Extract
Leonardo Truck Lines, Inc., 1221 (1978)
LEONARDO TRUCK LINES, INC.
Leonardo Truck Lines, Inc. and Teamsters Local Union No. 524, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 19-CA-9228August 25, 1978 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINSAND MURPHYOn September 29, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Maurice M. Miller issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.Although we agree that the layoff of Sterling is highly suspicious, we are constrained to adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the layoff did not violate the Act. Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we find nothing in the testimony of Nichols or Caldwell to support even an inference that Respondent had knowledge of Sterling's union activity at the time he was laid off. Absent evidence at least supporting an inference of knowledge (see. e.g.,Garner Tool & Die Manufacturing, Inc., 198 NLRB 640 (1972)), circumstances more compelling than these are required to support not only an inference of employer knowledge but a finding of unlawful motivation. In short, we are not prepared to adopt the purely speculative approach of our dissenting colleague to find the violation.Our colleague, however, after setting forth his version of the facts, based in part on the numerous inferences he would draw, states that the facts here are the same as in Sam Tankslei' Trucking, Inc., 198NLRB 312 (1972), and then indicates that if we no longer wish to follow the principles of Sam Tankslev and Shattuck Denn Mining Corporation (Iron King Branch)v. N.L.R.B., 362 F.2d 466 (C.A. 9, 1966), we should say so. Section 8(a)(3) cases basically turn on questions of fact. Contrary to our colleague, we believe that reasonable men and women can differ with regard to whether the facts here are the same as in Sam Tanksley and that it is not necessary to reject the principles of Sam Tanksley or Shattuck Denn Mining to reach a result contrary to our colleague's.In this connection, we think it is necessary to make only a few observations. In Sam Tankslev, five prounion employees, who had signed cards 48 hours earlier, were discharged at the same time but for different reasons. In fact, they were discharged so summarily that the foreman who discharged them was not instructed to do so until a few hours before the discharges and was left so shorthanded by two of the discharges that he was forced to contract out work. Moreover, two of the dischargees were not even given reasons for their discharges: this was in spite of the fact that the discharges allegedly had been decided upon a week earlier.Here, on the other hand, Respondent's business was slow. The Administrative Law Judge credited Sterling over Owens and found that Owens laid off Sterling rather than that Sterling requested layoff as Owens testified. Nonetheless, Owens gave only one explanation for Sterling's layoff and it is not true as stated by our colleague that 'Owens gave spurious and shifting explanations to account for Sterling's discharge.' Apparently, to show the similarity to Sam Tanksle)v, our colleague then notes that on the day after Sterling's layoff the other leading union advocate, Leonard Stubbs, was laid off. He neglects to mention that although unfair labor practice charges we...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
