Buffalo Cab Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1971

189 N.L.R.B. 410 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Buffalo Cab Co., Inc. and Charlie Jones. Case
10-CA-8229
March 29, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On November 19, 1970, Trial Examiner Bernard J.
Seff issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
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.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
Y:ejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Buffalo Cab Co., Inc., Atlanta,
Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER 'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD J. SEFF, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge of
unfair labor practices filed by Charlie Jones, an individual,
on March 13, 1970,' against Buffalo Cab Co., Inc., herein
called Respondent or Employer, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board issued a Complaint and
Notice of Hearing on July 10 in which it is alleged that
Respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act.
Respondent's answer admitted certain allegations of the
complaint but denied the commission of any unfair labor
I All dates are in 1970 unless otherwise indicated
practices. At the hearing which took place before me in
Atlanta, Georgia, on August 26, Respondent raised certain
issues with respect to jurisdiction which will be dealt with
infra in this decision. All parties were present at the hearing
and subsequent to the hearing Respondent and General
Counsel filed briefs which have been carefully considered.
Subsequent to the close of the hearing the General
Counsel filed a motion to correct the record. The motion is
hereby granted.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent and Buffalo Holding Co., Inc., are, and have
been at all times material herein, Georgia corporations,
with their principal office and place of business located at
Atlanta, Georgia, where they are engaged in rendering
taxicab services.
Respondent and Buffalo Holding Co., Inc., are, and have
been at all times material herein, integrated businesses
constituting a single business enterprise with common
ownership, common management, and common control of
labor relations.
Respondent stated on the record that it had no records
from which its actual volume of business and the income
earned by the drivers employed by the Company could be
ascertained. It stated that it did not do a gross volume of
business in excess of $500,000 but it did admit that during
the same period it purchased and received goods valued in
excess of $5,000 directly from suppliers located outside the
State of Georgia. In July and August 1969, Buffalo Cab
Co., Inc., Buffalo Holding Co., Inc., Buckley's Garage and
Service, and Jesse Buckley were involved in a representa-
tion case captioned 10-RC-7838, in the course of which
there was adduced on the record considerable economic
data. The Board never issued a decision with respect to the
representation case because the Union withdrew its petition
before a decision could be rendered. The records with
respect to the representation case were incorporated by
reference into the instant proceeding.
The joint Employers herein are the Buffalo Cab Co., Inc.,
hereinafter termed BCC, and the Buffalo Holding Co., Inc.,
hereinafter termed BHC or the Holding Company. The
BCC operates taxicabs in the city of Atlanta. In order to
provide public transportation the BCC has joined with the
BHC. The BHC has as its "business activity: leasing and
rentals" and its "product or service: taxi cabs." Buckley's
Garage and Service, hereinafter termed BGS, supplies gas,
oil, and repair work for the vehicles operating in the
Employers' system.
All of the above Employers occupy the same physical
premises. The stockholders of the BCC and the BHC are
identical and their proportionate ownership in each of the
corporations is also indentical. They have the same
attorney and the same accountant. The BHC own title to
approximately 80 of the 95-100 vehicles operating in the
189 NLRB No. 66
BUFFALO CAB CO.
system. In the course of conducting its business and in
order to keep taxicabs on the streets and provide
transporation of the Holding Company borrows money
from various banks and then the said Company buys
taxicabs. The Holding Company leases the taxicabs to BCC
for $100 per month and the BCC searches out "buyers." The
BCC then receives a down payment from the prospective
"buyer" and continues to accept note payments often up to
3 years At the time of the hearing BCC was paying and
continues to pay the Holding Company approximately
$8,000 per month in order to leasevehicles which it in turn is
"selling" to drivers. Of the vehicles operating in the system
nine are owned outright by single owners; three are owned
by one Hinson; and two are owned by Jesse Buckley, the
operator of Buckley's Garage and Service.
Buffalo Holding Company owns the land from which the
taxicab system operates. The BCC pays rent to the Holding
Company. BGS also pays rent to the Holding Company.
During the 1969 fiscal year Buckley paid rent to the BCC.
However, since the same person owns both corporations,
the person to whom the rent is paid is of no legal
significance.
In order to operate its system the BCC has a radio
dispatch operation. The BCC has a license to operate the
dispatch radio from the Federal Communications Commis-
sion and the radio sending equipment and antennae are
owned by the BHC and are rented from them by the BCC.
The dispatchers who operate the radio are employees of the
BCC
Even though a very small number of the taxis are owned
by individuals the "oneness" of the total operation is
evidenced by the following. All cabs are identical in
appearance; they are painted white, and the name Buffalo
Bill Cody is painted on the side and they have the head of a
buffalo on the roof; all taxis are required to have telephone
number "873-6242" prominently displayed on the side
and top of every cab; the same telephone number appears
in the telephone book and on business cards; the printing of
the cards and the payment of the telephone bills are all paid
for by the BCC.
The ultimate fact that Respondent operates a unified
system is borne out by the following characteristics: The
joint Employers turn in envelopes for drivers and have
charge account customers; central bookkeeping facilities to
effectively operate charge accounts; business cards;
liability insurance up to $100,000; accident investigation;
clerical aids to facilitate accident investigation settlement
and adjustment facilities; attorneys for court actions; both
Georgia and Federal tax collection facilities; central
bookkeeping for tax purposes for drivers; the obligation to
obtain vehicle registration; integrated and functional
financing of taxicabs for drivers over an extended period of
time at convenient terms; sale of gas, oil, and minor repairs
through BGS; a credit system available only to drivers in
"Buffalo Cab System" for major repair and taxicab
maintenance ; exclusive stands: representation through rate
hearings to gain increased cab rates; centralized dispatch
service; a significant abundance of business through the
dispatching system; functional and effective work rules;
411
effective advertisement and a holding out to the public of a
unified and integrated taxicab system by the mandatory
distinctive paintings and decorations placed upon the
vehicles. Two-way radio, meter, and top light are main-
tained free of charge.
Respondent in its brief raises the issue that Buffalo
drivers are independent contractors within the meaning of
the Act. In determining whether an individual is an
independent contractor or an employee, the Act requires
the application of the "right of control" test. Where the
person for whom the services are performed retains the
right to control the manner and means by which the result
is being accomplished, the relationship is that of employ-
ment . In the instant case, the 8(a)(1), Charlie Jones was
admittedly discharged by the Respondent. In Atlanta a
single cab owner-driver may not independently drive a cab.
The city ordinances of the city of Atlanta reflect an
intention to provide for the protection of the public through
the requirement of centralized supervision and control in
the operating company. For example, without the company
sponsorship a driver cannot obtain his driver's permit. The
company occupies the legal relation of principal and agent
with respect to liability to the public and assumes
responsibility for the driver's tort actions. Further amplifi-
cation of the fact that the Employers recognized that they
operate as a "city license cab company" is found in the fact
that the Respondent provides liability insurance, investi-
gates accidents, provides attorneys' services for defense of
lawsuits, satisfies claims without contribution by drivers,
and handles customers' complaints. In the case at bar the
Respondent effectively controls the manner and means by
which the result is to be accomplished by its drivers and this
relationship is one of employment. In the instant case Jones
was discharged by Respondent. On the basis of the facts in
the record I find that the drivers are not independent
contractors but are employees of the Respondent.
II. THE EMPLOYER 2 IS ENGAGED IN INTERSTATE
COMMERCE
It is not disputed that the Employer purchases supplies
directly from outside the State of Georgia of an amount
greater than $5,000 annually, The Employer in this case
denies that there is a combined gross of over $500,000 and it
reaches this conclusion because it contends that the income
of the drivers should not be considered as part of the
Employer's income.
The record shows that the Employer stated it was unable
to produce information relative to the income of the drivers
who have been found to be its employees. The Employer
stated on the record both in the instant case and in the R
case adverted to supra that it had no record or nor any way
of knowing the amounts of drivers' fare receipts. In the
previous representation case transcript there is information
to indicate that the average fare receipts ran from
approximately $235 to $250 a week. Jones testified that the
average weekly gross ran around $300.The General Counsel
made a projection based on the above information about
fare receipts on the following basis: He took the lowest
2 Employer or Respondent hereinafter refers to the Buffalo Cab Co,
Inc (BCC)
412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
possible figure of $235 as representing average weekly
receipts and multiplied this by the lowest average of 50
vehicles (allowing for breakdowns) times 50 weeks
(allowing for vacations , time off for breakdowns) and thus
obtained an annual gross of $587 ,500 from taxicab receipts
alone . These figures were all collated from the R case
transcript and are based on the last fiscal year of the
Employer where the average number of vehicles "on the
line" was 53 . In August 1970 the Employer admittedly
operated between 98 and 100 vehicles minus 12 to 13 cabs
down a week because of wrecks and breakdowns. If 53
vehicles generate gross receipts of $587,500, 85 vehicles may
well be expected to gross over a million dollars in fiscal
1970. Thus based on both last year's figures and this year's
from taxicab receipts alone , this Employer is well within the
Board 's jurisdictional standards for the taxicab industry.
The Board has consistently found it appropriate for
jurisdictional purposes to combine the gross revenues of the
Employer and the owner -drivers .3 Respondent contended
that a gross of $163 ,662 shown on the record for the fiscal
year 1968-1969 is a figure which represents total receipts
and includes all dues and car payments remitted to the
Employer by all drivers. However , it is to be noted that this
figure does not include any of the drivers' gross fare
receipts . Nor does the figure of $146,942, which represents
total moneys received by Buffalo Cab Co. and Buffalo
Holding Co., include any of the fare receipts of the drivers,
or the income accruing to the Employer of 1 cent per gallon
on gasoline sold by BGS.
From all of the above information I find that the
Respondent grosses in excess of $500,000 per year and its
drivers, except for those who themselves hire drivers (only a
very small number of owner-drivers), are all employees of
the Employer and are not independent contractors.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES INVOLVED
The Discharge of Charlie Jones
Jones began to drive for the Respondent on September
10, 1969, and he was discharged on March 12, 1970. The
Employer in the instant case defended against the
allegation of discriminatory discharge by stating (a) that he
did not know that Jones was involved in concerted activity
and (b) that he was discharged for cause in that he was
chronically behind in the payments which he was required
to make and in fact had accumulated a debt owed to the
Company at the time of his discharge of approximately $800.
Respondent's knowledge of Jones' concerted activities
appears in the record which shows the following:
Well, me and Andy and Little John was sitting and
talking about the stand dues was too high, and the car
payments was too high. So we agreed among us,
ourselves, to talk to the drivers. We all agreed among
ourselves to talk with the drivers and see if we couldn't
have a meeting with Mr. French about the car notes and
the lick. [Lick is the colloquial term used to explain the
amount of money owed by the drivers as a result of their
arrangement to purchase their taxicabs by paying dues,
and a weekly payment which was made towards the
purchase of the cab.]
We appointed Little John for the speaker, and he was
going to be the speaker that Saturday morning at 11:00
o'clock.
According to the Company's records Jones was discharged
on Thursday, March 12. The meeting referred to, above, by
Jones in his testimony relates to a group meeting among the
employees which was scheduled to take place on the
following Saturday. According to the calendar this meeting
was therefore scheduled to take place on March 14.
The testimony of Jones continues as follows:
That was on a Wednesday. The date I don't
remember. That was on a Wednesday. And so they said,
let's pass around among the drivers and let them know
we are going to have a meeting at 11:00 o'clock, and for
everybody to be there.
We didn't say right then that we were going to have a
strike. We were supposed to put the cars on the yard at
11:00 o'clock.
If we didn't come to some kind of agreement with
Mr. French, we would leave all the cars on the yard
until we come to some kind of agreement.
I was in [located in] Underground Atlanta on the cab
stand. I was parked under there and I seen Thelmore
(Supervisor Thelmore Cowell) .. . .
Q. Who is Thelmore?
A. They say he is a wreck investigator for the
Company, and also the supervisor. Anyway, I went
back to the car and was talking to him, and I said, you
heard anything about the meeting we are supposed to
have Saturday? And he said, no, sir, I haven't heard
anything about it. I said, we are supposed to have a
meeting Saturday. And I said, they says everybody is to
be there and put their cars on the yard. And so he told
me, you had better not be there; go on and go to work.
So I said, I am going to do what the rest of them do,
because I want to be a part of it.
I was in the bull-pen and the operator called me on
the radio and said, Mr. French wants to see you. Come
over to the office.
I was down in the bull-pen, and I got out of my cab. I
come down went out in the airport and got on the
telephone and called Mr. French. I asked Mr. French, I
said, Mr. French, do you want me, and he said, yes. I
want to see you.
I said about what. And he said, I paid Thelmore at
Underground Atlanta last night.
He said, I want to see you about something else. Be
over there at 5:00 o'clock. So when I got out of the bull-
pen, I got over there at a quarter of 5.
Jones testified that he parked his car on the gas pump and
got out and went in the office with James William Cody, Jr.,
3 Miami Beach Yellow Cab, 173 NLRB No 116
BUFFALO CAB CO. 413
secretary-treasurer of the Company, and those present were
joined by Mr. Arthur French, president of the Company.
The record continues:
So he said , Mr. French says to me, he said, tell me
about this meeting ya'll are supposed to have with me
Saturday. And I said, Mr. French, the only thing I know
is that we got out there and we discussed that we wanted
to talk to you about something. That is all I know.
From this testimony it is clear that Cowell was told by
Jones that the men had decided to hold a meeting on
Saturday, March 14. The record also shows that during
Jones' conversation he told Cowell that he and other
employees at a meeting earlier in the day had agreed to
park all of their cabs together in Respondent's yard on
Saturday and meet with Respondent's president, French,
about lowering the dues and cab payments. It is also clear
that Cowell understood the purpose of this meeting and this
is manifested by the fact that he openly voiced his
opposition to the proposed meeting which Charlie Jones
was going to attend and further stated, "You'd better not be
there; go on and go to work." Jones then replied, "I'm
going to do what the rest of them do, because I want to be a
part of it."
It is especially significant to point out that the testimony
given by Jones was direct and unrebutted. Furthermore, it
is significant that Respondent, who contends that it had no
knowledge of Jones' concerted activities, did not produce
Cowell, a supervisor, through whom this knowledge was
attained, as a witness to contradict the testimony given by
Jones. Therefore the Company had knowledge of the
concerted activities being planned by the men and the fact
that Jones intended to participate in this activity.
Furthermore the record shows that Jones owed the
Company only $42 for the week of March 2,1970, and he
submitted the money, in accordance with normal proce-
dure, to Cowell on the night of Wednesday, March 11,
1970.
The General Counsel points out in his brief that the
conversations and remarks attributed to the president,
French, could not have been rebutted by him in person at
the time the hearing took place because French was sick
and was unable to be present. However, no request was
made to adjourn the hearing until French recovered.
General Counsel's brief goes on to say, "it must be
presumed, therefore, that had such testimony or evidence
been offered by Respondent, it would have most certainly
been adverse to Respondent's contention." Missouri Transit
Company, 116 NLRB 587, 588, enfd. 250 F.2d 261 (C.A. 8).
Concerning such a state of facts the Supreme Court in
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. The United States, 306 U.S. 208,
226, stated:
The production of weak evidence when strong is
available can lead only to the conclusion that the strong
would have been adverse. . . . Silence then becomes
evidence of the most convincing character.
The record further shows that on cross-examination
Cody admitted that on March 12, or possibly March 11, it
had come to his and Mr. French's attention that there had
been some type of meeting of the drivers and that a formal
strike might occur. In further elucidation of the Company's
knowledge Cody further admits that the wrecking supervi-
sor, Cowell, had been the source of his and French's
information that the employees had held the meeting and
had planned a possible strike. Cody's testimony on cross-
examination further reveals that French interrogated
Charlie Jones because he was trying to find out about the
meeting the drivers had held and who the strike leaders
were.
Respondent's counsel stated on the record that the reason
why Jones was discharged "or the reason we took his car
away from him is because he was behind some eight
hundred and some odd dollars and this $ 260 that we
advanced him just to get his automobile out of the shop. It
was supposed to be repaid in installments and we never saw
any of it." "The business about the guys getting together
and saying we are going to put the cars on the lot had
nothing to do with this."
The record shows that Respondent had no clear policy to
show that when a driver fell behind on his payments this
default, if continued for a certain length of time, would
result in the discharge of such driver and the repossession
of his cab. If the Company had any such policy the record is
devoid of any evidence to show such a company practice. It
would also seem unlikely that as a matter of good business
any employer would permit a driver in this type of setup to
fall more than $800 behind in his payments. In any event, if
it was an established company policy to discharge an
employee for failure to make regular payments on account
of his purchase of the cab he was driving, such a practice
was not testified to nor was it stated that default in
payments would result in discharge.
Concluding Findings
It is clear from the record that Respondent is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act and does in fact
have a gross income in excess of $500,000 a year taking into
consideration both its expenditures in order to run the
business and the gross income received by its drivers from
operating their cabs. It is further clear that Jones was not an
independent contractor and he was in fact discharged by
Respondent. The timing of the discharge requries a most
careful evaluation. Note that Jones was discharged on
Thursday, March 12. This was the middle of the week. Note
also that on the day before his discharge Jones told the
company supervisor that there was going to be a meeting on
Saturday at which the men were going to make certain
demands on French having to do with the reduction of dues
and the payments applied against the purchase of the cabs.
On the very next day after this information was made
known to the Employer, Jones received a telephone call to
report to the office. When he reached the office the
company president, French, queried him about the meeting
that was scheduled to take place on Saturday, March 14.
French also interrogated Jones as to who the leader of this
movement among its employees happened to be and upon
receiving a vague answer from Jones immediately dis-
charged him. All of this takes place against a very weak and
uncertain explanation of the basis for the discharge as given
by Respondent. Absent a clearly defined policy which is
made known to and understood by the men that their
failure to make payments on a regular basis would result in
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their discharge, it would appear that the explanation of this
policy is an afterthought.
Under all these circumstances I find that Jones was
discharged for engaging in concerted activities and the
reason given by the Company to explain the discharge was
a pretext. Having found this fact, the conclusion follows
that the Company, by discharging Jones under the
circumstances set forth, supra, violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section II,
above, occurring in connection with the Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have heretofore found that Respondent discharged
Charlie Jones on March 12, ostensibly because he fell
behind in his payments on the purchase of his taxicab. I
have also found that the reason offered by the Respondent
to explain the discharge is a pretext. In fact Jones was
discharged because of his concerted activities. Accordingly,
I shall therefore recommend that Respondent offer Charlie
Jones immediate and full reinstatement to this former job
or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position and make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced
against him by payment to him of a sum equal to that which
he normally would have earned from the date of his
discharge to the date of his reinstatement less his net
earnings during said period. The backpay provided for
herein shall be computed in accordance with the Board's
formula set forth in F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum
computed in the manner prescribed in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Buffalo Cab Co, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
2. By interrogating Jones and warning him to go on
back to work and not to go to a meeting scheduled among
the employees to discuss a change in their working
conditions, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in,
4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 10246 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings , conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1).
3. By discharging Jones under the circumstances set
forth , supra, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1).
4. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER4
Respondent , Buffalo Cab Co., Inc., Atlanta , Georgia, its
officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging Respondent 's employees from engaging
in concerted activities by discharging employees or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment.
(b) Interrogating employees and, as in the case of Jones,
warning him not to go to a meeting at which working
conditions of the employees were scheduled to be
discussed.
(c) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form labor organizations , to join or assist
fellow employees , or any labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Charlie Jones immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position.
(b) Make Charlie Jones whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced
against him in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records , social security payment records , timecards,
personnel records and reports , and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Recommended Order.
shall, as provided in Section 10249 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
BUFFALO CAB CO. 415
(d) Post at its offices in Atlanta, Georgia, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith .6
5 In the event that the Board's 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 be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
6 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in an
attempt to discourage them from engaging in concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge any of our employees or in
any other manner discriminate against our employees in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
WE WILL offer to Charlie Jones immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position.
WE WILL pay Charlie Jones for any loss of wages he
suffered as a result of our discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to engage in concerted
activities concerning their wages, hours of employment, or
any other conditions of employment. The employees are
also free to refrain from engaging in such activity.
BUFFALO CAB CO., INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
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 Board's Office,
Peachtree Building, Room 701, 730 Peachtree Street, NE.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Telephone 404-526-5760.