Sata Motor Freight Line, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 614 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sala Motor Freight Line , Inc and General Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers Local 270,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind
Cases 15-CA-3569 15-CA-3569-2, 15-CA-3582 and
15-CA-3582-2
May 21, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND
JENKINS
On February 10, 1970, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg
issued his Decision in the above-entitled consolidated
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions, and a supporting brief, to the Trial Examin-
er's Decision General Counsel filed a brief in support
of the Trial Examiner's Decision
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with these cases to a three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner 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 and briefs, and the entire record in these
cases, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,'
conclusions, and recommendations 2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order
of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respond-
ent, Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc , New Orleans, Louisi-
ana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
The findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner are based in
part upon his credibility determinations to which Respondent excepted
After a careful review of the record herein we conclude that the
Trial Examiners credibility resolutions are not contrary to the clear
preponderance of all the relevant evidence and accordingly find no
basis for disturbing them Standard Dry Wall Products Inc 91 NLRB
544 enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3)
P Respondent in an exception contends that the Trial Examiner
was biased and prejudiced as manifested in his decision This charge
of bias and prejudice is not based on any alleged statements of the
Trial Examiner which might indicate that he had prejudged this case
or upon his conduct or rulings made at the hearing but is directed
to his findings and conclusions and the analysis of the facts upon
which they are based as set forth in the Trial Examiners Decision
Possible errors of this sort which we do not find herein in any event
are hardly sufficient to establish bias and prejudice Accordingly we
reject this contention Flambeau Plastics Corporation 167 NLRB 735
fn I affd 401 F 2d 128 (C A 7)
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner s Recom-
mended Order 3
, Par 2(a) of the Trial Examiners Recommended Order is modified
to read as follows
(a) Offer to Milous Pittman Charles Fassitt Harold Jefferson
and James A Little immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or if those jobs no longer exist to substantially
equivalent positions and make them whole for any loss of pay
they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced
against them in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision
entitled The Remedy
The fourteenth indented paragraph of the Appendix is modified to read as
follows
WE WILL offer Milous Pittman Charles Fassitt Harold Jefferson
and James A Little immediate and full reinstatement to their
former jobs or if those jobs no longer exist to substantially
equivalent positions and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered as a result of our discrimination against them
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner With all parties
represented, this proceeding was tried before me in
New Orleans, Louisiana, on September 30 and October
1, 1969, on an amended complaint of the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board and an answer
filed thereto by Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc , herein
called the Respondent ' At issue is whether Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, by certain conduct to be
detailed hereinafter Briefs have been received from
the General Counsel and the Respondent, which have
been duly considered
Upon the entire record made in this proceeding and
my observation of the witnesses who testified on the
stand, I hereby make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE RESPONDENT 'S BUSINESS
Respondent, a Louisiana corporation with its principal
office and place of business in New Orleans, is engaged
in the transportation of freight by motor carrier, operat-'
ing as a link in interstate commerce by performing
interlining services with respect to commodities in inter-
state commerce During the annual period material to
this proceeding, Respondent derived revenues in excess
of $50,000 from interlining and transporting freight within
the State of Louisiana, which freight was transported
into said State directly from points located outside that
State The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and
I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in com
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act
' The complaint which issued on August 14 1969 is based upon
charges and amended charges which were filed on June II June 13
July 2 and July 9 1969 respectively and which were served on
June 12 June 16 July 3 and July 10 1969 respectively
182 NLRB No 97
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC. 615
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted and I find that General Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers Local 270, a/w
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Ind., herein
called the Union , is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that, on various dates between
March and July 1969,2 Respondent, through its President
Vincent Saia, Secretary-Treasurer Louis Saia, and Ter-
minal Manager Louis Fourmaux, engaged in a series
of acts which interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1).
The complaint further alleges that Respondent terminated
employees Milous Pittman, Charles Fassitt, Harold
Jefferson, and James A. Little on April 22, June 5,
June 18, and July 8, respectively, because of their activi-
ties on behalf of the Union, in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act. Additionally, the pleadings charge
that Respondent offended the provisions of Section
8(a)(3) by severing Fassitt from its employment rolls
because he refused to spy on the union activities of
its employees and to report the'results of his surveillance
in this regard to Respondent. For its part, Respondent
generally denies the commission of any labor practices
proscribed by the statute.
It is undisputed and I find' that, in late February,'
the Union commenced an organizational campaign to
enlist the collective support of Respondent's employees.
Employee Milous Pitman testified without contradiction
that, at this time , he and some of his, fellow workers
discussed the possibility of obtaining the support of
a labor organization to correct certain inequities which
they believed existed at Respondent's freight terminals
regarding their hours of work. Following this discussion,
a consensus was reached by the men that Pittman and
employee Ernest Franklin should visit the Union's office
to be schooled in the procedural steps for obtaining
collective representation. Pittman and Franklin did so,
and the union official with whom they met advised
them that the Union needed a sufficient number of ,
signed authorization cards in order to lodge a claim
for recognition with Respondent or to file a petition
for an election with the Board. The men were provided,
with. blank authorization cards. During early March,
Pittman enrolled approximately 12 of the employees
into the Union's ranks.
The Union conducted its first organizational meeting
at Rose's Lounge, a local cafe, on about March 15,
which was attended by 20 to 24 of Respondent's employ-
ees and a union representative, and a second session
was held at the union hall during the first part of April.
In the meantime, and on March 27, the Union filed
a petition with the Regional Office of the Board in
' Unless othrwise indicated, all dates herein fall in 1969
New Orleans seeking a representation election among
certain employees at Respondent's terminal in that city.'
Raymond Marcel had been employed by Respondent
for 5 or 6 years. He testified that, on some undisclosed
date prior to the inception of the Union's campaign
among Respondent's workers, Marcel was incarcerated
in a local prison for failure to pay alimony. However,
pursuant to an arrangement between the prison authori-
ties and Respondent's officials,' Marcel was released
into Respondent's custody between the hours of 9 p.m.
and 9 a.m. under a work relief plan which permitted
him to satisfy the alimony judgment through gainful
employment. Marcel testified that, around March 6 or
7, he was working on a trailer at the terminal when
a can of Vienna sausages fell from the vehicle. Compelled
by hunger, Marcel opened the container and commenced
to eat its contents. Concurrently, he engaged in an
argument with his foreman and another employee in
consequence of which he was immediately discharged
by his superior. Marcel telephoned Terminal Manager
Louis Fourmaux to inform the latter of his plight. Four-
maux instructed Marcel to return to work that morning
and promised to straighten out the matter and provide
the employee with a letter to the prison officials excusing
his tardiness in returning to jail.
At approximately 9 a.m., Marcel appeared at the
terminal where he noticed two policemen enter Louis
Saia's office. Shortly thereafter, Fourmaux summoned
him to the office with the comment, "Come in here,
these two gentlemen [policemen] want to talk to you
about the Vienna sausage." After Marcel entered, Four-
maux stated, "You know you can get some time for
this Vienna sausage." When Marcel acknowledged that
this possibility existed, Fourmaux cautioned that the
prison authorities would "think hard of you" for engag-
ing in misconduct and thus jeopardizing the work relief
program. Whereupon, Vincent Saia was called to the
office and he asked Marcel why the latter had opened
the can of sausages. Marcel replied that he was hungry
and he volunteered to compensate Respondent for the
victuals. One of the police officers then joined the conver-
sation and accused Marcel of failing to divulge his
knowledge of thievery by Respondent's men. When
Marcel protested that he was unaware of any pilfering
at the terminal, the policeman stated, "Well, we [are]
going to give you a break, a week, we want some
action. We want to know who is stealing and who
is taking anything." In conformity with this ultimatum,
Marcel agreed to report to the ,police and Vincent Saia
each morning before his return to prison concerning
any act of pilferage which he had observed on his
shift.
An indicated heretofore, the Union scheduled its first
organizational meeting with Respondent's personnel on
3 By a decision dated May 8, the Acting Regional Director for Region
15 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in which he scheduled
an election for July 11. The unit ultimately found appropriate by the
Director included all city drivers, helpers, warehousemen, maintenance
shop employees, janitors, and over-the-road drivers employed at the
Respondent's various terminals The balloting never took place because,
of the pendency of the instant unfair labor practice charges
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or about March 15 The following day, according to
Marcel's further testimony, he visited Vincent Saia's
office to borrow some money During an ensuing discus-
sion, Vincent inquired, "Do you know anything about
the union7" When Marcel responded in the negative,
Vincent rejoined, You should know something that
Pittman and Franklin had up on Coin-roughly I don t
know the street that come across there " Marcel replied
that he "didn't hear anything about the meeting" because
he was in jail , to which Vincent stated, "Well, they
have meetings at Rose ' s," an apparent reference to
Rose's Lounge After Marcel "told him I never been
in none in there," Vincent conceded he had been "down
there" but had not observed Marcel
Because of his incarceration, Marcel did not attend
the initial union gathering He was released from confine-
ment on March 22, and sometime immediately before
or after this date he executed an authorization card
Marcel testimonially recalled that, after his release, and
on a date which Vincent Saia fixed as March 31 , Respond-
ent held a meeting with its employees When the meeting
ended, Marcel stood next to Vincent and Louis Saia
near a window in the terminal from where the Saias
could observe their work complement Turning to Mar-
cel, Vincent noted employees Arthur Jackson and A
Joseph working on the dock and Vincent exclaimed
that he had heard that these men had attended the
union meeting on March 15 Expressing chagrin that
these individuals would turn their backs on Respondent
and enlist the aid of the Union , Vincent then accused
employees Milous Pittman and Ernest Franklin of being
the "ringleaders " in the union movement Noticing
employee James A Little on the dock, Vincent lamented
that "he didn't thought Little would do him anything
like this "
As noted above, the Union had scheduled a second
meeting for early April It is Marcel ' s testimony that,
on the day of the meeting , Vincent Saia approached
him and told Marcel that the Union had called a meeting
for that date and that " I want you to attend this meeting
and let me know who all would be there " Marcel
dutifully attended the gathering The next morning, he
received a telephone call from Vincent during which
the latter instructed Marcel to proceed to a rendezvous
point at certain cross -streets in the city The parties
met as prearranged and Marcel entered Vincent's auto-
mobile where Vincent sought the identity of the employ-
ees who had attended the meeting on the preceding
evening Marcel recited their names and Vincent pro-
ceeded to write them down on a piece of paper During
their sojourn , Vincent repeated that he was aware that
Pittman and Franklin were the prime movants in the
attempt to ensconce the Union in Respondent ' s opera-
tions At the conclusion of their conversation , Vincent
inquired whether Marcel had signed a union card Marcel
replied in the affirmative , and Vincent retorted , "Well,
you be one of the first so-and-so that I will fire and
I mean it " Marcel related that the reason why he
had not been immediately discharged was "because
he [Vincent ] wanted the rest of the information I could
give him "
Rounding out Marcel's testimony, he left Respond-
ent's employ on June 6 It is his testimony that, between
April 1 and June 6, Vincent Saia telephoned him on
several occasions to elicit any information which Marcel
might possess regarding the progress of the Union's
campaign
James A Little worked for the Respondent intermit-
tently since 1944 He testified that he attended the
first meeting held at the union hall, which took place
in early April The following morning, Little's truck
broke down of the streets of New Orleans While he
sat in the cab awaiting the arrival of Respondent's
mechanic, Vincent Saia approached the vehicle and
inquired whether Little was sleeping on the job Little
explained the difficulty and Vincent tested the equipment
Apparently satisfied that Little was telling the truth,
Vincent changed the subject and inquired, "What about
this affiliated meeting you all attending7" When Little
expressed ignorance as to the purport of the query,
Vincent remarked, "You know what kind I am talking
about A union meeting Didn't you attend some meet-
ing" Little denied that he had ventured to such a
gathering, whereupon Vincent stated, "Well, I under-
stood that you went to a meeting " Little pressed Vincent
for the name of the informant but Vincent replied,
"I won 't even call the man's name " Little again sought
the identity of the informant so that Little could put
him to his proof under pain of a lawsuit Vincent retorted,
"Well, you will have a gang to prove " Vincent then
asked Little about the extent of his formal education
When Little responded that he had attained the seventh
grade, Vincent stated "Do you know you have to have
an education to work on a union job9" Little acknowl-
edged that the Union advocated such a requirement
and, with this, Vincent left the scene
Little further testified that, a few days after his discus-
sion with Vincent Saia, he was summoned to Louis
Saia's office Believing that Louis desired to question
him along the same lines as his brother, Little opened
the conversation by assuring Louis that Little knew
nothing about the union meeting Louis informed Little
that the Respondent was operating in the red and that
"I couldn't afford a union " Approximately a week
later , Little was called to Vincent Saia's office where
the former reiterated that he had no knowledge of the
Union ' s activities or the collective desires of the employ-
ees In the course of their conversation, Vincent
exclaimed that "he couldn't go union " and warned
that "he couldn ' t afford it and before he afford it,
he closed the gates, get out of the business He didn't
need it no way " Little rejoined that "if you close
up, I will just have to go on back to the country
where I came from "
While on the stand, Pittman recited that , shortly after
Respondent's receipt of the union petition on March
27 and prior to the union meeting set for early April,
Respondent ' s officials assembled approximately 30
employees at the terminal With Louis Saia acting as
spokesman , and with his brother, President Vincent
Saia, standing at his side , Louis displayed the Union's
petition to the assemblage and commented that that
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC.
organization possessed enough signed authorization
cards to trigger an election . He stated that he was
unable to fathom why the Company had received the
petition because he had harbored the impression that
all of his employees were satisfied with Respondent's
treatment of them and with their working conditions.
Louis added that the Respondent was losing money
on its operations and he could not afford • a union in
his business structure . He then proceeded to interrogate
the men regarding the source of their dissatisfaction
with employment conditions . At this juncture , Vincent
Saia interjected that "they couldn't afford to have a
union come there because they had been operating all
the while and he was barely getting by with that and
before he could have a union , said they'd just have
to close the gates down."
Arthur Jackson worked for 14 years with Respondent
as a truckdriver . He recalled his attendance at a meeting
conducted by Respondent which apparently occurred
on March 31 , • and which was attended by 25 to 30
of the employees . At the outset, Vincent Saia told
the men that Respondent "couldn 't afford no union."
Louis Saia then took the floor and repeated his brother's
statement, adding that the Saias had received a represen-
tation petition filed with the Board by the Union and
that this happenstance could not have occurred without
his employees ' support of the Union by signing authoriza-
tion cards . None of the assembled employees responded
to Louis' utterances , in consequence of which Louis
invited their reaction to the prospects of unionization.
This invitation drew a few expressions of allegiance
to the Company from the assemblage . Louis thereupon
cautioned the men that , in the event the Union pulled
a strike at the terminal , Respondent would replace the
strikers with new workers . According to Jackson, Louis
continued his talk by stating that "we [the Saias]
wouldn' t be able to operate this company with a union
contract . We would have to close the gates." A few
days later , Terminal Manager Fourmaux approached
Jackson and inquired whether "I attended any meetings
or signed any cards or anything ." Jackson responded
in the negative.
Jackson testified that in late April or early May,
he engaged in a conversation with Louis Saia and his
brother Vincent. During this colloquy, Louis asked Jack-
son whether the latter had attended any union meetings
and whether he had executed an authorization card.
Jackson replied that he had not. Louis remarked that
"someone had told him that I was one of the ringleaders
of the union ." Jackson denied that he occupied such
a role . At this juncture , Louis produced a list which
contained the names of all the employees who favored
the Union and pointed to Jackson ' s name . Although
Jackson had indeed attended union gatherings and had
signed a card , he disclaimed that he had partook in
any such activity. A few days later , Jackson was again
summoned to Louis' office . According to Jackson, Louis
commented that "They couldn't afford the union,
couldn ' t operate with a union contract . Said he couldn't
even afford to give us not even a one cent raise per
hour. Then after he kept questioning me and asked
617
me did I went to the meeting , then I admitted I went.
He told me that he was surprised at me doing that.
And he said that we had any problems , why didn't
we come and consult with him about them ." After
Jackson confessed that he had joined the Union, Louis
remarked that "when the election comes up all he asks
all us to do was vote no and nobody would get fired."
Finally, during another discussion with Louis, Louis
informed Jackson that " someone tells him [Louis] that
Parker , Pittman and Franklin was the leader of the
union ." Jackson commented that he did not know wheth-
er this was so.
Charles Harris had toiled as a truckdriver for Respond-
ent since 1965. Harris testified that , sometime in March,
Vincent Saia told the witness that an employee named
Spurlock had come to Vincent with an authorization
card and the latter asked Harris whether he possessed
one. Harris answered that he did not. Approximately
a month later , and immediately after a union meeting,
Vincent approached Harris and inquired whether Harris
had gone to the meeting . Harris responded in the nega-
tive , whereupon Vincent produced a list which contained
the names of the union adherents , including Harris',
and insisted that Harris must have attended the convoca-
tion of union supporters . Vincent then asked Harris
how the latter felt about the Union and Harris replied,
"I don ' t think we can afford the union , is what I
told him ." A few days later , Vincent again called Harris
to his office and once more interrogated him concerning
his attendance at union meetings and his thoughts about
unionization . Finally , on July 5, Louis Saia summoned
Harris and, for the first time , queried him about his
union activities . Louis placed a blank employment appli-
cation before Harris and questioned him concerning
his ability to read and write and the amount of his
formal education , cautioning that "if the union would
come through, say I would be gone bye -bye" because
of his educational shortcomings . Harris complained that,
since the commencement of the union campaign , "every
time I turn around somebody is on my back about
this union , telling me about this and that about the
union ." Louis retorted , "Well, don 't you think you
make me mad , makes me angry ? Don't you think the
Teamsters down there with you all down there got
me all stirred up in this mess now?" With Harris'
denial of any knowledge regarding union activities, the
conversation ended.
Morris Parker worked for the Respondent as a truck-
driver for 17 years. He testified that , on March 31
and prior to the company sponsored meeting scheduled
for that evening , Vincent Saia called him into an office
to inquire whether Parker had heard anything about
the Union 's organizational efforts. Parker gave a negative
reply. Parker attended the company meeting that eve-
ning. When it was concluded , Parker proceeded to leave
the room . Passing Vincent Saia and Fourmaux, Saia
halted Parker and, turning to Fourmaux , Saia told Four-
maux to repeat some of Saia's earlier observations to
Parker . Whereupon, Fourmaux stated that "Mr. Saia
said he know you [Parker] know something about it
[the Union]." Parker denied any knowledge of the union
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
movement, at which point Vincent remarked, "You
know Parker, I know you You are insulting my intelli-
gence because I know you are laughing at me behind
my back " Parker replied, "No, boss I am not " Vincent
concluded the conversation with the statement that "if
I [Parker] went to the meeting out of curiosity, say
it would be all right because I knew some fellows
had never been to them, and I would be one of them
fellows never been to one " Parker once more assured
Vincent that he had not attended the union gathering
Harold Jefferson had worked for Respondent for about
5 years He testified that, toward the end of March,
he became aware that the Union had launched an organi-
zational drive at the New Orleans terminal when an
employee named Gore invited him to a meeting of
that labor organization He accepted this invitation and
noted that most of the 15 to 20 individuals in attendance
were employees of Respondent About April 1, he was
summoned to the office of Vincent Saia Behind closed
doors, Vincent inquired if Jefferson "had heard about
the union," and Jefferson replied that he knew nothing
of the Union's or anizational efforts At this point,
Vincent stated that `he didn't want [Jefferson] to feel
as though I was coping out, that he knew basically
what was going on " Holding a piece of paper in his
hand, Vincent remarked that "he had a list of names
of all the personnel that went to the meeting " Vincent
added that "he couldn't afford a union , that the union
had put a lot of people out of business and that he'd
rather go out of business than have the union around "
When Jefferson disclaimed any knowledge of union activ-
ities, Vincent terminated the discussion
Jefferson further averred that he spoke with Louis
Saia around the end of April regarding the Union On
this occasion, Louis invited Jefferson into the former's
office and asked what Jefferson knew about the Union
Upon receiving a negative response , Louis reiterated
his brother's admonition that "he couldn't afford it
and he'd rather be out of business, too "
Charles Fassitt, an extremely nervous and frightened
witness, testified that he first learned of the Union's
efforts When he was called into Louis' office in April
where his superior inquired whether Fassitt knew any-
thing about the election campaign Fassitt replied that
he knew nothing about the matter, whereupon Louis
asked whether Pittman was in the forefront of the elec-
tion drive Fassitt expressed ignorance concerning Pitt-
man's Union activities Louis then queried whether Pitt-
man made it a practice of driving his truck to his
home and, when Fassitt related that Pittman drove home
for lunch, Louis stated that he wished he could catch
Pittman driving off his designated route so that he could
"fire him on the spot " After this conversation, Fassttt
departed Louis' office and as he strolled by the office
of Vincent Saia, the latter beckoned him to enter Dis-
playing a list of names on a sheet of paper , Vincent
asked whether the witness knew anything about the
union drive Fassitt responded that his only knowledge
came from his discussions with fellow employees Fassitt
added that he has heard that Marcel had provided Vincent
with a list of union adherents Vincent disclaimed that
he obtained this intelligence from Marcel, commenting
that "he wasn't depending on Marcel because he was
going to fire him "
A few days later, Fassitt called upon Louis in an
attempt to procure a loan According to Fassitt, Louis
again questioned him concerning his knowledge of the
Union's activities and Fassitt once more professed his
ignorance as to the status of the campaign At this
juncture, Louis summoned his brother Vincent and the
latter posed a similar inquiry to Fassitt After collective
consultation, the loan was approved Before the meeting
ended, Louis cautioned Fassittt against "taking off
because during this union trouble he is going to fire
everyone that takes off " Within a few days, Louis
recalled Fassitt to his office and repeated his previous
inquiry Either during this, or a previous conversation,
Louis "told [Fassitt] to go and join the boys and find
out what they were doing and let [Louis] know " Subse-
quent to this discussion, Fassitt placed another call
to Vincent to apprise the latter that Fassitt would be
tardy for work that day In the ensuing conversation,
Vincent persisted in asking whether Fassitt had learned
anything about the Union's endeavors and, when Fassitt
replied that he had not, he was instructed to report
to Vincent's office upon his return to work Fassitt
protested that "I hate to keep coming into your office
These people think I am a stool pigeon " Vincent
rejoined that he possessed the right to have any of
his employees to report to his office Because of his
fear that the men might consider him an informer,
Fassitt did not appear for work on that date The follow
ing day, Fassitt telephoned Louis to complain that Vin-
cent had repeatedly summoned him to the latter's office
and that the employees might gain the impression that
"I am a stool pigeon on him " Louis assured Fassitt
that he would speak to Vincent about the matter During
the conversation, Louis repeated his query concerning
Fassitt's knowledge of union meetings and Fassitt once
more expressed his ignorance about the subject Several
days later, Fassitt contacted Louis by telephone and
stated that he wished to visit the terminal to collect
his paycheck Louis advised Fassitt not to come to
the terminal and suggested that the two men meet at
a local department store When Fassitt arrived, Louis
once more inquired whether Fassitt had found out any-
thing about the Union's campaign and once more Fassitt
answered negatively Louis gave Fassitt his paycheck
and the conversation terminated with Fassitt relating
that someone had fired shots into his home on the
preceding evening Concluding his testimony, Fassitt
averred that he had never attended a union meeting
and consequently had never supplied the Saias with
any information regarding the Union's endeavors
I do not credit the testimony of Vincent Saia, Louis
Sata, or Louis Fourmaux, insofar as it collides with
the sworn utterances of Marcel, Little, Pittman, Jackson,
Harris, Parker, Fassitt, or Jefferson, regarding manage-
ment's alleged acts of interference, restraint and coer-
cion, not only because the corporate triumvirate's
demeanor failed to impress me as a portrait of candor,
but also because their testimony was too fraught with
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC.
inconsistencies and implausibilities to warrant credible
status.
Thus, Vincent Saia recounted on the stand that he
first became aware of the Union's attempt to organize
his terminal employees in New Orleans, in late March
from two sources. On March 26, he received a letter
from the Union claiming that it represented a 'majority
of his employees and, on the same date, he received
a telephone call from Marcel who reported that "the
men had been 'unsatisfied and were supposedly attending
the meetings." Yet, Vincent then acknowledged that
he had obtained this intelligence from Marcel on approxi-
mately three occasions several weeks prior to March
26.
During his examination, Vincent initially claimed that
he was ignorant of the fact that Marcel had been impris-
oned by the New Orleans police authorities and worked
for the Respondent under a work relief program, although
he ultimately conceded that this could have been the
case. Vincent recalled that, a few weeks before he
received the Union's representation petition on March
27, he learned that Marcel had opened a can of Vienna
sausages at the terminal and had eaten some of them.
According to Vincent, the remainder of the sausages
were placed in a refrigerator and maintained there for
an indefinite period of time solely to avoid odorous
spoilage. Marcel's activities in this regard prompted
Vincent to summon the employee to the President's
office where, in the presence of Terminal Manager Four-
maux, Vincent interrogated Marcel about the matter.
During the ensuing conversation, Vincent claimed that
he did not invite the presence of the local constabularly
although he confessed that his security agent was in
attendance. Vincent testified that, when the discussion
began, he asked Marcel "about thefts and whether he
was involved in any or knew of any," but denied that
he threatened to return Marcel to jail in the event
the latter refused to spy on his fellow employees. Howev-
er, Vincent did not deny Marcel's testimony that, during
the conversation, Fourmaux warned that Marcel could
"get some time for this Vienna sausage," and that
Marcel would be obligated to report any incidents of
thievery each morning to Vincent. While Vincent stated
that he had no formal compact with Marcel whereby
the former promised to refrain from pressing charges
against Marcel because of the sausage incident if he
became an informant regarding thefts by his fellow
workers, he allowed as how he had an understanding
with all his employees that they were to be on the
lookout for thievery.
Vincent further testified that, at no time since the
sausage episode, did he instruct Marcel to attend union
meetings or report on the attendance of his coworkers
at such gatherings. Instead, he recounted that, on the
evening of March 26, he received an unsolicited tele-
phone call from Marcel in which the latter reported
that the men were dissatisfied with their working condi-
tions at the terminal and that they had scheduled a
union meeting for that night. According to Vincent,
he had learned about 4 to 6 weeks earlier from Marcel
that his employees had attended a union gathering
619
prompted by dissatisfaction with their employment, but
Vincent "didn't put much stock" in what Marcel related.
On this occasion, Marcel inquired whether Vincent har-
bored any objection to Marcel's attendance, to which
Vincent replied, "That's up to you. It's your prerogative.
You can go if you want to. I am not saying you should
go or you have to go and I am not saying you are
not supposed to go. You might go out of curiosity;
you might be interested in the program whatever it
is," a remarkable statement, indeed, in light of Vincent's
latent antagonism toward the Union as evidenced by
his own testimony herein. Vincent then told Marcel
that the former had not received any complaints or
expressions of dissatisfaction from his men, and he
maintained that he did not direct Marcel to go to the
union meeting that evening and did not ask him to
record the names of the employees who attended.
According to Vincent, he received another unsolicited
telephone call from Marcel at home later on the night
of March 26. Marcel reported that between 14 and
17 of Respondent's employees had attended the union
meeting . During their telephone colloquy, Vincent was
taken aback when he learned that his employees were
dissatisfied with their working conditions, despite the
fact that Marcel had informed him on three previous
occasions that the men had attended organizational meet-
ings in an attempt to improve their lot. Albeit Vincent
testimonially insisted that he had assumed a posture
of neutrality during the Union's entire campaign, he
nevertheless challenged Marcel to verify the accuracy
of the latter's information. Marcel thereupon supplied
the names of the employees who had attended the
conclave, mentioning Little and Pittman, and possibly
those of Jefferson and Fassitt. When Marcel remarked
that the men were asked to sign union authorization
cards at the gathering , Vincent pointedly inquired wheth-
er Marcel had executed a pledge card and received
a negative reply. Although, in Vincent's words, he did
not "put much stock into what Marcel" had to say,
he nonetheless expended his time in listening to Marcel's
reports because "I appreciate any information concern-
ing my employees if there is some dissatisfaction I
didn't know anything about," adding that, "If I had
an opportunity, I sure would" take action to correct
the disharmony.
Vincent went on to testify that he received another
telephone communication from Marcel at Vincent's home
on the morning of March 27 in which the employee
requested a meeting with his superior away from the
premises of the terminal. Initially, Vincent asserted that
Marcel did not explicate his reason for seeking the
meeting. When plied about the matter, Vincent finally
confessed that "I just figured it was regarding the fact
that he had been to the meeting " on the previous evening.
Vincent thereupon left his home and drove to a rendez-
vous point in New Orleans where Marcel entered Vin-
cent's vehicle. It is Vincent's testimony that the conver-
sation began with Marcel reiterating that several of
Respondent's employees had attended the meeting and
expressed their dissatisfaction with employment condi-
tions. According to Vincent, he remarked that he had
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not received any complaints from his men and cautioned
Marcel "that I didn't want him to be saying these
things because a lot of the people that he says were
dissatisfied, I dust didn't believe they were dissatisfied "
Vincent added that "I said for him to be sure, not
to make any false statement because this could cause
people trouble if they weren't dissatisfied and he said
that they were," although Vincent failed to illuminate
this record with any definition of the "trouble" which
they might encounter by any such false information
Vincent insisted, however, that he did not tell Marcel
that the involved employees would be discharged, and
he was absolutely sure that he did not admonish Marcel
that he would be one of the first to be terminated
because he had signed a union card At this point,
Marcel began to unfold the names of the employees
who had gone to the meeting, citing Little and Pittman
and several others Questioned as to whether he demand-
ed the names of the leading union adherents, Vincent
at first entered an emphatic denial However, upon
further interrogation, he made the curious statement
that "At that time I don't remember mentioning anything
like that " When Marcel revealed the name of an employ-
ee who had attended the gathering and whom Vincent
"thought was a good man," Vincent probed the accuracy
of Marcel's information
Following their discussion, Marcel alighted from the
automobile and Vincent proceeded to his office It is
Vincent's testimony that, shortly after he arrived at
the terminal, Marcel telephoned once again According
to Vincent, he believed that this call was occasioned
by Marcel's obdurate desire to assure Vincent that he
had attended the meeting and had observed Respondent's
employees gathered there During the conversation, Mar-
cel repeated the names of the men whom he had seen
at the convocation Despite Vincent's proclaimed neu-
trality regarding his employees' desires for collective
representation, and his insistence that he "was just
getting tired to talking to [Marcel] about the same thing,"
Vincent nevertheless admittedly copied down on a piece
of paper the names of all the .,mployees which Marcel
provided When asked whether he solicited any informa-
tion from Marcel thereafter, Vincent responded in the
negative However, he then brought himself to confess
that he conversed with Marcel on several occasions
regarding "union affairs" after this final telephone call
Vincent further recited that, on March 31, after having
received the Union 's petition for an election, Respondent
scheduled a meeting of employees and approximately
40 men appeared Present on behalf of the Company
were Vincent, his brother Louis, and Fourmaux Vincent
testified that Louis informed the personnel that Respond-
ent had received the petition from the Board and that
"all of the facts we didn't have and as soon as we
did get facts as to the problem, that we'd have another
meeting and let all the employees know " Vincent
evinced a total lack of recall as to whether anything
was said at the meeting about employee dissatisfaction,
whether the men had signed union cards, whether
Respondent could not afford the Union at its terminal,
and even whether Vincent addressed the assemblage,
although he did not deny that these things might have
occurred However, he was positive in his denial that
he warned the employees that the terminal would be
closed if the Union was successful in its organizational
efforts
In the course of his examination, Vincent was also
probed as to whether he had engaged in any conversation
with employee Morris Parker immediately following the
company meeting He initially responded that he had
not Subsequently, however, he confessed that any dis-
cussion he might have had with Parker was "Not of
any significance," and finally he again changed tack
and claimed that his conversation with this employee
concerning union meetings was "Not after the [company]
meeting " When queried as to whether he told Parker
that the latter was insulting his intelligence by withhold-
ing information about Parker's union activities, Vincent
replied, "Not at that time " Under counsel's prodding,
Vincent related that, on the evening when he received
a telephone call from Marcel, which Vincent placed
as occurring on March 26, he summoned Parker to
his office In company with Fourmaux, Vincent asked
Parker "if he knew anything about a meeting or if
he knew of any dissatisfaction, was he dissatisfied,"
and Vincent "may have" interrogated Parker as to
whether the latter had signed an authorization card
According to Vincent, his purpose in calling Parker
into his office was to inquire "if he was dissatisfied,
did he have any problems, did he know of a meeting
or go to one " Parker replied that he was not experiencing
any difficulties and that he did not attend the union
meeting Vincent could not remember whether, in this
conversation, he stated to Parker that the employee
was insulting Vincent's intelligence by his negative
response When questioned as to whether he told Parker
that the latter was laughing behind his back, Vincent
responded, "Not to him," and then could not remember
whether he had made this statement to Parker or any
other employee
Vincent further admitted that, after Marcel provided
him with the names of the employees who had attended
the union meetings , he spoke to Charles Harris, as
well as other employees, and inquired whether they
were dissatisfied with working for Respondent, whether
they had attended union meetings , and whether they
had executed authorization cards, all the while assuring
the men that they would not be discharged for these
activities Vincent also conceded that he interrogated
employees as to whether their fellow workers had been
to meetings conducted by the Union and that he had,
in this manner , obtained the names of the defectors
to the Union's ranks from informants David and Welton
Gore
Vincent conceded on the stand that he encountered
Little at a cross-street in New Orleans where the latter's
vehicle had broken down, and inquired whether Little
was dissatisfied with working for Respondent Vincent
also acknowledged that he told Little that "I'd under-
stood that he had been to a meeting with the men
and the men were dissatisfied," and that "some of
the other employees said he [Little] had attended a
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE , INC. 621
meeting and he was dissatisfied," but Vincent could
not recall if he asked whether Little had signed a union
card. Finally, Vincent could not recall whether he told
Little, during a conversation in his office, that the
Respondent would terminate its business operations in
the event the Union succeeded in organizing its employ-
ees.
Finally, Vincent testimonially conceded that, some-
time in early April, he interrogated Harold Jefferson
to ascertain whether this employee was disgruntled with
his conditions of employment and whether he had ever
been to a union meeting . While he could not remember
whether he told Jefferson that he could not afford a
union at the terminal , the company president denied
that he informed Jefferson that Respondent would cease
operations if the men embraced the Union in the forth-
coming election.
Louis Saia testified that he conducted a meeting of
his employees after Respondent received the Union's
representation petition on a date which he fixed as
April 7. According to Louis, the meeting was scheduled
in order "to find out more or less what was going
on after we received the petition and a notice from
the NLRB; just more or less to have a meeting with
the men to find out what the situation was." However,
prior to the meeting , he sought advice of counsel who
advised that "we had to be very cautious and told
me as long as I had a meeting to go ahead with it.
" Louis claimed that he alone spoke to the assem-
blage and simply informed the men that Respondent
had obtained the Union's petition from the Board and
that he would hold other sessions in the future to "give
them the truth and the facts." In line with Arthur
Jackson's testimony, Louis allowed as how he warned
the men that Respondent would replace its drivers in
the event they engaged in a union-sponsored work stop-
page.
Louis further testified that, a few days after he
received the election petition, he engaged in individual
conversations concerning the Union with employees
Arthur Jackson, Andrew Joseph, and Stanley Eskine.
In his talk with Jackson, Louis inquired whether Jackson
knew if the employees "had any problems that he was
aware of." Louis also told Jackson "That his name
was, that his name came out that he was at this particular
[Union] meeting and if he knew of any problem or
if he had a problem." Louis was quick to add that
"Any time that I ever spoke to any man, the first
thing I told him is, I said, `Before you talk to me,
I want this understanding. I don't want to know if
you have been to a union meeting, so don't tell me;
I don't want to know, and I don't want to know if
anyone went." Despite Louis' staunch assertion that
he did not "want to know" if his men attended union
meetings , he nevertheless openly admitted that, in his
conversation with Andrew Joseph, he "asked Joseph
if he was dissatisfied and if he knew about the petition
and his name was on that list and I asked him if
he had attended the meeting." Moreover, he conceded
that he summoned employees David and Welton Gore
to his office when he learned that their names appeared
on the list which Marcel had tendered to Vincent, and
"asked them if they had attended the meeting." Initially,
Louis proclaimed that the sole purpose for the inquiries
he put to his employees was to derive the source of
the dissatisfaction and he denied that the advent of
the Union in any way prompted his interrogations. When
pressed further as to whether the "problem" with his
men stemmed from their desire for collective representa-
tion, Louis grudgingly acknowledged that "I imagine
that would be a problem if they were trying to organize
your job."
Under questioning as to whether he told Jackson
that he had learned from other employees that Jackson
was a ringleader in the union movement, Louis at first
avoided a direct answer, stating that he asked Jackson
if he had attended a union meeting . When Jackson
replied in the negative, Louis retorted, "Are you sure,
because I have had a lot of people, my brother has
got a list of names, and he said you were at this
meeting ." Louis was then asked whether he had ever
interrogated any of his workers to ascertain who were
the most active union supporters. Denying that he had
done so, Louis claimed that he learned the identity
of the activists from Charles Fassitt and Jessie Spurlock
who voluntarily imparted this intelligence to him.
According to Louis, these individuals informed him that
Pittman, Franklin, Banks, Parker, and Harris were "the
main men" seeking to install the Union in the terminal.
Louis further averred that, shortly after he received
the Union's election petition, he summoned Fassitt to
his office to discuss the current organizational campaign.
Later, on May 12, Louis received a telephone call from
this employee. ',The latter reported that he had been
drinking over the preceding weekend and that "he was
out investigating union activities on a weekend . . .
and that he had attended a meeting somewhere by
Pittman's place and a couple of our men from [another
terminal ] had attended this meeting .. . ." Louis testified
that he sought the names of these employees from
Fassitt, and that Fassitt enumerated the names of Ernest
Franklin and Pittman and "a couple other men." Upon
obtaining this information, Louis remarked, "Look, did
I ask you to go out this weekend and check on union
activities?" to which Fassitt replied that Louis had
not. However, Louis also admitted that he told Fassitt
"it was left up to him, if he wanted to attend a meeting
and advise me, he felt that he wanted to do it, I
couldn't tell him what to do one way or the other,"
and that it was "Okay" with Louis. Concluding the
conversation, Louis warned that Fassitt would be dis-
charged if he did not report for work that day. Fassitt
did not appear at the terminal, in consequence of which
he was terminated. Louis denied that he told Fassitt
during this telephone colloquy that he had warned this
individual that he would no longer be permitted to
absent himself without an adequate excuse because of
the advent of the Union.
It is Louis' further testimony that, about 2 weeks
later, Fassitt again telephoned him and stated that the
former had some "very important information" to dis-
close to his former employer. Accordine to Louis, Fassitt
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
suggested a meeting near a local department store rather
than at the terminal because he was fearful that the
employees would "get him," and Louis accepted the
invitation due to the fact that "I wanted to find out
what he was talking about, what was so important,"
although curiously Louis did not inquire into the purpose
for making this journey before he left When Louis
arrived at the appointed spot, Fassitt asked him to
visit his home to inspect some damage caused by bullets
which had been fired into it by unknown persons After
Fassitt informed Louis that he had not reported the
incident to the local police, Louis declined the invitation
Louis proclaimed that this was the extent of their conver-
sation He denied that he questioned Fassitt concerning
his attendance at union meetings , whether he had signed
an authorization card, and denied that he inquired into
the identity of the Union leaders 4 While Louis remem-
bered the occasion in April when he and Vincent Saia
approved an extension of credit for Fassitt, he disclaimed
that the subject of the Union was mentioned during
this episode
Louis also recalled on the stand that he spoke with
Harold Jefferson on one occasion around the middle
of April about the Union On this occasion, Jefferson
had returned to the terminal after a run and sought
a loan from Louis During the visit, Louis "just asked
him what he thought about the situation and if he
knew of any reason why the men had a problem "
According to Louis, he did not inquire into Jefferson's
union propensities because , as an over -the-road driver,
Jefferson was not included in the unit for which the
Union was seeking representational rights However,
it is undisputed on this record that Respondent sought
the unit inclusion of this job classification in the election
request by the Union
At the outset of his testimony on the issue, Louis
initially proclaimed that he had never discussed the
Union with employee James Little However, he then
recalled that he did have a conversation regarding the
Union with Little when the latter came to Louis and
stated that he wished to resign his job because, due
to the fact that Louis provided Little with extra income
for cutting the grass around Louis' residence, the "men
would look upon him [Little] as a pimp," an apparent
" On cross examination Louis was questioned regarding the occasion
on which he received the information from Fassitt that Pittman had
attended a Union meeting Louis replied I don t recall him ever
telling me that When pressed on the issue Louis attempted to paint
himself as a portrait of innocence of any awareness that the meetings
which his employees attended were sponsored or conducted by the
Union In light of his testimony that he had received this intelligence
from Fassitt on May 12 almost 6 weeks after he had come into
possession of the Union s election petition and in view of his testimonial
utterances that he told Fassitt did I ask you to go out this weekend
and check on union activities ' this portrait is more reminiscent of
that of Dorian Gray
Moreover during his initial visit to the stand Louis asserted that
he had obtained the names of the employees who attended the meeting
in the course of a telephone call from Fassitt On cross examination
he placed the receipt of this information at the time of his encounter
with Fassitt at the local department store Finally he changed stance
and reiterated that he learned of the names during the telephone conversa
tion
reference to the possibility that the employees might
view Little as an informer regarding their union activities
in light of the preferred treatment he was receiving
from Louis Louis further acknowledged that, during
this discussion, Little mentioned that the men were
dissatisfied with Respondent because it had discontinued
the award of an annual bonus When questioned whether
this topic of discussion had any relation to the Union's
organizational efforts, Louis replied, "I don't think it
did, no, sir, because he was telling me about a problem
about no bonus, and I told him last year we couldn't
give a bonus because we lost money " Finally, Louis
denied that he told Little that Respondent could not
afford a unionized establishment
Louis recalled having received two telephone calls
from Marcel on a Saturday sometime in April Marcel
stated that he had been attempting to contact Vincent
Saia about a "very important" matter and inquired
as to Vincent's whereabouts Louis replied that he did
not know where his brother was located, at which point
Marcel "tried to talk to me, but I wouldn't talk to
him " When asked to explain what he meant by this
statement, Louis answered that Marcel "started trying
what did I know, how were things going with the union "
After Marcel hung up, Louis telephoned Vincent and
cautioned that "Marcel was trying to call him and be
very careful, it looked like he was trying to trap him
or something " Louis concluded that it "just didn't
make sense for him to be calling like he was "
Rounding out Louis' testimony on the issue of interfer-
ence , coercion and restraint of his employees in their
choice of a bargaining representative, he at first recount-
ed that he spoke with Charles Harris regarding the
Union but insisted that it was Harris who sought an
audience to discuss the subject Louis then recanted
and observed that, on the initial occasion of speaking
with Harris, he summoned the latter to his office and
"asked him how he felt about the situation, if he was
happy " Louis also conceded that he called Harris into
the office and asked whether Harris knew how to read
and write When Harris responded in the affirmative,
Louis produced an employment application and directed
the employee to fill it out Upon observing Harris'
lack of writing ability, Louis remarked, "If you were
in the union, I don't know how you found a job
When you came here you had to lie You have to
read and write " According to Louis, at about this
time Harris had signed for some freight with a shipper
for an order which lacked approximately $1,000 worth
of goods and the Respondent was forced to make good
for this loss Despite the fact that Harris had worked
for the Respondent for approximately 4 years, Louis
acknowledged that this was the first occasion on which
he had become aware that Harris was somewhat illiterate
Moreover, in spite of this asserted loss, Louis did not
hold Harris financially responsible for the shortage and
he admitted that he had never tested the ability of
any other employee to read and write When queried
as to whether he told Harris that he "would be gone"
if the Union was successful because he did not have
a high school education, Louis recited that he told
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC.
Harris "to look in the paper and he'd see some of
the union carriers that in the paper they state high
school education." At the conclusion of the conversa-
tion, Louis remarked, "I'd fire you right now, but if
I fired you, they would say it was on account of the
union, so I am going to keep you."
Terminal Manager Fourmaux recalled the company
meeting which was held, according to Vincent Saia,
on March 31. When questioned whether he overheard
any exchange between Vincent and Parker after the
meeting ended, or whether Vincent- asked Fourmaux
to repeat, the,former's suspicions that Parker "knew
something about" the Union, Fourmaux replied that
he could not recall. Upon being asked whether he heard
Vincent make any comments to Harris on this occasion,
Fourmaux responded, "Well, not directly, sir. When
the meeting was over, we have the single door there
that passes by my desk, and we were standing there.
There was conversation going back and forth between
men and all, but as to what he [Parker] testified, I
honestly cannot recall that." Fourmaux proclaimed that,
while he conversed with employee Jackson almost every
day, he denied that he ever queried Jackson as to
whether he had attended union meetings or had signed
an authorization card. However, Marcel's testimony
stands uncontroverted that, during the "Vienna sausage"
incident in early March, Fourmaux met with two police-
men and Vincent Saia and Fourmaux warned Marcel
that the latter "can get some time for this Vienna
sausage" and that the police authorities would "think
hard of you" and revoke his work relief freedom from
prison for eating the sausages. Moreover, Marcel's testi-
mony that Vincent Saia extracted a pledge from him
to report any incidents of pilferage each morning before
his return to Jail also is uncontradicted.
I credit the testimony of Raymond Marcel, which
is uncontradicted, and find that, on about March 16,
Vincent Saia interrogated him regarding his knowledge
of the Union's organizational activities as well as those
of fellow employees Pittman and Franklin. Based upon
Marcel's undenied testimony, I also find that, in early
April, Vincent questioned Marcel as to whether the
latter had executed a union authorization card, and
pressed Marcel for the names of the employees who
attended a union meeting conducted on the preceding
evening. It is also uncontroverted and I find that, between
April 1 and June 6, when Marcel left Respondent's
employ, Vincent repeatedly queried Marcel concerning
the progress of the Union's organizational campaign.
I place no credence in Vincent's assertions that Marcel
volunteered to spy on union meetings and report the
names of the men who attended and the identity of
the "ringleaders," without any prior instructions by
Vincent to do so. Marcel testified without contradiction
that, in the course of the "Vienna sausage," episode
and in the presence of Vincent, Terminal Manager Four-
maux warned Marcel that the latter could "get some
time" for this unauthorized repast and Vincent admitted-
ly retained the evidence of Marcel's pilferage for an
extended period. In my view, Vincent utilized this inci-
dent as a club to force Marcel to do his, Vincent's,
623
bidding. I deem it implausible that Marcel would have
voluntarily cast himself in the role of-an informer on
Respondent's behalf because I fail to discern on this
record anything demonstrable which he could expect
to gain by engaging in this espionage. I am fortified
in this conclusion by the testimony of Louis Saia that
it "just didn't make sense for [Marcel] to be calling
like he was" to report on the union proclivities of
the employees. In sum, I find that, on the day of
the scheduled union gathering in April, Vincent Saia
commanded Marcel's attendance there at to spy on
the proceedings, to gather information as to the identity
of the employees who went to the meeting,- and to
pinpoint the most active adherents, and that, when Mar-
cel conveyed this intelligence to Vincent, he reduced
the information to writing.5 I also find, based upon
Marcel's credible testimony, that when Vincent discov-
ered that Marcel had joined the Union, Vincent warned
that Marcel would "be-one of the 'first so-and-so that
I will fire and I mean it." I further find that, after
the company-sponsored meeting on March 31, Vincent
informed Marcel that the former knew that employees
Jackson, Joseph, and Little had attended a previous
union meeting and that Pittman and Franklin were the
leaders in the union movement.
Accordingly, I conclude that, by the foregoing conduct
of Vincent Saia, Respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated
Section 8(a)(1).
I credit the testimony of Harris, Little, Jefferson,
Parker, and Fassitt, which was, largely corroborated
by Vincent, Saia in pertinent aspects,- and find that,
on various dates in March, April, and, July, Vincent
interrogated these men as to whether they had gone
to meetings of the Union, whether their fellow employees
had attended such convocations, and whether these indi-
viduals had signed authorization cards on behalf of
that labor organization. I also find that, in early April,
Vincent informed Little that he had received a report
from other employees that Little had attended a union
meeting , and that, in the same month, controverted
Harris' denial that he had gone to a union gathering
by exhibiting a list of the names of, employees who
had attended. By this conduct, I conclude that Respond-
ent offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
Pittman, Jefferson, and Little testified that, during
the company-sponsored meeting on March 31, as well
as in private interviews, Vincent Saia forewarned that
Respondent would "just have to close the gates down"
S In his brief , Respondent's counsel asserts that Respondent should
be held blameless for Vincent's enlistment of Marcel as an espionage
agent because the General Counsel's complaint fails to specify his
actions in this regard as violative of Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act. While
it is true that the affirmative pleadings charge Louis , rather than Vincent,
with dispatching an employee to union meetings in order to spy upon
the concerted activities of his fellow employees, the issue pertaining
to Vincent ' s participation in this aspect of misconduct was fully litigated
at the hearing"and Respondent had ample opportunity to meet it. I
therefore find no merit in Respondent's contention that Vincent's aberra-
tions should, legally, be disregarded
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
if the men selected the Union to represent them at
the terminal. Vincent, while failing to recall whether
he informed these individuals that Respondent 'could
not afford the cost of unionization, denied that he cau-
tioned his employees that he would terminate his trucking
operations if the Union became their bargaining repre-
sentative. In light of Vincent's pronounced antipathy
toward the Union's organizational campaign, as evi-
denced by his repeated interrogation of his employees
regarding their union sympathies and those of their
cohorts, and his planting of a spy among the men
who attended union meetings , I do not credit Vincent's
denial and I find, based upon the credited testimony
of Pittman, Jefferson, and Little, that Vincent threatened
to shut its operations down if his men embraced the
Union's cause. By so doing, I find that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I credit Arthur Jackson's testimony, which is not
seriously controverted by Louis Saia, and find that,
on several occasions, the latter interrogated him as
to whether he had signed a union pledge card, whether
he had attended any union meetings , whether he was
an active union adherent, and whether Pittman, Parker,
and Franklin were leaders of the organizational move-
ment at the terminal . I also credit Jackson's testimony
and find that Louis announced to Jackson that Respond-
ent could not afford a unionized operation and that
it would consequently terminate its business if the Union
successfully organized the men, and I further find that
Louis threatened Jackson that "nobody would get fired"
provided that the employees rejected Union representa-
tion. Louis admitted and I find that he questioned David
and Welton Gore, as well as Andrew Joseph and Stanley
Eskine, as to whether they had attended union-sponsored
gatherings and concerning their reasons for embracing
that labor organization . By this conduct, I conclude
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
I credit Little's testimony and find that Louis similarly
interrogated Little as to why he chose to support the
Union. I do not credit Louis' denials that he warned
Little, Pittman, and Jefferson that Respondent could
not afford a union and that Respondent would close
its "gates" if it was required to deal with a bargaining
agent . Based upon the credited testimony of Jefferson,
Harris, and Fassitt, I also find that Louis queried them
as to their union sympathies and whether they had
attended union meetings . I conclude that, by the forego-
ing conduct, Respondent committed additional violations
of Section 8(a)(1).
Fassitt's testimony stands undenied and I find that
Louis questioned this employee as to the identity of
fellow employees who had attended a union meeting
and that Fassitt mentioned the names of Pittman and
Franklin. Fassitt impressed me as an honest witness,
and I credit his testimony that Louis told Fassitt, after
the former had learned of Pittman's prominence in the
Union's drive, that Louis would "fire him [Pittman]
on the spot" if he deviated from his prescribed delivery
routes. I also credit Fassitt and find that Louis also
cautioned that "he is going to fire everyone" who took
time off from work "during this union trouble," and
that Louis instructed Fassitt to spy on the union activities
of his fellow employees. By Louis' conduct, I conclude
that Respondent ran afoul of the provisions of Section
8(a)(1).
Harris testified that he was summoned to Louis Saia's
office in July where he inquired into the extent of
Harris' formal education. When Louis learned of the
employee's lack of ability in the language arts, Louis
warned that "if the union would come through, say
I would be gone bye-bye." Louis admitted calling Harris
into his office and testing Harris' reading and writing
ability for the first time in the course of the latter's
4-year period of employment, allegedly because Louis
had uncovered a shortage in a customer order in the
amount of $1,000 for which Respondent did not hold
Harris financially responsible. Louis acknowledged, in
response to a question as to whether he told Harris
he would "be gone" if the Union succeeded, that he
suggested that Harris read the newspapers which adver-
tised that unionized carriers sought drivers with a high
school education, a curious confession in light of Louis'
assertion that he deemed Harris to be illiterate. In short,
I credit Harris' testimony and find that Louis threatened
that this employee would lose his employment because
of illiteracy if the employees selected the Union. I
conclude that Respondent thereby offended the provi-
sions of Section 8(a)(1).
Finally, I credit Jackson, who impressed me with
his testimonial sincerity, and find that Foreman Four-
maux interrogated him as to whether he had joined
the Union or attended meetings of that organization.
In the context of this proceeding, I conclude that Four-
maux's questioning was coercive and violative of Section
8(a)(1).
I turn next to a consideration of the General Counsel's
allegations that Respondent discharged Pittman, Fassitt,
Jefferson, and Little, because they joined or supported
the,-Union in its campaign to organize Respondent's
men, and, in Fassitt's case, the alternative allegation
that he lost his job with Respondent because he refused
to become an informant for the Company by spying
upon the union, activities of his fellow employees.
Pittman had been employed by Respondent for approx-
imately 51f years until his employment came to an
end on April 22. As heretofore chronicled and found,
Pittman, together with Ernest Franklin, launched the
Union' s organizational campaign at Respondent's New
Orleans terminal in late February when they visited
the Union's office and obtained authorization cards,
on which Pittman obtained the signatures of 12 employ-
ees. On about March 15, the Union conducted its first
meeting at Rose's Lounge, and a second session was
held at the union hall in early April. That Respondent's
officials quickly learned of Pittman's leadership in the
union drive is amply demonstrated not only by the
testimony of Marcel, Jackson, and Fassitt, but also
by that of Vincent and Louis Saia.
Marcel credibly testified and I have found that, on
the evening of the company meeting which was held
on March 31, Vincent informed Marcel that the former
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC.
knew that Pittman and Franklin were the union "ringlead-
ers," and Vincent repeated his accusation that these
men were prominent in union activities when he met
with Marcel on the day following the union meeting
in April. Moreover, Marcel testified without contra-
diction that, the day after the union meeting of March
15, Vincent advised Marcel that the latter "should know
something that Pittman and Franklin" did at Rose's
Lounge. Jackson credibly testified that Louis Saia
remarked that he had learned that Pittman was a "leader
of the Union." Moreover, Fassitt credibly related that,
in April, Louis questioned him as to whether Pittman
was the "head" of the union drive. Vincent Saia admitted
that, on the night of March 26, he received a telephone
call from Marcel in which the latter reported that Pittman
had attended a union meeting that evening. Louis Saia
also conceded that he uncovered the identity of "the
main men " who supported the Union from conversations
with Fassitt and Spurlock who stated that Pittman and
Franklin were "behind" the movement.
Pittman testified that, at approximately 6:30 a.m. on
April 22, he telephoned the dispatcher's office and told
his foreman, Hathaway, that he had "a little business"
to take care of that morning and that he would report
for work between 10 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. Hathaway
replied, "Okay, thank you for calling." Pittman appeared
for work at 10:20 a.m. and, as he approached the dis-
patcher's office, he was met by Terminal Manager Four-
maux who inquired, "What happened to you?" Pittman
replied that he had telephoned Hathaway earlier that
he would be late for work because he had some personal
business to attend to that morning and that Hathaway
had excused the absence. Whereupon, Fourmaux asked
"what business did you have to take care of?" to
which Pittman replied, "I had to go down to the school
board, take my kid down to the school board and
get him registered." Dissatisfied with this answer, Four-
maux pressed Pittman for the name of the school and
the individuals to whom the latter spoke while at that
institution. Pittman protested and pointed out that the
Respondent had no policy regarding the provision of
reasons for absences on personal business provided
the tardy employee notified the company in advance
of his intended absence, and Pittman inquired whether
the Respondent was instituting a new policy. Fourmaux
rejoined, "Yes, we got to know why you are late and
got to know what you was doing to cause you to
be late." Fourmaux continued to prod Pittman and
Pittman reiterated his unwillingness to divulge any infor-
mation concerning his personal affairs in the absence
of a company rule requiring him to do so. Thereupon,
Fourmaux remarked, "you mean to tell me you would
rather lose your job than tell me what school and what
you have to do?", and Pittman responded "If it comes
to that, I guess so." At this juncture, Fourmaux repaired
to the office of Louis Saia and when he returned he
once more asked Pittman what personal business the
latter conducted that morning. Pittman agin refused to
reply and Fourmaux announced, "If you' can't tell me
what business you had to take care of, that's it." Pittman
inquired whether this meant that he had been discharged
and Fourmaux answered in the affirmative. According
625
to Pittman, he deceived Fourmaux when he related
that he had taken his child to school, explaining that
in fact he had slept late because he had worked an
exhausting shift the preceding day from 7 a.m. until
11 p.m. Pittman further testified that never previously
in the course of his extensive employment with Respond-
ent had he been required to proffer any reason for
an absence on personal business provided he gave prior
notice to his foreman.
Respondent contends that Pittman was not discharged
from its service but had voluntarily quit his employment
on April 22. I find this contention too frivolous to
warrant serious consideration. Fourmaux testified that
he learned from Foreman Hathaway that morning that
Pittman had telephoned to notify the company that
he would be late for work due to personal business.
For some reason not cogently explained on this record,
Fourmaux instructed the foreman to contact him when
Pittman arrived for duty. According to Fourmaux, he
desired to question Pittman, not about the nature. of
his personal business, but the reason for failing to provide
a'day's advance notice of his absence, despite the fact
that there is no evidence, explicit or otherwise, that
Respondent maintained such a requirement. Fourmaux
claimed that, after Pittman steadfastly declined to explain
his absence, Fourmaux told Pittman "you mean to tell
me you are going to quit before you tell me where
you were?" However, Fourmaux then acknowledged
that he informed Pittman " I am not going to put you
on the clock," a remarkable statement, indeed, if Pittman
had in fact "quit" his job as Respondent would have
me believe.`' Moreover, Fourmaux's testimony was hard-
ly supported by that of Louis and Vincent Saia. Louis
testified that Fourmaux brought him the intelligence
on April 22 that Pittman would not reveal the nature
of his personal business, at which point Louis comment-
ed, "There is nothing personal in regards to telling
you what school and who he spoke to. If he can't
give you this information, fire him." After being posed
the question, "So then Fourmaux went and fired him?"
Louis replied, "That's right. "' When called to the stand,
Vincent Saia noted that it was Respondent's consistent
policy to permit the men to absent themselves for person-
al reasons if "proper arrangements in advance" were
made, although he failed to explain what he meant
by "proper." However, he made it clear that "I don't
question their personal business" because "I don't see
that we have a right to."
Contrary to the Respondent's assertion that Pittman
had voluntarily relinquished his employment at the termi-
" That Fourmaux's testimony lacks credible value is further exem-
plified by the following dialogue between Fourmaux and Respondent's
counsel while the former was on the stand'
Q (By Mr. Keenan) You fired Pittman, is that correct'i
A Yes, sir, that's correct-no, sir, that's incorrect Pittman
quit
Fassit credibly testified that, on the day of Pittman's discharge,
he was called into Louis Saia's office where the latter asked whether
he was aware of what had happened to Pittman Fassitt responded
in the affirmative, stating that he had learned that "You all fired him
because he wouldn't tell you where he went at this morning," to
which Louis retorted, "Yes, sir, we fired him "
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nal, I find that this worker was singled out for discharge
because he was a known , active union adherent.
.Respondent admittedly had no established policy of
inquiring into the motives behind an employee ' s absence
from , work due to the press of personal business and
Pittman testified without contradiction that such a policy
had never previously been invoked during the more
than 5 years of his employment at the terminal. More-
over , although both Fourmaux and Vincent claimed
that "proper" advanced notice from its employees was
required if they absented themselves , I would note that
Respondent ' s defense of this issue is bottomed on the
premise that Pittman "quit". work rather than because
he failed properly to notify Respondent of his absence.
Louis' prophecy , uttered to Fassitt some weeks earlier,
to the effect that Louis would discharge Pittman "on
the spot " if Pittman deviated in any way , came true
on April 22 when Respondent had learned of his promi-
nence in the Union ' s representational campaign . Accord-
ingly, I conclude that Respondent discharged Pittman
because he was a known , active Union adherent,-and
that it thereby violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Harold Jefferson had toiled for Respondent as an
over-the-road driver for' approximately 5 years. He tes-
tified , and I have heretofore found, that he first learned
of the Union ' s campaign from employee Gore and that,
in March , he attended a union meeting at Gore ' s invita-
tion . Shortly thereafter , Vincent Saia had a private
conversation with Jefferson in which Vincent asked what
Jefferson "had heard about the union ." Upon expressing
his ignorance concerning the union efforts, Vincent
accused the employee of "copping out " or failing to
reveal information and Vincent assured Jefferson that
.he knew the names of.all the ' employe'es who had gone
to the meeting and exhibited a piece of paper . Jefferson
also testified that , toward the end of April , Louis Saia
summoned him to an office where he inquired into
Jefferson ' s knowledge of union activities.
On June 18 , Jefferson was discharged by Louis Saia.
According to Jefferson ' s narrative of events, he had
returned from a trip and, upon arriving at the terminal,
Louis summoned him to the office . At the outset of
their conversation , Louis asked whether Jefferson knew
anything about employees tampering with the governors
on their trucks . While Jefferson remained silent, Louis
went on to observe that his vehicles were costly and
that he had ' discovered that three or -four trucks had
been damaged . Jefferson protested this inquisition
because "I hadn ' t blew up any truck ."'' Louis slammed
his hand upon ' his desk and shot ' back that Jefferson
"was fired ." According to Jefferson , he had never experi-
enced any difficulty with his trucks and had never before
been accused of tampering with generators . Jefferson
testified that he was concerned over the fact that Louis
had not spoken to several other men who were actually
the miscreants.
Louis Saia testimonially recalled that he engaged in
one conversation concerning the Union with Jefferson
during which "I just asked him what he thought about
the situation and if he knew of any reason why the
men had a problem , just general ." Louis related that
he did not interrogate Jefferson regarding his own union
sympathies or desires because , as an over -the-road driv-
er, he was not then included in the unit for which
the Union had petitioned for an election , although the
record shows that Respondent had urged their inclusion
and the Regional Director ultimately included that classi-
fication . Louis further recited that , on the date of Jeffer-
son's discharge , he "didn 't particularly want to speak
to Jefferson , but I was walking out of my office into
the dispatcher ' s office and I saw he had arrived. My
intention was to speak to all of our road drivers.. .
However , the first and , so far as appears on this record,
the only employee called to his office was Jefferson.
Louis opened the conversation by stating that "the
thing I wanted to do was tell him not to tamper with
our governors on our trucks " because the engines on
those vehicles were expensive . It is Louis' testimony
that Jefferson "flew into a rage " 'when he heard Louis'
statement , loudly exclaiming "What the hell do you
want to ask me for?" This heated Louis ' blood and,
losing his temper , he shouted to Jefferson "to get the
hell out of here , that you 're fired ." Louis admitted
that , although he had been experiencing governor trou-
ble, "the truck that we had a' problem with wasn't
a truck that he [Jefferson ] had driven.
To be sure , an employer may discharge an employee
for, any reason unconnected with his engagement in
concerted activities protected under the Act, and an
employer ' s ire may lawfully prompt a decision to sever
an employment relationship . But I am not convinced
that this was the basis for Jefferson 's termination . Louis,
as well as his brother , were gravely concerned with
the "problems " and "dissatisfaction" of their employ-
ees, which they equated with the unionization of the
terminal . Vincent conceded that he had vowed to take
action to remove the "problems" "If I had an opportuni-
ty," and he acknowledged that he "may have " learned
from Marcel that Jefferson had gone to a union meeting
with Pittman . Indeed , Louis confessed that the advent
of the Union drew his anger when he told , Harris "Don't
you think the Teamsters down there with you all down
there get me all stirred up in this mess now?" Louis
knew that Jefferson had attended a union meeting and
the former was aware that it was Respondent ' s position
that over -the-road drivers should be allowed to vote
in the forthcoming election. In short , I deem it implausi-
ble that Louis would have summarily discharged an
employee of 5 years' standing , in a fit of pique, who
had never theretofore been remiss in the performance
of his duties or in his deportment , and who concededly
had not damaged Respondent ' s equipment . Rather, I
find that Respondent singled Jefferson out for discharge
because of his known union propensities and because
of its fear that , as a potential voter , he might espouse
the Union ' s cause in the balloting . I accordingly conclude
that Jefferson's discharge was violative of Section 8(a)(3)
of the statute.
Respondent ^ had employed Fassitt as a truckdriver
intermittently for 20 years , the' latest stint spanning
7 consecutive years. As heretofore found, Fassitt was
repeatedly interrogated by Louis and Vincent Saia during
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC.
the month of April about his knowledge of the Union's
organizational activities , and Respondent requested that
Fassitt spy upon the concerted activities of his fellow
employees.
During the first 4 months of 1969 , Fassitt absented
himself from work on 23 days." On about April 22,
Fassitt entered Louis' office in search of a loan. In
an ensuing colloguy , and according to Fassitt ' s testimo-
ny, Louis warned "me don 't be taking off because
during this union trouble he [Louis ] is going to fire
everyone that takes off." It was stipulated and I find
that Fassitt worked steadily from April 21 through May
9. He testified that, on a Monday which apparently
fell on May 12, he telephoned the terminal from his
home and reported to Vincent Saia that the former
would be late for work . Receiving the call in an outer
office , Vincent advised Fassitt to hang up , stating that
he would return Fassitt ' s call on "a private line ." Vincent
telephoned Fassitt and inquired whether the latter had
"heard anything about the union ." Fassitt answered
that he had not, whereupon Vincent instructed Fassitt
to come to his office when he appeared for duty that
day. Fassitt , who had previously been asked to report
to the Saia concerning the union activities of the men,
complained, "Listen , Mr. Vincent , I hate to keep coming
into your office . These people think I am a stool pigeon.
And I hate to keep coming to your office ." After Vincent
proclaimed that he had the right to summon any of
his employees to his office if he so desired , Fassitt
relented and agreed to the invitation . However , Fassitt
failed to report for duty that day because he did not
wish to be seen in Vincent ' s chambers.
Fassitt further testified that , on the following day,
May 13 , he telephoned Louis Saia to have "his brother
quit calling me in his office because these fellows going
to think I am a stool pigeon on him ." Louis promised
to do so. During the conversation, Louis again queried
Fassitt about the Union and Fassitt once more related
that he knew nothing about it . Fassitt remained home
that day . On May 14, he checked in at the terminal
and it is undenied that he reported to a dispatcher
named Ferlandy.9 Ferlandy first proceeded to the corpo-
rate office and upon his return informed Fassitt that
there was no work for him that day. According to
Fassitt , he had never previously experienced a situation
where Respondent was unable to utilize his services,
or where he was instructed to lay out for a few days.
The next day , May 15 , Fassitt telephoned Fourmaux
to inquire why Ferlandy had sent him home on the
preceding day. Fourmaux replied that Ferlandy's action
was prompted by the fact that Fassitt did not call
in to the terminal on May 13 and 14. Fassitt protested
that he had in fact telephoned Vincent and Louis on
" The parties stipulated that Fassitt missed work on the following
dates January 17 and 31, February 4, 7, 10, 14 , 17, 18, and 19,
March 17, 18, 19, and 28, and, April 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 , 14, 15, 16,
17, and 18 However , the record establishes that Fassitt was absent
for approximately 2 weeks in April and that the absence was excused
by Fourmaux upon Fassitt's production of a doctor's certificate I
so find
B Respondent did not call Ferlandy as a witness
627
those dates , whereupon Fourmaux checked with the
front office and then advised Fassitt to "come on in."
Instead , Fassitt remained at home because "I just didn't
want to go in."'Fassitt also stayed at home on March
16 and , during the afternoon , telephoned Louis to ask
whether the former could visit the terminal and obtain
his paycheck . Louis told Fassitt to meet him at a local
department store rather than at the terminal, and Fassitt
agreed to do so. When the parties met, Louis questioned
Fassitt about the Union ' s progress and Fassitt repeated
that he was completely in the dark concerning the
Union ' s activities . Louis gave Fassitt his paycheck,
at which point Fassitt inquired as to when he could
return and Louis replied , "Call me up in a couple
days, things kind of hot around here ." Fassitt promised
that he would . Before the conversation ended , Fassitt
remarked that some unidentified individuals had fired
bullets into his home on the preceding night and Fassitt
invited Louis to view the scene but Louis declined,
stating that he believed Fassitt ' s report.
Fassitt bided his time until May 21 when he again
telephoned Louis. In the conversation , Louis asked' if
Fassitt had any information about the Union . Fassitt
responded negatively . Louis told Fassitt to remain at
home for a few more days and to call back . Fassitt
waited until June 5. On that date , he placed a call
to Louis and protested that , because he had a wife
and eight children, "I can 't keep on taking off like
this. I got to come to work ." After Louis sought informa-
tion about the Union , Louis stated that Fassitt had
been discharged.
In the course of his testimony , Fassitt averred with
contradiction that , during the 5 years preceding .the
hearing , he would work hard for a period of a week
and rest at home for a few days , and that he made
this a consistent practice . He also avowed that he
declined to enter Vincent ' s office and remained at his
home in the middle of May for the dual reasons that
he was afraid that the men would believe he was an
informant for Respondent and that the shots fired into
his home might have come from union adherents.
Based upon credited testimony , I have heretofore
found that Louis Saia instructed Fassitt to attend union
meetings and report back to the Saias on what had
transpired, and that Fassitt had undergone repeated inter-
rogations by Louis and Vincent about any knowledge
which he might possess concerning union activities.
I have also found that Fassitt failed to appear at the
union gatherings and failed to provide Respondent with
any information about the Union. I have further found
that Vincent Saia summoned Fassitt to his office on
several occasions to inquire into knowledge of the efforts
of the Union to organize the terminal . Vincent, in his
testimony, denied that he had ever received a telephone
call from Fassitt in which the latter complained about
being called into Vincent ' s office . In view of Vincent's
other discredited testimonial utterances , I perceive no
persuasive reason for crediting Vincent's averments in
this regard . Accordingly, I find that Respondent, 'on
and after May 12 , was aware that Fassitt had lost
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all relish in spying on his fellow employees as Louis
had commanded.
Nor do I credit Louis Saia's testimony that , on April
21 or 22, he was impelled to summon Fassitt and warn
him of his continual absences which , according to Louis,
numbered 37 during the first 4 months of 1969. By
stipulation of the parties , Fassitt had absented himself
only 23 times during that period , and the record establish-
es that several of these absences were excused because
they were occasioned by illness. Although Louis claimed
that he had talked to Fassitt about his absences on
previous occasions , he admitted that this was the first
occasion in 1969 that he brought the absences to Fassitt's
attention . Moreover , Louis conceded that , while 12 to
14 other men made it a practice of remaining away
from work , Fassitt was the only one whom he warned
on this occasion . Louis testified that he was prompted
in warning Louis about his derelictions on April 21
or 22 by the fact that "We have customers that are
calling us and they don't want to hear our problems,"
and Louis cautioned that "we got to have our men
working . You have been missing , you have been absent
almost a month out of three. Now, in the future, if
you are sick , that ' s all right , but if you have been
drunk or any other reason , I am going to fire you."
As I have hereinbefore credited Fassitt ' s testimony that
Louis told the former in this conversation "don't be
taking off because during this union trouble he is going
to fire everyone that takes off," I find no credence
in Louis' contrary assertions.
In sum , L find that Respondent had attempted to
enlist the energies of Fassitt to act as an informer
regarding the collective activities of its employees, a
role which Fassitt initially agreed to play. I further
find that , on May 12 , Fassitt made it abundantly clear
to the Saias that he was unwilling to engage in espionage
on his fellow employees union inclinations and, on and
after that date , gave negative replies to Respondent's
repeated inquiries about the Union ' s campaign. I find
that , when Respondent became convinced that Fassitt
would not "play ball" on May 12 , it reached a decision
to, and did, sever his employment relationship with
Respondent by refusing to provide work for him because
he declined to spy on the Union , and not because
of his absenteeism . Accordingly , I conclude that
Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act.10
There remains for final consideration the matter of
James A. Little 's discharge . Little had worked for
Respondent "off and on" since 1944 as a truckdriver.
As noted and heretofore found , he attended the union
meeting held early in April and, the following day,
he was questioned by Vincent Saia about his presence
at that gathering . I have also found that a few days
later , he became Louis Saia's target for a similar inquiry.
That Respondent was well aware of Little ' s union taint
prior to the termination of his'employment is amply
IS Although the complaint alleges that Respondent discharged Fassitt
on June 5, the General Counsel concedes in his brief that Fassitt
last worked for the company on Friday, May 9, and I so find.
demonstrated not only be the credited testimony of
Raymond Marcel , but also by the sworn utterances
of Vincent himself . Thus, immediately after the compa-
ny-sponsored meeting of March 31, and as reported
by Marcel , Vincent told Marcel as they looked down
upon employees who were working on the dock that
Vincent knew that Pittman and Franklin were "ringlead-
ers" in the Union ' s organizational drive, and he
bemoaned that "he didn 't thought Little would do him
anything like this." Moreover , in his testimony , Vincent
acknowledged that Marcel "may have " informed him
that Little had been to a union conclave . Furthermore,
inasmuch as Vincent had been provided with a list
of the employees who had gone to the affair , he most
certainly knew that Little was one of them.
It is uncontroverted and I find that , in 1965 , Little
was hospitalized for a hemorrhoid condition and was
out of work for a year . During this period , however,
he was employed by the Saia brothers cutting grass
at their private residences . At the end of the year,
one of the Saias asked Little "when I would be able
to come back and I told him I didn ' t know because
to the difficulty in what I have to be picking up on.
I said I couldn ' t pick up nothing too heavy." Saia
promised that he would assign Little to light work when
he returned . Upon his retsrn , Respondent placed him
in another warehouse where he performed light duties
for approximately 2 years. In 1967 or 1968 , Little again
became ill and missed work for 2 months . He returned
to duty as a truckdriver sometime in 1969.
Little testified that , around the middle of April, he
stepped on a nail while at work and the object penetrated
his foot . Little disregarded the injury for a few days
until it began to fester . Finally , Little telephoned the
dispatcher , Ferlandy , to apprise him of the accident
and to report that the wound had become aggravated
and that he planned to stay at home until it healed.
The dispatcher requested Little to make two more deliv-
eries and , when these were completed , Little received
permission to stay at home. Little further testified that
he remained home for a few days during which time
he did not report to the terminal. Upon his return
to work , he found a note on his timecard instructing
him to see Fourmaux before entering upon his duties.
At the outset of their conversation , Fourmaux inquired
whether Little had telephoned the terminal during his
absence . When Little replied that he had not , Fourmaux
sought the reason for this happenstance . Little remarked
that "I spoke to Mr. Ferlandy before I left concerning
sticking a nail in my feet and I felt like with my pain
that I had sticking a nail in my feet , I figure you
all would realize from sticking a nail in my feet I
couldn ' t get back there in a couple of days and go
to work ." Fourmaux rejoined that "it is routine you
must call in ." Little stated that "I probably was wrong"
for neglecting to place the call. At this juncture , Vincent
Saia approached and, after discussing the matter,
informed Little that he should have communicated with
Respondent during the absence and again Little apolo-
gized for not having done so.' Vincent and Little there-
upon stepped into the former ' s office where Little com-
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC.
mented that Vincent "seems like he was somewhat
angry with me concerning the union , and at the time
when - he first got to talking to me I said absolutely
I didn ' t know anything about it ." Little then told Vincent
that the employees suspected him of spying on the
union activities and reporting the results to Respondent,
at which point Vincent announced that he "couldn't
afford [the Union] and before he afford it , he closed
the gates , get out of business . He didn't need it no
way. "
. Little continued to work until May 23 when he once
more fell ill . Little testified that , on two occasions
between that date and July 9 when he reported back
to the terminal , he telephoned Respondent and notified
a "Mr. Don " and another unidentified party of his
illness. On the latter occasion , the unidentified individual
assured Little that his absence was "Okay" and that
an appropriate notation would be made on his timecard.
During the period from May 23 to July 9, Little super-
vised his sons in cutting the grass around the Saias'
homes. Little' s reason for engaging in this endeavor
was premised on his belief that it would be dishonest
to return to work and be physically unable fully to
produce.
On July 8, Little visited his doctor for a checkup
and obtained a medical certificate which recited that
"Mr. Little has been under my care for a rectal problem.
He may return to work , however , hospitalization will
be required in the near future ." On July 9, armed
with the certificate , he appeared for work and encoun-
tered Fourmaux . Little showed the document to his
superior who, after perusing it, handed it back to Little
with the comment "What , you came back to work?"
Little acknowledged that he had , whereupon Fourmaux
stated , "Little, do you think I can hold a job open
for you for month and a half?" When Little replied
that he did not know , Fourmaux retorted , "Well, I
can't . I am sorry . I don ' t have anything for you."
Little placed the certificate in his pocket and left the
premises . With regard to the availability of jobs at
the terminal during the times material herein , Vincent
Saia confessed that "We hire full -time people regularly,"
and added that "We keep an ad pretty regular in the
paper . I think one is in there now ." Vincent also
expiained that there is a continuous ' need "for people
most of the time."
Respondent contends that Little "quit the employ
of respondent without notice " and was not discharged
because of his union activities . I find this defense lacking
in merit . Respondent was fully aware that Little was
a union supporter by virtue of his attendance at a
meeting of that organization , and Respondent not only
expressed dismay at this adherence but it also sought
to wean him away from union membership by threatening
to close the terminal if the Union succeeded in an
election among the employees . Little had toiled for
Respondent for almost a quarter of a century and,
from all indications , was a capable and industrious
employee during his tenure at the terminal. On two
occasions prior to the advent of the Union and Respond-
629
ent's awareness of Little' s union inclinations, he had
absented himself on account of illness and , so far as
appears, he was not required to notify Respondent peri-
odically of the extent of his absence . Although Respond-
ent's witnesses denied that Little communicated with
them on two occasions between May 23 and July 9
to report his illness , I do not credit their denials. Little
impressed me as an honest witness who consciously
strived to speak the truth and I find that he did place
these calls to the terminal . I am particularly fortified
in this conclusion by the fact that , just a month earlier,
he was instructed by Fourmaux and Vincent Saia to
telephone Respondent during an absence caused by sick-
ness. Moreover , I deem it implausible if not incredible
that Respondent would have permitted an old and trusted
employee to "quit without notice" his job as a truckdri-
ver at a time when Respondent was in dire need for
drivers.
Viewing the evidence on this issue and the record
as a whole , I am persuaded and find that Respondent
discharged Little on July 9 because of his attendance
at a union meeting . I conclude that , by the foregoing
conduct , Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3).
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above , occuring in connection with the operations of
Respondent set forth in section 1, above , have a close,
intimate , and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and
commerce among the several States , and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease
and desist- therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have heretofore found that Respondent discriminato-
rily discharged Milous Pittman , Harold Jefferson, and
James A. Little because they joined and actively support-
ed the Union , and terminated Charles Fassitt because
he refused to act as a spy for Respondent on his fellow
employees ' union activities . I shall therefore recommend
that Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent employ-
ment and make them whole for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination prac-
ticed against them , by payment to them of a sum equal
to that which they normally, would have earned from
the date of their discharge to the date of offer of
reinstatement , less their net earnings during said period.
The backpay provided for herein shall be computed
in accordance with the Board ' s formula set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed
in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co., 138 NLRB 716.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Because of the nature and extent of the unfair labor
practices engaged in by Respondent , which evince an
attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in
general , I deem it necessary to recommend that Respond-
ent cease and desist from 'in any other manner infringing
upon the rights of employees guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions , and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers Local 270, `a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers of America , Ind., is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Milous Pittman , Charles Fassitt,
Harold Jefferson , and' James A. Little, thereby discrimi-
nating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment,
in order to discourage membership in and activity on
behalf of the Union , and, in Fassitt's case, because
he refused to engage in illegal surveillance on Respond-
ent's behalf , the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4.' By interfering' with , restraining ; and coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices 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 in this case , and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended , I recommend that Saia Motor Freight Line,
Inc., New Orleans , Louisiana , its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in and activities on
behalf of the Union , or any other labor organization,
by discharging employees or in any other manner discrim-
inating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment,
or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees regarding their
knowledge of union activities and interrogating them
as to whether they had signed union authorization cards
and-had attended union meetings'.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees concerning the
union activities of their-fellow employees and questioning
employees as to whether their' fellow employees had
executed union authorization cards and had attended
meetings of that labor organization. '
(d) Coercively interrogating employees regarding the
identity of the leading union advocates.
(e) Coercively interrogating employees about their
reasons for joining the Union.
(f) Threatening employees with discharge for signing
union authorization cards.
(g) Threatening employees who were not high school
graduates that they would be discharged if the Union
was successful in its organizational campaign.
(h) Threatening employees that it would close its busi-
ness operations in the event the Union succeeded in
enlisting their collective support.
(i) Directing employees to surveille union meetings
and to inform Respondent of the names of the employees
who had attended those gatherings and the identity
of the most active union supporters.
(j) Creating the impression of surveillance by telling
employees that Respondent had received reports from
other employees that the former had attended union
meetings , and that it was aware of the men who were
in the forefront of the union movement.
(k) Informing employees that Respondent was seeking
a reason for discharging employees because of their
activities on behalf of the Union.
(1) Threatening employees that none of them would
be discharged provided they rejected collective represen-
tation by the Union.
(m) In any other manner interfering with , restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their right
to self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join
or assist the Union , or any other labor organization,
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 , or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Milous Pittman , Charles Fassitt, Harold
Jefferson, and James A. Little immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent
employment and make them whole for any loss of
pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion practiced against them , in the manner set forth
in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify Milous Pittman, Charles Fassitt , Harold
Jefferson , and James A. Little, if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right
to full reinstatement upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended , after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents , for examination and copying,
all payroll records , social security payment records,
timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to ascertain any backpay due under
the terms of this Recommended Order.
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, INC
(d) Post at its terminal in New Orleans, Louisiana,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix ""
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the regional
Director for Region 15, shall, after being duly signed
by a representative of Respondent, be posted by it
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days of receipt of this Decision,
what steps Respondent has taken to comply therewith 12
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board
the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order
herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations
be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and
order and all objections thereto shad be deemed waived for all purposes
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 be
changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board
11 In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United states trovernment
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activ-
ities on behalf of GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
LOCAL 270, A/W INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, IND , or any other
labor organization, by discharging any of our
employees or in any other manner discriminating
against our employees in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment, or any term or condition
of employment
WE WILL NOT ask our employees about their
knowledge of union activities or ask them if they
have signed union pledge cards or have gone to
union meetings
WE WILL NOT ask our men about the union
activities of their fellow employees or ask our
men if their fellow employees signed union pledge
cards or went to meetings held by the Union
WE WILL NOT ask our men why they joined
the Union
631
WE WILL NOT threaten our men that they will
be fired if they sign union pledge cards
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees who are
not high school graduates with discharge if the
union becomes their bargaining agent,
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees that we
will close down the terminal if they bring the Union
into the terminal
WE WILL NOT tell our employees to spy on
union meetings and report to us the names of
the men who went to the meetings or to tell us
the names of the union ringleaders
WE WILL NOT make you believe that we are
spying on your union activities by telling you that
other employees have seen you at union meetings,
and that we know the names of the men who
are leading the Union 's campaign t
WE WILL NOT tell you that we are looking for
ways to fire employees for joining or helping the
Union
WE WILL NOT threaten you that you will not
be fired if the Union is defeated
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce you in the exercise of your
rights under the National Labor Relations Act
WE WILL offer Milous Pittman , Charles Fassitt,
Harold Jefferson , and James A Little immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantial-
ly equivalent employment and make them whole
for any loss of pay suffered as a result of our
discrimination against them
WE WILL notify Milous Pittman , Charles Fassitt,
Harold Jefferson , and James A Little if presently
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States
of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and
the Universal Military Training and Service Act,
as amended , after discharge from the Armed
Forces
All our employees are free to become , or refrain
from becoming , members of the above -named Union
or any other labor organization
Dated By
SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT
LINE, 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 directed to the Board's
Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola
Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone
504-527-6361