*3 158(a)(1) (3), by reducing the work §§ Before HEANEY WOLLMAN week; by laying off Russellville driv- ROSS, Judges, Circuit Senior Lloyd, Wesley Clayton, Opie ers Kenneth Judge. Circuit Dawson, Whitbey, C.L. and Charles HEANEY, Judge. Circuit Churchill; by reducing the work available Inc., Freight, petitions Motor Sweden; Woodline constructively Ted dis- Nation- an of the this Court to review order Lanthorn; by reducing charging Wilford That order al Relations Board. Labor remaining available to Russell- the work of un- committed a series found Woodline March, 1981; ville line drivers after Woodline practices required fair labor Hogan. The discharging Leonard Board specified from further to cease and desist Woodline took these actions be- found that certain practices and to take unfair labor employees engaged union these cause policies the affirmative action effectuate evidence in We find substantial аctivities. Act, 29 National Labor Relations the support these uncontested the record cross-peti- The 151-69. Board U.S.C. §§ therefore, We, summarily findings. en- With of its order. tions for enforcement of the portions uncontested reme- force the opinion, noted in exceptions the & Montgomery order. Ward Co. dial hold there is substantial NLRB, 760, (8th Cir.1967). 765 support the a whole to the record as violations: to the contested Wе turn the findings, and we thus enforce Board’s Board’s order. Rickman Discharge Paul (1) to this Court does come
Woodline
held
It
twice been
record.
has
with a clean
sup
find substantial evidence
Rela
the
Labor
violated
National
to have
that Paul Rickman
port the
1977,
Act,
In
151-69.
tions
29 U.S.C. §§
discharged in
of section
violation
commit
had
found
Woodline
Board
Act,
158(a)(1).
8(a)(1) of the
29 U.S.C. §
Wood
practices.
ted serious unfair
June, 1980,
asked
Rickman
line, Inc.,
N.L.R.B.
97 L.R.R.M.
231
in the trucks.
install air conditioners
enforced,
(1977),
F.2d 463
proposed to
refused. Rickman
Cir.1978).
Board
year,
In
same
install
he would
drivers that
the other
the Na
also found that Woodline violated
and,
if it
on
truck
unit
his
“add-on”
Act, 29 U.S.C.
Relations
tional Labor
worked,
do the
other drivers could
employees
151-69, by threatening its
§§
Rickman to
drivers authorized
same.
Woodline, Inc., during an election.
management. The
idea to the
present
(1977). No
97,
(a)Motivation Indeed, public himself held out to as ownership Springdale operation if can little doubt that There changed. He had never served the same finding transferred that Woodline proce- and followed the same customers Springdale terminal to Huffmaster interruption dures. There was ser- for their retaliate There supported by continuity vice. was substantial union activities is substantial management supervision, and on the record as a whole. Wood- the ter- minal, trucks, long history a of anti-union ani line has and trailers continued to mus; made the decision to transfer carry pro- Woodline's name. Woodline also was aware that a ma until after Woodline telephone which vided was listed Springdale employees sup jority of the Freight.”1 answered “Woodline Motor union; and the ported above, light hold that there Huffmaster’s Springdale operation told sup- record is substantial evidence looking agent that he brother port ABE Truck- Woodline was run the terminal because ego ing was alter of Woodline and having problems. union accordingly the Board’s order in enforce argues made that it respеct. economic reasons. While there is some *5 argument, support in record for this (3) The Reinstatement Gloria the record contains substantial (Springdale) Fowlkes to re- justifies the Board’s decision which Spring- at employed Fowlkes was Gloria ject job She lost her because Woodline dale. Springdale operation to an- transferred its (b)Control argues location. Woodline that other in find substantial We likewise is not entitled to reinstatement Fowlkes finding that the record for she not named as a discrimina- was Trucking ABE Woodline controlled managerial she was a em- tee and because Trucking paid ABE Huffmaster. While ployee. We find no merit to Woodline’s employees, taxes and social withheld all complaint The Board’s al- first contention. benefits, compensa- security carried worker that, February or 18” legеd “on about employees, and adminis- tion benefits on facility [Springdale] “[cjlosed Woodline discipline, con- day-to-day real control tered working employees terminated its agree- tinued to rest with Woodline. thus, employee; Fowlkes was an there.” Huffmaster ment between Woodline and prejudice suffered Woodline no was oral and could be cancelled at was a As to name her as discriminatee. failure time; financing arranged the for Woodline manage- a she was to the issue of whether (an unemployed truck at Huffmaster driver employee, Board concedes that rial made); Huff- agreement was the time compli- at can raise issue own; all put up money master hearing. she It can also assert that ance freight lading and other documents bills of independent discharged for a reasоn name; and were Woodline’s the transfer. freight. insured the Violations (4) The Russellville (c)Business Operation Purpose and 9, 1981, Local 878 January Teamsters On support in the record We find substantial engaged a cam- Woodline it was Huffmaster notified that it, changing as would be of Wood- sense expensive. testified the use 1. Huffmaster stated, company just telephone listing "I’m a hired He advertising line name in Woodline, up to build and I want "good to haul his customers business.” All name, it affects me.” Woodline because he didn’t see familiar with the employees by eliminating at reduced organize Woodline’s its costs some paign to The notice listed runs terminal. to and from that terminal is thus its Russellville organizing persons remedy inappro- as members of the insufficient nine to make subsequently The local noti- priate. We cannot find on committee. [Footnote: orgаnize it intended to impact fied Woodline this record the economic employees. operating all Woodline redomicile. While [Woodline’s] ratio, profitability, improved or dramati- January operations Woodline’s relocation, cally improve- after the managers manager met the terminal wholly ment cannot be attributed to the that Woodline did not want a and told them empty Respondent’s claimed reduction in day operations The next man- union. miles, operating as other substantial ager met with the at each termi- changes period. in the same were made need nal and told them that did not Moreover, empty data on [Woodline’s] Thereafter, company super- union. various inadequate miles is itself to allow reliable engaged in a series unfair labor visors degree calculatiоns of the of reduction terminal de- practices at the Russellville Moreover, empty since the relo- miles.] signed discourage membership in the has used less senior cation [Woodline] noted, (Woodline, previously union. city driving for line haul out of drivers many of does not contest the fact Russellville. occurred.) practices these unfair require signifi- Nor would redomicile practices culminated in a ser- unfair lаbor capital cant investment. con- [Woodline] layoffs ies of terminations and at Wood- operate tinues to the Russellville termi- terminal, line’s Russellville which turn nal and has not shown that it would be resulted in the discontinuance of much of purchase equipment. forced to new operations. the Russellville equip- find the redomicile of therefore order, among other The Board’s remedial Russellville, incident to the ment back things, required Woodline: to reinstate full reinstatement of discriminatees Dawson, Lloyd, Russellville there, appropriate remedy to be an Churchill, Roach; to return to Russell- order it. *6 will many necessary pro- trucks as to ville as opera- concedes that it made (redomiciling vide work for laid-off drivers relocating changes, tional other than trucks); to make the drivers whole for Russellville, improved trucks frоm which resulting losses from Woodline’s unlawful however, argues, profitability. its It against ac- discrimination them and other increasing major relocation was a factor against employees; its to tions taken efficiency operations, of and thus it should practice allowing of reinstate its former required it not be to undo what has done. assignments according line drivers to select of rein- It further asserts that an offer sеniority. to Woodline contends that equip- statement at a terminal where requiring relief. Board erred relocated, plus pay, ment was back would (a) Redomiciling Trucks to Russellville loss make the laid off drivers whole finally argues It that the reme- suffered. requiring The order Woodline to Board’s dy punitive is rather than remedial. appro- redomicile trucks to Russellville is remedy priate. The Board stated that this can little thаt Woodline’s There be doubt quo necessary “to restore the status was to tractors at the Rus- decision redomicile unduly not burdensome 1981, ante” and was January, in late was sellville terminal require capital that it investment punish largely motivated a desire to resources or disproportionate to Woodline’s actively supported the who substantial, impose continuing losses. Teamsters union. The decision сame with- Board stated: notice; timed coincide with out it was to activities; organizational its ad- operation the union’s line haul at Russellville
[T]he largely directed at union discriminatory impact verse profitable before the supporters; general made it and the showing that relocation. [Woodline’s] We, therefore, indicating design Board. a to enforce statements several respect redomiciling In conversation with order with to union. a trucks defeat had dealt employee, he stated that he Russellville. an and did want to deal unions before with again. stated had 14 them He with “[w]e (b) Making Lloyd, Kenneth Charles * * * Russellville, now
road Churchill, and C.L. Dawson Whole four, got the next 2-3 and within we’ve does not contest the fact that going to have them.” we’re not weeks Churchill, Lloyd, and Dawson laid off question wheth more serious is engaging in It objeсts, union activities. requiring order the trucks to er the Board’s however, remedy to recommended enforced. The redomiciled should be be reinstating argues them. It that each re- authority be Board has broad remedial valid, recall, ceived a unconditional pecu such is granting cause the relief offer, rejected rejec- each and that such compe liarly a matter administrative obligation tiоn terminated the to reinstate Paper Products v. tence. Fibreboard obligation. pay them its back and tolled NLRB, 398, 203, 85 S.Ct. L.Ed. 379 U.S. Lloyd 7,May on was recalled Churchill (1964). changes employer When 2d an on September Septem- on and Dawson operations discriminatory purpose, for a its employ- ber 17. The Board found that each ordinarily is to appropriate remedy re report ee did not for work after the recall result, quo. To avoid this store status of a reasonable fear of further employer remedy must show that such discrimination. It stated in of that impose or unfair on will an undue burden finding: NLRB, Manley Transfer We note that discriminated [Woodline] Cir.1968). petitioner has When assign- union adherents in work terms, complied its it will have avail Russellville, beginning ments at before every legitimate it it had to alternative able May Lloyd its offers Whit- illegal instituted the сourse before bey continuing through includ- Id. conduct. ing against Whitbey, Clay- discrimination view, the Board’s order has our ton, they accepted and Lanthorn after unduly burdensome not been shown be discharged Hogan reinstatement. It also First, punitive. only those nec or tractors immediately discriminatorily before essary for the six named provide work It to Dawson and Churchill. offers Roach, Rickman, Lloyd, Hogan, employees, expect would thus be unreasonable Churchill, Dawson need redomiciled. in- their these discriminatees abandon Thus, capital investment additional uncertainty of employment for the terim *7 Second, failed to required. has See Flatiron Mate- offer]. [Woodline’s showing its of that redomicil- meet burden rials, (1980). NLRB 554 [footnote ing to would cause the tractors Russellville omitted] unprofitably. it asserts operate While it to of reсord con operation profita is careful review the more present that the A finding by that this as to each em ble, proof was the vinces us point its on this found supported by ployee is substantial evidence We find insuffi Board to insufficient. be would add on the record as a whole. We record which would evidence the cient appear to be company that the does not our for the us to substitute deсision permit by or Third, substantially prejudiced the Board’s that Woodline contends Board’s. employee’s interim earn each at a der because for the laid-off drivers providing jobs any pay back lost, ings deducted from location, must be plus pay time new back agree with the Board of the award. We also satisfy purposes the remedial would not reinstate does waive reme a discriminatee Act. Had the Board mandated response But, negative to an invalid it ment did approved have dy, we would offer, may change mind well his us permit and the record here does not Florida offer. when faced with a valid judgment our for that to substitute fair, manager replied, Corp., N.L.R.B. No. the “You made the Steel (Dec. 1984). charge, I didn’t.” L.R.R.M. contention, As to Woodline’s second Here, prac unfair Woodline’s labor changed recognize that there will be a situ- egregious and continuous. Un were
tices ation the terminal circumstances, when Russellville is re- the Board did not these der redomiciled, opened, the the trucks em- finding ques that the err ployees at recalled location. There they fear that had a reasonable tion points. they will still be vehicles located at other if returned discriminated changed they might These conditions can bе accommo- as a result well earn and that right the essential earning long to in their interim dated as less than seniority at select runs on the basis the jobs. of preserved. Russellville terminal is (c) Seniority Rights Respect With to compli- details should be worked out at a Assignments Work hearing. ance 16, 1981, the April Board filed an (d) Discharge William practice complaint against unfair labor of (Russellville) Roach alleged The Boаrd that Wood- Woodline. unlawfully reduced the work available it concedes that violated remaining the Russellville drivers on the to reducing the Act number of to the runs Thereafter, January 28. job after Wood- assigned. which Roach was It denies that practice allowing line discontinued the discharged objects it him the according to select runs available requiring Board’s order his reinstatement. seniority. The Board found the Wе do not believe that substantial evidence change unlawfully was motivated and vio- supports finding that Roach company lated the Act. It ordered the constructively discharged. was To the con practice allowing reinstate former trary, supports record Woodline’s view assignments according line drivers to select that his runs were for a reduced short seniority. time, period accepted aftеr which he Woodline asserts that Board erred other employment full-time declined change unlawfully was runs offered Woodline. It follows that It motivated. claims that made the appropriate account remedy would change compliance to ensure with the Na- 28, 1981, wage January loss from until Labor Act. It con- tional Relations also 2, 1981, less March sums earned in remedy inappropriate is tends that be- employment other sums which he changed have since cause conditions by accepting earned could have runs issued, company’s in that the the order offered Woodline. dramatically has volume increased application The Board’s for enforcement equipment line haul at more located granted, exceptions of its order is points other than Russelville. noted herein. find merit Woodline’s сlaim that made be ROSS, Judge, Senior Circuit filing prac the unfair cause of concurring dissenting. charge. supports tice Substantial opinion, I concur all sections of the *8 prac of an unfair labor (4)(a). I except paragraph would not re- Indeed, tice. conceded quire Freight, Motor Inc. to re- com he made domicile tractors Russellville. questioned by as to plaint. When driver change, he why he had made the stated he got so of the letter from
did “because stating Board Woodline was
the Labor
intentionally cutting hours.” When it was
employee stated that he didn’t think