Whittlesea Blue Cab Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1966

162 N.L.R.B. 106 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Victor F . Whittlesea, d/b/a Whittlesea Blue Cab Company and
Warden Hazlett Shuman
Automotive Workers & Warehousemen , Local No. 881 , Interna-
- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America (Victor F. Whittlesea , d/b/a Whittle-
sea Blue Cab Company ) and Warden Hazlett Shuman. Cases
31-CA-307 and 31-CB-83. December14, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
, On September 7, 1966, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his
Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief. Neither the General Counsel, Re-
spondent Company, nor the Charging Party filed exceptions in the
above cases.
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 connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
with the following modification : delete from paragraph 1(a) of the
Trial Examiner's Recommended Order directed to the Respondent
Company; and from paragraph 1(a) of the Recommended Order
directed to the Respondent Union; and from the notices attached to
the Trial Examiner's Decision, the phrase "except as authorized by
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act."]
DECISION OF THE TRIAL EXAMINER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The consolidated complaint alleges, in material substance , that a labor organiza-
tion (herein called the Union or Local 881) 1 demanded that an employer, Victor
F. Whittlesea , d/b/a Whittlesea Blue Cab Company (herein the Respondent
Employer or Company ) lay off an employee , Warden Hazlett Shuman, because he
1 As used in this Decision , the designations " Union," "Respondent Union ," and "Local
881" refer to Automotive Workers & Warehousemen , Local No 881 , International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America
162 NLRB No. 17.
WHITTLESEA BLUE CAB CO. 107
had failed to engage in picketing and other activities on behalf of Local 881; that
the Respondent Employer, pursuant to the demand, did lay off Shuman; and that
by their respective acts in the premises, the Respondent Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein
the Act),2 and the Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act .3
Each Respondent has filed an answer which, in material substance, denies the
commission of the unfair labor practices imputed to such Respondent in the
complaint.
A hearing has been held upon the issues before Trial Examiner Herman Marx,
on June 7, 1966, at Las Vegas, Nevada. All parties were afforded a full opportunity
to adduce evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and submit oral argu-
ment and briefs. A motion to dismiss the complaint, made by each Respondent
after the close of the evidence, is denied on the basis of the findings and con-
clusions set forth below.4 I have read and considered a brief filed by the General
Counsel of the Board since the close of the hearing. No other party has submitted
a brief.
Upon the entire record, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. NATURE OF THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS;
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
Victor F. Whittlesea, an individual doing business as Whittlesea Blue Cab Com-
pany, maintains his principal office and place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada,
where he is engaged in the operation of a taxicab enterprise; and is, and has been
at all times material to the issues here, an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2) of the Act.
During the calendar year 1965, in the course and conduct of his business, the
Respondent Employer "transported passengers to or from airline terminals, bus
stations, and train stations"; derived gross revenue from his enterprise exceeding
$500,000; and purchased and received in Nevada materials valued in excess of
$5,000 from enterprises that had purchased and received them from suppliers
located outside the said State. As each Respondent in effect admits, the Respondent
Employer is, and has been at all times material here, engaged in interstate com-
merce, and in a business affecting such commerce, within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, the National Labor Relations Board has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 881 is, and has been at all material times, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory statement
Warden Hazlett Shuman has been in the Company 's employ as a cabdriver since
March 9, 1964, except for the period between January 1 and February 11, 1966,
and has been a member of the Union at all times material here.
In January 1966 5 the Union was engaged in a strike against two Las Vegas
taxicab enterprises other than the Respondent Employer (with whom it has a
collective -bargaining agreement ); sponsored picketing of the struck companies in
29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.
The consolidated complaint was issued on March 29, 1966. and is based upon a charge
filed by Shuman with the National Labor Relations Board (herein the Board) against the
Respondent Employer in Case 31-CA-307 on February 3, 1966, and upon another filed by
Shuman against the Respondent Union on the same date in Case 31-CB-S3. The two cases
have been duly consolidated for hearing. Copies of each charge, the complaint, the order
of consolidation, and a notice of hearing have been duly served upon all parties entitled
thereto.
'The General Counsel of the Board has filed a motion, dated July 15, 1966, for correc-
tion of the transcript of the hearing in specified particulars. No opposition has been sub-
mitted. The motion is granted, and the transcript is amended in the particulars requested.
5 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates mentioned here occurred in 1966.
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
support of the strike ; and required members employed by other taxi enterprises,
including the Respondent Employer, to engage in picketing of the struck firms, or,
in the alternative , to pay the Union $ 15. A notice setting forth the requirement was
posted on a bulletin board provided by the Respondent Company at its premises
for information of interest to the drivers.
During the first week in January 1966, a representative of the Union, Bernard
Buckley, gave the Company's personnel manager, John Baldwin , a paper listing the
names of drivers in the Company's employ, and requesting that the Company
"send these men over (to the Union) before they went to work." In a conversation
about the time the list was submitted, Buckley told Baldwin that the men were
"wanted" by the Union for "picket duty." 6 Baldwin gave the Company's dispatch-
ers, who deal with the drivers, a list of the names, instructed them to tell the men
on the list, which included Shuman, to report to the Union "before they went to
work," and posted a copy of the list on drivers' bulletin board, together with a note
that those listed "should see the Union before they went to work." Most of the
drivers reported to the Union as directed.
The dispatchers, one for each of the three shifts, are stationed in a room at the
Company's premises, transacting their business with the drivers through a window
or by radio communication with the cabs, and have the function of issuing "trip
sheets" to drivers as they report for work; dispatching them on passengers' calls;
and transmitting orders and other information from the management to its drivers.
Trip sheets are required in Las Vegas by law, and a driver may not work without
one. Under the Company's standing operating procedure, a trip sheet, which may
be supplied to the driver "only" by his shift dispatcher, is issued daily to the driver,
as he reports for work, at the dispatch window. During the course of his shift, the
driver enters on the sheet, which contains his name and cab number, pertinent
information relating to the trips he makes that day, turning the sheet in to the
Company, together with his fare collections, at the end of his shift.
As of Friday, January 7, 1966, Shuman had not reported to the Union, as
required by the posted instructions, and shortly after 8 p.m. on that date when he
reported to the dispatch window for his trip sheet preparatory to starting on his
shift (8:30 p.m. to 5:30 a.m.), his shift dispatcher, Myrtle Everts, did not give
him his sheet , but, instead , handed him a slip of paper containing his name and a
direction that he "see Union before going to work."
Without a trip sheet, Shuman was unable to work, and he sought a pay telephone
on the Company's premises to call the Union, but finding none available, he went
to his home to make the call. He attempted to reach the Union's secretary-treasurer,
Richard Thomas, at the organization's office, but could get no answer, and then
called Thomas at the latter 's home . Thomas was not there , and Shuman left a
message for him to call.
On Monday , January 10, not having heard from Thomas, Shuman called him at
the Union 's office , and reaching him, said that he "had been held off of work."
After a pause , during which Thomas made an inquiry about the matter in the
office, the latter told Shuman that it was "just a little matter of paying $15 picket
fee or walking the picket line." Shuman replied that he saw no reason why he
should do that since he was not on strike , and Thomas replied that the Union's
membership had voted for the requirement . Shuman said that the only course he
had open was to take the matter to the National Labor Relations Board, and
Thomas retorted that he could take it any place he wished?
On the following day, Shuman reached the Respondent Company's president,
Milford Prine (spelled according to the corrected transcript ) by telephone, and
told him he had been denied work because he had refused to picket or pay the fee.
$ Buckley claims that "I just asked him [Baldwin] to get them there as soon as possible,"
but he also states that he "can't remember" whether he gave any reason There is no reason
to doubt that Buckley told Baldwin, as the latter testified, that the Union "wanted" the
drivers to report for "picket duty."
7 The respective versions of the conversation differ somewhat in detail, but not signifi-
cantly so, in my view. Among other differences, Thomas does not quote Shuman as saying
he had been denied work (held off work), but it is clear that the very act of withholding
the trip sheet from Shuman was as much as to deny him work Clearly, too, that was the
focal point of his call, and it is entirely plausible that he expressly adverted to the fact
that work had been withheld from him. Shuman's recollection of details of his call ap-
peared to me to be firmer than Thomas', and I have thus based findings as to the call
on Shuman 's testimony.
WHITTLESEA BLUE, CAB CO. 109
Prine replied that there was no strike at the Company and that the concern had a
contract with the Union.8
On January 20, Shuman came to the Respondent Company's premises and had
a conversation with Prine, in the course of which he asked Prine, in effect, to
explain why the Company had denied him work, and Prine told him that the Com-
pany had nothing against Shuman, but was withholding work from him because of
concern that the Union would picket the Respondent Employer "and stop [his]
whole operation." Later that day, Shuman telephoned Prine and told him that he
had received information from the National Labor Relations Board as to the pro-
cedure to be followed in filing "a claim," and that he "would have to file a claim
against the Union and the Company."
On the following day, January 21, Baldwin had a note posted in the dispatchers'
room, stating that "Schuman [sic] can work." According to Baldwin, he did this
following a telephone conversation with Thomas, in which each stated that he was
not "holding" Shuman (in other words, denying him employment), and Thomas
asked him to post a note that Shuman "can work."
The dispatchers' room is "strictly" for them; information posted on the bulletin
board there is not seen by the drivers; and Shuman neither saw the notice that he
could return to work nor was informed either by the Union or the Company at
any time prior to February 11, 1966, that he could do so. He was informed of the
notice on that date by a representative of the General Counsel (who presumably
learned of it in the course of investigation of Shuman's charges which had been
filed about a week earlier). Shuman called Prine later that day to inquire about the
notice. Prine confirmed his information, and told Shuman that he could return to
work that day on his former shift.
Shuman reported for work on that shift on February 11, 1966, and has been
employed by the Company ever since.
B. Discussion of the issues; concluding findings
The ultimate issue here is whether Shuman was denied employment, at the
insistence of the Union, because he did not comply with the Union's requirement
that he do "picket duty" or, alternatively, pay the $15 fee.
On that issue, testimony by Baldwin that only he has the function in the
Respondent Company's enterprise of hiring and discharging drivers, and that he
did not lay off Shuman, is beside the point if the evidence, as a whole, requires a
finding that the Company did, in fact, deny work to Shuman for a proscribed
reason.
I am left in no doubt that it did so. Prine as much as admitted to Shuman on
January 20 that the Company was withholding work from the latter because it
feared picketing by the Union. The Respondents appear to deprecate the weight
of the admission with testimony by Baldwin that Prine is "chief mechanic, as far
as I know ." The label Baldwin gives Prine does not alter the fact that the latter is
also admittedly "president" of the enterprise , a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act, and, as one may reasonably infer from his titles and supervisory status, a
potent figure in the management.
Nor is there any escape from the critical fact that when Shuman presented him-
self for his trip sheet on January 7, it was withheld from him, and that he could
not work without it. To withhold the sheet was as much as to deny him employ-
ment ; and the Respondents' claim to the effect that the Company was not responsi-
ble for the denial is much against the weight of the evidence. Myrtle Everts' author-
ity may be spelled out from the undeniable fact that it was her function to issue trip
sheets and transmit orders from the management to drivers on Shuman's shift, and
that, as Baldwin himself testified , the Union had requested, and he had issued
instructions to the dispatchers, that the men listed for "picket duty" by the Union
8 Baldwin testified that Prine is the enterprise's "chief mechanic, as far as I know " The
matter is of no large moment, for the end results here are the same irrespective of Prine's
title, which Shuman understood to be that of "president," but I note that the answers do
not deny or explain, and hence admit, allegations of the complaint to the effect that Prine
holds that office. That is not altered by the fact that the enterprise is an individual
proprietorship. As in effect admitted by both answers, Prine, Baldwin, and Philip Felegy,
the Company's comptroller, are, and have been at all material times, agents of the Respond-
ent Employer, and supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be told to report to it "before they went to work." Against that background, I find
that Myrtle Everts' conduct in withholding the trip sheet from Shuman, and direct-
ing him, instead, to "see" the Union, was the act of the Respondent Company.
The reason for the denial of employment is not difficult to find, notwithstanding
the fact that Myrtle Everts was not produced as a witness, and that neither Respond-
ent has adduced any evidence explaining why she withheld the trip sheet from Shu-
man. Prine's admission to Shuman of itself goes far to explain the Company's
motive, but, in addition, to withhold the trip sheet was an obviously potent method
of compelling Shuman, who up to that point had not complied with the posted direc-
tion to report to the Union, to communicate with the organization, as, in fact, he
speedily attempted to do after the sheet was withheld from him and he was directed
to "see" the Union by Everts. The meaning of that direction is not significantly dif-
ferent from the experience of a day-shift driver, Elwood Purdy, who was told by his
dispatcher about January 7 to give the Union "strike pay" (the $15 fee) or he
"couldn't drive the next day." (Purdy paid.) In the context of circumstances, to give
Shuman a direction to "see" the Union, in lieu of supplying him with his trip sheet,
was, by implication, as much as to tell him, as Purdy was expressly told, that com-
pliance with the Union's requirement was a condition of continued employment.
And the withholding of the trip sheet, I find, was tantamount to laying Shuman off
until he complied with the Union's picketing requirement, or the Union otherwise
cleared him for employment.
It is evident, too, that the denial of work to Shuman was at the Union's behest.
One need not pause to determine whether the Union's request a few days earlier
that a number of drivers, including Shuman, report to the Union for picket service
"before they went to work" was an implied requirement that those listed secure a
clearance from the Union as a condition of continued employment, for whether or
not one so construes the request, the persuasive facts are that Shuman had not
reported as of January 7; that the denial of employment harnessed to the direction
that he "see" the Union was as much as to require him to comply with the Union's
picketing requirement; and that when Shuman sought an explanation from Thomas
why he "had been held off ... work," Thomas told him that the reason was its
requirement that Shuman walk "the picket line" or pay the "$15 picket fee." Plainly,
the denial of employment based upon such a requirement was discriminatory and
unlawful, and Thomas as much as admitted to Shuman that the Union had caused
the denial. I find that the Union did so.9
The discrimination, and the Union's role in it, did not come to an end with the
notice posted in the dispatchers' room on January 21 that Shuman "can work." The
notice was obviously designed for the dispatchers and not intended for Shuman's
eyes and he was unaware of it until a representative of the General Counsel told
him about it on February 11. He had been discriminatorily denied employment on
January 7 , and the duty to take effective steps to terminate the discrimination was
upon the Respondents , and not upon Shuman to beseech them to do . so (although
the obvious implication of his conversations with Thomas and Prine was that he
was seeking to return to work ). Thus I find no materiality in Baldwin 's testimony
that a notice of his "capacity" was posted on "the Company bulletin Board," nor is
the discrimination in any way lessened by the fact that Shuman discussed his loss
of employment with Prine, rather than with Baldwin, whether or not Shuman was
aware of Baldwin 's functions . 10 The fact is, as I find , that neither Respondent took
adequate steps to bring the discrimination to an end prior to February 11, 1966, and
that it ended with his reemployment on that date.
In summary, I find, for the reasons stated, that the Respondent Employer denied
employment to Shuman for the period beginning January 7, 1966, and ending on
February 11, 1966, because he did not report to the Union for picketing duty or,
B In a prehearing affidavit given to the General Counsel , Philip Felegy, the Company's
comptroller , states that he learned from Baldwin on January 8 that the Union had requested
of Myrtle Everts, by telephone , that " Shuman not be put to work until Shuman cleared
with the Union " ; and that Shuman had been "laid off" at the Union's request . Needless to
say, the contents of the affidavit are not binding upon the Union, and not evidential as to it.
As regards the Company , I find it unnecessary to take the affidavit into account, and I base
no findings on it.
10 According to Shuman , the notice of Baldwin's functions "had not been posted" as of
the period in question.
WHITTLESEA BLUE CAB CO. 111
alternatively, pay the prescribed $15 fee, as required by the Union; that by such
denial of employment, the Respondent Employer discriminated against Shuman in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, thus
violating Section 8(a)(1) of the statute; and that the Union caused such discrimi-
nation, thereby violating Section 8(b)(2) of the Act, and, by such conduct,
restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights, thus violating
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent Employer described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of the unfair labor practices found above, I shall recommend that each
Respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and take affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent Employer denied Warden Hazlett Shuman
employment on and after January 7, 1966, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act, and reinstated him to his former position on February 11, 1966, and
that the Respondent Union caused the Respondent Employer to discriminate against
Shuman, thereby violating Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act, I shall recom-
mend that the Respondent Employer and Respondent Union forthwith jointly and
severally make Shuman whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by reason
of the Respondent Employer's discrimination against him, by payment to him of a
sum of money equal to the amount of wages and passengers' tips he would have
received during the period of discrimination against him, as found above, together
with interest on such amount, at the rate of 6 percent per annum; and that the said
amount and interest thereon be computed in accordance with the formula and
method prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, to which the parties hereto are
expressly referred.I"
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
this proceeding, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Employer is, and has been at all material times, an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Union is, and has been at all material times, a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminating against Warden Hazlett Shuman, the Respondent Employer
has engaged 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
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, the Respondent
Employer has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)
(1) of the Act.
5. By causing the Respondent Employer to discriminate against Warden Hazlett
Shuman, as found above, the Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) of the Act.
6. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act, as found above, the Respondent Union has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11The loss of tips is to be computed on the basis of gratuities from passengers that a
cabdriver could reasonably have expected to receive in Las Vegas, Nevada, during the
period of discrimination involved.
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that:
A. The Respondent Employer, Victor F. Whittlesea, d/b/a Whittlesea Blue Cab
Company, his officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Encouraging membership of his employees in Automotive Workers & Ware-
housemen, Local No. 881, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization, by laying
off, or otherwise denying employment to, any employee, or in any other manner
discriminating against any employee in regard to his hire, tenure, or any other term
or condition of employment, except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with Automotive Workers & Warehousemen, Local No.
881, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, make Warden Hazlett Shuman whole in the manner, to the extent,
and according to the method, set forth in "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve until compliance with any order for backpay made by the National
Labor Relations Board in this proceeding is effectuated, and make available to the
said Board and its agents, upon request, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security records, and time records, which contain any information
relevant to a determination of the amount of backpay due Shuman.
(c) Post in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted, at the said Respondent Employer's place of business in
Las Vegas, Nevada, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A." Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31 of the National
Labor Relations Board, after being duly signed by the said Respondent Employer,
shall be posted by him immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by him for
a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
said Respondent Employer to ensure that such notice is not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of this Decision, what steps the said Respondent Employer has taken to comply
herewith.12
B. Automotive Workers & Warehousemen, Local No. 881, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Causing, or attempting to cause, Victor F. Whittlesea, d/b/a Whittlesea Blue
Cab Company, or any other employer, except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, to lay off, or otherwise deny employment to, any employee, or in any
other manner discriminate against any employee in regard to his hire, tenure of
employment, or any term or condition of employment, to encourage membership
in any labor organization.
(b) Restraining or coercing employees of Victor F. Whittlesea, d/b/a Whittlesea
Blue Cab Company, or any other employer, in the exercise of any of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, I find, will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Jointly and severally with Victor F. Whittlesea, d/b/a Whittlesea Blue Cab
Company, make Warden Hazlett Shuman whole in the manner, to the extent, and
according to the method set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Forthwith notify Victor F. Whittlesea, d/b/a Whittlesea Blue Cab Company,
and Warden Hazlett Shuman, in writing, that it has no objection to the continued
employment of the said Warden Hazlett Shuman.
12 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent Employer has taken to comply
herewith."
WHITTLESEA BLUE CAB CO. 113
(c) Post in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members of
the said Respondent Union are customarily posted , at its office and usual member-
ship meeting place, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B." Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31 of the Board,
after being duly signed by a duly authorized representative of the said Respondent
Union, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it
for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken by it
to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.13
(d) Forthwith mail copies of the said notice marked "Appendix B" to the said
Regional Director , after such notices have been signed as provided herein, for post-
ing where notices to employees are customarily posted at the place of business of
the said Victor F. Whittlesea , d/b/a Whittlesea Blue Cab Company , if the said
Respondent Employer so agrees.
(e) Notify the said Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the date
of receipt of this Decision , what steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply
with the foregoing Recommended Order.14
16 in the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner " both in the notice to be signed by the Respondent Employer and the one
to he signed by the Respondent Union. In the additional event that the Board ' s Order is
enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
14In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision
shall he modified to read : " Notify the said Regional Director , in writing , within 10 days
from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent Union has taken to comply with
the provisions applicable to it."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act , as amended , I hereby notify my employees that:
I WILL NOT encourage membership of any of my employees in Automotive
Workers & Warehousemen , Local No. 881 , International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , or in any other
labor organization , by laying off , or otherwise denying employment to, any
employee, or in any other manner discriminating against any employee in
regard to his hire, tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employ-
ment, except as authorized by Section 8(a)(3) of the said Act.
I WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
said Act.
I WILL jointly and severally with Automotive Workers & Warehousemen,
Local No. 881, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America reimburse Warden Hazlett Shuman for any
loss of pay he may have suffered by reason of my discrimination against him.
VICTOR F. WHITTLESEA, D/B/A WHITTLESEA
BLUE CAB COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 215
West Seventh Street, Los Angeles , California , Telephone 688-5540.
204-047-6 7-vol. 162-9
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF AUTOMOTIVE WORKERS & WAREHOUSEMEN, LOCAL
No. 881 , INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause, or attempt to cause, Victor F. Whittlesea , d/b/a Whit-
tlesea Blue Cab Company , or any other employer, except in accordance with
Section 8 ( a)(3) of the said Act, to lay off, or otherwise deny employment to,
or in any other manner discriminate against any employee in regard to his hire,
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees of
Victor F . Whittlesea , d/b/a Whittlesea Blue Cab Company , or any other
employer , in the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed employees by Section
7 of the said Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Victor F. Whittlesea, d/b/a Whittlesea
Blue Cab Company reimburse Warden Hazlett Shuman for any loss of pay he
suffered as the result of discrimination against him.
We have no objection to the continued employment of Warden Hazlett Shu-
man by Victor F. Whittlesea , d/b/a Whittlesea Blue Cab Company.
AUTOMOTIVE WORKERS & WAREHOUSEMEN, LOCAL No. 881,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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.
If members have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 215 West
Seventh Street , Los Angeles , California, Telephone 688-5540.
Local 41, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO I and New York Telephone Company 2 and Communications
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, and Its Local 1122 .3 Case 3-
CD-162. December 14, 1966
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, pursuant to charges filed under Section
8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. A hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Jeremy V. Cohen on June 30 and July 1, 1966. All parties appeared
at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing
upon the issues. The rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs
were filed by all the parties and have been duly considered.
i Hereinafter sometimes referred to as IBEW.
2 Hereinafter sometimes referred to as Telco.
8 Hereinafter sometimes referred to as CWA.
162 NLRB No. 16.