ADF, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 4, 2009

01-CA-045068 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 4, 2009)

JD-54-09
Warwick, RI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ADF, INC., AND ITS ALTER EGO
ADLA, LLC
and Case 1-CA-45068
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 251
Elizabeth A. Vorro, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Anthony DelFarno, Pro Se, Pawtucket, Rhode Island, for the Respondents.
Elizabeth Wiens, Esq., (Gursky Law Associates, North Kingston, Rhode Island), for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Pawtucket and
Providence, Rhode Island, on July 13, and August 24-25, 2009. Teamsters Local 251 filed the
initial charge in this matter on November 21, 2008. The General Counsel issued his Complaint
on April 30, 2009.
The essence of this case is the General Counsel’s allegation that ADF has repudiated its
obligations under a collective bargaining agreement with Local 251 by operating ADLA as an
alter ego.
On the entire record,1 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following

1 Tr. 163, line 17 should read “Ms. Vorro,” instead of Judge Amchan.
Tr. 188, line 25 should read “Ms. Vorro,” instead of Judge Amchan.
Tr. 263, line 5 is a statement by witness Javier Lopez; not a statement by this judge.
JD-59-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Findings of Fact2
I. Jurisdiction
ADF, a corporation, operated a flatbed trucking business with an office in Warwick,
Rhode Island, at least until late 2008. Annually, ADF, at least through 2008, purchased and
received goods within Rhode Island, valued in excess of $50,000 from points outside of Rhode
Island. Annually, at least through December 31, 2008, ADF provided flatbed trucking services
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to entities that are directly engaged in interstate commerce.
ADF admits and I find that in 2008 ADF was an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The Union, Teamsters Local Union No. 251, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
In 2008, ADLA, then located at the same address as ADF in Warwick, Rhode Island
purchased six Freightliners tractors, valued at $385,000 from Financial Federal Credit, Inc., of
Teaneck, New Jersey and transported these trucks from New Jersey to Rhode Island.3 Three
of these trucks are registered in the State of New Hampshire. ADLA subcontracts work to Ever
Ready Trucking in Massachusetts. One of ADLA’s principal customers, Capco Steel, with
whom it has done $150,000 in business, has a facility in New Haven, Connecticut. Capco is
thus directly engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
ADLA also picks up concrete at Concrete Systems in Hudson, which is either located in
Massachusetts or New Hampshire, Tr. 305.4 I find that ADLA is therefore an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.5

2 I decline to credit any of Respondent’s self serving testimony. One example of the
unreliability of Anthony DelFarno’s testimony concerns the issue of his ownership interest in
ADLA. In an affidavit given to the NLRB during its investigation of the charges in this matter,
DelFarno stated that he was not an owner of ADLA and that he had no ownership interest in
ADLA, Tr. 218. At the trial, DelFarno testified that he was “a part owner,” Tr. 95. In his post-trial
brief, he described himself as a 45% owner of ADLA, LLC.
Another example of the unreliability of DelFarno’s testimony concerns ADLA’s hiring of
drivers. In his February 2009 affidavit, DelFarno denied that he played any role in hiring drivers
for ADLA. The record of the instant hearing establishes that the statements in this regard in
DelFarno’s affidavit are false, Tr. 174-76.
Lisa Lavigne’s testimony was often evasive and nonresponsive. Moreover, she failed to
comply with the General Counsel’s subpoena. In her March 2009 affidavit, Exh. R-4, Lavigne
stated that ADLA paid ADF to pick up two trucks in New Jersey that ADLA had purchased.
However, Lavigne failed to comply with the General Counsel’s subpoena, G.C. Exh. 19, which
required the production of whatever evidence she had of such payments. I thus draw the
inference that the assertion in her affidavit, that ADLA paid ADF to pick up trucks for it, is false.
3 ADLA also had the same telephone number as ADF in 2008.
4 There is no such place as Hudson, Rhode Island.
5 Thus, ADLA met the Board’s jurisdictional standards in 2008 on the basis of direct inflow
(the purchase of goods valued at more than $50,000 from outside of Rhode Island) and on the
basis of outflow in 2009, Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1958).
Moreover, to the extent that there is any ambiguity as to whether ADLA or ADF met the
Board’s jurisdictional standards, it is due to Respondents failure to comply with the General
Counsel’s subpoenas, such as paragraph 18 of which asked for detailed information regarding
both companies’ customers, including the dates and places of all work performed.
JD-59-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
Respondent ADF was incorporated in Rhode Island in 1990 to engage in the business of
transportation of general commodities. Anthony DelFarno has been ADF’s President and sole
owner for many years. In 2008, ADF operated four flat bed trucks, black in color, primarily
transporting steel and construction equipment. ADF’s principal place of business was at 99
Jefferson Boulevard in Warwick, Rhode Island. At that location, ADF rented garage and office
space from one of its principal customers, Cardi Corporation.
Prior to the fall of 2008, ADLA was a construction, demolition and construction
management company owned by Lisa Lavigne. Lavigne resides with DelFarno several times
per week and is the mother of DelFarno’s son, who was born in 2007.
DelFarno is a manager and part owner of ADLA, Tr. 95. He is also a supervisor and
agent of ADLA within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) of the Act. ADF provided space to
ADLA at its Warwick, Rhode Island location. ADLA did not pay rent to ADF for this space. Prior
to January 1, 2009, Lavigne performed work for ADF, primarily making sales calls and doing
some bookkeeping work.
The principal employees of ADLA when it was a construction company appear to have
been Lavigne’s brothers. ADLA has not performed any construction or demolition work in
calendar year 2009. There is no indication that ADLA performed any trucking work until late
2008 at the earliest. In 2009, however, ADLA’s work has been almost exclusively providing
trucking services to former customers of ADF. In February or March 2009, ADLA moved its
garage to a location on Pine Street in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Anthony DelFarno performs
ADLA’s administrative functions from this location and from his apartment in Cranston, Rhode
Island, which he shares with Ms. Lavigne.
ADF had a bargaining relationship with Teamsters Local 251 for almost twenty years. In
April 2008, ADF signed a collective bargaining agreement with Local 251, which by its terms ran
from April 15, 2008 until April 14, 2011. ADLA does not recognize Local 251 as the collective
bargaining representative of its drivers and has not compiled and does not comply with ADF’s
collective bargaining agreement with the Union.
By the terms of its collective bargaining agreement with the Union, ADF was obligated to
make payments to the Union’s Health Services and Insurance Plan. It ceased making these
payments in July 2008. In 2008 ADF made none of the payments into the Union’s pension fund
that were required by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Neither ADF nor ADLA
currently make any contribution for health insurance for ADLA drivers nor does either company
make any contribution to a pension plan for ADLA drivers. Another specific instance in which
the General Counsel alleges that Respondents violated the Act is by laying off employee Dennis
Barr in violation of the seniority provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.6
ADF and ADLA are alter egos
In Advance Electric, 268 NLRB 1001, 1002 (1984), the Board set forth the standards to
be applied in determining whether two presumably separate employers are alter egos: (a)
the two enterprises have “substantially identical” management, business purpose, operation,

6 In his post-trial brief, the General Counsel informed the court that Dennis Barr died in
October 2009.
JD-59-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
equipment, customers, supervision and ownership. The most important factor is centralized
control of labor relations. Superior Export Packing Co., 284 NLRB 1169, 1175 (1987); J.M.
Tanaka Construction v. NLRB, 675 F.2d 1029, 1034 (9th Cir. 1982).
While the ownership of ADF and ADLA is not identical, the Board has not hesitated to
find alter ego status even though entities had different owners, when the owners were in a close
familial relationship, Fallon-Williams, Inc., 336 NLRB 602 (2001). Although, DelFarno and
Lavigne are not married, their relationship should be considered equivalent to that of husband
and wife for purposes of determining whether ADF and ADLA are alter egos.7
Another factor, sometimes stated as “the crucial factor” in applying the alter ego
doctrine, is a finding that the older company continued to maintain a substantial degree of
control over the business claimed to have been sold to the new entity, McAllister Bros., 278
NLRB 601, 616 (1986). As set forth below, ADF, in the person of Anthony DelFarno, has
maintained complete control over the trucking business of ADLA.
Former Board Chairman Battista would have also required the General Counsel to prove
an intent to avoid legal obligations under the Act in order to prove alter ego status. However,
such intent has never been required by the Board as a necessary element to establish the
existence of an alter ego relationship, e.g., SRC Painting, LLC, 346 NLRB 707, 720 (2006). In
any event, I infer such a motive on the part of Anthony DelFarno in transferring his trucking
operation from ADF to ADLA, see, e.g. DelFarno’s testimony at Tr. 230. While DelFarno may
have had other motives, such as obtaining affordable cargo insurance and workers
compensation insurance, a significant incentive in making ADLA a trucking company was to
cease compliance with the terms of his collective bargaining agreement with Local 251.
Anthony DelFarno managed ADF. DelFarno, who is a part owner of ADLA, also
manages that company. Lisa Lavigne may be the nominal owner of ADLA, but she plays little, if
any, role in its management. She appears to be nothing more than an investor in ADLA’s
business. Lavigne does not know the names of ADLA’s employees, including its drivers. She
also does not know the names of ADLA’s customers and does not review ADLA revenue
documents.
DelFarno, rather than Lavigne prepares bids of work for ADLA. DelFarno, rather than
Lavigne, signed the bill of sale for the six trucks ADLA purchased in October 2008.8 DelFarno
maintains ADLA’s check register and submitted ADLA’s annual report to the State of Rhode
Island in 2007 and 2009.
Similarly, DelFarno hired ADLA’s truck drivers. Lisa Lavigne played no role in the hiring
process. In fact, there is no evidence that any of the drivers have ever met Ms. Lavigne.
DelFarno, rather than Lavigne, controls the labor relations of ADLA. ADLA drivers are directly
supervised by Louis Volante, who supervised the drivers who worked for ADF.9 John Renzi

7 This case is distinguishable from US Reinforcing, Inc., 350 NLRB 404 (2007). In that case,
the Board declined to find the “close familial relationship” the Board requires to overcome the
absence of common ownership. DelFarno, unlike Christian Redmond, of US Reinforcing, has
an ownership interest in ADLA. Moreover, Denise Herheim, the owner of the alleged alter ego
in US Reinforcing, appears to have exercised management functions in her company. There is
no reliable evidence that Lisa Lavigne manages ADLA in any fashion.
8 ADF’s mechanics prepared several of these trucks for service in late 2008.
9 I credit the testimony of Brian Priest, a current employee of ADLA, over the contrary
Continued
JD-59-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
who dispatched ADF drivers, is also the dispatcher for ADLA.
From the standpoint of Respondent’s drivers, little changed when ADLA became their
nominal employer. However, former ADF employees no longer receive the benefits of ADF’s
collective bargaining agreement with the Union and some drivers were switched to the newly
purchased white trucks. When in late February 2009, an ADLA check made out to driver Javier
Lopez was returned to him by the bank for insufficient funds, DelFarno paid Lopez the amount
of the check in cash. This was the same procedure followed by ADF.10
Since late 2008 or early 2009, ADLA has an identical business purpose as did ADF, the
trucking of steel and cement products. In 2009 ADLA has not performed any construction or
other non-trucking work. Until late March or early April 2009, ADLA operated out of the same
facility on Jefferson Boulevard in Warwick, Rhode Island, as did ADF. At least some of its
drivers punched the same time clock that they had punched while working for ADF. Other than
the fact that these drivers were no longer benefiting from the ADF’S collective bargaining
agreement with Local 251, the terms and conditions of their employment did not change at all
when they became ADLA employees.
ADLA never paid rent to ADF, or apparently to anyone else, for the space it occupied at
Jefferson Boulevard. ADLA does not have any customers for its trucking business that were not
also trucking customers of ADF. One of ADLA’s trucks, a black flatbed manufactured by
Kenworth, is one of the trucks used by ADF for the same purpose. This truck is still registered
in the name of Anthony DelFarno.
The other ADLA trucks, which are white in color, are engaged in the same business as
those formerly used by ADF. They were transported from New Jersey to Rhode Island in
October 2008 by drivers then employed by ADF. In sum, ADLA, as a trucking company, is
merely a disguised continuance of ADF.
Individual Liability of Anthony DelFarno
The General Counsel moved at the hearing to amend his Complaint to allege the
individual liability of Anthony DelFarno. Respondent objects on the ground that the proposed
amendment violates his due process rights.
Whether the Board will pierce the corporate veil to hold an individual liable for corporate
unfair labor practices is governed by the analysis set forth in White Oak Coal Co., 318 NLRB
732 (1995), enfd. mem. 81 F.3d 150 (4th Cir. 1996). Under White Oak, the General Counsel
must prove both parts of a two-prong test. Id. at 734. Under the first prong, the Board analyzes
_________________________
testimony of Anthony DelFarno, and find that Louis Volante, was the drivers’ supervisor for ADF
and is currently the drivers’ supervisor for ADLA. Board law recognizes that the testimony of
current employees that contradicts statements of their supervisors is likely to be particularly
reliable. Flexsteel Industries, 316 NLRB 745 (1995), enfd. mem. 83 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 1996).
The testimony of current employees that is adverse to their employer is “… given at
considerable risk of economic reprisal, including loss of employment … and for this reason not
likely to be false.” Shop-Rite Supermarket, 231 NLRB 500, 505 fn. 22 (1977).
10 A few weeks earlier Lopez received a check drawn on ADF’s account which also was
returned. DelFarno paid Lopez in cash on that occasion as well. When Lopez received this
check, he was ostensibly working for ADLA. In late 2008, several of Lopez’s check from ADF
“bounced” and DelFarno then paid Lopez the amount of the checks in cash.
JD-59-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
whether the corporation and the individual have failed to maintain their separate identities. Id. at
735. Under the second prong, the Board analyzes whether third parties may be damaged by
this failure—that is, whether “adherence to the corporate form would sanction a fraud, promote
injustice, or lead to an evasion of legal obligations.” Id. This potential damage to third parties
includes “the diminished ability of the [corporation] to satisfy [its] statutory remedial obligations.”
Id. “The showing of inequity necessary to warrant the equitable remedy of piercing the corporate
veil must flow from misuse of the corporate form.” Id. In order to satisfy the second prong,
however, the individual alleged to be individually liable must have “participated in the fraud,
injustice, or inequity.” Id.
Anthony DelFarno resides in an apartment on Independence Way in Cranston, Rhode
Island. He also maintains an office in that apartment. The rent and utilities for this apartment
are paid out of ADLA accounts. DelFarno also makes court-ordered payments to his wife from
ADLA accounts, Tr. 194-5. While he testified that at the end of each year he charges such
payments to himself as income, DelFarno provided no documentary evidence to corroborate his
testimony. Without such documentation, I do not find credible DelFarno’s testimony that he
accurately separates personal expenses from business expenses when using the ADLA
accounts.
While the General Counsel has the discretion to litigate the issue of personal liability in
the initial phase of an unfair labor practice proceeding, the judge has the discretion to defer this
issue to the compliance stage of the litigation, Dauman Pallet, Inc., 314 NLRB 185, 211-212
(1994). I will exercise that discretion to defer consideration of Mr. DelFarno’s personal liability to
the compliance stage for the following reasons:
Respondent appeared pro se.
Mr. DelFarno was notified of the General Counsel’s intention to litigate his personal
liability on August 10, 2009; two weeks before the resumption of the hearing.
DelFarno requested a continuance predicated upon the General Counsel’s expressed
intention to allege personal liability.
Respondent’s request for a continuance was denied.
A clearer picture of the factors to be considered in applying the White Oak Coal criteria
could be developed by enforcement of the General Counsel’s subpoena in U.S. District
Court. This is particularly true with regard to the issue of whether DelFarno’s use of
ADLA funds for his personal use has diminished ADLA’s ability to satisfy its remedial
obligations under the National Labor Relations Act. Thus, I have no sense of how
DelFarno’s use of ADLA accounts to pay rent, support for his ex-wife, etc. impacts the
ability of ADLA to satisfy its obligations under the collective bargaining agreement.
However, if the General Counsel obtains evidence that Respondents are transferring or
misusing the assets of either ADF or ADLA, or both, to avoid satisfying their remedial
obligations pursuant to my order in this matter, I will entertain a motion to reopen the record to
address the issue of personal liability. This would include any evidence that assets are being
transferred for such purposes to such entities as Highway Construction Services in which either
Mr. DelFarno or Ms. Lavigne, or both, have a financial interest, G.C. Exh. 20.
JD-59-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
Respondent’s failure to comply with the General Counsel’s subpoenas
The Board is entitled to impose a variety of sanctions to deal with subpoena
noncompliance, including permitting the party seeking production to use secondary evidence,
precluding the noncomplying party from rebutting that evidence or cross-examining witnesses
about it, and drawing adverse inferences against the noncomplying party, McAllister Towing &
Transportation Co., 341 NLRB 394 (2004).
On June 25, 2009, the General Counsel served upon DelFarno and Lavigne subpoenas
duces tecum ordering them to appear before this judge on July 13, 2009 with a number of
documents. Paragraph 10 of the subpoena requested copies of leases or rental agreements
entered into by or on behalf of ADF or DelFarno for real estate, machinery, equipment…or other
property between January 1, 2007 and the present. On July 13, 2009, DelFarno testified that he
leased two flatbed trucks to ADF. DelFarno also testified that there were leases from him to
ADLA. The General Counsel asked DelFarno to provide these leases. He agreed to do so
when the trial resumed but never did so.
Despite my order on July 13, 2009 that DelFarno fully comply with the General
Counsel’s subpoena no later than July 31, 2009, he produced very few additional documents
prior to the resumption of the trial on August 24, 2009. On August 24, DelFarno introduced a
court order evicting ADF from its premises at 99 Jefferson Boulevard, in Warwick, Rhode Island
as of March 31, 2009.11 On August 24, DelFarno, for the first time, asserted that he was unable
to produce additional documents because he had insufficient time to remove records from 99
Jefferson Boulevard prior to ADF’s eviction. I do not find this credible.
Moreover, DelFarno had been on notice as to his obligation to preserve records to
defend against the charge that ADF and ADLA were alter egos since service of the initial charge
on November 28, 2008. DelFarno gave an affidavit to the General Counsel during the
investigation of the charge on February 12, 2009, more than six weeks before he was required
to move out of 99 Jefferson Boulevard. In sum, even assuming that DelFarno no longer had
access to the records covered by the subpoena, this resulted from his own lack of due diligence.
Lisa Lavigne produced none of the documents requested in the subpoena issued to her
and signed for by Anthony DelFarno.
In light of the above, I draw the inference that either there were no leases of the trucks
from DelFarno to ADF or ADLA, or between ADF and ADLA, or that the leases establish a lack
of arms-length transactions between DelFarno and both companies and between ADF and
ADLA. Due to Lavigne’s failure to comply with her subpoena, I infer, for example, that ADLA did
not pay ADF for the services of ADF’s drivers in transporting ADLA’s white trucks from New
Jersey to Rhode Island, as Lavigne claimed at page of her March 19, 2009 affidavit, R. Exh. 4.

11 Since March or April 2009, ADLA’s trucks are dispatched from the Capco Steel yard on
Pine St. in Pawtucket. DelFarno performs the business of ADLA from that location and from his
residence on Independence Way in Cranston, Rhode Island.
JD-59-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
The termination of Dennis Barr’s employment12
Dennis Barr drove a truck for ADF for eight years. On December 9, 2008, when he
reported to work, ADF’s dispatcher, John Rienzi, told Barr there was no work for him. A few
weeks later, Anthony DelFarno told Barr he was being laid off. ADF continued to employ driver
Brian Priest, who was junior to Barr in seniority, in violation of terms of ADF’s collective
bargaining agreement with Local 251.
On January 5, 2009, Barr filed a grievance alleging violation of the seniority provisions of
the collective bargaining agreement. Anthony DelFarno responded to Barr on January 7,
2009.13 In that letter DelFarno confirmed that he told Barr that he was being laid off. He then
mentioned a confrontation Barr had with jobsite supervisor at Capco Steel in New Haven,
Connecticut on June 3, 2008. DelFarno concluded his January 7, letter by stating:
I would like to change your separation with ADF INC from a layoff to a termination for
gross insubordination. I will notify the Rhode Island Department for Unemployed
Benefits of my decision.
G.C. Exh. 3.
In June 2008, DelFarno discussed the New Haven incident with Barr. DelFarno told Barr
it could never happen again. Barr continued to drive flatbed trucks for ADF until December 9.
Barr applied for unemployment insurance sometime after December 9, 2008, and
received unemployment insurance benefits for a while. Then his checks stopped. The Rhode
Island Unemployment Insurance Agency informed Barr that ADF claimed that he had been
terminated for cause. Eventually his benefits were resumed.
On the basis of this evidence, I conclude that Respondent laid off Barr in violation of the
terms of its collective bargaining agreement with the Union. It did not discharge Barr for cause.
Summary of Conclusions of Law
1. Respondents ADF, Inc. and ADLA, LLC are alter egos.
2. Respondents violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) in repudiating and failing to comply
with their collective bargaining agreement with the Union.

12 At pages 34 and 43 of his brief, the General Counsel states that Respondents should be
ordered to offer reinstatement to driver Javier Lopez, who quit his employment with ADLA in
March 2009 (see Tr. 254-55). Thus it appears that the General Counsel is contending that
Javier Lopez was constructively discharged due to Respondents’ alleged failure to pay Lopez
the compensation which it owed him. I decline to order Lopez’s reinstatement because
Respondents were not put on notice that the reasons that Lopez left its employment were at
issue in this matter.
13 Barr testified that he did not receive the January 7, 2009 letter directly from DelFarno. He
testified that he first saw it at the Local 251 union hall.
JD-59-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents violated the Act, they shall be ordered to cease and
desist and take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of
the Act and post the appropriate notice.
It is recommended that Respondents rescind the withdrawal of recognition of the Union
and continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the April 15, 2008 to April 14,
2011 labor agreement and apply them to its drivers. The Board does not require that employees
suffer the loss of increases in wages or improvements in benefits or the addition of new benefits
under circumstances such as these and I accordingly do not recommend that any increases in
wages and improvements in benefits be rescinded. It is further recommended that Respondents
make the employees whole for any loss of wages and benefits suffered because of the unfair
labor practices, with interest.
The Respondent having terminated the employment of Dennis Barr in violation of the
Act, must pay his estate for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly
basis from date of his termination to date of Dennis Barr’s death, less any net interim earnings,
as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The Respondent must also make
employees whole for whatever earnings and other benefits were lost as a result of
Respondent’s failure to comply with the terms of its collective bargaining agreement with the
Union.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended14
ORDER
The Respondents, ADF, Inc. and its alter ego ADLA, LLC, Pawtucket, Rhode Island,
their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing to apply the terms and conditions of the April 15, 2008 to April 14, 2011 labor
agreement between ADF, Inc. and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 251.
(b) Withdrawing and/or repudiating its recognition of the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respondents’ truck drivers.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Respondents shall take the following affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the
purposes of the Act.

14 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD-59-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
(a) Immediately recognize the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the Respondent’s drivers.
(b) Comply with the terms and conditions of its 2008-2011 collective bargaining
agreement with the Union.
(c) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its drivers
concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody
the understanding in a signed agreement.
(d) Make the unit employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
as a result of the unfair labor practices in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
decision, including, but not limited to, reimbursement for any expenses resulting from
Respondents’ failure to make the required payments to the Union’s fringe benefit funds.
(e) Make the estate of Dennis Barr whole for the loss of wages and benefits resulting
from ADF/ADLA’s unlawful conduct.
(f) Make all delinquent payments to the Union’s fringe benefit funds.
(g) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility on Pine Street in
Pawtucket, Rhode Island, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”15 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent
at any time since December 9, 2008.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondents have taken to comply.

15 If this 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 read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD-59-09
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
Dated, Washington, D.C., November 4, 2009
____________________
Arthur J. Amchan
Administrative Law Judge
JD-54-09
Warwick, RI
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT fail to apply the terms and conditions of our 2008-2011 labor agreement with
Local 251 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, “the Union,” to our drivers.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully withdraw recognition from Local 251 of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL immediately recognize the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative
of our drivers.
WE WILL make our drivers whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result
of our failure to comply with our labor agreement, with interest. This includes reimbursing our
drivers for any expenses resulting from our failure to pay required payments to the Union’s
fringe benefit funds.
WE WILL make the estate of Dennis Barr whole for any loss of earnings and benefits resulting
from our unlawful termination of his employment on December 9, 2008.
WE WILL comply with the terms and conditions of the 2008-2011 collective bargaining
agreement with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 251.
WE WILL make all delinquent payments to the Union’s fringe benefit funds.
JD-54-09
Warwick, RI
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put in writing and sign any agreement
reached on terms and conditions of employment.
ADF, INC., AND ITS ALTER EGO
ADLA, LLC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
10 Causeway Street, Boston Federal Building, 6th Floor, Room 601
Boston, Massachusetts 02222–1072
Hours of Operation: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
617-565-6700.
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 ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 617-565-6701.