Dedicated Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 4, 2008

29-CA-028447 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 4, 2008)

JD(NY)–07–08
Richmond Hill, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
DEDICATED SERVICES, INC.
and Case No. 29-CA-28447
LOCAL 1181-1061, AMALGAMATED
TRANSIT UNION, AFL-CIO
and
LOCAL 713, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TRADE UNIONS
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
JOURNEYMAN AND ALLIED TRADES
Party to The Contract
Annie Hsu and Sharon Chau, Esqs., Brooklyn, NY for the General Counsel
Denise A. Forte and Scott Trivella, Esqs.,
(Trivella, Forte and Smith, LLP), White Plains, NY, for the Respondent
Richard Brook (Meyer Suozzi, English, Klein, P.C.), New York, NY
for the Charging Party
Brian McCarthy, Esq., (O’Connor & Mangan, P.C.) New Rochelle, NY
for the Party to the Contract
DECISION
Statement of the Case
STEVEN FISH, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to charges and amended charges
filed by Local 1181-1061 Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO (Local 1181), on August 13,
and October 23, 20071 respectively, the Director for Region 29, issued a Complaint and Notice
of Hearing on October 29, alleging that Dedicated Services, Inc., (Respondent) violated Section
8(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Act, by rendering unlawful assistance to Local 713 International
Brotherhood of Trade Unions, International Union of Journeyman and Allied Trades (Local 713),
and by recognizing and signing a collective bargaining agreement with Local 713, containing a
Union security clause, even though Local 713 did not represent an uncoerced majority of
employees in the unit, and at a time that Respondent did not employ a representative
complement of employees and was not engaged in its normal operations. The trial with respect
to the allegations in the above complaint was held before in Brooklyn, NY on December 17.
General Counsel made several amendments to the Complaint during the course of the hearing,
and Respondent made certain amendments to its answer. Briefs have been filed by General
Counsel, Respondent and Local 1181, and have been carefully considered. Based upon the
entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:

1 All dates herein are in 2007, unless otherwise indicated.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent, is a corporation with its principal office and place of business at 89-42 129th
Street in Richmond Hill, NY where it has been engaged in the providing paratransit services for
the City of New York.
Based on a projection of its operations, from February 26, at which time Respondent
commenced its operations, to October 25, 2007, a period which will be representative of its
operations in general, Respondent in conducting its business operations, will annually provide
services valued in excess of $250,000 to New York City, a governmental entity that meets the
Board’s standard for the assertion of jurisdiction, and will purchase and receive at its Richmond
Hill facility goods and materials in excess of $5,000.00 directly from suppliers located within the
state of New York, which supplies, in turn, purchased and received said goods and materials
directly from outside the state of New York.
Respondent admits, and I so find, that it is and has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
It is also admitted and I so find, that Local 1181 and Local 713 have been and are labor
organizations with the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. FACTS
Charles Mattera the president, sole shareholder, director, and officer of Respondent, is
also the president, and sole shareholder, director and officer of Dedicated Transportation, Inc. a
transportation services provider located at 211 Street in Queens Village, New York. Dedicated
Transportation has been in business since January of 2003, and utilizes ambulettes and vans to
provide transportation to the elderly and disabled. This work is essentially the same, as the
work performed by employees of Respondent. Employees of both Respondent and Dedicated
Transportation are required to have a commercial driver’s license, are required to be drug tested
and must take a physical. The vans and equipment used by both companies are similar.
However Dedicated Transportation does not operate pursuant to a contract with the New York
City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and does not provide Access-A-Ride services.
Dedicated Transportation and Local 713 are parties to a Collective Bargaining
Agreement which runs from November 1, 2006 until October 31, 2009. The Agreement states
that it is between Local 713 “acting for and behalf of itself and the employees covered by this
Agreement, now employed or hereafter to be employed by the Employer, Dedicated
Transportation Inc.”
The recognition clause states that Local 713 has been designated by the majority of
employees in the bargaining unit and the unit is subsequently defined as follows:
Full-time ambulette drivers, mechanics, assistant mechanics, matrons and service
persons, excluding all other employees, including executive, managerial and confidential
employees, temporary employees, relief employees, watchmen and supervisors as
defined by the National Labor Relations Act (as amended).
Dedicated Transportation employed thirty eight employees in the bargaining unit covered
by the above contract.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
In May of 2006, Dedicated Transportation submitted a bid to the NYCTA to provide
Access-A-Ride services. Access-A-Ride is a service provided by the NYCTA to residents of
New York City, wherein elderly and disabled individuals are transported to and from their homes
to wherever in New York City the individuals need to go. This service is provided by various
contractors, who lease vehicles owned by NYCTA, and provide the employees to drive and
maintain the vehicles and transport the individuals to and from their destinations. The NYCTA
utilizes a number of different contractors at the same time to perform these services.
In June of 2006, Mattera on behalf of Dedicated Transportation began negotiations with
representatives of the NYCTA, concerning the awarding of a contract for these services. During
the course of these negotiations, it became clear that Dedicated Transportation would lease up
to 50 vehicles from the NYCTA to perform the work required. Dedicated Transportation at the
time had 30 vehicles of its own at its facility in Queens Village, NY, and there was no room for
expansion at that location. Thus Mattera decided to lease another facility, in Richmond Hill, in
order to store the vehicles to be used for the Access-A-Ride contract. Mattera notified the
NYCTA that Dedicated Transportation had a location that could house 50 vehicles. Mattera
signed a document June 8, 2006, stating that Dedicated Transportation would place up to 50
vehicles in service, on various dates, culminating on April 2, 2007.
In early November of 2006, Dedicated Transportation was awarded the bid by NYCTA.
However, shortly thereafter, at a meeting with NYCTA officials, Mattera was informed that the
City did not want their vehicles used for Access-A-Ride to have the same name on them, as
Dedicated Transportation. Therefore, it was suggested by the NYCTA that Mattera form a
separate corporation for the Access-A-Ride contract. Thus Mattera formed Respondent, and
filed incorporation papers on December 14, 2006.
On the very same day, as demanded by the NYCTA, Dedicated Transportation signed a
guaranty that if Respondent failed to or was unable to perform the terms of the contract with the
NYCTA, that Dedicated Transportation perform such obligations under the contract. I would
also note in this regard that in making its bid, Dedicated Transportation was required to submit
financial history for three years, which is required by the NYCTA, which does not award
contracts to start up companies without a financial history or a guarantee from a parent
company. Dedicated Transportation also loaned over $300,000 to Respondent, in order to
finance the start up of Respondent’s operations.
During the bidding process, Dedicated Transportation submitted its contract with Local
713 to the NYCTA, and made its bid based on the terms of such contract, which Mattera
believed would be applicable to the Access-A-Ride employees. However, Mattera was aware
that the other Access-A-Rive providers paid over $2.00 per hour more than the wages provided
to its Dedicated Transportation employees. Therefore, Mattera knew that he would have to pay
the extra $2.00 in wages, in order to attract employees, since otherwise such employees would
work for one of the other contractors. Mattera informed representatives of Local 713 2 about his
desire to pay employees more than the Local 713 contract called for, and they were agreeable
to this. Mattera Scalza and Acevedo had previously discussed applying the Dedicated
Transportation contract to Respondent’s employees, and Mattera had agreed to do so. Nothing
was signed or put in writing with respect to this Agreement by Mattera.3

2 The representatives were John Acevedo and Robert Scalza.
3 The date of this conversation, is not disclosed in the record.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
In December of 2006, Respondent began to advertise in the newspaper for employees
to perform its Access-A-Ride work. Riccardo Baerga saw the ad and responded by phone. He
spoke to Randy Russo.4 Russo asked Baerga if he had a CDL, and if so, to fax it to
Respondent. Baerga complied with Russo’s request. In late January of 2007, Russo
telephoned Baerga, informed him that his CDL was good and asked if he was still interested in
employment. Baerga responded “Yes”. Russo told Baerga that Respondent would be having a
training class, starting in mid February, and asked Baerga to come in and fill out an application.
Baerga was told to report to the Dedicated Transportation facility on 211 Street on February 5.
Present along with Baerga and Russo were three other men. Russo gave each of the
individuals a folder containing an application for employment with Respondent, W-2 forms,
letters of reference, agreement to submit to a blood test, and a card for Local 713. The card
was entitled “application and check off authorization form.” The card by its terms authorizes the
Employer to deduct dues from the signers’ wages, and be forwarded to Local 713. The card
does not expressly authorize Local 713 to represent the signer. One of the individuals asked
what the Union card was for. Russo replied that it was a Union card and that it had to be filled
out as part of the application. Russo added that this was the Union that comes with the
company, and this Union was the representative of the employees of the Respondent. Baerga
and the other individuals all filled out the documents required, including the Union card. Baerga
however did not fill in the date on his card. Baerga asked one question of Russo about how
long the shift would be and what the start time would be. Russo replied that employees would
be working Monday through Friday, the shifts would begin between 4:00 AM and 6:00 AM and
last 10 and a half hours. Russo also informed the employees that they would be paid $9.00 per
hour during two weeks of training, which would start on February 12. Russo added that when
they started driving they would receive $11.00 per hour, with an increase of 25 cents an hour
after 30 days of driving.
On the very same day that Baerga signed his Local 713 card, Respondent executed a
Recognition Agreement with Local 713. It reads as follows:
LOCAL 713 I.B.O.T.U. IUJAT,
RECOGNITION AGREEMENT
It is hereby stipulated and agreed this February 5, 2007 by and between
Local 713 International Brotherhood of Trade Unions IUJAT, hereinafter referred
to as the UNION, and Dedicated Service Inc. hereinafter referred to as the
EMPLOYER that:
Whereas, the UNION represents the majority of the access-a-ride drivers,
mechanics, helpers and maintenance employees of the EMPLOYER.
Whereas, the EMPLOYER recognizes the UNION as the bargaining
representative of its employees.
Whereas, both the UNION and the EMPLOYER are desirous of entering
into a Collective Bargaining Agreement.

4 It is admitted and I find that Russo was a supervisor and agent of Respondent.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual convents, and agreements
hereinafter contained, it is agreed that :
1. The EMPLOYER recognizes the UNION as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent for all its full-time and regular part-time employees. Excluding all office
clerical employees and supervisors.
2. The EMPLOYER further agrees to commence negotiations with the UNION
Immediately, and said negotiations are to continue until completion.
3. This agreement shall remain in full force and effect from the above cited date,
up to and including the 1st day that a fully executed collective bargaining
agreement is consummated.
This document was signed by Mattera and Scalza. Respondent signed this document,
according to Mattera, after Acevedo informed him that some of the drivers had reached out to
him, and he wanted to organize Respondent’s employees. Acevedo asked Mattera to sign an
agreement for Local 713 to “talk to the people and organize the shop.” Mattera states that
Acevedo did not have, nor did he show Mattera any signed Union cards at the time. In fact
Acevedo told Mattera that he did not have any signed cards at the time. Acevedo informed
Mattera that he would go to the classes and speak to the employees.5
In Respondent’s position paper submitted during the investigation, it contends that
Respondent recognized Local 713, on February 5, based upon the fact that Local 713 had
obtained six authorization cards from Respondent’s employees. In that regard, the parties
stipulated that the only authorization cards that Respondent’s employees authorized Local 713
to be their representative, were the six cards attached. These six cards, including Baerga’s
card, were all identical. (i.e. they were “application and check off authorization forms.”) As I
have related above Baerga’s card was signed on February 5, although it was dated February 1,
by someone other than Baerga. Further the date of employment listed on Baerga’s card, was
February 26, the date that Respondent started servicing clients. The remaining five cards were
allegedly signed by Andres Vargas, Annette Brown, Dwight Cockrell, Andrew Cumming, and
Tony Tong. No testimony or other evidence was offered by any party as to the circumstances of
the signing of these five cards.6 The cards of Crockwell, Brown, Cumming, Vargas and Tong
were dated February 2. The card for Tong was dated February 1. Crockwell, Brown, Cumming,
Vargas and Tong did not testify, so the record is unclear as to when or how they were hired.
Mattera testified that all six of these employees (including Baerga), plus four other employees
were hired “in late January or early February, after being interviewed and having their licenses
checked.” Mattera testified and the payroll records confirm that no unit employee was paid until
February 12,7 the date the training commenced. Crockwell had been an employee of Dedicated
Transportation. He asked Mattera if he could work for Respondent, since Respondent’s pay
scale was going to be higher than that of Dedicated Transportation. Mattera agreed and
Crockwell was hired by Respondent.
The payroll records of Respondent reflect that starting on February 12, the first date that
any unit members were paid, Respondent employed ten employees. In addition to the six

5 Neither Acevedo nor Scalza, nor anyone from Local 713 testified in this proceeding.
6 As I have observed above, neither Scalza, Acevedo, nor any other representatives of
Local 713 were called as witnesses.
7 Russo was paid starting on February 9.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
employees described above, Respondent also employed Barry Jones, Gail McDaley, John
Pacheco and Michael Dougherty. McDaley had, like Crockwell, been employed by Dedicated
Transportation, and had asked Mattera to be employed by Respondent, in order to obtain
higher pay.
Further, the record reveals that at some point undisclosed by the record, Mattera spoke
to Acevedo from Local 713, and they agreed that when employees such as Crockwell and
McDaley were transferred to Respondent from Dedicated Transportation, they would continue to
receive contractual benefits under the Dedicated Transportation contract, such as medical
benefits. Further, according to Mattera, Respondent continued to check off dues for these
employees, and send same to Local 713, even prior to Respondent signing a contract with
Local 713 in May.8
As related above, training began on February 12, the first day that Respondent’s
employees were paid. The training was held at Russo’s CDL School in Brooklyn, NY, and
lasted for two weeks. According to Baerga there were 12 employees at the training, including
himself, but that none of the individuals who were with him on February 5, when he signed his
union card, were in the class. Baerga further testified that one of the twelve did not pass the
road test, so he was not hired when Respondent began servicing clients on February 26, and
another individual, decided not to work for Respondent. Baerga did not testify as to the names
of the two individuals who participated in the training, but did not start working for Respondent
on February 26. During the training sessions, Russo handed out the Local 713 cards that
Baerga and some others had previously signed, and instructed them to correct certain mistakes
that they had made. The employees complied and returned the cards to Russo.
During the training, the employees were told of their starting date and their shifts by
Russo. At one point during the second week of training, Acevedo came to the session, and was
introduced by Russo as the “person from the Union”. Acevedo explained to the employees
benefits and discounts that they would receive from the Union.
The payroll records reveal that during the two week training period, starting on February
12, Respondent paid the ten employees listed above $9.00 per hour, as Baerga had been
informed.
As also related above, Respondent began servicing clients on February 26. For the
payroll period ending March 4, (which included February 26), Respondent’s payroll records
revealed that it employed the ten drivers who went through the training session, and who were
now paid the $11.00 per hour Baerga had been promised. It also employed a Moses Solomon,
who was hired in March at a salary of $13.50 per hour.9
The payroll records also reveal that Respondent hired three employees as mechanics,
during that week. They were Karanchan Basdeo hired on February 26, Jay Divecha, hired on
February 24, and Carlos Martinez hired on February 20. Basdeo and Martinez were paid
$10.00 per hour and Divecha $18.00.10 The payroll records also establish that under the

8 However, I note that the payroll records submitted by Respondent do not reflect any
deductions of dues from the salaries of Crockwell or Mc Daley in February or March.
9 The record does not reflect whether Solomon attended any training sessions, or why he
was paid $13.50 per hour. It is probable that he was hired with experience as an Access-A-
Ride driver, which also could account for his $13.50 salary.
10 The record does not reveal whether the three mechanics had any paid training, as was
Continued
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
section entitled Management, Respondent in addition to Russo, employed Michelle Hosein
starting on February 26, at $17.50 per hour, Muntaz Hosein, starting on February 21, at $22.50
per hour, Dessie Mathews starting on February 20, at $13.65 per hour, and James McMillan on
February 21 at $13.65 per hour. The payroll records do not reflect, nor was any testimony
offered to establish what positions were held by McMillan, Mathews, or the Hosein’s. However,
Mattera did testify that Respondent employed dispatchers who had not been employed by
Dedicated Transportation. Thus it is likely that some or all of these employees listed as
Management were dispatchers.11
Respondent began its operations during the week on February 26 with 10 vehicles, and
Mattera conceded that he expected the amount of vehicles needed and employees hired would
increase substantially. Indeed as noted, he had agreed to lease at least 50 vehicles from the
NYCTA.12 During the next payroll period the week ending March 11, Respondent hired eight
new drivers. Thus for that week Respondent employed 18 drivers.13 Thus for that week,
Respondent employed 18 drivers and three mechanics, as well as the same employees listed
above as “Management”.14
Dwain Arietta was employed by TFM another Access-A-Ride contractor. In late
February, he heard from other drivers in the industry, that Respondent, another Access-A-Ride
carrier, would be opening up. He decided to apply and spoke to Russo at the Richmond Hill
facility. Russo handed Arietta a folder with various forms to fill out, including a card for Local
713. Russo asked Arietta to fill out the various forms in the folder, but there was no specific
discussion about the Union card on that day. Arietta filled out some of the forms, but not the
Union card. Russo asked Arietta when he would be available, and added that Respondent
needed experienced drivers. Arietta did not finish filling out the forms and left. He returned
several weeks later, in March, along with three other fellow drivers from TCM. On this occasion,
Russo again gave Arietta the folder of forms to fill out, including the Local 713 card. Arietta
asked about the Union card. Russo replied that this is a Union card and it’s a Union that
represents the Company. Russo added that Arietta had to fill out the card, in order to work for
Respondent. Russo asked when Arietta would be available to work. Arietta replied that he did
not know when he would be able to leave his present job at TFM. Russo told Arietta that he
would call. Arietta did not fill out the Union card on that day.
In June, Arietta returned to Respondent’s facility to see if the job was still available.
Russo replied that the job was still open, and again gave Arietta a portfolio of forms, including a
Union card to fill out. On this occasion Arietta asked what if he did not want to fill out the card.
Russo replied that if he did not fill out the card, he could not work for Respondent. Arietta filled
out all the forms, including the Union card, and returned them to Russo. He began working for
_________________________
required of the drivers.
11 During his testimony, Mattera testified that he transferred Charles Nicosia, a maintenance
supervisor, from Dedicated Transportation to Respondent, in the same position. However, the
payroll records establish that Nicosia was not hired by Respondent until April 25. Thus Nicosia
was not employed by Respondent during its first week of operation, as Mattera seemed to
suggest.
12 Mattera testified that since the routes required employees in the evening and the morning
hours, Respondent may need two or three employees to complete a route. Thus Respondent
would need more than 50 employees to drive 50 vehicles.
13 Employee Michael Dougherty did not appear on the payroll for the week of March 11, or
anytime thereafter. Apparently his employment with Respondent ended during the prior week.
14 Michelle and Muntaz Hosein, Mathews, McMillan and Russo.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Respondent as a driver in the last week of June.
Arietta informed representatives of Local 1181 that Russo had told him that he needed
to sign a Local 713 card in order to work for Respondent, sometime between March and June.
Respondent continued to hire additional employees each week thereafter, as the
number of the vehicles leased from the NYCTA increased. On April 30, it hired nine drivers,
and two “management” employees, Nicosia, and Taewos Phanglym.15
On May 1, Respondent and Local 713 entered into collective bargaining agreement
effective from May 1, 2007 through April 30, 2010. The Agreement contains a union security
clause and states that Local 713 has been designated by a majority of Respondent’s employees
in the unit, and has exhibited to Respondent, “authorization signed by a majority of such present
employees of the Employer.”
The Agreement provides for recognition in the following unit:
Full-time and part-time Access-A-Ride drivers and mechanics, helpers and maintenance
personnel, excluding all other employees, including but not limited to executive,
managerial and confidential employees, temporary employees employed for 25 hours or
less per week for a period of no more than (90) ninety days, relief employees, watchmen
and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act (as amended)
The Agreement signed by Local 713 with Respondent is virtually identical with the
contract signed between Local 713 and Dedicated Transportation, in most respects. There are
however certain exceptions. In addition to the differences in the unit description, there are
differences in the seniority, wages, work week and Welfare Fund clauses. With respect to
seniority, both contracts define seniority, as “an employee’s length of continuous service with
the Employer in the bargaining unit.” Thus there is no credit given in the Respondent’s contract
for service with Dedicated Transportation. The starting wage rate for drivers under the
Dedicated Transportation contract has $8.25 per hour. It also provides for a starting wage of
$7.25 for matrons, and has no rate listed for mechanics. The Agreement also provides for an
incentive bonus of 50 cents per hour for drivers if they comply with various listed standards.
Respondent’s contract with Local 713 provides for a minimum starting wage of $11.00 per hour
for drivers, with a caveat that experienced Access-A-Ride driver’s wages may differ according to
years worked in the Access-A-Ride industry. This contract provides for minimum rates for
mechanics ($13.00 per hour), and mechanics and maintenance personnel at $10.00 per hour.
There is no provision for an incentive bonus, as reflected in the Dedicated Transportation
contract.
The work week in the Dedicated Transportation contract is defined as based on eight
hours per day and forty hours or less if they work less or more if scheduled more. The work
week in Local 713’s contract with Respondent, defines work week as Monday 12:01 A.M.
through Sunday 12:00 PM, and states that any disputes concerning the number of route hours
assigned to a particular route shall not be subject to arbitration. The clause also allows the
Respondent to “establish reasonable productivity standards”, for which employees could be
disciplined, if they fail to meet such standards. The Welfare Fund clause in the Dedicated
Transportation contract mandates contributions for all unit employees who work 30 hours per

15 Phanglym was paid $13.65 per hour. There is no evidence in the record concerning
Phanglym’s job. Nicosia was a supervisor of the maintenance employees .
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
week or more, and provides for two types of coverages. Plan B, is a single coverage plan
which is applicable to employees hired before November 1, 2002, and calls for payments of
$200.00, $205.00 and $210.00 monthly for each employee.16 Plan C Single coverage, which
applies to all “new” employees calls for payments of $100.00, $105.00 and $110.00 monthly on
the same dates. For new employees payments are to be made after 90 days of probation of
continuous service. Employees are not eligible for coverage until 90 days of contributions are
made. Further the Employer is not required to pay for medical coverage on behalf of an
employee who has medical coverage through a spouse or other employment.
Respondent’s contract with Local 713 provides for a single plan (Plan C), with payments
for each full-time employee, of $110.00, $115.00 and $120.00 per month, to be made on
September 1, 2007, 2008 and 2009 respectively. Contributions need not be made for
employees until they complete a 120 day probationary period, and said employees are eligible
for coverage after 4 months of continuous service.
The contract as in the Dedicated Transportation Agreement, does not obligate
Respondent to make contributions for employees who have medical coverage through a spouse
or other employment, but adds a provision not included in the Dedicated Transportation
contract, that in the event an employee presents proof of alternate coverage and waives
coverage with Respondent, Respondent will pay such employee fifty dollars. Further,
Respondent’s contract with Local 713, unlike the contract with Dedicated Transportation, gives
Respondent the “sole and absolute right to provide alternative Medical coverage which is equal
to or better than what they are currently receiving upon ninety days written notice to the Union.”
Finally, Respondent’s contract, unlike its Agreement with Dedicated Transportation,
states that “should the Employer’s contract with the New York City NYCTA be terminated for
any reason, then this Agreement shall automatically be terminated and be null and void. Upon
the above occurrence, both parties shall be released of any and all legal liabilities or
responsibilities to one another.”
For the payroll period ending May 6, Respondent employed 39 drivers 6 maintenance
employees, and 9 individuals designated on the payroll as Management.17
From May through December, Respondent’s employee complement continued to
increase, as the vehicles and workload increased. For the payroll period ending December 2,
Respondent employed a total of 102 employees as drivers and maintenance employees, and 24
employees listed as management.18 Mattera testified that at the time of the trial (December 17),
Respondent employed 96 or 97 employees, and had leased 50 vehicles from the NYCTA. He
added that the City has asked Respondent to take 20 more vehicles, approval of which is still
pending. Once that approval is obtained, that would necessitate Respondent hiring at least 20
more employees. As I have detailed above, Dedicated Transportation employed 38 employees.

16 The payments are due November 1, 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively.
17 The Individuals designated as “management”, included Russo, an admitted supervisor,
Nicosia who Mattera characterized as the supervisor of the maintenance employees, and 7
others for which the record is unclear to their job functions or titles as I have discussed above.
18 As noted above, as to most of the individuals, the record is uncertain as to their job
functions or titles. The December 2 payroll, in addition to Nicosia and Russo, also contained the
name of Mattera, who as detailed above is Respondent’s president. It also included Crockwell,
who was previously employed as a driver. He received $13.65 as a salary and was promoted to
the position of dispatcher.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
Two of these employees (Crockwell and Mc Dale) were transferred over to Respondent, as part
of its original crew of drivers.19 Nicosia, Dedicated Transportation’s maintenance supervisor
was transferred to Respondent in the same position, in April.
Mattera testified that as of the date of the trial, there were 7-10 employees who were
transferred at their own request from Dedicated Transportation to Respondent. In addition to
Crockwell and Mc Dale, Mattera mentioned Keith Stewart. Stewart worked for Respondent in
the office as a road supervisor, which entails going around and checking to see that the drivers
are doing what they are supposed to be doing.20 Mattera admitted that there is no day-to-day
interchange between the two companies. While as I have indicated above the work performed
by the employees of the two companies is essentially the same, (i.e. transporting the elderly and
disabled), there are some differences. Respondent leases the vehicles used for the Access-A-
Ride contract from the NYCTA, while Dedicated Transportation uses its own vehicles
Respondent’s employees collects fares from it passengers, and have two weeks of training,
while Dedicated Transportation employees do not collect fares, and have no formal training
program.
lll. ANALYSIS
A. THE 10(b) ISSUE
Section 10(b) of the Act provides that “no complaint shall be issued based upon any
unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the
Board.” However, it is well established that the 10(b) period does not begin to run until the
Charging Party has received “clear and unequivocal notice, either actual or constructive ” of the
violation. M&M Automotive Group, d/b/a Broadway Volkswagen, 342 NLRB 1244, 1246 (2004);
St. Barnabas Medical Center, 343 NLRB 1125, 1126 (2004); Leach Corp., 312 NLRB 990, 991
(1993); enfd. 54 F.3d 802 (D.C. Cir. (1995); Amcar Division ACF Industries, 234 NLRB 1063,
(1978) enfd. 596 F.2d 1344, 1351 (8th Cir. 1979). The burden of showing such clear and
unequivocal notice is on the party raising Section 10(b) as an affirmative defense. Broadway
Volkswagen, supra, at 1246; Chinese American Planning Counsel, 307 NLRB 410 (1992),
review denied. mem. 990 F.2d 624 (2nd Cir. 1993).
In applying these principles to the instant case, Respondent has the burden to establish
that Local 1181 (the Charging Party) had clear and unequivocal notice that Respondent had
violated the Act, outside the 10(b) period.
In that regard Respondent correctly asserts that Respondent signed its recognition
agreement with Local 713 on February 5, which is more than six months from the date of the
initial charge, which was filed on August 13. However, that is not the end of the inquiry.
Respondent must establish that Local 1181 had clear and unequivocal notice, either actual or
constructive, of the violation outside the 10(b) period. In my view, it has fallen far short of
meeting its burden in that regard. Respondent has adduced absolutely no evidence that Local
1181 had actual notice of the recognition of Local 713 by Respondent on February 5, or at any
other time outside the 10(b) period. (i.e. prior to February 13). Respondent makes no such

19 As noted, Crockwell was subsequently promoted to dispatcher.
20 Mattera testified that Stewart is part of the unit and a Union member. His hire date for
Respondent was March 5. The record reveals that dues were deducted from his salary for
Local 713. The record does not reflect what position Keith Stewart held when he was employed
by Dedicated Transportation.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
contention, but instead argues that Local 1181 had constructive knowledge of the recognition,
that required Local 1181 to exercise reasonable diligence. Ohio & Vicinity Council of
Carpenters, 344 NLRB 366, 367-368 (2005). I disagree.
Respondent relies on the evidence that applicants were told to fill out paperwork for
employment, including signing a Local 713 card on or before February 5. The evidence in this
regard from one witness, Baerga does demonstrate that he, as well as three other applicants
were informed by Russo on February 5, that it was a Union card, it had to be filled out as part of
the application, and that this Union comes with the company and was the representative of
employees of Respondent. However, Respondent adduced no evidence that Baerga informed
Local 1181 of these facts at any time outside the 10(b) period. Indeed Baerga credibly testified
that he did not inform any Local 1181 representative about his conversation with Russo, until
September, well within the 10(b) period.
I therefore conclude that Baerga’s knowledge of possibly unlawful acts,21 cannot be
attributed to Local 1181, nor would it suggest to Local 1181 that it needed to exercise any due
diligence, since it knew nothing of the conversation between Russo and Baerga. Broadway
Volkswagen, supra, at 1246. (None of the employees informed the Union about unilateral
changes in wages and promotions); St. George Warehouse, 341 NLRB 904, 905 (2004) (Union
not shown to have constructive notice of Employer’s use of agency employees); Nursing Center
at Vineland, 318 NLRB 337, 339 (1995) (Union did not have constructive notice that employee’s
bonus had been terminated outside the 10(b) period until employee informed the Union, within
the 10(b) period); Fire Tech Systems, 319 NLRB 302, 305 (1995) (Although Employer told
employees outside the 10(b) period that it intended to establish a non union operation,
insufficient to establish clear and unequivocal notice. Notice to employees, does not constitute
notice to the Union); Brimar Corp., 334 NLRB 1035 fn1 (2001) (Knowledge of alleged unilateral
change not imputed to Union for 10(b) purposes, even though shop steward was aware of
change); Patsy Trucking Inc., 297 NLRB 860, 862-863 (1990) (Knowledge by Union members of
unilateral changes, does not constitute notice to the Union for purposes of triggering the statute
of limitations, citing Stone Boat Yard v. NLRB, 715 F.2d 441 (9th Cir. 1983)).
Respondent also relies on the testimony of witness Dwayne Arietta, who was employed
as a driver by TFM, another Access-A-Ride contractor. According to Arietta, in late February he
heard from other drivers in the industry that Respondent, another Access-A-Ride carrier would
be opening up. He decided to apply and spoke to Russo at that time. Russo gave Arietta a
folder with forms to fill out, including a Local 713 card, but there was no discussion about the
Union card or the Union on that day. Arietta returned to Respondent several weeks later, in mid
March, when Russo informed him that he must fill out the Local 713 card in order to work for
Respondent, and that the Union represents the Company. Sometime between March and June,
Arietta informed representative of Local 1181 about his conversation with Russo.
Respondent argues that based upon this testimony, as well as Arietta’s additional
testimony that in late February, when he heard about Respondent opening from other drivers,
that “we all know who is opening up,” is sufficient to prove constructive knowledge to Local

21 I note that even as to Baerga these facts do not establish clear and unequivocal notice of
a violation, vis á vis the recognition. The fact that he was told that Local 713 represented the
employees, does not automatically establish that the recognition was unlawful, not would it
suggest same to Baerga. Indeed Respondent asserts that the recognition was lawful, since
Local 713 had obtained a majority of cards, and based on an accretion theory. Baerga had no
reason to doubt that the recognition may have been lawful.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
1181, which required Local 1181 to exercise reasonable diligence, and inquire about
Respondent’s relationship with Local 713. Once more, I disagree.
First of all, Arietta’s testimony indicates that it was not until “late February”, that he heard
about Respondent opening up. This date is not certain, and Respondent has the burden of
proving that it was outside the 10(b) period. Since the 10(b) period starts on February 13, late
February could easily have been after that date. Since Respondent must prove that Arietta’s or
Local 1181’s knowledge of Respondent opening up occurred prior to February 13, and it has not
done so, its reliance on Arietta’s testimony is misplaced.
More importantly, even if it were found that Arietta and or his fellow drivers knew about
Respondent opening up prior to February 23, such a finding would not be sufficient to meet
Respondent’s burden of proof on this issue. As related above, notice to employees is not the
same as notice to the Union, and no evidence was adduced that Local 1181 knew about
Respondent opening, prior to March, well within the 10(b) period. Respondent argues in this
regard, that because Local 1181 represents employees who are employed by Access-A-Ride
carriers, it is deemed to have constructive knowledge of Respondent’s opening, and the fact
that Respondent had recognized Local 713. Once more, I cannot agree.
Even if I were to find, which I do not for the reasons and precedent cited above, that
knowledge of the Access-A-Ride drivers is attributable to Local 1181, vis á vis Respondent’s
opening up, this fact would not provide any evidence or suspicion that Respondent had
recognized Local 713. Thus even if I were to find that Local 1181 had constructive knowledge
that Respondent was opening and hiring employees, that does not suggest that Respondent
had recognized Local 713. Therefore it is not reasonable to require Local 1181 to make
inquiries to see if Respondent had recognized Local 713.
Finally, I also note that Respondent recognized Local 713 on February 5, prior to having
trained or even paid any employees, and prior to starting its regular business operations on
February 26, which is within the 10(b) period. Thus any conceivable argument that Local 1181
should have discovered Respondent’s conduct through reasonable diligence, can only start with
that date. Since Respondent has failed to introduce a scintilla of evidence, that Local 1181
knew or should have known, that Respondent had recognized Local 713, outside the 10(b)
period, I conclude that it has not come close to meeting its burden of establishing that Local
1181 had “clear and unequivocal” notice of the recognition by Respondent of Local 713, on
February 5.
Accordingly based upon the above analysis and authorities, I reject Respondent’s 10(b)
defense.
B. THE CONDUCT OF RUSSO
I have found above that on February 5, Baerga, along with three other applicants for
employment with Respondent, was informed by Russo that a dual purpose authorization and
check off card for Local 713 had to be filled out as part of the application, adding that this is the
Union that comes with the Company. Baerga, as well as the other applicants filled out the
Local 713 card, and returned it, along with the other forms required to Russo. Further, on
February 12, during the training program, Russo handed out Local 713 cards to Baerga and
others that they had previously signed, and instructed them to correct certain mistakes that they
had made in filling out the cards. The employees complied and returned the cards to Russo.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
It is clear and I so find, that Russo’s conduct described above was coercive, and an
unlawful interference with employees right to select their own Union representative, and
constitutes unlawful assistance to Local 713, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
Duane Reade, Inc., 338 NLRB 943, 944 (2003); Meyers Transport of New York, 338 NLRB 958,
970 (2003); Baby Watson Cheesecake, 320 NLRB 779, 786 (1996); Fountain View Care center,
319 NLRB 1286, 1290 (1975); Shenandoah Coal, 305 NLRB 1071, 1072-2 (1992); Davis
Supermarkets, 306 NLRB 426, 453 (1992); enfd. 2 F.3d 1162, 1176 (D.C. Cir. (1993)).
Similarly, Arietta was informed by Russo in March and again in June that he (Arietta)
had to sign a card for Local 713 in order to work for Respondent. By such conduct Respondent
has further violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
Respondent argues with regard to Arietta’s testimony, that ‘the statements were made
when Dedicated Services was operating under a lawful conclusion that it was a Union shop, and
as such the Company was operating in accordance with its obligations with respect to same.”
Once again, I cannot agree.
In March, when Russo made the unlawful comments to Arietta, Local 713 and
Respondent had not entered into a contract as yet, so Respondent’s implicit argument that all
Russo was doing was enforcing the Union security clause, is without merit. The fact that
Respondent had recognized Local 713 on February 5, even if lawful,22 does not permit
Respondent to instruct applicants to sign Local 713 cards, or to tell them that they need to sign
such cards to work for Respondent. See cases cited above.
While the June conversation was after the contract with a Union security clause was
signed, Russo’s conduct was still unlawful. Respondent cannot require an employee to sign a
Union card, in order to work for it. An employee has 30 days to join the Union under the
contract. Moreover, since I find below that both the recognition and the signing of the contract
with Local 713 were unlawful, Russo’s comments to Arietta are clearly unlawful, as well. I so
find.
Further, it is well settled that check off authorizations must be voluntary, even with a
valid Union security clause. Thus, where as here, the employees were told that they had to sign
a “dual purpose” card, which authorizes check off, in order to be employed by Respondent, such
conduct is further violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. Local 74 (Parkside Lodge), 323
NLRB 2879, 293 (1997); Rochester MFG. Co., 323 NLRB 260, 262 (1997); Zurn Nepco, 316
NLRB 811, 819 (1995); CWA Local 101 (New York Telephone), 281 NLRB 413, 417 (1986);
Gloria’s Manor Home for Adults, 225 NLRB 1133, 1143 (1926).
C. THE RECOGNITION OF AND SIGNING A CONTRACT WITH LOCAL 713
The Complaint alleges and General Counsel contends that Respondent recognized
Local 713 at a time when the Union did not represent an uncoerced majority of employees.
General Counsel relies on Mattera’s admission that at the time that he signed the recognition
agreement with Local 713, Acevedo told him that the Union did not have any signed cards from
employees. Further Acevedo asked Mattera to sign the recognition agreement, so he could
“talk to the people, and organize the shop.” I agree, and conclude consistent with this
admission, that Local 713 had not obtained any signed authorization cards from employees, on
or before February 5. I make this finding, notwithstanding the fact that the six cards, which are

22 As I detail below, I find that the recognition was unlawful.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
in the record, all are dated prior to February 5. I rely upon, in addition to Mattera’s admission,
the credited testimony of Baerga, that he signed his card on February 5, and not February 1, as
reflected on the card. Baerga did not fill in the date when he signed his card, so the date was
filled in by someone else, probably someone from Local 713. I also rely upon the failure of
anyone from Local 713 to testify about how and when the six cards were obtained. In these
circumstances, it is appropriate to draw an adverse inference from the failure of any Local 713
representative to testify,23 and find that their testimony would have been unfavorable to Local
713 (as well as Respondent), concerning this issue of when it obtained the signed cards.
Windsor Castle Health Facilities, 310 NLRB 579, 585 (1993); International Automated Machine,
285 NLRB 1122-1123 (1987).
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent recognized Local 713, on February 5, at a time
that Local 713 had not obtained any authorization cards, as well as at a time when Respondent
employed no employees. It has therefore violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act by
recognizing Local 713 in these circumstances, and 8(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Act by
subsequently signing a contract with Local 713 containing a Union security clause. Co op City,
340 NLRB 35, 40 (2003); Windsor Castle, supra.
General Counsel argues alternatively, that all six cards are tainted by Respondent’s
unlawful coercion, and that Section 8(a)(2) is violated when an employer recognizes a Union, if
the Union’s majority is tainted by unlawful coercion or assistance. In that regard General
Counsel contends that the evidence is sufficient to conclude that “all or most of the six cards
were solicited by Respondent, where it directed applicants and employees to sign the cards and
return them to Respondent.” I cannot agree with General Counsel’s assessment of the
evidence.
The only evidence of such coercion by Respondent is the testimony of Baerga and
Arietta. However, Arietta’s testimony concerned events subsequent to the recognition, and is
not related to any of the six cards. While Baerga did testify to his own card being solicited
unlawfully on February 5 by Russo, as I have detailed above, he furnished no testimony
concerning any of the other five cards. While Baerga did testify that 3 other applicants were
with him when Russo solicited his card, and were also subject to Russo’s unlawful coercion,
none of these three applicants were ever hired by Respondent, and they were not among the
six card signers.
While it is not unlikely that Russo did in fact solicit all the cards in the same manner, as
he did with Baerga’s and, as well as with Arietta’s card after the recognition, I do not find the
evidence sufficient to make such a finding. It is General Counsel’s burden to prove that the
cards were tainted, and I do not find it appropriate to conclude, that it has met its burden of
proving that all six cards were tainted. I note in this regard, that two of the card signers,
Crockwell and Mc Dale were already Local 713 members, while employed by Dedicated
Transportation, so it is conceivable that Local 713 would have been able to obtain their
signatures, without the assistance of Respondent. However, since I have concluded that
Baerga’s card was tainted and invalid, as a result of Respondent’s conduct, his card cannot be
counted in determining Local 713’s majority status. Thus, that finding reduces Local 713 to five
cards, which is not a majority of Respondent’s employees as of February 5, even assuming it is
concluded that they were hired as of that day. Since Respondent employed 10 employees
when it began its training on February 12, Local 713 did not represent a majority of employees
in the unit, on February 5, February 12, or at any other time. Therefore General Counsel is

23 I note that two representative from Local 713 were in the courtroom throughout the trial.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
ultimately correct that Respondent recognized Local 713, when the Union did not represent an
uncoerced majority of employees, and that this is further support for concluding that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, by such conduct.24
General Counsel makes another alternative argument, as reflected in the Complaint, that
even if Local 713 represented a majority of employees in the unit on February 5, the recognition
was premature. The Board has set out the competing principles and the test for deciding this
issue.
Where a newly opened business has granted recognition, an issue
concerning the timing of recognition can arise. The Board has long balanced
competing interests in these cases. On the one hand, the Board seeks to
vindicate the right of those employees, already employed, to engage in collective
bargaining should they so choose. On the other hand, the Board seeks to have
that choice made, not by a small, unrepresentative group of employees, but by a
group that adequately represents the interests of the anticipated full complement
of the unit employees-all of whom will be bound, at least initially, by the choice of
those who were hired before them.
Balancing those two interests, the Board has long held that an employer’s
voluntary recognition of a union is lawful only if, at the time of recognition, the
employer: (1) employed a substantial and representative complement of its
projected workforce, and (2) was engaged in its normal business operations.
See, e.g., Hilton Inn Albany, 270 NLRB 1364, 1365 (1984). The test is in the
conjunctive: If either prong is not met, a grant of recognition is unlawful. See,
A.M.A. Leasing, 283 NLRB 1017, 1024 (1987) (a finding that the employer ”was
not engaged in normal business operations … would alone establish a violation”).
Elmhurst Care Center, 345 NLRB 1176, 1177 (2005).
The Board looks to General Extrusion, 121 NLRB 1165, 1167 (1956), a representation
case for guidance in unfair labor practice cases involving premature recognition. Hilton Inn,
supra., at 1365. General Extrusion, held that an existing contract will bar an election, if
compared to the hearing date, the employer employed 30 percent of its employees in 50% of
the job classifications at the time the contract was signed.
In applying this standard to the facts at hand, I conclude, in agreement with General
Counsel, that Respondent had not met either prong of the test utilized to assess premature
recognition.25
Taking the second prong first, there can be no question, that Respondent was not
engaged in its normal business operations, when it recognized Local 713 on February 5.
Indeed, on that date, it was not engaged in any operations, since no unit employees had
performed any work for Respondent by that time, and no employee was paid until a week later,

24 I make this finding, without concluding, one way or the other whether Respondent is
deemed to have hired the employees as of February 5, since it had promised them employment
by that date. This conclusion is questionable, since the employees were not paid until February
12 when training began. Bur for purposes of making my finding, I assume that the employees
as Respondent contends, were hired as of February 5. However, as noted, Local 713 still did
not represent an uncoerced majority of employees at that time.
25 I emphasize again that in order for the recognition to be lawful, both prongs must be met.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
when training began. Further, even when the training commenced on February 12, Respondent
was still not engaged in its normal business operations. During the 2 week training period, the
10 drivers were engaged in training, and were not performing unit work, but going through a
training program, as required by the NYCTA, for all Access-A-Ride drivers. Further Respondent
had not hired any maintenance employees, dispatchers, or supervisors, (other than Russo) at
that time. In such circumstances, I find that Respondent was not engaged in its normal
business operations until February 26, when it began servicing clients. Elmhurst Care Center,
supra, 1178-1179; Hilton’s Inn, supra at 1366; See also, New Concept Solutions, 349 NLRB No.
106 ALJD Slip op. at 23 (2007).
As noted above, this finding alone is sufficient to conclude that Respondent’s recognition
was premature and unlawful. Elmhurst Care, supra; A.M.A Leasing, supra. I also find that the
recognition was unlawful, because the first prong of the Board’s test has also not been met.
Respondent’s complement of 10 employees on February 5, increased gradually each
week, as Mattera had anticipated, until it reached 45 employees (drivers and maintenance
employees) as of May 1, when it signed a contract with Local 713, and by December 2, it
employed 102 employees in these categories.26
Therefore, I find that Respondent employed far fewer than 30% of its normal
complement of unit employees, when it recognized Local 713. Thus as of May 1, when it signed
the contract it employed 22.2% of unit employees, and by December, by which time it had
leased the 50 vehicles contemplated by Mattera, Respondent employed 102 drivers and
maintenance employees. Thus Respondent employed less than 10% of its contemplated unit
employees, when it recognized Local 713.
Accordingly, I conclude that the second prong of the Board’s test for premature
recognition has not been met. Hilton Inn, supra.; AMA Leasing, supra.; Cowles
Communications Inc., 170 NLRB 1596, 1610-1611 (1968).27 This finding provides further
support for my conclusion that Respondent’s recognition of Local 713 on February 5, was
violative of Section 8(a) (1) and (2) of the Act.
Respondent argues as its primary defense, that it is a single employer with Dedicated
Transportation, and that therefore its decision to recognize Local 713 is lawful, whether or not
Local 713 represented a majority or indeed any of its employees, based on the fact that

26 The record also revealed that Respondent employed from 9-24 individuals listed as
management on its payroll. The record is uncertain as to the classifications or job titles of most
of these individuals, other than a strong inference that some of them were dispatchers. It is
unclear if dispatchers are in the unit. I note that the calculations of workforce under General
Extrusion, supra., do not include supervisors or other non unit personnel. Permaneer
California Corp., 175 NLRB 348-349 (1967).
27 The record as noted is unclear as to the number of classifications hired by Respondent as
of February 5. Thus Respondent “hired” only drivers as of that date. The contract also
mentions helpers and mechanics as included in the unit. Clearly Respondent did not hire any
mechanics until it began servicing clients on February 26. The record is silent as to whether
Respondent hired any helpers. Mattera did admit that it hired Keith Stewart as a “road
supervisor”, a classification not specifically mentioned in the contract. He also admitted that
Respondent considered Stewart to be a unit member, and the records reveal that dues have
been deducted from his salary. Thus it appears that Respondent had not employed 50% of the
job classifications at the time of the recognition.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
Respondent’s employees are an accretion to Dedicated Transportation’s existing bargaining
unit. Judge & Dolph Ltd., 333 NLRB 175, 180-18 (2001).
I agree with Respondent’s initial argument that the evidence demonstrates that
Respondent and Dedicated Transportation constitute a single employer under the Act. The
companies have the same officers, directors and ownership, Local 274 HRE (Warwick Caterers,
282 NLRB 939, 944 (1987) are financially dependent on each other, Neighborhood Roofing,
276 NLRB 861, 867, (1985); have common labor relations, and are performing essentially the
same work. Towne Ford Sales, 270 NLRB 811 (1998). However, a single employer finding
between the entities does not end the inquiry.
The issue is whether the employees of Respondent constitute an accretion to the unit of
Dedicated Transportation employees, represented by Local 713. Warwick Caterers, supra.
Indeed this issue would be no different, if the NYCHTA had not required Dedicated
Transportation to form a new corporation to perform the Access-A-Ride work, and if Dedicated
Transportation had signed the contract with Local 713. The issue still is whether the unit of
employees performing Access-A-Ride work is an accretion to the unit of employees of
Dedicated Transportation, performing similar but not Access-A-Ride work, at a different location.
The relevant principles and standards in evaluating the accretion doctrine is detailed by the
Board in Frontier Telephone of Rochester, 344 NLRB 1270, at 1271 (2005).
The fundamental purpose of the accretion doctrine is to “preserve
industrial stability by allowing adjustments in bargaining units to conform to new
industrial conditions without requiring an adversary election every time new jobs
are created or other alterations in industrial routine are made.” NLRB v. Stevens
Ford, Inc., 773 F.2d 468, 473 (2d Cir. 1985). However, because accreted
employees are absorbed into an existing bargaining unit without an election or
other demonstrated showing of majority status, the accretion doctrine’s goal of
promoting industrial stability places it in tension with the right of employees to
freely choose their bargaining representative. Accordingly, the Board follows a
restrictive policy in applying the accretion doctrine. Safeway Stores, 256 NLRB
918 (1981); Wackenhut Corp., 226 NLRB 1085, 1089 (1976). One aspect of this
long-standing restrictive policy, which was recently restated in E. I. DuPont de
Nemours, Inc., has been to permit accretion “only when the employees sought to
be added to an existing bargaining unit have little or no separate identity and
share an overwhelming community of interest with the preexisting unit to which
they are accreted.” Supra, at 608 quoting Ready Mix USA, Inc., 340 NLRB 946,
954 (2003).
In determining, under this standard, whether the requisite overwhelming
community of interest exists to warrant an accretion, the Board considers many
of the same factors relevant to unit determinations in initial representation cases,
i.e., integration of operations, centralized control of management and labor
relations, geographic proximity, similarity of terms and conditions of employment,
similarity of skills and functions, physical contact among employees, collective
bargaining history, degree of separate daily supervision, and degree of employee
interchange. E. I. DuPont, supra, at 608; Compact Video Services, 284 NLRB
117, 119 (1987). However, as stated in E. I. DuPont, the “two most important
factors”-indeed, the two factors that have been identified as “critical” to an
accretion finding-are employee interchange and common day-to-day supervision.
SuperValu Stores, 283 NLRB 134, 136 (1987), citing Towne Ford Sales, 270
NLRB 311, 312 (1984). (Footnotes omitted)
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
Further, the Board supported by the Courts has repeatedly observed that “when the
relevant considerations are not free from doubt,…it would seem more satisfactory to resolve
such close questions through the election process rather than seeking an addition of the new
employees by a finding of accretion. As a general note the accretion doctrine should be applied
restrictively since it deprives the new employees of the opportunity to express their desires
regarding membership in the existing Unit.” Westinghouse Electric v. NLRB, 440 F.2d 7, 11 (2nd
Cir. 1971); Archer Daniels Midland Co.,333 NLRB 673, 675 (2001); Save-It Discount Foods, 263
NLRB 689, 693 (1982); Westwood Import Co., 251 NLRB 1213, 1220 (1900).
Thus in sum, in order to prevail in its accretion defense, Respondent must demonstrate
both that its employees have little or no separate group identity, and thus cannot be considered
to be a separate appropriate unit and the community of interest between the employees and the
existing unit, i.e. Dedicated Transportation is overwhelming. Baltimore Sun v. NLRB, 257 F.3d
419, 427 (9th Cir. 2001); Archer Daniels Midland, supra.; Safeway Stores, 256 NLRB 918
(1981).
Here Respondent has fallen for short of meeting its heavy burden of proving either
prong of the Safeway Stores test. I note initially that the parties did not treat Respondent’s
employees as an accretion to its existing unit. There is no after acquired clause in Dedicated
Transportation‘s contract with Local 713. Judge and Dolph, supra., at 182. Rather, Respondent
decided to negotiate a separate contract with Local 713 covering its employees, with several
significant differences from the Dedicated Transportation contract.28 Further Respondent
agreed to recognize Local 713, based on alleged authorization cards, to be obtained by Local
713, and not based on its existing contract covering the Queens Village location of Dedicated
Transportation.29 I therefore find that this conduct by the parties substantially detracts from any
possible contention that the Respondent’s employees were properly accreted to the existing
unit. Local 27 Paper Products Union (Combined Container Corp.), 209 NLRB 883, 887 (1974).
Further, there can be little doubt that Respondent has failed to rebut the presumptive
appropriateness of a single facility unit, and that Respondent’s employees may constitute a
separate appropriate unit. Save-It Discount Foods, supra, 263 NLRB at 694, 695; Melbet
Jewelry, 180 NLRB 107, 109 (1969).
The employees of Respondent all work out of the Richmond Hill facility, performing
Access-A-Ride work for the NYCTA, using NYCTA vehicles. They perform no work at
Dedicated Transportation’s facility, and there is no evidence of any day to day interchange or
temporary transfers between Respondent’s employees and Dedicated Transportation
employees. Moreover, there is no evidence that day to day supervision of Respondent’s
employees is performed by anyone other than Respondent’s supervisors. I therefore conclude
that Respondent’s facility is a separate appropriate unit, and on that basis alone, Respondent’s
accretion defense fails.
Furthermore, Respondent has also failed to establish the second requirement to find a
valid accretion, that Respondent’s employees share an overwhelming community of interest

28 These differences included wages, seniority and health benefits.
29 As I have found above, although the recognition agreement recited that Local 713 had
obtained a majority of authorization cards from employees of Respondent, in fact the Union had
not yet obtained any signed cards, and indeed told Mattera that the recognition agreement was
merely an agreement to allow Local 713 to organize Respondent’s employees.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
with Dedicated Transportation employees. Frontier Telephone of Rochester, supra. Many of
the same factors described above, in assessing the appropriateness of a single facility unit
where Respondent’s employees work, are relevant to this issue as well. There is absolutely no
evidence that there is any functional integration between the operations of Respondent and that
of Dedicated Transportation. The employees operate separate vehicles, service different
accounts, and do not interact with each other in the performance of their duties.
The most important two factors, relied upon the Board in assessing this issue, which are
considered to be “critical” to an accretion finding, are employee interchange and common day to
day supervision. Frontier Telephone of Rochester, supra at 1271. Here, Respondent has failed
to establish the existence of either factor.30 As to interchange, there is no evidence of any day
to day or temporary interchange, i.e., no evidence that Respondent’s employees and the
employees of Dedicated Transportation ever fill in for each other. Frontier Telephone of
Rochester, supra. In this regard the Board regards permanent transfers to be less significant
indication of interchange than temporary transfers. Id. at 1272; Novato Disposal Systems, 330
NLRB 632 Fn.3 (2000).
As for permanent transfers, Respondent employed two transferees from Dedicated
Transportation as part of its initial complement of 10 employees, and there is no evidence of any
transfers from Respondent to Dedicated Transportation. There were 5 and 7 additional
transferees from Dedicated Transportation to Respondent, but it is questionable whether they
should be considered, since they occurred after the recognition. Frontier Telephone of
Rochester, supra., at 1272, fn.8. In any event, even considering the permanent transfers, they
are not substantial considering the number of employees employed by Respondent, and in view
of the absence of any temporary transfers. I conclude that the evidence falls well short of
establishing significant interchange between Respondent’s employees and those of Dedicated
Transportation. Id. at 1272; Judge & Dolph, supra., at 183-185.
The second critical element necessary to find a lawful accretion, common day-to-day
supervision, also has not been established. Respondent employs separate supervisors and
dispatchers,31 and the record reveals no evidence of any common supervision between the
companies, other than the fact that Mattera is the president of and in overall charge of both
entities. However, such overall control by the president, does not establish the day-to-day
supervision necessary to find a lawful accretion. Frontier Telephone of Rochester, at 1272-73
Towne Ford Sales, supra. at, 312 (1984).
While Respondent is correct that the evidence establishes that the skills, functions and
working conditions of the employees of Respondent and Dedicated Transportation are similar,
these facts are insufficient to find a lawful accretion, in the absence of the two critical factors
detailed above, temporary interchange and common day-to-day supervision. Frontier
Telephone of Rochester, supra.; Towne Ford Sales, supra.
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent has not established either that its employees
cannot be considered a separate appropriate unit, or that the community of interest between its

30 I note that Respondent, as the proponent the affirmative defense of accretion, has the
burden to establish the existence of facts leading to the conclusion that an accretion is
warranted.
31 While the record is unclear whether or not the dispatchers are supervisors under the Act,
the record does reveal that Respondent considered them to be part of management, and that
dues were not deducted from their salaries for Local 713.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
employees and the existing unit of Dedicated Transportation employees is overwhelming. In
such circumstances, its accretion defense fails.
Respondent also argues in this regard that a “relatively small group of 10 employees
was lawfully accreted into the already existing, larger unit of thirty eight employees, pursuant to
the collective bargaining agreement between Local 713 and Dedicated Transportation.”
Again, I cannot agree with Respondent’s assertion. It is true that the Board has
consistently held that accretion determinations are based on facts existing at the time of the
accretion, Frontier Telephone of Rochester, supra., at 1272, fn. 8, or the time that the Union
makes a demand for recognition or for inclusion in an existing contract. Ready Mix USA, Inc.,
340 NLRB 946, 954 (2003); Brooklyn Hospital Center, 309 NLRB 1163, 1182, 1183 (1992);
GHR Energy Co., 294 NLRB 1011, 1052 (1989); Gould Inc., 263 NLRB 442, 446 (1982).
However these cases arise in contexts different from the instant case, and in my view
are not dispositive here. I am in agreement with General Counsel, that in the circumstances of
this case, it is not appropriate to consider the issue of the numbers of employees employed by
Respondent vis á vis Dedicated Transportation, as of the date of the recognition. Rather, I
believe that the significant date in assessing the accretion issue, should be the same date as
used for evaluating majority status, when Respondent employed a representative complement
of employees. I note that to assess the accretion issue based on the facts solely at the time of
the recognition, would not be feasible here, since the recognition was agreed upon, prior to
Respondent having started even its training of employees and prior to having paid any
employees. Therefore, it would not be possible to evaluate any of the factors, necessary to
decide the accretion issue, such as functional integration of operations, interchange, common
supervisors, or similar skills and working conditions, unless one considers how Respondent
operated its business, subsequent to the recognition. Since as I have detailed above,
Respondent did not employee a representative complement until December, when it employed
over 100 employees, that is the appropriate date to utilize, to compare the number of employees
to the Dedicated Transportation workforce. Save-It Discount Foods, supra., 263 NLRB at 695.
(Board relies in part on fact that Employer recognized the Union and agreed to extend contract
to the new store, before a representative complement was employed there, in concluding that
no accretion was established.)
The cases cited above, which appear to be contrary to this finding,32 all arise in different
contexts and are clearly factually distinguishable from the instant matter, since they do not
involve pre-hire recognition, or issues of representative complement. In fact, a close
examination of the facts and the Board’s reasoning in Gould, supra., the case most often cited
for the proposition that accretion issues must be decided on the basis of facts on the date of the
demand, reveals support for my conclusion. Gould involved an 8(a)(1) and (5) allegation, where
the Union, based on an accretion argument demanded that the Employer recognize it as the
representative of a newly transferred operation into the facility, where the Union represented the
employees. When the Employer first started the new operation at the facility on September 30,
1977, (CFC was the new operation. Die Cast was the existing unit), it employed 7 CFC
employees, and 16-20 Die Cast employees in performing work previously performed by CFC
employees. At that time Die Cast employed 79 employees in the unit, represented by the
Union.

32 Frontier Telephone, supra.; Brooklyn Hospital, supra.; Ready Mix, supra.; GHR Energy,
supra.; and Gould, supra.
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
During the early months of its operation at the facility, there was significant amounts of
interchange and common supervision between the two groups, and the number of hourly
employees in Die Cast substantially out numbered the number of hourly employees in CFC.
However, over the next several months, these facts changed, and the Employer began
hiring more CFC employees. By May 25, 1978, when the Union made its demand that the
Employer recognize it and add the CFC employees to the existing unit of Die Cast employees,
there were 148 CFC employees and only 60 Die Cast employees. The employer had also
made other operational changes by May of 1978, and no interchange had occurred between the
groups for over 4 months.
On these facts, the Board rejected the General Counsel’s contention that the Employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) by refusing to recognize the Union as the representative of the
CFC employees. The General Counsel argued that since when the Employer commenced its
operations at the facility, it employed substantially more Die Cast employees then CFC
employees, and for the first few months of its operations, there was extensive interchange,
common supervision, and integration between the two groups, that the obligation to bargain with
the Union matured at that time, based on an accretion theory.
The Board disagreed, and concluded that the issue of whether the CFC employees
constituted an accretion to the Die Cast unit must be determined on the facts as they existed on
the date of the Union’s demand. The Board reasoned as follows:
Further, and significantly, by the Union’s May 25, 1978, bargaining
demand, there were 148 hourly CFC employees and only 60 hourly Die Cast
employees. The number of employees the Union desired to add to the certified
unit at that time thus overshadowed that existing unit by more than two to one.
And the same or a greater ratio of CFC to Die Cast employees continued
thereafter until April 1979 when the Die Cast operation terminated.
Consequently whatever indicia of accretion existed at the inception of
CFC’s Tampa operations are counterbalanced by subsequent events
demonstrating the separate identity of Die Cast’s and CFC’s respective
operations. The favorable ratio of Die Cast to CFC employees that initially
obtained was reversed after a relatively short period of time. This shift in the
comparative sizes of the two operations, together with the development of
separate lines of organization and supervision, and the concurrent phasing out of
Die Cast and the resulting diminution of its employment complement outweigh
the elements which briefly favored a finding of accretion. Id. at 446.
The Board added that “an accretion finding at the point urged by the General Counsel
would be premature,” Id. and added a footnote emphasizing that “at the time General Counsel
claims that an accretion occurred, CFC was operating with a relatively small number of
employees in proportion to the size of the complement it employed when the Union demanded
recognition and bargaining,” Id.
Therefore I conclude that this reasoning of the Board in Gould, supports my conclusion
that in the circumstances of this case, the appropriate date to measure which group of
employees predominate, in assessing accretion, is the date when Respondent employed a
representative complement of employees in December, and not as Respondent contends, on
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
February 5 when its operations had not even begun.
Having so concluded, Respondent employed over 100 employees in the unit at that time,
while the unit to which it asserts accretion is warranted, consisted of 38 employees. This factor
militates heavily against a finding of accretion. Renaissance Center Partnership, 239 NLRB
1247, 1248 (1974); Worcester Stamped Metal Co., 146 NLRB 1683, 1685-86 (1964).
I emphasize that notwithstanding my conclusions above, with regard to the appropriate
date for measuring accretion here, my ultimate decision would not change. Even if I were to
agree with Respondent, that the accretion issue must be decided solely on facts as of February
5, resulting in a finding of accreting 10 employees into a unit of 38, I would still not find the
accretion defense to be established.
Thus the number of employees accreted is but one factor to be considered, and in view
of the absence of evidence of the critical factors in assessing accretion, such as interchange
and common day-to-day supervision, as well as functional integration, Respondent has not
established its defense, even if February 5 is considered the appropriate date for assessing the
issue. Frontier Telephone of Rochester, supra. (No accretion found, based on absence of
interchange and common day-to-day supervision, even though there was evidence of functional
integration, both groups worked at the same facility, and at the time of accretion, 120 employees
were accreted to existing unit of 600.) Id. at 1293.
Based on the foregoing analysis and authorities, I conclude that Respondent has fallen
far short of establishing its accretion defense. Since it is clear based on my findings above, that
Respondent prematurely recognized Local 713, at a time when Local 713 did not represent an
uncoerced majority of employees, it has thereby violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
Further, when Respondent executed a collective bargaining with Local 713 on May 1,
containing a Union security clause, it has violated Sections 8(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Act. I so
find.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 731 and Local 1181 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By directing and urging its employees or applicants for employment to sign cards
authorizing Local 713 to represent them and authorizing dues for Local 713 to be deducted from
their salary, and by informing its employees and applicants for employment, that they had to
sign such cards in order to be employed by it, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2)
of the Act.
4. By recognizing Local 713 as the collective bargaining representative of its
employees, on February 5, 2007, notwithstanding the fact that Local 713 did not represent an
uncoerced majority of Respondent’s employees, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(2) of the Act.
5. By executing a collective bargaining agreement with Local 713, on May 1, which
agreement contained a Union security clause, notwithstanding the fact that Local 713 did not
JD(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
23
represent an uncoerced majority of Respondent’s employees, Respondent has violated
Sections 8(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Act.
6. The above described unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent unlawfully recognized and entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement on May 1, 2007, I shall recommend that Respondent withdraw
and withhold all recognition from the Local 713 as a collective-bargaining representative of its
employees, and order Respondent to cease applying to its employees the terms of the
collective-bargaining agreement, or any extension, renewal, modification, or superseding
agreement,33 unless or until the Respondent Union is certified by the Board as such
representative.
I shall also recommend that the Respondent reimburse its employees, present and
former, for dues and initiation fees involuntarily exacted from them as a result of the unlawful
application of the union-security clause in the Respondents’ collective-bargaining agreement,
with interest to be computed in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue
the following recommended34
ORDER
The Respondent, Dedicated Services, Inc., Richmond Hill, New York, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Directing or urging its employees or applicants for employment, to sign cards
authorizing Local 713, International Brotherhood of Trade Unions International Union of
Journeyman and Allied Trades (Local 713) to represent them or authorizing dues for Local 713
to be deducted from their salary.
(b) Informing its employees or applicants for employment, that they had to sign cards
authorizing Local 713 to represent them or to have dues for Local 713 deducted from their
salary, in order to be employed by Respondent.

33 Nothing in this decision should be construed as requiring Respondent to rescind benefits
conferred as the result of the unlawful application of contract provisions to them, see, e.g.
Frontier Telephone of Rochester, supra., at 1278 fn. 24; Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 343
NLRB 57, 58 (2004).
34 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(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
24
(c) Recognizing Local 713 as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of its
employees at its Richmond Hill facility, at a time when Local 713 does not represent a majority
of such employees.
(d) Entering into and enforcing collective-bargaining agreements with Local 713
containing union-security and dues-checkoff provisions.
(e) Enforcing and/or giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement with Local 713;
provided, however, that nothing in this Order shall authorize or require the withdrawal or
elimination of any wage increase or other improved benefits or terms and conditions of
employment that may have been established pursuant to the performance of that collective-
bargaining agreement.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local 713 as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees, unless and until said labor organization has been
certified by the Board as the exclusive representative of such employees.
(b) Reimburse, with interest as provided in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987), all present and former employees for all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys
paid by them or withheld from them pursuant to the terms of dues-checkoff and union-security
provisions of the collective-bargaining agreements between the Respondent and Local 713.
(c) 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 money due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Richmond Hill, N.Y. facility,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”35 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 29, 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
February 5, 2007.

35 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(NY)–07–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
(e) 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 Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2008
____________________
Steven Fish
Administrative Law Judge
JD(NY)–07–08
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 on your behalf with your employer.
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection.
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT direct or urge our employees or applicants for employment, to sign cards authorizing Local 713,
International Brotherhood of Trade Unions International Union of Journeyman and Allied Trades (Local 713) to
represent them or authorize dues for Local 713 to be deducted from their salary.
WE WILL NOT inform our employees or applicants for employment, that they had to sign cards authorizing Local 713
to represent them or to have dues for Local 713 deducted from their salary, in order to be employed by us.
WE WILL NOT recognize Local 713 as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of our employees at our
Richmond Hill facility, at a time when Local 713 does not represent a majority of such employees, and will not do so,
unless and until Local 713 is certified by the Board as the representative of such employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local 713 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of our employees, unless and until said labor organization has been certified by the Board as the exclusive
representative of such employees.
WE WILL reimburse, with interest, all present and former employees for all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys
paid by them or withheld from them pursuant to the terms of dues-checkoff and union-security provisions of the
collective-bargaining agreements between us and Local 713.
DEDICATED SERVICES, INC.
(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.
One MetroTech Center (North), Jay Street and Myrtle Avenue, 10th Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201-4201
Hours: 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 718-330-7713.
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, 718-330-2862.