in the
business of providing and performing interstate freight
transportation services and related services. During the past
year, in the course and conduct of its business operations,
it performed such services valued in excess of $50,000, of
which services valued in excess of $50,000 were performed
between the State of Massachusetts and various other States
of the United States . Upon the foregoing and in conformity
with the admissions of the parties, I conclude and find that
the employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE STATUS OF THE RESPONDENT UNION
It is admitted by all parties and I accordingly conclude
and find that Local 294, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America , is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
Ill THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
1. The hiring and termination of
Leroy C. Teal
Leroy C. Teal entered Respondent Holmes' employ as a
part-time mechanic on March 30, 1971. Although Holmes
at that time had a contract including union-security provi-
sions with Respondent Local 294 covering the shop me-
chanics, Teal, previously a member of the Union, did not
then reacquire membership, nor was he required to do so by
Holmes.
In June 1971, he was given full-time status as a mechanic
and continued to work on the night shift, as before. In a
shop of three mechanics, Teal ranked third in seniority and
continued in this position throughout all times relevant to
this proceeding. It is to be noted, moreover, that although
Teal was not assigned to full-time status until sometime in
June he had, in fact, worked as a part-time employee for
weekly periods of 40 hours or more.
On November 3, 1971, Teal received the following letter,
dated November 1, 1971, under the signature of Business
Agent Charles A. Bentley:
Notice is hereby given to you in accordance with Art.
3, Sec. 1, (b) which reads in part: "An employee who
has filed to acquire, or thereafter maintain, member-
ship in the Union as herein provided , shall be terminat-
ed seventy-two (72) hours after his Employer has
received written notice from an authorized representa-
tive of the Local Union, certifying that membership has
been, and is continuing to be, offered to such employee
on the same basis as all other members and, further,
that the employee has had notice and opportunity to
make all dues or initiation fee payments ." (It is so
certified.)
If this Local Union 294 is not in receipt of all dues,
fines and assessments within seventy-two (72) hours
after receipt of this notice demand will be made upon
your Employer to terminate your employment.
A copy of this letter is being sent to your Employer as
his notice of our intent to enforce Art. 3, Sec. 1, (b) of
the Agreement.
On the evening of November 3, 1971, Teal showed this
letter to Holmes' terminal manager , Vincent DeRenzo.I Un-
der date November 1, 1971, however, Local 294 had written
to Holmes as follows:
Notice is hereby given to your Company in accordance
with Article III of the National Master Freight Agree-
ment that you terminate the employment of Leroy C.
Teal within seventy-two hours after receipt of this no-
tice.
The reason for this action is the failure, upon due de-
mand being made , on the aforementioned employee to
tender the periodic dues required as a condition of
employment under Article III.
This man is not to be rehired until you receive written
notice from this Local Union 294 that he has tendered
his dues and is in good standing with this Local Union
294.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Charles Bentley
Certified : 513794 Business Agent
This letter was in DeRenzo 's possession when Teal spoke to
him on November 23. Teal, telling DeRenzo that he would
not pay a fine or. reinstatement fee but only his back dues,
did not continue in Holmes' employ after November 5,
1971. In this respect it is to be noted that DeRenzo insisted
in his testimony that Teal was not terminated but that, by
refusing as a matter of principle to settle his accounts with
the Union , he had in fact terminated himself . On the same
day, however , a representative of the Union called DeRenzo
and told him that Teal was not to be put to work . The fact
is, however, that as a consequence of this transaction Teal's
employment ceased.
2. Teal's difficulties with the Union
The termination of Teal on November 5, in whatever
form it actually took , was the culmination of a longstanding
dispute over moneys allegedly due the Union.
Teal previously worked as a mechanic for Detroit Supply
Co., where he was a member of Local 294. Upon his termi-
nation there in early 1963, he sought unsuccessfully to se-
cure a withdrawal card from the Union. According to Teal,
he asked the Union's steward, Duma, to obtain a withdraw-
al card for him. Duma gave him what appears to have been
1 Although the letter indicates that a copy was sent to Holmes. DeRenzo
credibly testified that it had never been received by him
HOLMES TRANSPORTATION, INC. 255
a blank card form which was to be filled out and submitted
to the union headquarters for approval. Teal claims to have
filled it in and returned it to Duma with $1 to cover the
transaction. He received nothing in return.
After leaving Detroit Supply, Teal was self-employed for
periods of time and also worked as a mechanic in the auto
repair shop of a friend. He paid no dues to Local 294 during
this time, and his membership did not become critical until
he came to Holmes in 1971.
Upon his return to Holmes and his assignment to full time
employment in June 1971, Teal claims that he sought to
straighten out his affairs with the Union. Thus he testified
to repeated conversations with Union Steward Mosely and
to Mosely's frequent efforts to communicate with union
headquarters to straighten out Teal's status. It was not until
October, however, that Teal claims to have obtained a de-
finitive answer from Mosely as to what was required of him
to become reinstated in the Union?
The precise nature of the money claimed from Teal by the
Union is to be gleaned from the exhibits in the record and
a synthesis of relevant testimony of Teal, a witness for the
General Counsel, and Business Agent Bentley, a witness for
the Respondent Union. Although, for reasons stated here-
after, I have strong reservations as to the testimony of these
witnesses , I am able in this particular area to piece together
the complete transaction. Thus, to achieve reinstatement
into the Union and preserve his employment status with
Holmes, Teal was required to pay to the Union, and on
November 29 did pay to the Union, $141, distributed as
follows, according to Bentley:
$99-Reinstatement fee
$42-Back dues from June 1 through November 30
The $99 was further broken down by Bentley, as follows:
$5-Unpaid 1969 Death Benefit Fee
$10-Delinquency Charge
$84-Reinstatement Fee
In addition to the foregoing, Teal was also charged and paid
$5; this was described by Bentley as the current 1971 death
benefit charge. This amounted to a total payment of $146
on November 29.
Teal's objections to the charges imposed upon him fo-
cused on the $84 reinstatement fee. This he refused to pay.
He was always agreeable to paying the balance claimed,
including the $10 delinquency charge which Bentley inter-
changeably referred to as a charge, and again as a fine. But,
as it is the nature of the $84 reinstatement fee that is the
essence of this case, further analysis of the record informa-
tion concerning it is therefore in order.
Bentley consistently denied that the reinstatement fee was
a fine or that it was related to dues. He did, however, de-
scribe the manner in which the fee was imposed. Thus in
instances where a member has been out of the Union with-
out a withdrawal card for more than 3 months and less than
a year $7 per month was charged, this being the equivalent
of the monthly dues imposed upon members generally. But
in instances where men have been out of the Union for over
2 Teal's testimony in this respect is corroborated by Business Agent
Charles Bentley. Bentley, however, does not fix the date upon which the
information was given except to state that Teal had been billed frequently
since June 1971.
a year without a withdrawal card the reinstatement fee is
$99. Thus Teal's case comports with union practice as illus-
trated by its own records, the $99 being broken down by
Bentley to include $5 death benefit fee, $10 delinquency
charge , and the $84 reinstatement fee. Significantly , this $84
reinstatement fee charged Teal, and by Bentley's own ad-
mission charged other members similarly situated, may be
computed arithmetically as divisible by $7, the monthly
dues, to arrive at what appears to be the 12-month payment
of dues. Bentley, however, vigorously denies that there is
any relationship between the standard $84 reinstatement fee
to a full year of back dues.
I do not credit Bentley generally as a witness ,3 having
observed him at the hearing and also having had an oppor-
tunity to review his testimony which I find to be self-contra-
dictory and confusing in several significant areas.
Illustrative of this was his testimony when confronted with
his pretrial affidavit. His effort at this point to correct earlier
testimony gives me little assurance of his veracity on this
point. Similarly, his confusing account of the moneys alleg-
edly due from Teal and eventually paid by Teal strongly
suggest an effort to confuse the facts. I accordingly rely
upon Bentley's testimony in these areas only to the extent
that it reflects established facts such as the amount of dues
charged by the Union, union practices peculiarly within his
knowledge, and insofar as his testimony sheds light upon
the supporting documents in the record.
In summary with respect to the fees charged, and con-
trary to Bentley's denial, I find it reasonable to conclude
that inasmuch as the short-term discrepancy charge is ad-
mittedly geared to monthly dues then the delinquency
charge for individuals who have been out of the Union for
longer periods is likewise based upon dues ; namely a full
year's dues of $84, the figure being the multiple of $7 dues
for each of the first 12 months.
3. Teal's return to employment
Upon his payment of $146 4 to the Union on or about
November 29, 1971, the Union notified Holmes that Teal
was a member in good standing. Whereupon, upon Termi-
nal Manager DeRenzo's credited testimony, Holmes on De-
cember 15 asked Teal to return to work, and then on several
subsequent occasions offered him a job on the same mid-
night shift he had been on, at the same rate, and in the same
seniority position, third, he had previously held. Teal never
returned to work.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
Quite apart from whether the $99 charge imposed upon
Teal was or was not a fine , or whether or not Teal or his
employer knew it to be a fine, or whether or not the Union
3 While it is true that I have in some instances relied upon Bentley's
testimony. I do so upon the well-established evidentiary rule that it is not
uncommon " to believe some and not all" of a witness ' testimony. N.L R B
v Universal Camera Corp, 179 F.2d 749, 754 (C A 2).
4I find it unnecessary to resolve the discrepancy in the record between
$146 paid , according to synthesis of all the testimony, and a check from Teal
to the Union, also in the record, in the amount of $150 . Further investigation
at this point would serve only to confuse the issue and, perhaps , impugn the
Union's bookkeeping efficiency, all to no useful purpose.
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
intended it to be a fine, the basic issue rests upon the settled
law that a union's demand for payment of back dues which
arose during a period when there was no obligation to main-
tain membership cannot be lawfully imposed as a condition
of emloyment, even under a valid union-security agree-
ment.' It is clearly understood that during the period be-
tween his termination at Detroit Supply in 1969 and his
full-time employment by Holmes in June 1972 Teal, unem-
ployed and self-employed during that period, was not
obliged to maintain membership in the Union. He was only
obliged to acquire and maintain his union membership
upon assuming full-time status with Holmes, and then pur-
suant to the Union's security provision in the contract then
in force between Holmes and the Union.
The fees required to be paid by Teal as a condition of his
reacquisition of union membership and reinstatement to his
job under the union-security provisions of the contact were
described as a reinstatement fee, encompassing the $99
charged him. Union Representative Bentley provided the
breakdown of this in his testimony: a $10 delinquency
charge, a $5 death benefit charge, plus an $84 reinstatement
charge. As previously noted this breakdown of charges is
significant for it demonstrates that the $84 reinstatement
charge, when divided by 12, corresponds to the regular
monthly dues; in total, 12 months' dues. To establish this
as more than a coincidence is Business Agent Bentley's
testimony that in instances where individuals have been out
of the Union for less than 12 months and more than 3 the
reinstatement fee is computed in multiples of the monthly
dues, $7. Upon this I have already concluded and found
(supra) that the applicable reinstatement fee is geared to
month dues. This is a system proscribed by holdings of the
Board.
Nor is it of significance that the Respondent Union insists
the obligations charged to Teal were not a fine .? For, to
paraphrase the Board's holding in a case factually similar to
the instant one (International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local No. 139 (Camosy Construction Co., Inc.), 172 NLRB
173) merely because the Union used the term "reinstate-
ment fee" rather than "dues" when making its demands
upon Teal does not warrant a finding by me at odds with
the one I have made, namely that it was in fact a fine.
Insofar as the Respondent Employer is concerned, it is
clear that in the Union's letter to the employer dated No-
vember 1, 1971, mention was made only of outstanding
dues, and the term "fines" was not used. It was used in the
Union's letter to Teal and Teal admits to having shown this
letter to the Holmes station manager, DeRenzo; and De-
Renzo testified that Teal "probably said `fine."' And, when
questioned further, DeRenzo testified that Teal told him he
S Local 545, International Union of Operating Engineers (Joseph Saranceno
& Sons), 161 NLRB 1114; Spector Freight System Inc, 123 NLRB 43, enfd
273 F.2d 272 (C.A. 8), cert . denied 362 U.S 962; Local 153 International
Union , UA W (Richard Stacker), 99 N LRB 1419; Ferro Stamping and Manu-
facturing Co, 93 NLRB 1459
6 International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No 139 (T J Butters
Construction), 198 NLRB No 167; Murphy's Motor Freight, Inc., 113 NLRB
524, enfd 231 F.2d 654 (C A. 3)
7 1 am aware , of course , that in its letter to the Respondent Employer the
obligation was not referred to by the Union as a fine This item, as it refers
to the Respondent Employer 's culpability , will he considered hereafter
would pay his back dues (dues owed the Union since his
full-time employment at Holmes), but he would not pay a
fine or reinstatement fee. From the foregoing, it is clear that
DeRenzo, a responsible official of the Employer, was fully
aware that the payment of a fine was required. Such being
the case, it is obvious that if the Union's imposition of the
fine is proscribed then the Employer's knowing implemen-
tation of procedures to collect the fine would be no less
objectionable.
Having found as I have that the imposition of a reinstate-
ment fee, be it termed a fine or not, constituted here a
demand for the payment of back dues which arose during
the period when there was no obligation on Teal's part to
maintain his membership in the Union, it follows that the
Union has imposed an unlawful condition of employment,
even under a valid union-security agreement such as we
have here .8 In this respect, 1 accordingly conclude and find
that the Respondent Union has thereby violated Section
8(b)(I)(A) of the Act. By seeking to enforce the payment of
this obligation by demanding that Holmes discharge Teal
under the terms of the Union's security agreement and by
securing that discharge, the Union thereby caused Holmes
to discriminate against Teal. By this, I conclude and find,
the Respondent Union has violated Section 8(a)(2) of the
Act.
Knowing as it did that a fine was being imposed upon
Teal, more is to be expected of the Employer than a simple
washing of hands and issuing of a discharge notice. Teal
raised substantial objection to the obligations being im-
posed upon him by the Union and he conveyed these objec-
tions to his employer. But pursuant to the Respondent
Union's demand, based upon a specific provision of the
union-security agreement, Holmes terminated Teal. Cer-
tainly Holmes was to be expected to know and understand
the contract to which it was a party, and this would include
article III cited by the Union in its demand for Teal's termi-
nation. The pertinent part of article III reads as follows,
even as it was quoted in the Union's letter of November 1,
1972, to Teal, which was shown to Manager DeRenzo:
An employee who has failed to acquire, or thereafter
maintain, membership in the Union as herein provided,
shall be terminated seventy-two (72) hours after his
Employer has received written notice from an author-
ized representative of the Local Unit, certifying that
membership has been, and is continuing to be, offered
to such employee on the same basis as all other mem-
bers and, further, that the employee has had notice and
opportunity to make all dues or initiation fee payments.
[Emphasis supplied.]
This provision to which Holmes was signatory mentions
only dues or initiation fees, and nowhere else does the agree-
ment include any other condition. Respondent Holmes,
knowing at the time that more than this was being required
of Teal in order that he be reinstated, cannot now be heard
to claim that it is blameless. On the contrary, its responsible
agent, DeRenzo, knew of the fine requirement and must be
presumed to have known the limitations established by the
union-security agreement under which the Union and the
8 International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No 139 (T J Butters
Construction), supra
HOLMES TRANSPORTATION, INC. 257
Employer operated. When, in Respondent's behalf, he ac-
ceded to the Union's request and terminated Teal he did so
with the full knowledge that something over and above the
requirements of this union-security agreement and of the
provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act 9 was being required
of Teal. Upon consideration of these facts and circumstanc-
es, I accordingly conclude and find that Respondent
Holmes has thereby violated Section 8(3) of the Act and,
inasmuch as such conduct clearly interferes with, restrains,
and coerces Teal in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, I further conclude and find that Re-
spondent Holmes has thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent
Employer's operations, described in section 1, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce over several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes threatening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents herein have violated the
Act, I shall recommend that each cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act. Because it has been established as
a matter of administrative record that the Respondent
Union appears to have demonstrated a propensity for vio-
lating the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease
and desist from violating the Act in any other manner.
Affirmatively I shall recommend that the Respondents,
jointly and severally, make whole Leroy C. Teal for the
reinstatement fees unlawfully charged him by the Respon-
dent Union and for any loss of pay incurred by him as
consequence of the discrimination against him, with interest
at 6 percent per annum.10 I shall also recommend the post-
ing of appropriate notices by both Respondents, and with
respect to the Respondent Union I shall recommend, upon
consideration of the findings of the Board and the decision
of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit concerning this Union in N.L.R.B. v. Local 294,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (August Bohl Construction
Co.), 470 F. 2d 57 (C.A. 2), enfg. 193 NLRB 920, that copies
of such notice be immediately mailed to each member of
9
to
The applicable portion of Sec 8(a)(3) reads as follows "Provided further,
that no employer shall justify any discrimination against an employee
for nonmembership in a labor organization (A) if he has reasonable
grounds for believing that such membership was not available to the
employee on the same terms and conditions generally applicable to
other employees, or (B) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that
membership was denied or terminated for reasons other than the failure
of the employee to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniform!,
required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership [Emphasis
supplied ["
iris Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716
Respondent Union in good standing.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law
and the entire record , pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 11
A. Respondent, Holmes Transportation, Inc., Waterv-
liet, New York, its officers, agents , successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Terminating and refusing and failing to reinstate any
employee at the request of Local 294, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, or any other local labor organization except
pursuant to the terms of a valid union-security provision for
failure to pay periodic dues and initiation fees as provided
for by Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
deemed will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with the Respondent Union
make whole Leroy C. Teal, with interest at 6 percent per
annum, for any loss of income suffered as a result of dis-
crimination against him.
(b) Post at its Watervliet, New York, terminal the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix A." 12 Copies of said no-
tice, to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 3,
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent Employer,
be posted immediately upon receipt thereof in conspicuous
places, and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive
days. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that said
notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other
materials.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Order, what steps
Respondent Employer has taken to comply herewith.
B. Respondent, Local 294, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, its officers, agents , and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Holmes Transporta-
tion, Inc., or any other employer to discriminate against
Leroy C. Teal, or any other employee, contrary to the re-
quirements of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
(b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
ii In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes
12 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is Dated By
deemed will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Holmes
Transportation, Inc., make whole Leroy C. Teal, with inter-
est at 6 percent per annum, for any loss of income suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him.
(b) Post in Respondent Union's business offices and
meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix B." 13 Copies of said notice, to be provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 3 shall, after being duly signed
by an authorized representative of the Respondent Union,
be posted by said Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and be maintained for a period of 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to ensure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material; and a copy of said notice shall be immedi-
ately mailed to each member in good standing of the Re-
spondent Union.
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for Region 3 signed
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B" for
posting at the premises of Holmes Transportation, Inc., in
places where notices to its employees are customarily post-
ed, said company being willing.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent Union has taken to comply herewith.
13 See In 12, supra
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMP' OYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT terminate or refuse and fail to reinstate
any employee at the request of Local 294, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, or any other labor orga-
nization , except pursuant to the terms of a valid
union-security agreement and then only for the failure
to pay periodic dues and initiation fees , as provided for
by the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Local 294, make
whole Leroy C. Teal for any loss of income suffered by
him as the result of discrimination against him, with
interest at 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by law.
HOLMES TRANSPORTATION, INC
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material . Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, I Ith Floor, Standard Building, 112
State Street , Albany, New York 12207, Telephone 518-472-
2215.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Holmes
Transportation, Inc., or any other employer, to dis-
criminate against Leroy C. Teal or any other employee
or applicant for employment in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Holmes Trans-
portation, Inc., make Leroy C. Teal whole for any loss
of earnings he may have suffered because of the discri-
mination against him.
Dated By
LOCAL 294, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA
(Labor Organization)
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 11th Floor, Standard Building, 112
State Street, Albany, New York 12207, Telephone 518-472-
2215.