Nave, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1992

306 N.L.R.B. 926 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

926
306 NLRB No. 189
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The names of the Charging Party and the Party in Interest have
been changed to reflect the new official name of the International
Union.
2 In the absence of a motion to strike by the General Counsel, the
Board has accepted the Respondent’s exceptions as falling within
Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. We note, how-
ever, that the vagueness and lack of clarity of the exceptions have
made it difficult to discern, with certainty, those findings by the
judge to which the Respondent has excepted.
Member Devaney, in accepting the Respondent’s exceptions, does
not rely on the absence of a motion to strike the exceptions. Rather,
he finds that although the exceptions do not fully comply with the
Board’s Rules, they sufficiently identify the portions of the judge’s
decision the Respondent claims are erroneous. See generally his po-
sition in Worldwide Detective Bureau, 296 NLRB 148 fn. 4 ( 1989).
3 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(2) and (1) by signing a collective-bargaining agreement with
Local 283, we rely solely on his finding that there existed a single,
agreed-upon bargaining unit of the Respondent’s employees of driv-
ers, mechanics, and yardmen/laborers at the Wyoming and Green-
field yards. That single bargaining unit was represented by Local
247. In light of this finding, we find it unnecessary to pass on the
judge’s reliance on Dubuque Packing Co., 303 NLRB 386 (1991).
Finally, while we adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent
violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by laying off employees at the Wyo-
ming yard without notifying Local 247, we find it unnecessary to
rely on Lapeer Foundry & Machine, 289 NLRB 952, 953–954
(1988). Instead, we hold that, where a decision is motivated by
antiunion reasons, an employer cannot claim an exemption from its
bargaining obligation under First National Maintenance Corp. v.
NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 687–688 (1981). See also Continental Winding
Co., 305 NLRB 122 (1991).
1 All dates are in 1990 unless otherwise indicated.
2 The General Counsel’s unopposed motion to correct the tran-
script, dated January 30, 1991, is granted and received in evidence
as G.C. Exh. 28.
Nave, Inc. and Michigan Waste Handlers, Inc. and
Local 247, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, AFL–CIO1 and Local 283, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO, Party in
Interest. Case 7–CA–30804
March 30, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
On July 9, 1991, Administrative Law Judge Marion
C. Ladwig issued the attached decision. The Respond-
ent filed exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions2 and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,3 and conclusions
and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Nave, Inc., Dearborn,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Order.
Linda Grayson, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Barry E. Solomon, Esq., of Berkley, Michigan, for Respond-
ent Nave, Inc.
Donald J. Prebenda, Esq., of Southfield, Michigan, for Local
247.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Detroit, Michigan, on December 12–13, 1990.1
The charge was filed July 24 (amended September 5) and the
complaint was issued September 26.
The case arose when Respondent Nave, Inc. (the Com-
pany) engaged in a series of maneuvers that were obviously
designed to displace Local 247 as the bargaining representa-
tive.
Ignoring the relocation and other provisions in its collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with Local 247, the Company (a)
hired 11 nonunion employees of Respondent Michigan Waste
Handlers, Inc. to perform bargaining unit work at a separate
location, (b) signed a less costly agreement there with Local
283, (c) laid off 6 of its 14 bargaining unit employees, (d)
transferred or rehired 5 employees to work at lower wages
and benefits under the Local 283 agreement, and (d) refused
to bargain for a renewal of the Local 247 agreement.
The primary issues are whether the Company (1) unlaw-
fully refused to recognize Local 247 as bargaining represent-
ative of unit employees at the separate location, (2) rendered
unlawful assistance to Local 283, (3) laid off six employees
and reduced hours of remaining employees to displace Local
247, (4) bypassed Local 247 by dealing directly with indi-
vidual employees, and (5) unlawfully refused to bargain with
Local 247 for unit employees at both locations, in violation
of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act.
On the entire record,2 including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs
filed by the General Counsel and the Company, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Company, a corporation, is engaged in the collection
and disposal of waste at its facilities on Wyoming Avenue
927NAVE, INC.
in Dearborn and Greenfield Road in Melvindale, Michigan,
where it annually performs over $50,000 in services for cus-
tomers that annually receive over $50,000 in goods directly
from outside the State. The Company admits and I find that
it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that Locals 247
and 283 are labor organizations within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Contractual Provisions in Local 247 Agreement
After signing its first collective-bargaining agreement with
Local 247 in 1980, the Company relocated its operations first
from 23d Street in Detroit to Stanbury Avenue in Detroit,
second from Stanbury Avenue to Telegraph Road in Redford,
and third (about 1986) to the Wyoming Avenue yard in
Dearborn. As required by the agreement, the Company con-
tinued to recognize Local 247 as the bargaining representa-
tive. (Tr. 24–27.)
The most recent agreement, effective from 1987 through
September 30, 1990 (G.C. Exh. 2), covered both local and
over-the-road drivers in the following stipulated appropriate
bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time drivers, mechan-
ics, and yardmen employed by Nave, Inc. at its facility
located at 4440 Wyoming, Dearborn, Michigan, but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
The agreement contained provisions to give the employees
maximum protection for preserving their jobs, working con-
ditions, and representation by Local 247.
The recognition provisions, article I, section 1, second
paragraph (G.C. Exh. 2, p. 2), stated:
The terms of this Agreement shall apply to all em-
ployees in the classifications of work set forth herein
and shall cover all accretions to or relocations of bar-
gaining unit operations . . . . [Emphasis added.]
Subcontracting provisions, article IV (G.C. Exh. 2, p. 5),
stated:
For the purpose of preserving work and job opportu-
nities for the employees covered by this Agreement, the
Employer agrees that no work or services presently per-
formed, or hereafter assigned to the collective bar-
gaining unit, will be subcontracted . . . in whole or in
part to any other . . . person, company, or to nonunit
employees.
The Employer hereby assigns all work performed in,
or fairly claimable by, bargaining unit classifications to
employees covered by this Agreement. [Emphasis
added.]
The ‘‘Extra Contract Agreements’’ provisions, article V
(p. 5), stated:
The Employer agrees not to enter into any Agree-
ment with another labor organization during the life of
this Agreement with respect to the employees covered
by this Agreement . . . . Any such agreement shall be
null and void. [Emphasis added.]
I note that it was in July 1986, the year before signing this
Local 247 agreement, that Company President Vasilios
Madias incorporated a second waste hauling corporation
named Michigan Waste Handlers (MWH). The 1988 annual
report for the corporation shows that Madias was the presi-
dent and the sole officer and director of the ‘‘currently inac-
tive’’ corporation, which then still had no assets. (G.C. Exh.
15; Tr. 94–97.)
B. Hazardous and Nonhazardous Waste
On July 2 the Company began dispatching at the Green-
field Road yard in Melvindale (in the Detroit area) all its
hazardous waste hauling, as well as all its tank cleaning and
the hauling of nonhazardous sludge and liquids. This yard is
covered with asphalt, whereas the Wyoming Avenue yard is
not. President Madias personally owns both yards. (Tr. 24,
28, 51, 55.)
For years at the Wyoming yard, the Company had been
dispatching tank cleaning and the hauling of solid rubbish,
asbestos waste, and both hazardous and nonhazardous sludge
and liquids (Tr. 32–38, 40–43, 90–91, 129–131, 194–196,
199, 206–208, 214). Two of the Company’s seven sludge-
hauling accounts required the hauling of hazardous sludge
(Tr. 40–41, 50, 91; G.C. Exh. 3). Four of its ten drivers at
the Wyoming yard at the time of the transfer of work to the
Greenfield yard, Matthew Emanuelsen, Jose Gonzalez, Mark
Obidzinski, and James Whitten, had been hauling hazardous
waste (Tr. 42, 132; G.C. Exh. 9). It is undisputed that they
hauled hazardous sludge on a daily basis (Tr. 132–133) and
that about 60 to 70 percent of driver Emanuelsen’s time was
spent hauling hazardous materials (Tr. 205). The evidence
shows that driver Whitten had taken a 40-hour class in haz-
ardous waste hauling (G.C. Exh. 27).
The Company’s 3500-gallon vacuum tank truck at the Wy-
oming yard was used to haul both hazardous and nonhaz-
ardous sludge and liquids and to clean tanks (Tr. 40–41, 91,
98, 129–130, 193–196, 199, 206–208, 213). The sludge—as
well as solid rubbish and asbestos materials—was also
hauled in 20- and 30-cubic-yard containers, loaded on
straight and roll-off trucks and trailers (Tr. 42, 130, 160, 170,
193, 214). Hazardous waste consisting of cyanide-contami-
nated rags was hauled in barrels (Tr. 214).
I discredit President Madias’ unsupported ‘‘guess’’ that
only 10 to 12 percent of the business was hauling sludge and
that the rest was hauling rubbish (Tr. 91). This claim obvi-
ously understated the amount of hazardous and nonhazardous
sludge hauled and ignored the tank cleaning and the hauling
of liquids and hazardous solids. By his demeanor on the
stand, he impressed me as being less than candid.
Before November or December 1989, over-the-road drivers
in the bargaining unit were assigned to haul hazardous waste
out of the State. Then, to cut labor costs, the Company began
violating the Company’s agreement with Local 247 ‘‘that no
work or services presently performed, or hereafter assigned
to the . . . unit, will be subcontracted’’ (G.C. Exh. 2, p. 5).
It subcontracted this over-the-road driving, to be performed
at President Madias’ Greenfield yard by nonunion drivers on
MWH’s payroll (Tr. 44–47).
928 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
By this time President Madias had sold his interest in
MWH (Tr. 94–98). The Company’s Wyoming yard manager,
Thomas Chapman (Tr. 30), was then MWH’s president and
sole officer and director (G.C. Exh. 15).
The Company began assigning unit drivers to deliver the
hazardous waste to the Greenfield yard. There the MWH
drivers would haul the waste outside the State, using the
Company’s equipment (Tr. 31, 46–47, 66, 104–105, 223).
MWH drivers were also being assigned to perform hauling
for other Madias companies at the Greenfield yard (Tr. 94–
97, 120–121).
On January 8 Local 247 Secretary-Treasurer Kenneth
Hollowell filed a group grievance signed by 12 bargaining
unit employees, protesting the violation of subcontracting and
other provisions in the agreement. Hollowell pointed out the
importance of the matter and requested that the Company
contact him in within 5 days. (G.C. Exh. 22.) Instead, Chap-
man met with the employees, outside Hollowell’s presence
(Tr. 139, 155–156, 248–249).
Yard Manager Chapman told the employees that ‘‘it
wasn’t feasible to pay hourly [wages] on an over-the-road
trip’’ (as the Company’s over-the-road drivers were being
paid), that the Greenfield yard drivers were paid by the load,
and that the money saved was ‘‘for the betterment of the
company’’ and ‘‘would revert back to us,’’ helping the Com-
pany grow. The employees agreed to withdraw the grievance.
(Tr. 136–139, 248.) I discredit President Madias’ claim that
he did not know why the grievance was withdrawn (Tr. 106).
I note that although the Greenfield yard was covered with
asphalt, it did not meet the requirements for a transfer facil-
ity. On December 3 (the week before the trial), the Waste
Management Division of the Michigan Department of Nat-
ural Resouces notified President Madias that the Company
was illegally operating a transfer facility at the Greenfield
yard by off-loading containers of hazardous waste or trans-
ferring waste from one vehicle to another without meeting
the transfer facility requirements. It warned that for ‘‘Failure
to stop this activity . . . your company may be subject to
penalties of $25,000.00 or more’’ for ‘‘Each day of contin-
ued non-compliance.’’ (R. Exh. 1; Tr. 115–116.)
C. Maneuvers to Displace Local 247
1. Replacing employees represented by Local 247
After succeeding in getting the Union’s subcontracting
grievance withdrawn, the Company engaged in a series of
maneuvers obviously designed to displace Local 247 as the
bargaining representative of its employees.
The Company had found that cleaning tanks and hauling
hazardous and nonhazardous sludge and liquids at the Wyo-
ming yard were more profitable than hauling solid rubbish
and asbestos waste. It decided to expand this part of its oper-
ations. It also decided to relocate this bargaining unit work
to the more suitable asphalt-covered Greenfield yard. (Tr.
47–55, 99–104.) Instead of honoring the accretion, reloca-
tion, and subcontracting provisions in the Local 247 agree-
ment, however, it further decided to withdraw this work from
the bargaining unit (Tr. 61).
The Company began by subcontracting similar work for
new accounts. In March, April, and May, when it acquired
accounts to clean tanks and haul sludge for Mobil and other
oil companies, it had the work dispatched at the Greenfield
yard to MWH’s nonunion drivers, using the Company’s
equipment. (Tr. 51, 82–83, 207, 230.) This was a clear viola-
tion of another subcontracting provision in the Local 247
agreement, that it ‘‘assigns all work performed in, or fairly
claimable by, bargaining unit classifications to employees
covered by this Agreement’’ (G.C. Exh. 2. p. 5).
The Company did not notify the Union that it was subcon-
tracting this bargaining unit work. When Union Secretary-
Treasurer Hollowell was informed that some of the Com-
pany’s equipment was being used at the Greenfield yard, he
asked Wyoming Yard Manager Chapman about it. Mis-
leading Hollowell, Chapman said that it was ‘‘surplus equip-
ment that [the Company] had on hand that they didn’t need’’
and it was being leased to MWH. (Tr. 251.)
Although subcontracted, the work for these new accounts
was performed under the Company’s supervision. About
April or May the Company hired and assigned MWH driver
Harvey Sargent as the Company’s working supervisor over
the MWH drivers performing the work. Sargent was under
the supervision of General Manager Chapman, who was then
in charge of the Company’s operations at both the Wyoming
and Greenfield yards (Tr. 62–64).
The Company also dispatched Wyoming yard drivers to
perform the oil company work. One of them was vacuum
tank truckdriver Emanuelsen, who used his vacuum truck at
the Greenfield yard, working with the MWH drivers in
cleaning tanks for Mobil, one of the new accounts (Tr. 201,
207). President Madias admitted at one point that the work
was being performed by both MWH’s (nonunion) and the
Company’s (bargaining unit) employees at the Greenfield
yard (Tr. 83).
At this time both the equipment and work at the Wyoming
and Greenfield yards were further integrated. Trailers and
containers for hauling sludge were being interchanged be-
tween the two yards (Tr. 119–120, 159–160). The Com-
pany’s vehicles at the Greenfield yard were being repaired by
Wyoming yard mechanics, either at the Wyoming yard ga-
rage or at the Greenfield yard (Tr. 135, 158–159).
Neither the Company nor MWH then had the use of the
Greenfield yard garage (which was leased to an outside com-
pany), and MWH’s only mechanic was driver-mechanic
Duffield (Tr. 225–226, 232, 235–236). Wyoming yard me-
chanic Jeffrey Schultz credibly testified that when he was as-
signed to do truck repairs for vehicles used at the Greenfield
yard, ‘‘I didn’t write it down, I just fixed it,’’ without keep-
ing any records of the repairs (Tr. 158–159).
Sometime in June President Madias purchased MWH from
Chapman and replaced him with Sargent as the Company’s
general manager over the Greenfield and Wyoming yards
(Tr. 28–29, 62–65). Madias then placed the 11 MWH drivers
and laborers on the Company’s payroll. These 11 employees
were a ‘‘yard boss’’ (William Douglas), a driver-mechanic
(John Duffield), 5 drivers (Stanley Alexander, Kenneth
Gaines, Robert Gregory, Royce Leonardo, and James
Verhelle), 2 other drivers who were later classified as labor-
ers (Ronald Ott and Roger Rooker), and 2 laborers (Matthew
and Simmie Adkins). (G.C. Exhs. 13, 14; Tr. 88, 148, 226.)
There were 14 bargaining unit employees at the Wyoming
yard. There were 10 drivers (Thomas Adams, Donald Cook,
Matthew Emanuelsen, Jose Gonzalez, James Hurst, Mark
Obidzinski, Earl Shoemaker, Frank Smith, Melvin Tucker,
and James Whitten), 3 mechanics (Jeffrey Schultz, Bill
929NAVE, INC.
Thompson, and Gordon Wiser), and 1 mechanics helper–
yardman (David Faunce). (G.C. Exh. 9; Tr. 58, 127, 136,
174.)
Respondent MWH again became a dormant corporation
(Tr. 31) and did not participate in any of the unfair labor
practices alleged in this proceeding. I find that the allegations
against it must therefore be dismissed.
2. Signing agreement with Local 283
On June 25, President Madias went to a card check and
recognized Local 283 as the bargaining representative of the
Company’s Greenfield yard employees (Tr. 56, 104). About
2 days later he and Local 283 signed an undated 3-year
agreement, which the 11 former MWH employees also
signed (Tr. 57, 106–107, 225, 229; G.C. Exh. 4). The agree-
ment provides both lower wage rates and lower benefits than
those in the Local 247 agreement.
The city driver rate in the Local 283 agreement is $9.75
(G.C. Exh. 4, p. 29), in place of Local 247’s rate of $11.25
for both city and over-the-road drivers (G.C. Exh. 2, p. 36).
The ‘‘Labor, Helper, Dock Worker’’ rate is $6, in place of
$9.80 for mechanics helper and $8.30 for yardmen (G.C.
Exh. 2, p. 1). The mechanic rate, ‘‘to be added at later
date,’’ was still not negotiated over 5 months later at the
time of trial (Tr. 153, 225–226). The coverage of the welfare
plan is not as wide, and the deductibles are higher (Tr. 205,
209–210). Payments to the pension fund are $5 a week (G.C.
Exh. 4, p. 32), in place of $27 a week in the Local 247
agreement (G.C. Exh. 2, p. 22).
On July 2, the day the Company transferred work and
equipment from the Wyoming to the Greenfield yard, it em-
ployed two new employees (Edward Doyle and Corbin Sar-
gent) at the $6 rate. This made a total of six employees
(Matthew and Simmie Adkins, Edward Doyle, Ronald Ott,
Roger Rooker, and Corbin Sargent) being paid at that rate.
Five drivers were paid the $9.75 city driver rate and the
‘‘yard boss’’ and driver-mechanic were paid $10.35. (G.C.
Exhs. 13, 14.) The Local 283 agreement provided both a flat
rate and mileage rates for over-the-road trips (art. XXV, sec.
1).
The legality of the Company’s recognizing Local 283 is
discussed later.
3. Laying off Wyoming yard employees
On July 2, the Company announced that the hauling of
rubbish would remain at the Wyoming yard and that sludge
would be handled through the Greenfield yard (Tr. 140, 162).
It then transferred all its equipment, except equipment for
hauling solid rubbish and asbestos waste, from the Wyoming
to the Greenfield yard (Tr. 35, 58, 84–85, 128, 162–163).
The transferred equipment included trucks, tractors, trailers,
and the Company’s 3500-gallon vacuum tank truck used for
hauling hazardous and nonhazardous sludge and liquids and
for tank cleaning (Tr. 98, 163, 198–199).
When mechanic Jeffrey Schultz arrived at the Wyoming
yard that morning, he overheard General Manager Sargent
laying off two employees and noticed that four trucks and
three trailers were already gone. He asked Sargent ‘‘where
all the truck were,’’ and Sargent ‘‘told me they were at the
Greenfield yard and the hazardous waste would be over
there.’’ (Tr. 162–163.)
The transfer of vehicles, without any of the drivers except
Emanuelsen (discussed below) and without the mechanics
and the mechanics helper–yardman, resulted in the layoff of
nearly half of the employees. The Company had lost business
at the Wyoming yard, but President Madias admitted that this
happened in 1989, the year before (Tr. 47–49). As discussed
later, the 14 employees had been working overtime. Me-
chanic Bill Thompson had been working 50 to 60 hours a
week since January 1988 (Tr. 143). Mechanic Jeffrey Schultz
had a mandatory 6-day workweek and sometime worked 7
days a week (Tr. 167).
The Company laid off, for lack of work, a total of 6 of
the 14 Wyoming yard employees. It laid off drivers James
Hurst and James Whitten, mechanic Gordon Wiser, and me-
chanics helper–yardman David Faunce on July 2; driver
Thomas Adams on July 6; and mechanic Jeffrey Schultz on
August 3. (Tr. 58, 136, 166, 174; G.C. Exhs. 5A, 5B, 9, 24,
25.)
Meanwhile, the Company was purchasing new equipment,
which arrived in June, July, and August (Tr. 55–56, 60).
Some of the new vehicles were purchased for use at the Wy-
oming yard and were in use there in the rubbish hauling op-
eration at the time of trial in December (Tr. 60–61). Vehicles
purchased for use at the Greenfield yard included a 3000-gal-
lon and a 5000-gallon vacuum tank truck and also a vactor
truck, which has a large vacuum hose on the front for sewer
cleaning (Tr. 51, 98).
Driver Emanuelsen, who drove the Company’s 3500-gal-
lon vacuum tank truck at the Wyoming yard before he went
to the Greenfield yard, credibly testified that performing his
work at the Greenfield yard (hauling hazardous waste and
doing tank and sewer cleaning) had not required any dif-
ferent training (Tr. 192, 195, 208). The drivers at both yards
are required to have a class 2 chauffeurs license (Tr. 67).
The Company continues to train drivers in the handling of
hazardous waste (Tr. 48).
Apart from the legality of the Company’s recognizing
Local 283 as the bargaining representative at the Greenfield
yard, I find that the General Counsel has made a prima facie
case, supporting an inference that the layoff of the Wyoming
yard employees was motivated in part by the Company’s de-
cision to undercut Local 247’s representation of bargaining
unit employees and to encourage membership in Local 283.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980). The Company pre-
sented no evidence of any nondiscriminatory reason for not
transferring the drivers with their vehicles to the new loca-
tion. I find that the Company has failed to carry its burden
to demonstrate that it would have laid off the employees in
the absence of the unlawful motivation.
Accordingly I find that the Company, by laying off Thom-
as Adams, David Faunce, James Hurst, Jeffrey Schultz,
James Whitten, and Gordon Wiser, discriminated against
them to discourage membership in Local 247 and to encour-
age membership in Local 283, violating Section 8(a)(3) and
(1).
I also find that the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) by laying off the employees without notifying Local 247
and giving it an opportunity to bargain, even if the layoffs
had not been discriminatorily motivated. Lapeer Foundry &
Machine, 289 NLRB 952, 953–954 (1988).
930 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Dealing directly with employees
a. Dealing with driver Matthew Emanuelsen
Before and after the July 2 transfer of equipment from the
Wyoming yard to the Greenfield yard, the Company dealt di-
rectly with Wyoming yard employees, bypassing the Union.
Shortly before July 2, after the Company on June 25 rec-
ognized Local 283 as the bargaining representative of the
Greenfield yard employees, it met and dealt directly with
Wyoming yard driver Emanuelsen. The meeting was held at
the Greenfield yard, where the Company had been assigning
Emanuelsen to work with his Wyoming yard 3500-gallon
vacuum tank truck (Tr. 197, 201, 207).
President Madias invited Emanuelsen to the meeting, along
with Harvey Sargent, who was then the Company’s general
manager over both the Wyoming and Greenfield yards. They
told Emanuelsen that he could stay and work at the Wyo-
ming yard and be in Local 247, or ‘‘come over to [the]
Greenfield yard and work in [Local] 283,’’ but for less
money. Emanuelsen asked if his (vacuum tank) truck was
‘‘going to be coming over there with me,’’ and Madias re-
plied yes. (Tr. 197–198.) Sargent did not testify. I discredit
Madias’ denial that he ‘‘ever discussed directly with any of
the employees working at [the Company], located at the Wy-
oming facility, anything about cutting their wages at any
time in the year 1990’’ (Tr. 269).
Emanuelsen agreed to the transfer, at the lower wage. He
credibly explained at the trial that he ‘‘wanted to continue
doing the vacuum tank truck work’’ and ‘‘keep earning a liv-
ing.’’ As found, 60 to 70 percent of his work had been haul-
ing hazardous materials, and all this work was being trans-
ferred the following Monday to the Greenfield yard. ‘‘I
didn’t see good times ahead over at the Wyoming yard.’’
(Tr. 198–199.) It is obvious that the Company was dealing
with Emanuelsen as an individual employee, not as a union
steward for Local 247 (Tr. 211).
Emanuelsen began working at the Greenfield yard on July
2. His wages were reduced from the $11.25 driver rate in the
Local 247 agreement to $10.35 an hour (60 cents above the
$9.75 driver rate in the Local 283 agreement). From then
until December 13, when he testified, he had lost about $411
in coverage under the welfare plan in the Local 283 agree-
ment. (Tr. 199, 205, 209.)
I find that the Company dealt directly with Emanuelsen
and negotiated a lower wage rate and lower benefits with
him, bypassing the bargaining representative Local 247, in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Although Emanuelsen had remained a company driver,
performing virtually the same work at the other yard, the
Company required him on July 3 to submit an application for
employment (G.C. Exh. 16). Then, about 2 months later in
late July or early August—after Local 247 filed the charge
on July 24—the Company presented him a typed, backdated
‘‘Notice of Voluntary Resignation’’ (G.C. Exh. 17), which
he signed.
The quit slip stated:
I, Matthew Emanuelsen on this date 07-01-90 do volun-
tarily resign/quit my employment with the Rubbish
(Wyoming Ave) Division of Nave, Incorporated.
At this same time, Emanuelsen observed similar typed,
backdated quit slips being presented to two other former Wy-
oming yard drivers who had been rehired or transferred
weeks earlier. They were James Whitten, who was laid off
July 2, and Jose Gonzalez, who was transferred about July
9 (Tr. 202–203; G.C. Exhs. 9, 14, 18, 19).
The Company’s having the employees sign these sham
backdated quit slips was obviously a transparent attempt to
bolster the Company’s defense (rejected below) that its em-
ployees at Greenfield yard constituted a separate bargaining
unit.
I find that the General Counsel has made a prima facie
case, supporting an inference that the transfer of Emanuelsen
to the Greenfield yard to work under the Local 283 agree-
ment was motivated in part by the Company’s decision to
undercut Local 247’s representation of bargaining unit em-
ployees and to encourage membership in Local 283.
The Company had a legitimate reason for transferring the
hauling of hazardous sludge from the Wyoming yard and re-
locating it to the Greenfield yard where the asphalt-covered
surface was more suitable. I find, however, that the Company
has failed to show that it would have required Emanuelsen
to work there under the Local 283 agreement, ignoring the
relocation provision in the Local 247 agreement, in the ab-
sence of its decision to undercut Local 247’s representation
of bargaining unit employees and to encourage membership
in Local 283.
Accordingly I find that the Company, by requiring
Emanuelsen to work under the Local 283 agreement as a
condition for being transferred to the Greenfield yard, dis-
criminated against him to discourage membership in Local
247 and to encourage membership in Local 283, violating
Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
I similarly find that the Company discriminated against
drivers Jose Gonzalez, James Hurst, and James Whitten and
against mechanic Bill Thompson (G.C. Exhs. 9, 13, 14, 26,
27), to discourage membership in Local 247 and to encour-
age membership in Local 283, by requiring them to work
under the Local 283 agreement as a condition for being
transferred, reactivated, or rehired at the Greenfield yard,
violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
b. Dealing with five remaining drivers
Sometime in July, after the transfer of work and equip-
ment to the Greenfield yard, Trucking Superintendent Robert
Martin spoke to the five remaining drivers. They were Don-
ald Cook, Mark Obidzinski, Earl Shoemaker, Frank Smith,
and Melvin Tucker. (Tr. 175, 214a–215; G.C. Exh. 6.)
Martin said that President Madias had ‘‘asked him to talk
to us [to see] if we would take a pay cut [to] 9.75 an hour,
but if he was us, he would hold out for $10 and he could
probably work something out for us to take the pay cut [to]
$10.’’ The drivers refused. They were being paid $11.25 an
hour, the rate in the Local 247 agreement; $9.75 was the
driver rate in the Local 283 agreement. (Tr. 217; G.C. Exhs.
2, 4.)
Martin ‘‘suggested that we take a pay cut in order to keep
the Wyoming yard open longer, that they were in distress
and if we were to take a pay cut we might be able to hang
on a little longer’’ (Tr. 175). Martin did not testify. I dis-
credit Madias’ denial that he ever authorized any supervisor
to discuss any pay cut (Tr. 269).
931NAVE, INC.
I find that by dealing directly with these drivers instead of
with Local 247, their bargaining representative, the Company
again violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
c. Dealing with mechanic Bill Thompson
Mechanic Thompson had remained at the Wyoming yard
garage where his hours were sharply cut, as discussed below.
About August 27, General Manager Sargent asked him if he
was ready to work at the Greenfield yard, stating that there
was not much work left at the Wyoming yard. Sargent of-
fered to pay him $10.25 an hour. Finally Sargent agreed to
pay him his current wage of $11.75 an hour, but ‘‘I would
have to sign a quit slip’’—not to resign from the Company,
but to quit his job at the Wyoming yard. He ‘‘voluntarily’’
sign the slip and was transferred to the Greenfield yard. (Tr.
143–146, 154; G.C. Exh. 9.)
It is undisputed that Thompson was required to sign the
quit slip as a condition for employment at the other yard. I
find that the Company engaged in direct, individual bar-
gaining with Thompson, bypassing the Union, by offering
him employment at the Greenfield yard contingent on his
signing a quit slip, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
5. Reduced hours of work
On July 2, the day the Company transferred work and
equipment to the Greenfield yard, Trucking Superintendent
Martin posted the following notice, entitled ‘‘OVERTIME,’’
to all Wyoming yard employees (G.C. Exh. 6):
AS OF TODAY JULY 2, 1990 THE SCHEDULED
WORK DAY WILL NOT EXCEED EIGHT (8)
HOURS UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY MANAGE-
MENT.
Two of the employees testified about the resulting reduc-
tion in hours of work. Mechanic Thompson, who had been
working 50 to 60 hours a week since his starting date, Janu-
ary 1988, credibly testified that all the employees’ hours
were cut back and that his hours were reduced to 40 to 42
hours a week. Mechanic Schultz estimated that his hours
were cut 6 or 7 hours a week. (Tr. 143, 166.)
It is obvious that the reduction in the working hours of the
remaining employees was a result of the Company’s maneu-
vers designed to displace Local 247 as the bargaining rep-
resentative. In addition, the reduction would also encourage
these employees to seek employment at the Greenfield yard,
where the Company had recognized Local 283 as the bar-
gaining representative.
It is undisputed, as mechanic Schultz credibly testified,
that on July 2 (the day the overtime notice was posted), Gen-
eral Manager Sargent invited Schultz to ‘‘come over to the
Greenfield yard.’’ Sargent said the wage would be about
$10.35 or $10.45 an hour and that the union was Local 283.
Schultz, who was earning $11.75 an hour under the Local
247 agreement (Tr. 165), refused the transfer. That evening
President Madias telephoned and ‘‘asked me about what Har-
vey [Sargent] talked to me about a job’’ at the Greenfield
yard, and Schultz again refused the transfer. (Tr. 162–165.)
I note, however, that about a week later, driver Gonzalez did
transfer to the other yard, as did mechanic Thompson on Au-
gust 28, as found above.
I find that the General Counsel has made a prima facie
case, supporting an inference that the reduction in the re-
maining employees’ working hours was motivated in part by
the Company’s decision to undercut Local 247’s representa-
tion of bargaining unit employees and to encourage member-
ship in Local 283. I also find that the Company has failed
to carry its burden to demonstrate that it would have reduced
the hours in the absence of the unlawful motivation.
I therefore find that beginning July 2, the Company
discriminatorily reduced the hours of Jeffrey Schultz, Bill
Thompson, and other employees remaining at the Wyoming
yard to discourage membership in Local 247 and to encour-
age membership in Local 283, violating Section 8(a)(3) and
(1).
D. Refusals to Bargain with Local 247
1. Single bargaining unit
I agree with the General Counsel that there remained a
single bargaining unit of drivers, mechanics, and
yardmen/laborers at the Wyoming and Greenfield yards.
I find that in March, when the Company began
subcontracting its bargaining unit work for the new oil com-
pany accounts to MWH without notifying Local 247, this
work remained in the bargaining unit. The tank cleaning and
sludge hauling were virtually the same work as that pre-
viously performed at the Wyoming yard. Clearly the Com-
pany’s subcontracting the work violated its agreement with
Local 247 (G.C. Exh. 2, art. IV, p. 5) that it would assign
‘‘all work performed in, or fairly claimable by, bargaining
unit classifications to employees covered by this Agree-
ment.’’
Although the work for the new oil company accounts was
assigned to employees on the MWH payroll at the Greenfield
yard, the work was performed under the Company’s super-
vision and Wyoming yard employees were also assigned to
perform the work. The Company’s trailers and containers
used in hauling the sludge were interchanged between the
two yards, and Wyoming yard mechanics repaired the Com-
pany’s vehicles used in performing the work, both at the
Wyoming yard garage and at the Greenfield yard. Wyoming
yard driver Emanuelsen was assigned with his 3500-gallon
vacuum tank truck to work with the MWH drivers in clean-
ing oil company tanks.
Thus in June, when President Madias repurchased the
MWH capital stock from the Company’s general manager
Chapman and placed the 11 MWH employees on the Com-
pany’s own payroll (leaving MWH a dormant company
again), these new company employees continued to perform
bargaining unit work.
On July 2 the Company transferred the remainder of its
tank cleaning and the hauling of both hazardous and nonhaz-
ardous sludge and liquids from the Wyoming yard to the
Greenfield yard. This was the fourth relocation of bargaining
unit work in a 10-year period. Although part of the bar-
gaining unit work (the hauling of solid rubbish and asbestos
waste) remained until the trial in December at the Wyoming
yard, I find that the relocation obviously was covered by the
Company’s agreement with Local 247 (G.C. Exh. 2, art. I,
sec. 1, 2d par. p. 2) that the terms of the agreement ‘‘shall
cover all accretions to or relocations of bargaining unit oper-
ations.’’
932 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Replaced employees or accretion to bargaining unit
The evidence shows that the Company was engaged in
‘‘the substitution of one group of workers for another to per-
form the same task,’’ as the Board in Dubuque Packing Co.,
303 NLRB 386 (1991), quoted from Justice Stewart’s con-
currence in Fibreboard Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 224
(1964). This would be obvious if the Company had relocated
the tank cleaning and the hauling of hazardous and nonhaz-
ardous sludge and liquids (including the work for the new oil
company accounts) to the Greenfield yard and replaced bar-
gaining unit employees with new employees. That, I find, is
precisely what the Company did indirectly, for the purpose
of displacing Local 247.
Without notice and in violation of the subcontracting pro-
vision in its agreement with Local 247, the Company first
subcontracted to MWH its tank cleaning and sludge hauling
for its new oil company accounts. It next placed the 11
MWH employees on its own payroll, recognized Local 283,
and about 2 days later signed a less costly agreement with
Local 283 to cover the Greenfield yard employees. With this
agreement in place, the Company then relocated the remain-
der of the bargaining unit tank cleaning and sludge and liq-
uids hauling—together with the trucks and other equip-
ment—to the Greenfield yard. It laid off six bargaining unit
employees and required the five employees who were trans-
ferred or rehired at the Greenfield yard to work under the
Local 283 agreement.
‘‘In furtherance of the statutory duty to protect employees’
right to select their bargaining representative, the Board fol-
lows a restrictive policy in finding accretion.’’ United Parcel
Service, 303 NLRB 326 (1991). The Board held in Gould,
Inc., 263 NLRB 442, 445 (1982), cited in United Parcel:
In determining whether a new facility or operation is an
accretion, the Board has given weight to a variety of
factors including integration of operations, centraliza-
tion of managerial and administrative control, geo-
graphic proximity, similarity of working conditions,
skills and functions, common control of labor relations,
collective-bargaining history, and interchange of em-
ployees. In the normal situation some elements militate
toward and some against accretion, so that a balancing
of them is necessary. Where the new employees are
found to have common interests with members of an
existing bargaining unit and would have been . . . cov-
ered by the current collective-bargaining agreement an
accretion is found to exist.
Here, the tank cleaning and sludge and liquids hauling at
the Greenfield yard was not a new operation. There was
merely ‘‘the substitution of one group of workers for another
to perform the same task.’’ I find, however, that even if this
were a new operation, an accretion existed.
The operations have been integrated. After laying off me-
chanics helper–yardman Faunce on July 2, the Company as-
signed former MWH laborers Matthew and Simmie Adkins
to perform his work at the Wyoming yard (Tr. 141, 174–
175). Former MWH driver-mechanic Duffield worked with
other employees at the Wyoming yard garage about 2 or 3
weeks, repairing his Greenfield yard truck (Tr. 231–232). Be-
fore August 27, Wyoming yard mechanic Thompson serviced
trucks assigned to the Greenfield yard. Since August 27
(when he was transferred to the Greenfield yard) until the
trial months later, he has serviced trucks assigned to the Wy-
oming yard. (Tr. 127–128.)
The Company had a superintendent in charge of trucking
(Robert Martin, G.C. Exh. 24) and a general manager (Har-
vey Sargent), who had an office both at the Wyoming yard
and at the Greenfield yard, with ‘‘duties in overseeing the
operations of those yards’’ and ‘‘to administer discipline to
employees’’ at both yards (Tr. 63–65). The payroll is han-
dled at the Company’s central office and all employees are
paid from the same checking account (Tr. 81).
The yards are 5 or 6 miles apart (Tr. 55). Except for the
lower wages and benefits at the Greenfield yard under the
Local 283 agreement, the working conditions are similar.
Drivers at both yards were required to have a class 2 chauf-
feurs license. Skills and functions of the drivers, mechanics,
and yardmen/laborers were similar (Tr. 61, 67, 208).
President Madias controlled the labor relations at both
yards (Tr. 78). There had been no collective-bargaining his-
tory at MWH. After the transfer of work, there have been
five employees transferred or rehired from the Wyoming
yard, as found above.
On balance, I would find that the facts of this case meet
the restrictive policy requirements for finding accretion. I
therefore would find that the 11 employees hired from MWH
at the Greenfield yard had common interests with the 14 em-
ployees in the bargaining unit at the Wyoming yard and that
the new employees constituted an accretion to the bargaining
unit represented by Local 247.
Accordingly I find that the collective-bargaining agreement
(containing compulsory union security, G.C. Exh. 4, p. 3)
that the Company signed about June 27 with Local 283, cov-
ering employees who were already a part of the bargaining
unit represented by Local 247, constituted unlawful assist-
ance to Local 283, violating Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the
Act.
3. Refusals to negotiate
On July 3, the day after the transfer of work and equip-
ment to the Greenfield yard, Local 247 Secretary-Treasurer
Hollowell wrote to President Madias complaining about the
Company’s operating in a second place nonunion and ‘‘re-
questing immediate negotiations for the Melvindale location
under the terms and conditions of our current Collective Bar-
gaining Agreement’’ (G.C. Exh. 10).
On July 5 the Company responded with a letter backdated
July 2, terminating the Local 247 agreement on its Sep-
tember 30 expiration date and stating that the Company
‘‘will not enter in negotiations for reopening or renewal’’ of
the agreement. The letter cited loss of business, economic
hardship, and escalated costs ‘‘beyond the Company’s ability
to provide services competitively.’’ (G.C. Exh. 7; Tr. 74.)
In response to Hollowell’s August 8 request to commence
bargaining for a new agreement (G.C. Exh. 11), Company
Attorney Barry Solomon stated in a letter dated August 21
that he understood the Company ‘‘is going to cease oper-
ations on or about the end of the contract period, and to that
extent we will be more than pleased to sit down and nego-
tiate a closing agreement’’ (Tr. 23). On September 21, in re-
sponse to Hollowell’s repeated requests to negotiate, Sol-
omon again suggested negotiating ‘‘a closing agreement . . .
933NAVE, INC.
3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended 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.
because of the company’s plans to cease doing business’’ (R.
Exh. 3).
Despite these assertions by the attorney, the Company has
not given any indication that it now in fact intends to relin-
quish its substantial business in hauling rubbish and asbestos
waste. President Madias admitted at the trial that the Com-
pany bought ‘‘new vehicles for use in the Wyoming oper-
ations’’ and that the vehicles are being ‘‘used in the rubbish
hauling operation’’ (Tr. 60–61). He also admitted there were
‘‘Between four and five’’ employees in the rubbish hauling
operation (Tr. 43).
When called as the Company’s only defense witness near
the close of the trial, Madias merely testified that his plans
‘‘after July of 1990’’ were to disband the rubbish oper-
ation—not his present plans (Tr. 270). The record does not
reveal whether, by retaining its rubbish-hauling customers
several months after its September 30 termination of the
Local 247 agreement, the Company plans to relocate this part
of the business to the Greenfield yard on closing the Wyo-
ming yard.
I find that the Company, by refusing since July 3 to recog-
nize and bargain with Local 247 as the representative of bar-
gaining unit employees at the Greenfield yard, has unlaw-
fully refused to bargain, violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
I also find that the Company, by refusing since August 8
to negotiate for a renewal of its collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Local 247 covering the bargaining unit employees
at the Wyoming and Greenfield yards, has further refused to
bargain in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By refusing since July 3 to recognize and bargain with
Local 247 as the representative of bargaining unit employees
at the Greenfield Road yard and refusing since August 8 to
negotiate for a renewal of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment with Local 247 covering an appropriate bargaining unit
of employees at the Wyoming Avenue and Greenfield Road
yards, the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The following is an appropriate bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time drivers, mechan-
ics, and yardmen/laborers employed by Nave, Inc. at its
facilities located at 4440 Wyoming Avenue, Dearborn,
and 3345 Greenfield Road, Melvindale, Michigan, but
excluding office clerical employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
3. By signing with Local 283 about June 27 the collective-
bargaining agreement covering employees at the Greenfield
Road yard, the Company rendered unlawful assistance to
Local 283, violating Section 8(a)(2) and (1).
4. By laying off drivers James Hurst and James Whitten,
mechanic Gordon Wiser, and mechanics helper–yardman
David Faunce on July 2; driver Thomas Adams on July 6;
and mechanic Jeffrey Schultz on August 3 to discourage
membership in Local 247 and to encourage membership in
Local 283, the Company discriminated against them in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
5. By requiring Matthew Emanuelsen, Jose Gonzalez,
James Hurst, Bill Thompson, and James Whitten to work
under the Local 283 agreement as a condition for being
transferred, reactivated, or rehired at the Greenfield Road
yard, the Company discriminated against them to discourage
membership in Local 247 and to encourage membership in
Local 283, violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
6. By reducing since July 2 the working hours of Jeffrey
Schultz, Bill Thompson, and other employees remaining at
the Wyoming Avenue yard to discourage membership in
Local 247 and to encourage membership in Local 283, the
Company discriminated against them in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1).
7. By laying off bargaining unit employees without noti-
fying Local 247 and giving it an opportunity to bargain, the
Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
8. By dealing directly with bargaining unit employees for
lower wages and benefits, bypassing Local 247, the Com-
pany violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
9. By dealing directly with an employee by offering him
employment at the Greenfield yard contingent on his signing
a slip to quit his bargaining unit job, the Company violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Nave, Inc. has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered
to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent Nave, Inc. having discriminatorily laid off em-
ployees, it must offer them reinstatement to their former jobs
with their prelayoff wages and benefits and make them
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed
on a quarterly basis from date of layoff to date of proper
offer of reinstatement with their prelayoff wages and bene-
fits, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as com-
puted in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
Respondent Nave, Inc. having discriminatorily required
bargaining unit employees to work for lower wages and ben-
efits under the Local 283 agreement as a condition for being
transferred, reactivated, or rehired at the Greenfield Road
yard, I find that it must make them whole for the lost wages
and benefits, plus interest.
Respondent Nave, Inc. having discriminatorily reduced the
working hours of employees remaining at the Wyoming Ave-
nue yard, it must make them whole for lost wages, plus in-
terest.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondent, Nave, Inc., Dearborn, Michigan, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Laying off, reducing working hours, or otherwise dis-
criminating against bargaining unit employees in an effort to
934 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 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.’’
displace Local 247, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL–
CIO as their bargaining representative.
(b) Requiring bargaining unit employees to work for lower
wages and benefits under an agreement with a different local
union as a condition of employment at the Greenfield Road
yard.
(c) Laying off bargaining unit employees without notifying
Local 247 and giving it an opportunity to bargain.
(d) Dealing directly with bargaining unit employees con-
cerning their wages or conditions of employment.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with Local 247 as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the following appropriate
unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if
an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a
signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time drivers, mechan-
ics, and yardmen/laborers employed by Nave, Inc. at its
facilities located at 4440 Wyoming Avenue, Dearborn,
and 3345 Greenfield Road, Melvindale, Michigan, but
excluding office clerical employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(b) Withdraw recognition from Local 283, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and
Helpers of America, AFL–CIO as bargaining representative
of employees at the Greenfield Road yard.
(c) Offer Thomas Adams, David Faunce, James Hurst, Jef-
frey Schultz, James Whitten, and Gordon Wiser immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs with prelayoff
wages and benefits or, if those jobs no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their se-
niority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other ben-
efits suffered after their layoffs as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of the decision.
(d) Make Matthew Emanuelsen, Jose Gonzalez, and Bill
Thompson whole for lost wages and benefits resulting from
the requirement that they work under the Local 283 agree-
ment at the Greenfield yard.
(e) Make Jeffrey Schultz, Bill Thompson, and other re-
maining drivers at the Wyoming Avenue yard whole for lost
earnings resulting from the reduction of working hours since
July 2, 1990.
(f) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
layoffs and notify the employees in writing that this has been
done and that the layoffs will not be used against them in
any way.
(g) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(h) Post at its facilities in Dearborn and Melvindale,
Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appen-
dix.’’4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(i) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations in the com-
plaint against Respondent Michigan Waste Handlers, Inc. are
dismissed.
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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT lay off, cut your working hours, or other-
wise discriminate against any of you in an effort to displace
Local 247, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL–CIO as
your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT require you to work for lower wages and
benefits under an agreement with a different local union to
work at the Greenfield Road yard.
WE WILL NOT lay you off without notifying Local 247 and
giving it an opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT bypass Local 247 and deal directly with you
concerning their wages or conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with Local 247 and put in
writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and condi-
tions of employment for our employees in the bargaining
unit:
All full-time and regular part-time drivers, mechan-
ics, and yardmen/laborers employed by Nave, Inc. at its
facilities located at 4440 Wyoming Avenue, Dearborn,
and 3345 Greenfield Road, Melvindale, Michigan, but
excluding office clerical employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
935NAVE, INC.
WE WILL withdraw recognition from Local 283, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men, and Helpers of America, AFL–CIO as your representa-
tive at the Greenfield Road yard.
WE WILL offer Thomas Adams, David Faunce, James
Hurst, Jeffrey Schultz, James Whitten, and Gordon Wiser im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs with their
prelayoff wages and benefits or, if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed and
WE WILL make them whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits resulting from their layoffs, less any net in-
terim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL make Matthew Emanuelsen, Jose Gonzalez, and
Bill Thompson whole for lost wages and benefits resulting
from the requirement that they work under the Local 283
agreement at the Greenfield yard.
WE WILL make Jeffrey Schultz, Bill Thompson, and other
remaining drivers at the Wyoming Avenue yard whole for
lost earnings resulting from the cut in working hours since
July 2, 1990.
WE WILL notify each of the laid-off employees that we
have removed from our files any reference to his layoff and
that the layoff will not be used against him in any way.
NAVE, INC.