Gene's Bus Company

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 15, 2010

02-CA-038713 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 15, 2010)

JD(NY)–06–10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
ARDSLEY BUS CORPORATION INC.,
a/k/a GENE’S BUS COMPANY
and Case Nos. 2-CA-38713
2-CA-39049
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF 2-CA-39376
GREATER NEW YORK, LOCAL 100, AFL-CIO 2-CA-39467
Alan M. Rose, Esq. and Colleen
Breslin, Esq., Counsels for the
General Counsel
Anthony J. Pirrotti, Esq., Counsel
for the Respondent
Ursula Levelt, Esq., Counsel for
the Charging Party
ERRATA
By letter dated March 5, 2010, Counsel for the General Counsel requested that I issue
an erratum. He pointed out that certain conclusions that I had made in one part of the Decision
were not reflected at certain other parts of the Decision. As I agree with these points, I hereby
make the following changes:
At page 39 of the Decision, the sentence that begins; “In this respect, I have concluded”
should read:
In this respect, I have concluded, inter alia; (a) that in March 2008, the Respondent
suspended Cesar Uchofen because he sought union representation in relation to an
interview that he reasonably believed could have led to disciplinary action; (b) that in
the spring and summer of 2008, the Respondent failed to furnish relevant information
so that the Union could carry out its contract administration functions; (c) that in the
summer of 2008, the Respondent, contrary to the explicit terms of its contract, did
not allow its employees to bid by seniority for summer camp routes; (d) that in
August 2008, the Respondent excluded certain regular school bus routes from the
bidding process; (e) that the Respondent, on multiple occasions in 2008 and 2009,
had failed and refused to furnish information relevant to potential and actual
grievances; (f) that in late October 2008, the Respondent refused to meet with the
Union regarding pending grievances; (g) that in November 2008, the Respondent by
its manager, physically assaulted the union’s shop steward; (h) that since May 2009,
the Respondent has failed to provide information relevant to bargaining for a new
contract; (i) that in December 2008 and January 2009, the Respondent bypassed the
Union and attempted to bargain directly with employees regarding grievances; and
(j) that in June 2009, the Respondent refused to bargain with representatives chosen
by the Union.
At page 42 of the Decision, where the Conclusions of Law are listed, an additional
enumerated paragraph should be inserted to read as follows:
JD(NY)–06–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
12. By attempting to bargain directly with employees about grievances and
bypassing the Union as their collective bargaining representative, the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
At page 44 of the Decision, the Cease and Desist portion of the Order should be
amended to include the following sentence:
(l) Attempting to bargain directly with employees about grievances and bypassing
the Union as their collective bargaining representative.
The Notice should be amended to include the following provision:
WE WILL NOT attempt to bargain directly with employees about grievances and
bypass the Union as their collective bargaining representative.
Dated at Washington, DC, March 15, 2010.
___________________
Raymond P. Green
Administrative Law Judge