Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 1272 (1981)

Inc.

Jerrold 10(c) ORDER

1, ORDER

F collectiveNavajo Freight Lines, Inc. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,

District Lodge No. 1635, AFL-CIO Arkansas-Best Freight System, and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 1635, AFL-CIO.

Cases 28-CA-4830 and 28-CA-5332

March 10, 1981 DECISION AND ORDER

On October 30, 1980, Administrative Law Judge H. Shapiro issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., and Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., the General Counsel, and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs.

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.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and the Respondent, Arkansas-Best Freight Systems, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached Appendix A and Appendix B are substituted for those of the Administrative Law Judge.

APPENDIX A

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

POSTED BY OF THE

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT, in the event we resume operations, engage in the following conduct: (a) refusal to bargain collectively with International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No. 1635, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all of the employees in the appropriate unit by refusing to enter into collective-bargaining negotiations with the above-described Union for an Area Practices Agreement; (b) unilaterally changing the wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of the employees in 254 NLRB No. 166 the appropriate unit; (c) in any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.

WE WILL reimburse employees for the loss of vacation pay they may have suffered from April 1978, to December 31, 1978, due to our unilateral reduction in the vacation pay of the employees in the appropriate unit, with interest thereon.

The appropriate unit consists of all of the employees employed at the Albuquerque,

New Mexico terminal performing the following work: maintenance, body and fender work, painting, rebuilding, dismantling, assembling, repairing, installing, erecting, welding (or grinding processes connected therewith), inspecting, diagnosing, cleansing, preparing or conditioning of all units and auxiliaries (including refrigeration and air conditioning units) relating to passenger cars, motorcycles, tractors, trucks, trailers, cargo containers, dollies, shovels, trench digging and excavating equipment, and all other types of powered machinery, excluding supervisors as defined by the Act.

APPENDIX B

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

POSTED BY OF THE

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No.

1635, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the appropriate unit by refusing to enter into bargaining negotiations with the Union for an Area Practices Agreement or by unilaterally changing the wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the appropriate unit.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.

WE WILL restore the status quo ante which existed prior to the implementation of the February 6, 1979, unilateral changes with regard FRElGl JERROLD

8(a)(5) Sec. 2(6) thc Sec. 2(5) 8(a)(5) 8(a)(5) 8(a)(5) 8(a)(5) (1) P UNFAIR

1273NAVAJO HT LINES, INC.

to the scheduling of vacations and the payment of vacation moneys of the employees in the appropriate unit, and pay interest t o the employees for the period of time vacation was withheld from them.

WE WILL, upon request, enter into collective-bargaining negotiations with the abovenamed Union for an Area Practices Agreement to cover the employees in the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.

T h e appropriate unit consists of all of the employees employed at the Albuquerque,

New Mexico terminal performing the following work: maintenance, body and fender work, painting, rebuilding, dismantling, assembling, repairing, installing, erecting, welding (or grinding processes connected therewith), inspecting, diagnosing, cleansing, preparing o r conditioning of all units and auxiliaries (including refrigeration and air conditioning units) relating t o passenger cars, motorcycles, tractors, trucks, trailers, cargo containers, dollies, shovels, trench digging and excavating equipment, and all other types of powered machinery, excluding supervisors as defined by the Act.

DECISION

H. SHAPIRO, Administrative Law Judge: The hearing in this consolidated proceeding took place on June 17, 1980, and is based on unfair labor practice charges filed by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No. 1635, AFLCIO, herein called the Union, in Case 28-CA-4830 on May 2, 1978, against Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., herein called Respondent Navajo or Navajo, and in Case 28CA-5332 on May 10, 1979, against Arkansas-Best Freight Systems, Inc., herein called Respondent ABF or ABF. On February 11, 1980, the Regional Director for Region 28 of the National Labor Relations Board, on behalf of the Board's General Counsel, issued a consolidated complaint in these cases alleging that Respondents violated Section and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. Respondents filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices.

Respondents admit that they are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of and (7) of the Act and meet the National Labor Relations Board's applicable discretionary jurisdictional standard.

Also. Respondents admit that the Union is a labor organization within meaning of of the Act.

As posed by the pleadings, the ultimate questions for decision which were litigated during this proceeding are as follows: Whether Respondent Navajo on or about April 1, 1978, violated Section and (1) of the Act by unilaterally reducing employees' vacation pay without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain; whether Respondent Navajo since on or about March 13, 1978, has violated Section and (1) of the Act by refusing to enter into collective-bargaining negotiations with the Union for an Area Practices Agreement to replace the one which was scheduled to terminate later that month; if Respondent Navajo committed the aforesaid unfair labor practices, was its successor employer, Respondent ABF, which took over the employing enterprise on or about December 31, 1978, responsible for remedying the unfair labor practices; whether Respondent ABF on or about February 6, 1979, violated Section and (1) of the Act by unilaterally changing the way in which employees' vacation were scheduled and employees' vacation moneys were paid, without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain; whether Respondent ABF since on or about March 21, 1979, has violated Section and of the Act by refusing to enter into collective-bargaining negotiations with the Union for an Area Practices Agreement.

Upon the entire record, including my observation of the witnesses, and upon consideration of the briefs, I hereby make the following:

1. THE ALLEGED LABOR PRACTICES A. The Evidence Respondent Navajo during the time material, until December 31, 1978, when it ceased doing business, was a trucking company engaged in interstate and intrastate transportation of freight throughout the western part of the United States. Navajo's sole facility involved in this case is its terminal located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, herein called the Albuquerque terminal. The Union since at least 1951 represented the mechanics employed by Navajo at the Albuquerque terminal. In approximately 1962, Respondent Navajo and the Union agreed to be bound by a series of Western States Trucking Maintenance Agreements which they agreed would govern the terms and conditions of employment of the mechanics employed at the Albuquerque terminal. These agreements, herein called the 11 Western States Agreements, cover trucking companies located in the 11 western states. They are entered into by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (IAM), and its several affiliated unions and district lodges; including the Union with several employer associations, including the Western Empire Operators Association, on behalf of their employer members who have given them the power of attorney to negotiate on their behalf. Although Respondent Navajo was a member of the Western Empire Operators Association it never gave the Association the authority to bargain on its behalf for its Albuquerque terminal but, as the parties stipulated, 'by their conduct' the Union and Respondent Navajo 1274 l I mul11 fraction DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

   hound themselves to the terms of the successive I I Western States Agreements. Also, in this regard Norman Pixler, the general manager of the Western Empire Operators Association, testified that from the date of the...