Monroe Medi-Trans, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 680 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Monroe Medi-Trans, Inc. and Chauffeurs, Teamsters
and Helpers Local Union #118, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case 3-CA-9593
June 18, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 16, 1981, Administrative Law Judge
Richard L. Denison issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Monroe Medi-
Trans, Inc., Rochester, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
Nor do we find any merit to the Respondent's contention that the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's credibility resolutions, findings, rulings, and in-
terpretation of the evidence demonstrate bias and prejudice on his part
against the Respondent. Rather, having carefully and fully considered the
record and the Administrative Law Judge's Decision herein, we perceive
no evidence that he prejudged the case, made any prejudicial rulings, or
demonstrated a bias against the Respondent in his analysis or discussion
of the evidence.
We further find no merit to the Respondent's assertion that the Admin-
istrative Law Judge erred in refusing to allow it to introduce into evi-
dence, as a prior inconsistent statement, a resignation letter from employ-
ee Barry Youll to the Respondent's president and owner, Eileen Coyle,
thanking her for having been "a fair and likable [sic] employer" during
his 17 months of employment with the Respondent. In our view, Youll's
expression of gratitude to Coyle is in no way inconsistent with his testi-
mony concerning the unlawful remarks attributed to the Respondent's
general manager, Richard Schwartz. Accordingly, we find that the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge did not err in refusing to allow the resignation
letter into evidence.
2 In accordance with his partial dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation,
250 NLRB 146 (1980), Member Jenkins would award interest on the
backpay based on the formula set forth therein.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD L. DENISON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard at Rochester, New York, on Sep-
tember 2 and 3, 1980, based on a charge filed by Chauf-
256 NLRB No. 107
feurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local Union #118, affili-
ated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, on
February 15, 1980.1 The complaint, issued March 25, as
amended, alleges that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act on or about February 12 by
discharging Walter Young, an ambulance driver, because
of his union and protected concerted activities. It is also
alleged that both before and after Young's discharge the
Respondent engaged in a number of independent viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case, including my ob-
servation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs,
I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
As alleged in the complaint and admitted in the
answer, I find that the Respondent is, and has been at all
times material herein, a New York corporation, having
its principal office and place of business at 102 Bay
Street, Rochester, New York, where it is engaged in the
business of providing and performing ambulance trans-
portation and related services. Annually, the Respondent,
in the course and conduct of its business operations, pur-
chased, transferred, and delivered to its Rochester facili-
ty, ambulances and other goods and materials valued in
excess of $50,000, directly from points outside the State
of New York. I find that the Respondent is, and has been
at all times material herein, an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
11. LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
The Respondent provides emergency care and trans-
portation for the sick and injured to hospital facilities,
and transportation for invalids for medical purposes. The
genesis of the union campaign to organize the Respond-
ent's operations occurred on a Tuesday evening in mid-
January, when driver-technician and dispatcher Barry
Youll, who had worked an additional 8-hour shift substi-
tuting for driver-technician Walter Young, went to the
office to complain about his pay. In the office, Youll
talked to the Respondent's owner and president, Eileen
Coyle, in the presence of General Manager Richard
Schwartz. Youll expressed his displeasure at the amount
of money he had received for the additional shift, stating
that he had not even been paid his straight wage rate, let
alone overtime. Coyle laughed at him saying, "I'd be
stupid to pay you even your straight wage when I have
a whole line of people who would be willing to do it for
$3 an hour." About 20 minutes later, when they were
I All dates are in 1980 unless otherwise specified
---
MONROE MEDI-TRANS. INC. 681
done together, Youll raised the matter with Richard
Schwartz. Youll said that he was displeased with Coyle's
response. Since the additional 8-hour shift had raised
Youll's total working hours for the week in question to
48, he added, "I worked for a lot of different places, but
I never had any employer that told me that they could
ignore the overtime law. Do you realize that I am per-
fectly within my rights to go to the National Labor Re-
lations Board?" Schwartz retorted, "Well, that's your
prerogative, but if you do Mrs. Coyle will tell me and
[sic] make life miserable for you, because I am the gener-
al manager and I would have to."
Coyle did not testify concerning the pay dispute inci-
dent with Youll. Schwartz acknowledged talking with
Youll in January about his pay after Youll had spoken
with Coyle. He admitted Youll mentioned going to the
National Labor Relations Board, but denied threatening
that Coyle would have him make life miserable for
Youll. While testifying, Schwartz exhibited a decided
tendency to remember in detail incidents, conversations,
or portions of conversations which he clearly considered
helpful to the Respondent's case, while being unable to
recall the details of matters he considered harmful. I
credit Youll's version of the conversations and find that
Schwartz' remark that he and Coyle could make life mis-
erable for Youll if he sought the assistance of the Board
constitutes a threat proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, as alleged in paragraph VI, h, of the complaint.
It is undisputed that in late January, after discussing
the possibility of organizing a union with other Monroe
employees, including Walter Young and David Stark,
Youll contacted the International Union of Electrical
Workers who referred him to Ernest Moyer, a repre-
sentative of Teamsters Local 118. At a meeting at the
Union's offices on February 6, Youll, Stark, Young, and
employees Miller, Wagner, and Matice signed union au-
thorization cards. After the meeting, the employees, in-
cluding Walter Young, proceeded to Respondent's prem-
ises at 102 Bay Street where LuAnn Schulz and Linde
Hill were working. The group talked to Schulz and Hill
about their plans to organize a union. Young spoke spe-
cifically to Schulz. Cards were also distributed to these
two employees at that time.
On Friday, February 8, as LuAnn Schulz was prepar-
ing to leave her shift between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.,
Richard Schwartz questioned her about the Union in the
bunk room of Respondent's facility. Schwartz said he un-
derstood that there was a rumor going around about the
Union being initiated, and wanted to know if that was
true. When Schulz replied that she could not answer
that, he said, "You just answered it for me." Schwartz
conceded that Schulz' version of the conversation was
true. I therefore find that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating Schulz concern-
ing the union activities of Respondent's employees.
David Stark testified that during the week of February
II1, after Walter Young had been discharged, Richard
Schwartz questioned him in the front office of the Bay
Street facility. They were alone. Schwartz said he had
heard that Training Director Robert Cutt had signed a
union card for other employees. Schwartz asked if Stark
knew whether Cutt did or not, because Cutt denied it.
Stark answered that to the best of his knowledge Cutt
had.
During the week of February 18, Stark and Schwartz
again discussed the Union in the front office area.
Schwartz said, "You, Barry, and Walt are labeled as
union organizers. I know that Walt is Barry's right-hand
man." Stark responded that when he first started work-
ing for the Company he was labeled by the crew as a
"tattletale" because he wanted to follow procedures. He
said he saw there were problems with the Company and
very few changes made. Stark stated that his reason for
signing a card was to help bring about some changes for
the better and also to demonstrate to some of the em-
ployees that he supported them.
Also during that same week in the front office of the
Company, alone with Schwartz, Schwartz remarked that
the Union did not care about representing the employees,
and all they really wanted were their union dues. The
Union, he continued, could order the employees out on
strike whether they wanted to go or not, and if the em-
ployees went on strike they "could be fired." On cross-
examination Stark insisted that Schwartz used the word
"fired."
In yet another conversation that week, between only
himself and Schwartz, Schwartz said it would be just
fine with the Company if the Union came in since the
Company could deal with the Union based on the advice
of lawyers and other people about what the Company
could legally do. Schwartz said there were a lot of
things that they could do, and that they could really
make the employees toe the line if there was a contract.
During the week of February 25, in the office alone
with Schwartz, Stark mentioned applying for a job with
some other company, to which Schwartz answered,
"The fact that you're involved in the union activities
could go with you when you go to look for a job else-
where. You might have a hard time finding other em-
ployment." Stark said he would look into that, and the
conversation ended.
At another time during the week of the 25th Stark,
Schwartz, and employee Stuart Mauro were in the front
office when Schwartz said, "I knew about the union ac-
tivities about a week before the letter from the Union ar-
rived. 2 I had some indications of it from people outside
the Company, and I got confirmation of it from inside.
Mrs. Coyle went on vacation and I spoke with another
employee-there is no point in telling you who." Then
Schwartz reconsidered and said, "I might as well tell
you who it is. It is LuAnn Schulz. I asked her, and she
said 'I can't tell you."' Schwartz stated he had told
Schulz by giving him that answer, she had answered his
question. Then Schwartz asked the two men what it was
they wanted, and they discussed various things that the
employees desired from the Company. Schwartz stated
he would be willing to negotiate concerning these things.
Near the end of February Stark and Schwartz talked
about Barry Youll, with reference to Youll's leadership
in the union movement among the employees. For some
time prior to the union campaign, Schwartz had nick-
' On Fcbruar, 12.
MONROE MEDI-TRANS, C 81
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
named Youll "Sleprock." Schwartz told Stark, "The em-
ployees picked a real slep in Barry for the leader. You
would have done better just coming in yourselves as a
group, and discussing your demands with the Company."
When Stark answered that they would have to think
about it, Schwartz stated that if the Union did not make
it in, he would be happy to sit down with them to talk
about their demands but that it would not be legal to do
it at that time. In a continuation of that conversation
later, with Stuart Mauro present, Schwartz asked, "What
is it you're after that you are not getting now?" When
Stark responded, "More money, sick leave, funeral leave,
and the elimination of the practice of the Code 10,"
Schwartz replied that he would give the leave to them as
funeral leave if they put a no-strike clause in the contract
and would also get rid of the Code 10.3
Stark also testified that there were several other times
during the month of February when Schwartz stated
that he knew who was involved in the Union, and who
had signed the cards. In addition, there were several
other occasions during this same month when Schwartz
criticized the employees' judgment in following Barry
Youll with respect to the Union.
Finally, on March 1, Stark went to the office and re-
newed his discussion with Schwartz about Schwartz'
threat that his union activities might cause him difficul-
ties in finding other employment. Stark stated that he
had checked up on that matter, and that it was against
the law to include any employee's union activities in a
personnel file. Schwartz answered that it would not be
written in his file, but that it just depended on what he
remembered. He said that if someone called for a refer-
ence, it could be said that Stark was in trouble, and that
it did not matter that it was illegal, it could still be said.
Schwartz remembered having a few conversations
with David Stark during the month of February, and
that on some of these occasions Mauro was present.
Schwartz denied telling Mauro and Stark, at the time
Stark testified the conversation occurred, that he knew
about employees' union activities, but did not deny ever
having made such a statement. Schwartz admitted ques-
tioning Stark in the office on February 18 concerning
Robert Cutt, as Stark claimed. Furthermore, Schwartz
did not deny having a conversation with Stark in which
he said that Walter Young, Barry Youll, and Stark had
been labeled union organizers. Schwartz simply stated
that he did not recall having such a conversation.
Schwartz remembered talking to Stark about "different
things that I had known about that could take place or
would take place or however things happen when people
go on strike." According to Schwartz he said, "Number
one; why would you want to go on strike, because you
would not get any benefits and would not be working
and there would not be any money coming in. And
number two; if you go out on strike and if it is an unau-
thorized strike, it doesn't mean that you will come back
to work or be brought back in when it is over or that
you will have a job when it is over." Schwartz denied
I Stark explained that a "Code 10" was the policy of using the lights
and siren on an ambulance to pick up invalid or wheelchair patients who
were late for an appointment, and then turning off the lights and siren
before reaching the destination.
telling Stark or any other employee that he would be
fired if he participated in a strike, stating, "All I told him
was, 'if you go out on strike and it is an unauthorized
strike, we could hire people and that doesn't necessarily
mean that you will have your job given back to you."'
Schwartz also remembered talking with Stark around
February 25 concerning the subject of job references and
his personnel file. Schwartz admitted telling Stark, "that
Kodak doesn't like union people and somehow they usu-
ally find out." Schwartz also admitted that on another
occasion he told Stark, "You guys should get yourselves
a new leader," during a conversation in which he uti-
lized his pet nickname of "Slep" in reference to Barry
Youll. Finally, Schwartz agreed to having talked to
Stark and Mauro about what the employees wanted from
the Company through the Union, although Schwartz
claimed that the employees "volunteered" the informa-
tion and that he did not make any promises.
I credit David Stark's testimony concerning his con-
versations with Schwartz, set forth above, in the few in-
stances in which Schwartz denied making the statements
attributed to him by Stark. The record clearly shows, on
the other hand, that Schwartz' testimony in most in-
stances either admitted the violations of the Act attribut-
ed to him or else gave corroborative testimony clearly
supporting the inference that those violations occurred. I
credit Stark's testimony and find that the Respondent,
through Richard Schwartz, violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by interrogating employees concerning their
own and fellow employees' union activities, by creating
the impression that employees' union activities were
known and under surveillance, threatening employees
with discharge if they engaged in a strike, threatening
Stark with a negative job reference because of his union
activity, promising to remedy employees' complaints and
grievances and to provide increased benefits through an
attempt to negotiate with employees directly, as alleged
in paragraphs Vl,a,b,c,e,f, and g of the complaint. I do
not find, however, that Schwartz' conversation with
Stark in which he stated that the Company could deal
with the Union, and the employees would have to toe
the line in accordance with any negotiated contract, con-
stituted an unlawful threat of more strict working condi-
tions as alleged in paragraph VI,d of the complaint, since
Schwartz' remark in the context of the entire conversa-
tion reveals that he was simply telling Stark that the em-
ployees could be legally required to adhere to any con-
tract their union negotiated.
Barry Youll testified further that on a Tuesday eve-
ning, in the garage at work, Schwartz threatened him
with discharge, as alleged in paragraph VI,i of the com-
plaint. Youll initiated the conversation with reference to
an earlier conversation on February 9, during which an
irritated Schwartz remarked, "We know that there is
something going on around here," and that Youll should
get back to work. On this latter occasion, Youll said that
he did not know where Schwartz was getting his infor-
mation, but that he did not think it was all that accurate.
As the conversation progressed further, Youll remarked
that Training Director Bob Cutt had told him Schwartz
MONROE MEDI-TRANS, INC. 683
was looking for a reason to fire Youll. 4 At this point
Schwartz responded, "I don't have to look for a reason
to fire you, baby, you're going to hang yourself. It seems
every time something happens around here you're in-
volved. I don't have to look for any reason to fire you,
baby." Schwartz remembered having a conversation
with Youll in which he told him to get back to work,
but Schwartz' only mention of Youll's testimony about
looking for a reason to discharge him was a statement
that he did not recall any such conversation. I credit
Youll's account and find that, considered against the
total context of his previous conversations with Youll
about the Union, Schwartz' remarks constituted an un-
lawful threat of discharge as alleged in paragraph Vl,i of
the complaint.
B. The Alleged Violation of Section (8)(a)(3) and (1).
the Discharge of Walter Young
The complaint alleges and the answer admits that
driver-technician Walter Young was discharged by the
Respondent on February 12. The Respondent contends
that Young was terminated because of an accident in
which he was involved, and allegedly at fault. On Febru-
ary 7 at approximately 5:30 p.m., in his ambulance-van,
Young cut through a gasoline station parking lot to
avoid an intersection, and upon emerging was hit by an-
other vehicle. Young was on an emergency call to pick
up a patient, and had his lights on and siren operating.
He was not charged for any traffic violation. There is no
evidence that anyone was injured in the collision. Later
that evening between 9 and 10 p.m., Young received a
telephone call from Eileen Coyle. She instructed Young
that he was suspended from operating the ambulance
until 8 a.m. on February 12, when Young was next due
to report for work, at which time they would discuss the
accident.
The interview between Coyle and Young took place
as scheduled, at Schwartz' desk in the front office of the
Respondent's premises. Schwartz was also present. Ac-
cording to Young, Coyle had both the company accident
report form and a copy of the police accident investiga-
tion report before her as they discussed the specifics of
the accident. 5 Coyle began the conversation by stating
that the accident was Young's fault and would be
charged to him. Young disagreed. She stated that Young
At the conclusion of Youll's undisputed testimony about his conver-
sation with Cutt, I granted counsel for the General Counsel's motion to
amend the complaint to allege Robert Cutt as a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, and that Cultt had unlawfully threatened Youll with
discharge. Cutt did not testify at the hearing. However, an amalgam of
the credited testimony of both employee and management witnesses re-
vealed that Cutt's duties were primarily those of being responsible for the
Respondent's training program. Although the evidence shows that Cutt
undoubtedly from time to time made recommendations concerning those
employees he was training, the evidence is inconclusive concerning
whether or not Cutt's recommendations and evaluations were uniformly
followed by the Respondent. The record is clear, and undisputed, that
only Eileen Coyle, Respondent's president, had authority to discharge
employees. Consequently, I find that the General Counsel has failed to
prove that Cutt is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and, conse-
quently, violated the Act as alleged in the amendment to the complaint.
designated paragraph VIj.
a Both accident reports are in evidence as G.C Exh 3 and Resp Exh
1, respectively.
was not yet 21 and that the insurance company was
going to assess a surcharge against her because of the in-
cident. Then Young asked Coyle if she thought he was a
bad driver, and Coyle responded that although he was a
little faster than the other drivers "in general I don't
think you are a bad driver." Young reminded Coyle that
he was fairly good about his attendance and about pa-
tient care, and Coyle agreed. Then he said he would not
be driving through parking lots any more. Coyle an-
swered that Young had said this before when "you
dumped the lady in the wheelchair, and . . . when you
left the door open on the patient," referring to two pre-
vious incidents. Young responded, again, that he did not
think the accident was his fault, and although he could
possibly have made an error in judgment or taken an-
other route, he would not be driving through parking
lots any more. Then Coyle said, "I know about the union
business, and I know who the two people are who began
it." She said she was sorry that the employees were not
happy with the wages and company policy, and was
sorry they did not come to her instead of going to an
outside source. Young then agreed he was not happy
with the Company's policy, and said he did not think
they were getting paid enough. Coyle responded that
paramedics in Buffalo were receiving $4.50 an hour and
that she thought she was very generous with the wages.
She asked Young if there was anything else he would
like to say, and Young again promised he would not
drive through parking lots any more. Coyle then fired
Young stating, "Well, this accident is bad enough, but
with these other things on top of it, I can't let you work
here any more." Young left.
Coyle testified she did not tell Young that she was
aware of union activity, and that she was sorry that the
employees did not come directly to her. She also testi-
fied that she could not recall any discussion of unions or
union activity during that conversation, although she did
not specifically deny that such discussion occurred.
Schwartz testified that he did not hear any discussion
about the Union or unions during this conversation. In
addition to the discussion of my reasons for not crediting
Schwartz' testimony with respect to other matters else-
where in this Decision, Schwartz impressed me strongly
as a person desirous of safeguarding his job by telling a
winning story for his employer. Coyle exhibited a very
aggressive demeanor while testifying, exhibited consider-
able hostility to the General Counsel, and at times volun-
teered embellishments in an effort to justify her actions. I
credit neither their denials, nor Coyle's assertion, in her
version of the discharge interview, that when she asked
Young what he would do if he were in her situation,
Young responded that he would have to let the driver
go. Under all these circumstances I credit Young's ver-
sion of the discharge interview.
Young acknowledged that as a result of an incident a
few months previously, wherein another employee had
cut through a parking lot, Coyle had reprimanded that
employee and expressed her wishes to all present, includ-
ing Young, that she did not desire the ambulance drivers
to engage in this practice. It is also undisputed, as Young
testified in his credited version of the interview with
MONROE MED-TRANS, INC. 3
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Coyle, that Young had "dumped" a wheelchair patient
he failed to tie down in December 1979, and had left the
door open in January exposing a patient to the cold.
Coyle testified that her policy with respect to discharges
was "Three times and you're out." Thus, she felt she had
no alternative, pursuant to this policy, but to discharge
Young. This position does not withstand scrutiny, how-
ever, based upon Coyle's own testimony and that of
Schwartz. Coyle testified that earlier in the week of
Young's February 7 accident, Young was allegedly at
fault when he went to the wrong address. However,
Coyle did not discuss this matter with Young, and he
was not disciplined for this infraction in any way. Also,
in January, David Stark was discharged for a "series of
events" which he had with a vehicle, but Stark was
reemployed about a week or week and a half after he
was discharged. Coyle also testified that in either 1975 or
1976 an employee named Andrew Carr was summarily
discharged for the same type of activity in which Young
engaged on the evening of February 7. There is no evi-
dence that any of the Respondent's employees ever
heard of a company policy to the effect that three infrac-
tions of company policies would result in termination,
and Coyle's testimony shows variations occurred. Thus,
it is clear that no such set policy exists, and Coyle's testi-
mony that it did could only have as its purpose the
masking of the true reason for Walter Young's termina-
tion. Considering Coyle's remarks to Young about the
Union during the discharge interview; and Coyle's and
Schwartz' admissions that Schwartz informed Coyle by
telephone on the evening of February 10 that he had
heard rumors about the Union, all in the light of the Re-
spondent's vigorous and unlawful antiunion campaign,
including the identification of the Union's employee lead-
ership and threats of discharge, I find that the Respond-
ent seized upon Young's accident as a pretext to elimi-
nate from its employ one of the Union's leading adher-
ents. I therefore find that the only reason why Walter
Young was discharged, under all the circumstances pre-
sented, was his union activity, in order to provide for the
other employees an example of what could happen to
those who supported the Union in its organizational
drive. Thus, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act by discharging Walter Young.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
i. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Walter Young because of his union
activities on February 12, the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. By interrogating employees concerning their union
activities and those of fellow employees; threatening em-
ployees with discharge, negative job references, and
other reprisals; by promising to remedy employees' com-
plaints and grievances, and promising them increased
benefits and improved terms and conditions of employ-
ment; and by engaging in conduct creating the impres-
sion that their union activities were under surveillance.
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent did not violate the Act in any re-
spects other than those specifically found.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order
that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged
Walter Young, I find it necessary to order that the Re-
spondent offer him full reinstatement with backpay com-
puted on a quarterly basis, plus interest as prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and
Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).6 I shall
also order the Respondent to post an appropriate notice
with respect to the violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3)
of the Act found to have occurred.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 7
The Respondent, Monroe Medi-Trans., Inc., Roches-
ter, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
Walter Young or any other employee for the purpose of
discouraging employees from engaging in union activities
or concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection.
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating
employees concerning their union activities, and those of
fellow employees; threatening employees with discharge,
negative job references, and other reprisals; by soliciting
employees' complaints and grievances, and promising
them increased benefits and improved terms and condi-
tions of employment; and by engaging in conduct creat-
ing the impression that their union activities were under
surveillance.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such
6 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & leating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in
Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived fr all purposes
MONROE MEDI-TRANS, INC. 685
right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Walter Young immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former position or, if such position no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings in the manner
set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, or examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of
this Order.
(c) Post at its facility at Rochester, New York, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." s Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 3, after being signed by an authorized repre-
sentative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
s In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted
by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pur-
suant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR REI.ATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to
present evidence and state their positions, the National
Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has or-
dered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate or punish our employees because they have en-
gaged in union activities, or concerted activities for
their mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees con-
cerning their union membership, sympathies, or ac-
tivities, or the union membership, sympathies, and
activities of their fellow employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with dis-
charge if they engage in a strike, or other union or
protected concerted activities; nor will we engage
in conduct designed to create the impression that
their union activities are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with nega-
tive job references or other unspecified reprisals be-
cause of their union or protected concerted activi-
ties; nor will we solicit complaints and grievances
from them, or promise them increased benefits, or
improved terms and conditions of employment for
the purposes of discouraging support for or mem-
bership in Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers,
Local Union #118, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, or any other labor or-
ganization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in union activities or concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any or all such activities, except to the extent that
such right may be affected by an agreement requir-
ing membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3)
of the Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer Walter Young immediate and full
reinstatement to his former position or, if such posi-
tion no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, and will make him whole for
any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a
result of our discrimination against him.
MONROE MEDI-TRANS., INC.
MONROE MEDI-TRANS, I