Pinter Bros., Inc., Retnip Corp., Pin-Bro Leasing, Inc., GLT Transportation Lines, Inc., a/k/a Moon Transportation Corp., and Troiano Express Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1982

263 N.L.R.B. 723 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

PINTER BROS., INC.
Pinter Bros., Inc., Retnip Corp., Pin-Bro Leasing,
Inc., GLT Transportation Corp., and Troiano
Express Co., Inc. and Local 807, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America and Amalga-
mated Workers Union, Local 88, Retail, Whole-
sale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO,
Party to the Contract. Cases 29-CA-6786, 29-
CA-6827, and 29-CA-6828
August 26, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS FANNING AND ZIMMERMAN
On February 12, 1982, Administrative Law
Judge Joel P. Biblowitz issued the attached Deci-
sion in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General
Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed cross-
exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
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 Respondent GLT Transporta-
tion Lines, Inc., a/k/a Moon Transportation Corp.,
Jersey City, New Jersey, shall take the action set
forth in the said recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint re-
garding Respondents Pinter Bros., Inc., Troiano
Express Co., Inc., and Retnip Corp., Deer Park,
New York, be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its en-
tirety.
I The Charging Party 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
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Prod-
uc, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enrd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We
have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his
findings.
263 NLRB No. 91
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOEL P. BIBLowrrz, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard before me in Brooklyn, New York. The
hearing opened on October 6, 1980; there were 23 days
of hearing; the hearing closed on February 26, 1981.
Chronology of Charges, Complaints, and Decisions
There have been a number of prior matters involving
Pinter Bros., Inc., herein called Pinter, and Local 807,
International Brotherood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called
Local 807. On January 12 and November 17, 1977, the
Board issued Decisions in 227 NLRB 921 and 233 NLRB
575 in which it found that Pinter violated Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, herein called the Act, by, inter alia, discrimi-
nating against a number of its clerical employees due to
their activities on behalf of Local 807 (these cases in-
volved only Pinter's clerical employees). The unfair
labor practice charges in the instant matter (Cases 29-
CA-6786, 29-CA-6827, and 29-CA-6828) were filed on
November 9, 1978, and December 1, 1978, and involve
Pinter's operational employees (drivers, warehousemen,
etc.). A consolidated complaint and notice of hearing
based on these charges issued on April 30, 1979. On
August 27, 1979, a backpay specification and notice of
hearing issued, based upon the aforementioned decisions
of the Board involving Pinter's clerical employees. On
July 16, 1980, the Regional Director issued an order con-
solidating and rescheduling hearing in which he consoli-
dated the consolidated complaint which issued on April
30, 1979, with the backpay specification which issued
August 27, 1979. On the final day of the hearing herein,
and prior to the introduction of any evidence on the
backpay issue, the parties agreed to a settlement of the
backpay specification. Pursuant to that understanding,
after the close of the hearing, and after he had received
checks from Pinter for each of the discriminatees (in an
amount satisfactory to them), the General Counsel
moved to amend the backpay specification to amend the
amounts to conform to the amount received for each dis-
criminatee, and to allege the backpay period to run only
through May 2, 1977, reserving his rights regarding the
liability of Respondents for the period after May 2, 1977;
the General Counsel also moved to sever this amended
backpay specification from Cases 29-CA-6786, 29-CA-
6827, and 29-CA-6828. On May 6, 1981, I issued an
order approving amendment, severance, and settlement
of backpay specification; therefore, the hearing only con-
cerned the allegations contained in the consolidated com-
plaint of the three above-mentioned charges. The remain-
ing issue, stated rather simply, is as follows: Is Retnip
Corp., herein called Retnip, Pin-Bro Leasing, Inc., herein
called Pin-Bro, GLT Transportation Lines, Inc. a/k/a
Moon Transportation, Inc., herein called GLT Transpor-
tation, or Troiano Express Co., Inc., herein called
Troiano, or are all or some of said companies, alter egos
or successors to the operation of Pinter, and therefore
liable to assume the obligations and responsibilities of
723
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pinter when it allegedly ceased its trucking operations on
May 2, 1977?
Brief Chronology of Facts
Local 807 has represented Pinter's drivers, platform
men, and warehousemen since about 1950. The chronolo-
gy of facts set forth:
1975-The events involving Pinter's clerical employ-
ees that were the subject of the Board's above-mentioned
Decisions and the backpay specification later settled and
severed.
April 1, 1976-The Teamsters national agreement ex-
pires; Pinter's employees (as well as the employees of
most employers whose employees are represented by the
Teamsters Union) go out on strike.
April 6, 1976-Pinter and Local 807 agree that the
employees will return to work for 10 days while they at-
tempt to negotiate a settlement of the dispute.
April 17, 1976-the employees of Pinter resume their
work stoppage.
September 24, 1976-Tentative settlement of dispute
that fails when Pinter's employees fail to ratify the settle-
ment.
December 6, 1976-The dispute is settled and Pinter
returns to its trucking operation in a limited manner,
compared to its operation prior to April 1, 1976.
May 2, 1977-Pinter informs Local 807 that it is out of
the trucking business.
November 1977-Robert Pinter and Joseph Pinter, Jr.,
begin running a trucking operation as the Long Island
operation for GLT Transportation.
April 1978-Robert Pinter and Joseph Pinter, Jr.,
cease operating in connection with GLT Transportation
and begin operating as Troiano, later purchasing all the
stock of Troiano.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Pinter Bros., Inc., is a New York State corporation
with its principal office and place of business at Carll's
Path in Deer Park, Long Island, New York. At this loca-
tion, herein called the Deer Park terminal, there is a
90,000-square-foot warehouse, which is attached to a
truck terminal containing 77 "doors" (the area in which
the trucks back into, in order to load or unload). In a
separate, unattached building is a maintenance building.
Prior to March 31, 1976, Pinter was engaged in an inter-
state and intrastate trucking operation and was found in
the previously mentioned Board Decisions to be an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act. On May 2, 1977, Pinter ceased its trucking oper-
ation. At the hearing the parties stipulated that Pinter,
during the year 1978, which period is representative of
its annual operations, at the time, had gross revenues in
excess of $100,000 derived from leasing and related serv-
ices, and received income in excess of $50,000 by provid-
ing such services to trucking firms that themselves are
directly engaged in interstate commerce.
Troiano Express Co., Inc., a New York State corpora-
tion with its principal office and place of business at the
Deer Park terminal, is engaged in interstate and intra-
state trucking operations and has been so engaged at all
material times herein, except for the period from April 1,
1976, to on or about April 15, 1978. During the year pre-
vious to April 1979, which period is representative of its
annual operations generally, Troiano had gross revenues
from its trucking operation in excess of $500,000, and it
received revenues in excess of $50,000 for services per-
formed outside the State of New York. The parties
admit, and I find, that Pinter and Troiano are each em-
ployers engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
At the hearing the consolidated complaint was amend-
ed to include Retnip. The amendment, as granted and
admitted, is that Retnip Corp. is a New York State cor-
poration, with its principal office at the Deer Park termi-
nal, and is engaged in the leasing of trucks and other re-
lated services under the trade name and style of Pinter
Leasing. In 1979, Retnip purchased the trucks and other
vehicles of Pinter Brothers, Inc., and since said date has
continued to operate the truck leasing business formerly
operated by Pinter Bros., Inc. Counsel for Retnip and
Pinter, although admitting the above facts, denies the al-
legation that Retnip is a successor or alter ego of Pinter.
On the basis of the above I find that Retnip is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
GLT Transportation Lines, Inc., a/k/a Moon Trans-
portation Corp., is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal office and place of business at 271 Culver
Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey, and, at least for the
period from November 3, 1977, through April 3, 1978,
maintained an office and place of business at the Deer
Park terminal. This much was established at the hearing.
The complaint also alleges that, for the prior year, GLT
Transportation had gross revenues in excess of $500,000
and received revenues in excess of $50,000 for services
performed outside the State of New York. The evidence
adduced herein on the subject is that for the year 1977
GLT Transportation had gross revenues of approximate-
ly $3 million, and, of this, approximately $1.5 million was
generated in New York State. I would, therefore, find
that GLT Transportation, at the time in question, was an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The complaint also sets forth the jurisdictional allega-
tions regarding Pin-Bro. It alleges that Pin-Bro is a New
York State corporation, and this much is admitted. It
also alleges that Pin-Bro maintains its principal office at
the Deer Park terminal where it is engaged in intrastate
and interstate trucking operations, and during the year
prior to the issuance of the complaint its gross revenue
from trucking services was in excess of $500,000, of
which in excess of $50,000 was for services performed
outside the State of New York. These allegations are
generally denied by Pin-Bro and the other Respondents.
On the basis of the record testimony, I find that Pin-Bro
has maintained its principal office and place of business
1 GLT Transportation failed to file an answer to the consolidated com-
plaint herein and failed to appear at the hearing. Summary judgment was
granted as to it.
724
PINTER BROS., INC.
at the Deer Park terminal, but that it was not engaged in
intrastate and interstate trucking operations; rather it was
a corporation set up by Robert Pinter, herein called
Robert, and Joseph Pinter, Jr., herein called Joe, Jr., to
purchase, and hold title to, trucks and tractors they pur-
chased at the Pinter auction on January 25, 1978, and
thereafter. Although both Pin-Bro and Troiano are
owned 50-50 by Robert and Joe, Jr., Pin-Bro owns the
tractors and trucks while Troiano is engaged in the
trucking operation. I therefore find that the General
Counsel has failed to establish that Pin-Bro is an employ-
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondents admit, and I find, that Local 807 and
Amalgamated Workers Union, Local 88, Retail, Whole-
sale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, herein
called Local 88, are each labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE PINTER FAMILY AND THE PINTER
COMPANIES
The patriarch of the family is clearly Joseph Pinter,
Sr., herein called Joe Sr. He started Pinter in or about
1930 and is presently 74 years old; his wife Marguerite
Pinter is 70 years old. They have five children; three of
them-Robert, Joe Jr., and Franklin Pinter, herein called
Franklin, aged 45, 44, and 30, respectively-have active-
ly been involved in Pinter operations, and two-Margue-
rite Pinter Matson and John Pinter, herein called John,
aged 40 and 36, respectively-have not been actively in-
volved in Pinter operations, except for equal ownership
in the family companies with the other children. Joe Sr.,
and his wife, Marguerite, together own 260 shares of
stock of Pinter; each of the five children own 48 shares;
those are the only Pinter shares outstanding. In May
1975, the officers of Pinter were Robert-president; Joe
Jr.-vice president; Charles Brown-secretary; and Joe
Sr. and his wife-chairman of the board and treasurer.
After Robert and Joe Jr. resigned in November 1977,
Franklin became president, while there was no vice
president; Brown, Joe, Sr., and Marguerite maintained
their former positions. Pinter has Interstate Commerce
Commission (herein called ICC) rights to pick up and
deliver to all of New York City and Long Island parts of
New Jersey, Westchester, and New York State; these
rights have not been used since May 1977. Prior to the
April 1, 1976, strike it employed approximately 80 driv-
ers, 35 platform men and had approximately 225 pieces
of rolling stock consisting of tractors, trailers, and trucks.
Since the strike, Pinter has been engaged in vehicle
maintenance and the sale of tires to the public. Until
1979 Pinter was also engaged in the leasing of its rolling
stock to the public. As stated, supra, in 1979 Retnip pur-
chased this equipment and assumed this operation.
Pinter Warehouse, Inc., herein called Pinter Ware-
house, is also a New York State corporation with its
office at the Deer Park terminal. It was incorporated in
or about 1966, presumably at the completion of construc-
tion of the Deer Park terminal. Each of the five Pinter
children own a 20-percent interest in Pinter Warehouse;
the only officer who was identified at the hearing was
Franklin, as its president. It is engaged in the business of
a public general warehouse, only in the 90,000-square-
foot warehouse at the Deer Park terminal. It moves
goods out of the warehouse with "Pros" serving the
function of invoices, with the "Pinter Bros., Inc.," cap-
tion. Prior to the summer of 1980, Pinter Warehouse
leased the warehouse at the Deer Park terminal from
Pinter Realty, Inc., herein called Pinter Realty; since that
time, Pinter Warehouse has leased the warehouse from
Cotton Realty, which purchased it at that time, infra.
Pinter Warehouse has made dividend payments to its
shareholders since its inception, and is the only one of
the family companies to have done so. Accordingly, Joe
Jr. and Robert have received dividend checks from
Pinter Warehouse since November 1977, as have the
other children. Joe Jr. and Robert have not been on any
family company payroll since that time, however.
Prior to the summer of 1980, Joe Sr. and his wife Mar-
guerite owned title to the real estate at the Deer Park
terminal. Pinter Realty, whose stock was owned entirely
by Joe Sr. (and whose president was Franklin from No-
vember 1977 until it was liquidated in the summer of
1980), owned the buildings on the property and had a
long-term lease from Joe Sr. and Marguerite on the
property. In the summer of 1980, Joe Sr. and Marguerite
sold their title in the real estate of the Deer Park termi-
nal to Cotton Realty, herein called Cotton, a New York
licensed equal partnership of all five Pinter children. As
part of this transaction, Pinter Realty sold to Cotton its
title to the buildings at the Deer Park terminal. The total
price for the land and buildings was $2.3 million, repre-
sented by a 30-year money mortgage. Since that time
Pinter Warehouse has been leasing the warehouse from
Cotton.
Since the strike in April 1976, Pinter has been engaged
in leasing its tractor and trailers to the public, beginning
with a leasing arrangement with the United States Postal
Service. Franklin testified that this practice continued
until late in 1978 when they were informed by a repre-
sentative of ICC that, as a common carrier with ICC
rights, the Company should not be so ostensibly involved
in leasing its equipment to the general public. Pursuant
to this advice Retnip was formed in December 1978. It is
owned equally by the five children; John is the president
and Franklin the vice president. The actual day-to-day
operation of Retnip is run by Charles Brown, its general
manager. Retnip now owns about 200 pieces of rolling
stock, tractors, straight trucks, trailers, and semitrailers;
about 60 percent of this rolling stock was purchased
from Pinter; Pinter's rolling stock was sold to Retnip on
December 8, 1978, for net book value; the five children
(i.e., Retnip) paid S30,000 to Pinter for this equipment
with the balance to be paid to Pinter at the rate of $5,000
a month until it was paid off; there was no interest
charge on the balance. Retnip operates under the title of
Pinter Leasing.
Since at least November 12, 1976, Robert and Joe Jr.
had the authority to sign checks for Pinter. On Novem-
ber 1, 1977, they resigned their offices and directorships
in Pinter, effective immediately. It was not until January
725
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4, 1978, however, that a new corporate resolution was
instituted for Pinter, giving Franklin, Joe Sr., and his
wife Marguerite the authority to sign checks on behalf of
Pinter. There was no formal revocation of Robert and
Joe Jr.'s power to sign checks for Pinter prior to January
4, 1978, but there is no evidence that they did so during
this period, or thereafter.
As stated, supra, beginning in or about November
1977, Robert and Joe Jr. began operating the Long
Island operation of GLT Transportation, although they
had no ownership interest in the company. When this
proved to be an unsatisfactory arrangement they began
operating as Troiano on or about April 15, 1978. Troiano
previously operated in the same area as Pinter, but on a
smaller scale. After the Teamsters struck on April 1,
1976, Troiano never reopened. From about April 15,
1978, through November 15, 1978, Robert and Joe Jr.
operated under the Troiano name and ICC rights. On
November 15, 1978, Robert and Joe Jr. purchased all the
capital stock of Troiano for $100,000; they each own half
of the stock; Joe Jr. is president, his wife Mary Jane
Pinter is secretary-treasurer, and Robert is vice president.
No other Pinter has any financial or management interest
in Troiano. As stated, supra, Robert and Joe Jr. estab-
lished Pin-Bro as a corporation to hold title to its trac-
tors and trucks (it owns no trailers). A major part of its
acquisition took place at an auction of Pinter rolling
stock on January 25, 1978. Pin-Bro stock is owned one
half by Robert and one half by Joe Jr.; they are presi-
dent and vice president (although they were not sure
which was which) and Mary Jane Pinter is secretary-
treasurer of Pin-Bro.
Pinter family members can sell their stock in Pinter,
Retnip, and Pinter Warehouse, but the other family
members must be given the rights of first refusal.
IV. CREDIBILITY
The record herein is rather voluminous; one reason for
this is the large amount of "background" testimony that
I allowed due to the intricate nature of the allegations. A
lot of this testimony goes strictly to credibility and I will
therefore precede the discussion of the facts herein with
my credibility determinations in order to cull from the
facts testimony that I found not to be credible.
One witness who spent 3 entire days on the witness
stand was Sam Moallem, who was generally known as
Sam Mor, herein called Mor. Mor has two connections
with the allegations herein: On May 8, 1976, at a time
when he had no prior business relationships with any
member of the Pinter family, he and some of the drivers
employed by him went to the Deer Park terminal (by
prior arrangement with members of the Pinter family)
during the strike to remove four Pinter trailers to his
own terminal with the hope of delivering this merchan-
dise to the customers involved; Pinter had earlier picked
up the merchandise in these trailers. Additionally, as
stated supra, from on or about November 1, 1977,
through April 15, 1978, Robert and Joe Jr. operated the
Long Island terminal for GLT Transportation; during
this period, Mor, apparently, was the owner of GLT
Transportation.
There was an extensive amount of testimony regarding
Mor's business dealings, before, during, and after the
period of Robert and Joe Jr.'s involvement with GLT
Transportation. Suffice it to say that his manner of oper-
ating a business could be described as less than savory;
one practically needed a program in order to keep track
of all the companies he had been involved with during
the 4-year period from about 1974 through 1978. There
appeared to be a pattern where these companies changed
their name, changed the union representing its employ-
ees, and/or became insolvent. Furthermore, Mor was an
uncooperative and evasive witness; he appeared to have
a flippant and cavalier attitude toward testifying; for ex-
ample, on approximately 40 occasions his answer was
simply: "could be." Additionally, numerous portions of
his testimony were plainly incredible; a few examples
follow.
Two associates of Mor in GLT Transportation and
other companies were Edad Ben Ary, herein called Ary,
and Eli Eshel. In or about June 1977, GLT Funding
Corp., herein called GLT Funding, was formed; it was
owned one half by Joseph Ofeck and one half by Men-
ashe Yaron. It was set up for the specific purpose of fac-
toring GLT Transportation's receivables, and almost im-
mediately entered into a factoring agreement with GLT
Transportation under which it (GLT Funding) advanced
moneys to GLT Transportation against its receivables.
Under this agreement GLT Transportation submitted its
invoices to GLT Funding, which then advanced the
funds based on these invoices; the customers were to pay
directly to GLT Funding, and a notice to this effect was
stamped on the invoices. Ofeck eventually became aware
that a number of invoices that GLT Funding had fi-
nanced and involved a substantial amount of money had
been paid directly to GLT Transportation, although Mor
and his associates never informed Ofeck of it. The natu-
ral question was why Ofeck kept advancing them funds
when he knew they were cheating him. Ofeck testified:
"Later on, as their need for money grew, we could not
in a good business judgment choke them from getting
their cash flow that was needed."
The situation between GLT Transportation and GLT
Funding worsened in November 1977 when Robert and
Joe Jr. began operating in Long Island for GLT Trans-
portation. Mor's agreement with Robert and Joe Jr. was
that they would bill and collect on the business they gen-
erated (with regular accountings as to who owed whom
what), yet Mor submitted the GLT Transportation bills
generated by Robert and Joe Jr. to GLT Funding and
received advances on these invoices as well. Ofeck testi-
fied that he did not learn of this until May 1978, 6
months after this Long Island operation began; Mor testi-
fied that he did not tell Ofeck or Yaron about the Long
Island operation; this is difficult to credit as Yaron was
stationed on a daily basis at the GLT Transportation ter-
minal in Jersey City to facilitate the approval of invoices
for advances and Robert appeared at this terminal on a
regular basis during the November 1977 through March
1978 period; it is implausible that Ofeck did not learn of
Robert and Joe Jr.'s operations until May 1978. Addi-
tionally, Ofeck testified that by September or October
726
PINTER BROS., INC.
1977 he "knew that certain things were happening, not
to our liking...." At the time, GLT Transportation
owed him about $300,000. And yet he testified that he
never demanded that GLT Transportation's books be au-
dited; he merely requested that an accountant review
their books which Mor refused; Ofeck demanded nothing
further and continued to advance them money. Ofeck
further testified that in early May 1978 GLT Transporta-
tion moved out of its Jersey City terminal, and all trucks,
equipment, key personnel, and customers were trans-
ferred to Moon Carrier; Ofeck testified that, at the time,
he had been advancing GLT Transportation more than
what was shown on their invoices in order to keep them
liquid, and that GLT Transportation then owed him
about $350,000. Mor never informed him of this change
prior to its occurrence and it was in direct violation of
GLT Funding's agreement with GLT Transportation.
Yet Ofeck testified that, even after this, he continued to
advance funds to GLT Transportation.
Ofeck testified that about 2 months later he and four
relatives and acquaintances invested in certain joint ven-
tures involving oil and gas leases with Mor, who had a
25-percent interest in these joint ventures. He testified
further that in 1979, when he and his relatives became
dissatisfied with this venture (it would have required the
investment of additional capital), they sold their interest
in the joint ventures to Mor for the amount of their in-
vestment, about $650,000. The transaction took the form
of a note and a contract with liens recorded on the lease.
Although Ofeck testified that Mor repaid approximately
$200,000 of this debt, I find it incredible that, after his
experiences with Mor at GLT Funding, a month later he
would enter a joint venture with Mor, and a year later
he would sell this interest in the joint venture to Mor for
what he paid for it, with nothing more secure than Mor's
note and a recorded lien on the lease itself.
Further testimony of Ofeck that is inconceivable to me
is that with the two settlements of his lawsuits against
GLT Transportation and Mor's other companies having
fallen through, Ofeck has not exercised his right to pro-
ceed on Mor's personal guarantee of this debt. Mor testi-
fied that at the time of the hearing he owed Ofeck
$500,000-"not a lot of money."
Mor testified that, while he was involved with GLT
Transportation, he gave Eshel authority to sign checks
"to make him feel good." Eshel wrote $200,000 in
checks; Mor does not know what he did with this
money. (Mor testified: "I didn't say he stole, he took.")
Mor never sued Eshel for this amount although he later
learned that he was charged by the United States Gov-
ernment with embezzlement.
There are two additional reasons why I would dis-
credit Mor's testimony; on numerous occasions he testi-
fied that he arrived at the Deer Park terminal on May 8,
1976, about 8 or 9: "We met not before 8:00 a.m."
Robert places the time of Mor's arrival on that day as 3
a.m. Received in evidence was a police department,
county of Suffolk, offense report reciting, inter alia, a
complaint by Mor, that "while he was operating a trac-
tor for Pinter Brothers at the above location [Deer Park]
.. ." shots were fired at his tractor. The time of this in-
cident as stated in this report was 4:15 a.m. Although the
exact time of Mor's arrival on that day is not particularly
relevant or determinative of anything in this matter
(except general credibility), it is a matter he should re-
member (even though it took place 4 years before the
hearing herein) as he was shot at and was a complainant
in the police matter. The fact that his testimony was in-
correct on this matter further convinces me that he was
either purposely not telling the truth, or was so disinter-
ested in the proceedings that he made no attempt to tell
the truth. Finally, Mor testified that in 1976 he made il-
legal payments to the president of the union which rep-
resented the employees of the companies he owned at
the time in order to be relieved of the labor agreement
and some required pension and welfare fund payments he
owed to the union. Mor testified at the trial of this union
president and himself pleaded guilty to making illegal
payments to a labor representative. He was sentenced to
6 months in prison and is under the Federal Witness Pro-
tection Program.
Based on all of the above, I would generally discredit
the testimony of both Mor and Ofeck. The above-recited
testimony simply convinces me that their testimony is
too improbable to be reliable herein. In the interest of
brevity and relevance, much of their testimony will not
be discussed herein, even when not contradicted.
I also found Robert Pinter to be a not entirely credible
witness. In his Decision in 227 NLRB 921, Administra-
tive Law Judge Bernard Ries found Robert Pinter to be
somewhat less than credible. I agree. He was evasive in
his answers to counsel for the General Counsel and
counsel for the Charging Party. whereas his memory
was greatly improved in answering questions of his
counsel and counsel for Pinter. Additionally, he testified
that in his discussions with Mor he does not remember if
they discussed whether GLT Transportation had a col-
lective-bargaining agreement in effect. I find this highly
unlikely. Prior to the termination of trucking operations
by Pinter, Robert was the member of the Pinter family
with the most contacts with Local 807 in Pinter's day-to-
day operations. When Pinter terminated its trucking op-
erations, Joe Sr. at least partially blamed Local 807 for
his decision to terminate the operation. It appears im-
probable to me that 5 months later when Bob was enter-
ing into his own trucking operation he would not ask
Mor whether his employees were represented by any
union.
I found Joseph Pinter, Jr., to be a more credible wit-
ness than Robert Pinter; his testimony was not as exten-
sive as that of his brother, and neither was he as evasive
as his brother. Additionally, I found Franklin Pinter to
be a highly credible witness; he was equally responsive
to questions from all counsel, and appeared to be answer-
ing questions in a frank and honest manner. The credibil-
ity of the other witnesses will be discussed, infra, where
necessary.
V. THE FACTS
The bottom line issue herein is simply stated: Did the
operation of Robert and Joe Jr. as GLT Transportation
between November 1977 and April 1978 and their oper-
ation of Troiano after April 1978 (at the time that it was
727
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
owned and/or operated by Robert and Joe Jr.) constitute
a successor or alter ego to Pinter as it was operated prior
to May 1977. Admittedly, Pinter ceased operating its
own trucking operation on May 2, 1977, although both
before and after that date it leased tractors and trailers
(since 1979 through Retnip), leased doors of the Deer
Park terminal, and continued to lease space in its ware-
house (through Pinter Warehouse). The General Counsel
and counsel for the Charging Party have attempted to
establish enough of a connection of operation and favor-
itism between Robert and Joe Jr.'s Troiano operation
and these Pinter family companies to establish the suc-
cessor or alter ego allegation.
As stated, supra, during the hearing I took a "better
safe than sorry" attitude toward the relevancy of testi-
mony because of the intricate and complicated nature of
the issue involved. Upon a review of the entire record, it
is clear that much of the testimony has no relevance to
the issues involved. For the sake of brevity, therefore,
much of the testimony will not be discussed herein.
A. Pre-May 2, 1977, Events
As stated, supra, Local 807 has long represented
Pinter's drivers, platform men, and warehousemen. Prior
to 1976 Pinter was a member of Trucking Employers,
Inc., herein called TEI, an association of employers in
the trucking industry. In the past, therefore, Pinter had
executed the National Master Freight Agreement, herein
called the national agreement, as well as the New Jersey-
New York General Trucking Supplemental Agreement,
herein called the local agreement. On January 28, 1976,
Robert Pinter wrote to both TEI and Local 807 inform-
ing them that Pinter would no longer be associated with
TEI, but would negotiate with Local 807 on its own; the
General Counsel admits that this withdrawal was proper.
On March 26 and 31, 1976, there were negotiating ses-
sions attended by representatives of Local 807 and em-
ployers in the area, including Pinter (by Robert),
Troiano, Bilkay's Express, herein called Bilkay's, and
John J. Jungerman, Inc., herein called Jungerman. Be-
tween these negotiating sessions, on March 27, 1976, a
meeting of the membership of Local 807 voted to reject
the national agreement proposed by the TEI. At the end
of the general meetings, Local 807 President Mangan in-
formed the employees of Pinter, Troiano, Bilkay's, and
Jungerman that their employers wished to bargain sepa-
rately from the TEI; these employees informed Mangan
that they wished to be covered by the same agreement as
the other members of Local 807.
No agreement was reached at the meetings of March
26 and 31, 1976; the existing agreements expired on
March 31, 1976; representatives of Local 807 asked the
employer's representatives if they would agree to re-
troactivity of any agreement later reached,2 and were
2 There was extensive testimony regarding whether Local 807's re-
quest for an agreement on retroactivity at these meetings referred to the
national agreement or any agreement later arrived at between Local 807
and Pinter, Troiano, Bilkay's, and Jungerman. After reviewing the entire
record, I am of the opinion that this is irrelevant to the ultimate issue
herein and this issue will therefore not be discussed.
There was also extensive testimony (mostly elicited by Pinter) attempt-
ing to establish that Local 807 was attempting to bind Pinter to the na-
tional agreement although Pinter had lawfully withdrawn from the TEI.
told that, if they did so agree, their men would continue
working. Both Pinter and Troiano refused. At the con-
clusion of the meeting of March 31, 1976, Robert re-
turned to the Deer Park terminal where he posted no-
tices to inform the driver's and other employees of a
meeting at which he would inform them of the progress
of the negotiations. The meeting was held in the driver's
lunchroom at the Deer Park terminal at or about 8
o'clock that evening. Robert was the only Pinter present.
Ted Spera, the shop steward at Pinter, was the only
Local 807 representative present. The meeting was at-
tended by 75 to 80 employees. Frank Carney,3 who had
been employed by Pinter as a platform man, warehouse-
man, and driver for almost 20 years, testified about this
meeting as did Spera and Robert; Carney testified that
Robert began the meeting by saying that Pinter had sent
a letter to Local 807 to negotiate separately because
Pinter could not operate under the National Agreement,
but that he had received no response from Local 807; he
also said that Pinter needed relief from Local 807 espe-
cially in two areas-flexible starting time 4 and Saturday
work at regular time. One of the employees, Bob Satter,
then asked him what would occur if he could not have
his way in the negotiations; Robert answered that he
would close down for 60 to 90 days and reopen with an-
other union. Satter then asked what would happen to his
health and welfare pension, and Robert said that if he
had it for over 10 years it would be frozen; if he had it
less than 10 years he would lose it. Carney then said that
"after all these years of what we've done for the compa-
ny . . . that you would just put us out in the street," and
Robert answered: "Yes, that's the name of the game.
We're here to make money." Speras testified that Robert
began the meeting by saying that Local 807 was trying
to force the national agreement onto Pinter, but he
wanted no part of it; that he needed relief in the form of
staggered starting time and a flexible workweek. Satter
asked Robert "what if you don't get what you want
from Local 807," Robert said that he would have to
close down6 for 60 to 90 days and come back with an-
other union; Satter asked about his pension and Robert
said that he had nothing to worry about if he had 10
years with Local 807: If he did not have 10 years, he
would have to find another job with Local 807 in order
to "carry it over." Carney then asked, "But what hap-
pens with all the service that the men gave you through-
As there is no 8(bX3) violation alleged herein, this will also not be dis-
cussed. Suffice it to say, however, that, at least through April 15, 1976,
Local 807 did not show any signs of being receptive to individual bar-
gaining on the part of Pinter and the other employers in the area who
had withdrawn from TEI.
3 Carney was an extremely credible witness; although the termination
of Pinter's operation meant that he lost employment of 20 years' duration,
he testified in a fair and frank manner. His testimony regarding this meet-
ing is clearly credited over that of Robert.
4 This was necessitated by the fact that all the trucks left the Deer
Park terminal at or about the same time, causing a traffic jam and a long
delay for the trucks before they could get on to the Long Island Express-
way; to alleviate this, Pinter desired the relief of flexible starting time for
the drivers in the morning.
' I found Spera to be a fair, frank, and credible witness.
^ On cross-examination Spera testified that Robert said "he had an
option to close down .... "
728
PINTER BROS., INC.
out the years?" Robert answered: "The name of the
game is to make money."
Robert testified that at this meeting he told the em-
ployees that Local 807 told him that Pinter had to accept
the national agreement although Pinter wanted to negoti-
ate its own agreement. Robert testified that he never in-
formed the employees that there was a possibility that
Pinter would close its operation for a period of time and
reopen without a union or with a different union, and he
does not know whether the subject of flexible starting
times was discussed at this meeting.7
On April 1, 1976, Local 807 went on strike and a
picket line was set up at the Deer Park terminal. On or
about April 5, 1976, Pinter and Troiano entered into a
letter agreement with Local 807 providing for the em-
ployees to return to work from April 6 through 16, 1976,
under the terms of the expired national agreement,
during which period the parties would engage in negoti-
ations; any agreement would be retroactive to April 6,
1976. The parties could not reach any agreement during
this period and the strike resumed on April 17, 1976.8
Between that date and May 18 there were a number of
other fruitless meetings between Robert and Joe Sr. and
representatives of Local 807. On April 30, 1976, Admin-
istrative Law Judge Bernard Ries issued his Decision in
what would later be 227 NLRB 921, in which he found
that Pinter violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) by, inter
alia, discharging and laying off certain of its clerical em-
ployees, threatening its employees, and refusing to recog-
nize and bargain with Local 807 as the representative of
its clerical employees.
It was during that period that Mor made his appear-
ance; on Friday, May 7, 1976, Mor called Joe Jr.9 and
said that he was operating Towers Transportation. He
told Joe Jr. that he knew that Pinter was having labor
problems and he might be able to help them move some
loads out of the Deer Park terminal. Joe Jr. discussed
this call with Robert, and met Mor later that day at a
Pinter terminal on Sullivan Street in New York City.
According to Joe Jr. all that occurred at this meeting
was that Mor told him that he would be able to remove
the four loads from the Deer Park terminal; there was no
discussion of compensation for this work nor did Mor in-
dicate how he would assist Pinter in its labor problems.
The next morning, May 8, 1976, at or about 3 o'clock,
Mor arrived at the Deer Park terminal with drivers and
four tractors; only Robert of the Pinters was present.
With much difficulty, these four tractors took trailers
from the Deer Park terminal to a terminal Mor main-
tained in New York City. Mor was able to deliver some
of the contents of these four trailer loads, and billed the
customers for the delivery.
I For the reasons stated, suprm, I would credit the testimony of Carney
and Spers over that of Robert.
' One of the disputed issues (in addition to flexible starting times and
Saturday work at regular rates) was art. 31 of the national agreement,
which provided that the employer belongs to the TEI; Pinter, of course,
objected to this provision, but I will not discuss this further because I do
not find it relevant to the issues herein.
* Where necessary I have credited the testimony of Joe Jr. over that of
Mor, I do this reluctantly, because Joe Jr.'s testimony of this meeting is
not very plausible, but it is still more believable than that of Mor.
About 10 days later there was a meeting at Mor's New
York City terminal, attended by Mor, Robert, Roger
Troiano, an officer of Troiano, Joseph Mangan, president
of Local 807, and John Hohmann, vice president of
Local 807. At this meeting Mor acted as an intermediary
in order to assist the parties in settling the disagreement;
the parties could not reach any agreement, however.
On or about May 25, 1976, Hohmann and Spera, while
picketing at the Deer Park terminal, observed Joe Sr.'
speaking to some of the pickets, while he was still in his
car; they both approached his car and Hohmann told Joe
Sr. that the situation had gone far enough; what was his
big (or biggest) problem. Joe Sr. answered that "the
girls" were his problem, that he did not want them in the
union. Hohmann asked if that was the only problem (or
if he had other problems) and Joe, Sr., said the girls
were his only problem. Hohmann told Joe Sr. that he
would report back to Local 807 President Mangan to see
if anything could be worked out; President Mangan told
Hohmann to check with attorney Mangan who informed
him that under the Labor Board's Decision the clericals
involved were entitled to backpay, but Local 807 could
possibly work something out with Pinter about the cleri-
cals being in the Union. Hohmann then called Joe Sr.
and asked him who would be negotiating for him (he tes-
tified that he did not mention the clerical employees in
this conversation); Joe Sr.'s answer was: "What else are
you going to give us"; that was the extent of the conver-
sation.
On June 1, 1976, Pinter (by Joe Sr.) and Troiano
wrote virtually identical letters to Local 807 reiterating
the history of their withdrawals from the TEI, and stat-
ing that since they had made proposals at the last meet-
ing of May 18, and had received no proposals from
Local 807, "you have left us no alternative but to shut
down operations .... We are prepared to meet with
you at any reasonable time and place to discuss the ef-
fects of this termination." On June 10, 1976, Pinter (by
Robert) and Troiano again wrote to Local 807 referring
to their June I letter, stating: "We are immediately pre-
pared to meet with you for this discussion at any time
and place that may be mutually convenient." In between
these two letters there was a negotiating session between
the parties; present, at this meeting on behalf of Pinter,
were Robert and the then Pinter attorney (and counsel
for Pinter in the backpay specification herein), Herbert
Burstein together with Peter Troiano and representatives
of Local 807. No agreement was reached at this meeting.
Virginia McCrystal, a reporter for a local newspaper,
"The Beacon in Babylon," testified that she and another
woman wrote an article for the newspaper about the
Pinter strike. In that regard she interviewed members of
the Pinter family and employees who were on strike. In
or about the beginning of June 1976 she spoke with Joe
Sr. He said that since he was a local company he wanted
to have a contract different from the national agreement.
He also told her that the strike had not been settled; that
he would like to meet with the men and have them de-
certify the union and form their own company union,
10 Joe Sr. did not testify.
729
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and he would work with them to give them decent pay
and good benefits.
An agreement was reached between Pinter (by
Robert) and Local 807 on September 24, 1976. Without
ascribing blame to either party (as it would not be rele-
vant to the issues herein) suffice it to say that the settle-
ment fell apart on the next workday when Pinter's Local
807 members refused to ratify the agreement.
The strike continued until on or about December 6; on
that date Pinter, by Robert, and Local 807, by President
Mangan and Hohman, entered into a collective-bargain-
ing agreement effective from that date through March
31, 1979.
On January 12, 1977, the Board issued its Decision and
Order in 227 NLRB 921, in which it, inter alia, affirmed
the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge in grant-
ing a bargaining order for Pinter's clerical employees.'
Although the parties entered into this new agreement
on December 6, 1976, Pinter encountered difficulty reac-
quiring its past customers; because of this, its business de-
creased drastically from the prior year and it used few
drivers; the largest number of drivers it used between
December 1977 and April 1978 was 11 compared to its
usual prestrike complement of 80 drivers. Spera, Tom
Aikin, and Arthur Kershaw were the most senior drivers
at Pinter and beginning on their first day of employment
after the strike ended, December 7, 1976, they had, on
occasion, relinquished their right to work on some days
to give work to other drivers further down on the se-
niority list, i.e., sharing the work, and Robert testified
that Pinter had no objection to this procedure. Spera tes-
tified that, when he arrived for work In the morning
sometime in March 1977, he asked the dispatcher, Joe
Franklin, as was his custom, how many men he was
going to use and Franklin said he did not know. When
he asked Franklin for the third time, Franklin said, "I
have runs here, you want to work today?" Spera said he
did not. When Franklin asked Aikin and Kershaw, they
also stated that they would not work and they walked
out. As they were leaving they met Robert and Spera
told him that they were going home in order to give the
next man a chance to work and Robert said, "that's a
voluntary quit." Robert testified that this was not a situa-
tion where the drivers shared the work, but one in
which they simply refused to make the delivery in ques-
tion and were therefore discharged.
On April 7, 1977, the arbitration of these discharges
was heard by Impartial Chairman Hugh Sheridan. He
decided that Spera, Aikin, and Kershaw were wrong in
their action because they merely refused to work rather
than requesting it be given to another. However, he
found that "the penalty for the activity is mitigated only
in view of the circumstances which presently obtain as a
result of the strike." He ordered that the three grievants
be reinstated, beginning May 2, 1977, but without back-
pay.
I In 233 NLRB 575. the Board found that Pinter violated Sec. 8(aXl),
(3), and (4) of the Act by, inter alia, discriminating against certain of its
clerical employees due to their activities on behalf of Local 807, and their
having filed charges with the Board, or testified at a Board hearing: The
Administrative Law Judge's Decision issued on May 6. 1977; the Board's
Decision and Order on November 17, 1977.
On May 2, 1977, Spera, Aikin, and Kershaw arrived at
the Deer Park terminal and while there met Joe Sr. who
asked them, "What are you fellows doing here?" They
said they were reporting back to work and Joe Sr. said,
"What work? There's no work for you guys, I'm out of
business." Spera then called Hohmann and informed him
of this conversation. Hohmann and Local 807 Organizer
John Lenihan 2 then went to the Deer Park terminal
where they met with Joe Sr., Robert, and Franklin. At
this meeting Hohmann told Joe Sr. that he was notified
that Pinter was going out of business and Joe Sr. said
that was correct. Hohmann asked what the problem was
and Joe Sr. said there were two problems-one was the
clericals in the office and that he would turn over in his
grave before he would pay them backpay, and the other
problem was that he did not like attorney Mangan. Hoh-
mann asked if there were anything he could do, and Joe
Sr. said there was not and Hohmann asked him to send
Local 807 a letter to that effect.
Robert testified that sometime in April 1977 Joe Sr.
asked him about Pinter's profitability.' 3 After examining
the financial records they discussed terminating Pinter's
trucking operations. Robert also testified that Joe Sr. had
not made the final determination to terminate Pinter's
trucking operation until he received Impartial Chairman
Sheridan's decision (dated April 14, 1977). Upon receiv-
ing this decision, Joe Sr. was angry about it and referred
to it as "the straw that broke the camel's back." The evi-
dence establishes that after May 2, 1977, Pinter did not
operate its own trucking operation.
For the relevant period herein, and prior to May 2,
1977, Joe Sr. was "the boss" at Pinter: Hohmann testified
that even with his dealings with Robert, "most of the
time" Robert indicated that he had to get the approval
of Joe Sr. for his commitments. Similarly, it was Joe Sr.
who determined who the corporate officers would be,
and who would be authorized to sign checks on behalf
of the companies. During this same period, Franklin was
in charge of Pinter's warehouse operation. Joe Jr. was in
charge of Pinter's sales force (obtaining new customers
for its trucking operations). He was also in charge of
Pinter's truck leasing operation when it began in late
1976. Robert was in charge of the trucking operation
itself; as stated, supra, he met with Local 807 representa-
tives to discuss any difficulties between the parties, and
sat in on the negotiations for a new collective-bargaining
agreement in 1976. He also oversaw the loading of the
trucks in the mornings and supervised the dispatchers.
Although Pinter's leasing operation had its main thrust
of activity after May 2, 1977, Pinter began leasing equip-
ment and doors at its Deer Park terminal in or about Oc-
tober 1976. At the time, Pinter owned approximately 225
pieces of rolling stock composed of tractors (the engine
and cab used to pull a trailer or semitrailer), straight
trucks, trailers and semitrailers (whereas a trailer has a
set of front wheels and back wheels, a semitrailer only
has back wheels) and, itself, utilized all 77 doors at its
12 Although he was somewhat flip in his testimony, I found Lenihan
to be a credible and frank witness.
13 Pinter's 1976 tax return shows a loss in excess of SI million; its 1977
tax return shows a loss of S288,000.
730
PINTER BROS., INC.
Deer Park terminal. In or about October 1976 Pinter
leased approximately 100 semitrailers to the United
States Postal Service. This was during the period of a
strike at United Parcel Service, and it was a day-to-day
lease, at a set price. All the semitrailers were returned by
the end of the year. Rolling stock was also leased to pri-
vate trucking companies during this period, but during
the period prior to May 1977 never more than 50 per-
cent of the rolling stock was out on leases at any one
time. In addition, prior to May 1977, Pinter leased doors
that it was not using at its Deer Park terminal to Wilson
Freight Company, herein called Wilson, Carolina Freight
Carriers, herein called Carolina, Transcon Lines, herein
called Transcon, and We Transport, Inc."4 The earliest
door lease was in January 1977.
B. Post-May 2, 1977, Events
In or about May 1977, Robert, Joe Jr., and Franklin
each invested $7,500 in Imperial Motor Lines, Inc.,
herein called Imperial, a trucking company located in
Long Island; this represented a 20-percent interest in Im-
perial. Robert was called by a man whom he had known
for many years who was a principal of Imperial. He
asked Robert if he wanted to become involved in Imperi-
al; they met; and at this meeting it was agreed that
Robert would purchase a 20-percent interest in Imperial
for $22,500 and, at the same time, Robert would work
for Imperial because of the contacts he had and the
people he knew. Joe Jr. and Franklin agreed that they,
together with Robert, would each invest $7,500 of the
total $22,500. No money of any of the Pinter companies
was invested in Imperial. Robert worked at Imperial
from about mid-May 1977 to mid-July 1977; during this
period he did not receive a salary from Imperial, but he
continued to receive his $500-a-week salary from Pinter
and maintained his office as president of Pinter; his father
never asked him to resign, but did tell him, when he
began working for Imperial, that he would "carry it for
awhile." While at Imperial, Robert performed tasks in-
volved with operations and sales and attempted to solicit
former customers of Pinter to ship freight through Impe-
rial. By the middle of July, Robert was convinced that
Imperial's operation did not have a high prospect of suc-
cess; additionally, he found that the other principals were
not working as diligently as he was, and so he left Impe-
rial and returned to Pinter.' 5 On July 15, 1977, Robert
entered into an agreement with Imperial in which Robert
agreed to transfer all his (really his, Joe Jr.'s, and Frank-
lin's) interest and title in Imperial to Imperial, and Impe-
rial agreed to pay to Robert $22,500; $1,372 upon the
signing of the agreement and $250 a week until the full
amount was paid. Imperial made a few payments of $250
(which Robert split with Joe Jr. and Franklin) and paid
no more. Robert then sued Imperial for the remaining
amount due and there was a settlement wherein Imperial
agreed to pay $75 a week, which it has been paying,
albeit, intermittently. During the 2 months of Robert's
i4 Parties that lease doors at the Deer Park terminal are also allocated
office space at the terminal.
t" From this time until about November 1, 1977, Robert was involved
in trying to expand Pinter's maintenance business and assisted Joe Jr. in
the leasing operations.
employment at Imperial, Imperial had leased two to four
tractors and one or two trailers from Pinter, which Im-
perial never paid for. The July 15, 1977, agreement be-
tween Imperial and Robert provides for the cancellation
of that debt. Prior to entering into this agreement,
Robert, Joe Jr., and Franklin met with Joe Sr. and in-
formed him that they wanted to be reimbursed by Impe-
rial for this investment, and unless Joe Sr. agreed to
waive these amounts due from Imperial, the agreement
would be delayed. Although he was "quite angry," Joe
Sr. agreed. Robert never personally repaid this Imperial
debt to Pinter.
Beginning in or about September or October 1977,
Robert and Joe Jr. began discussing with Mor the possi-
bility of their operating a Long Island terminal for GLf
Transportation.' 6 Mor approached Robert and Joe Jr.
and said that he would like them to operate a Long
Island terminal for GLT Transportation. Robert and Joe
Jr., who wanted to return to the trucking business, said
that they would consider it. In October, Robert and Joe
Jr. met with Mor and other representatives of GLT
Transportation, at which time it was agreed that Robert
and Joe Jr. would operate the Long Island terminal for
GLT Transportation;' ? the means of operating the ter-
minal was to be left to the discretion and expertise of
Robert and Joe Jr.; Mor supplied Robert and Joe Jr.
with GLT Transportation's bills of lading; whereas the
Jersey City terminal's bills of lading had a "J.C." preced-
ing the six digit bill numbers and the Philadelphia termi-
nal had a "P" preceding the bill numbers, the Long
Island operation bills had a "3" preceding the bill
number. Mor did not supply Robert and Joe Jr. with a
terminal, tractors, or trailers. Their agreement was that,
if the Long Island operation made the pickup and deliv-
ery, it would keep 100 percent of the freight charge, if
one of the other terminals made the pickup and delivery,
Robert and Joe Jr. received nothing; if one made the
pickup, and the other the delivery, they would share the
freight charges 50-50; and there would be monthly ac-
countings for reconciliation of amounts. Robert and Joe
Jr. were responsible for the costs of operating the Long
Island terminal, would do their own billing, and would
share the profits of GLT Transportation, 50-50. They
also had their own bank account. There was no agree-
ment reached on any salary to be paid to Robert and Joe
Jr., but when they began operating they paid themselves
S800 a week each. About a month or two later an attor-
ney for Robert and Joe Jr. prepared an agreement setting
forth these terms, including the salaries they had been re-
ceiving; it was never executed. Robert testified that at
the time of this October meeting with Mor and his asso-
ciates he did not know whether GLT Transportation had
a collective-bargaining agreement with any union, and he
does not remember whether, at this meeting, Mor told
him that GLT Transportation had a contract with Local
's GLT Transportation, even prior to Robert and Joe Jr's association
with it, was leasing trailers from Pinter.
17 Although the testimony was that Mor owned GLT Transponatiun.
in June 1977, Ben Ary executed formal state documents as the sole stock-
holder of GLT Transportation. Regardless, it is undisputed that neither
Robert, Joe Jr., nor any Pinter family member owned any interest in
GLT Transportation.
731
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
88. Mor did tell him that hiring employees for the Long
Island operation would be the responsibility of him and
Joe Jr.
Shortly after this meeting (and still in October 1977)
Robert and Joe Jr. met with Joe Sr. They explained that
they were going to run the Long Island terminal for
GLT Transportation and that they would be renting
doors and equipment from Pinter. According to Robert's
testimony, Joe Sr.'s response was, "[Well, you are going
to be treated like everybody else."
Shortly thereafter, Franklin advised Joe Sr. that if
Robert and Joe Jr. were going to be working for another
common carrier they should not be officers of Pinter;
Joe Sr. agreed and Franklin prepared resignations for
Robert and Joe Jr. dated November 1, 1977. They stated:
"I hereby resign as President' s and director of Pinter
Bros., Inc., effective inmediately."'19 On this date they
ceased receiving a salary from Pinter.
Robert and Joe Jr. began operating the Long Island
terminal for GLT Transportation beginning on Novem-
ber 1, 1977, and their operation continued through
March 1978. During this period they maintained their
office area at the Deer Park terminal, in the office area
where Pinter and companies leasing doors from Pinter
maintain their office; during this period they also leased
tractors and trailers from Pinter and leased doors at the
Deer Park terminal.
Since it began leasing its rolling stock, Pinter has em-
ployed forms entitled truck rental agreement, which set
forth all the information required for the leasing of
Pinter's rolling stock-name of customer, identity of the
equipment, rate, whether a deposit was required, and
other relevant information. Between October 29, 1977,
and January 31, 1978, Robert and Joe Jr. (at a time that
they were operating the Long Island terminal of GLT
Transportation) prepared and/or signed 154 truck rental
agreements as "Signature, Pinter's Agent." During the
same period other agents of Pinter prepared and/or
signed 218 truck rental agreements. From February 1
through October 31, 1978, Robert and Joe Jr. prepared
and/or signed 8 truck rental agreements; 513 were signed
by other agents of Pinter. Prior to November 1, 1977, a
vast majority of these truck rental agreements were pre-
pared and/or signed by Joe Jr. Robert and Joe Jr. testi-
fied that they typed these agreements in Pinter's mainte-
nance office (separate from their office); they used the
chart prepared by Pinter which lists the rates for each of
the vehicles, and Pinter's computer printout which lists
the customers whom you can give credit to, and those
you cannot. Robert and Joe Jr. were not paid by Pinter
for preparing these truck rental agreements. Although
they were never specifically told that they were author-
ized to prepare these agreements after November 1,
1977, they had done so before November 1, 1977, and
continued to do so afterward.
18 Joe Jr.'s resignation is from the position of vice president and direc-
tor.
19 They have never relinquished or sold their stock (or partnership in-
terests) in the Pinter companies they own together with the other family
members. Also, as stated, supra, it was not until January 4, 1978, that a
new corporate resolution was instituted for Pinter authorizing Franklin,
Joe Sr., and his wife to sign checks for Pinter.
Local 807 Knowledge
Hohmann testified that, in April or May 1978, a
former Pinter employee, George Rommeney, applied to
Local 807 for his pension; because he had received re-
ports that Rommeney was working, and the trust of the
Local 807 pension does not allow employment in the in-
dustry, Hohmann went to the Deer Park terminal to in-
vestigate. He observed Rommeney enter the Deer Park
terminal at or about 6 a.m. At about 8:30 a.m. he ob-
served a tractor and trailer leaving the Deer Park termi-
nal; the tractor had the name GLT on it while the trailer
bore the Pinter name. The driver whom Hohmann did
not know was wearing a shirt with a Pinter emblem on
it. Hohmann approached the driver and asked him what
he was doing with a Pinter trailer; the driver told him
that he was employed by GLT out of New Jersey and
did not belong to any union. Hohmann testified that this
was the first occasion that he observed equipment with
the name GLT, or was informed by anyone that he was
employed by GLT Transportation.
Vincent Cancellaro, who had been employed by Pinter
for 8 years as a driver before the May 1977 shutdown,
testified that in or about December 1977, he heard from
some other drivers that Robert and Joe Jr. were "going
out on their own again." He called the Pinter telephone
number and requested, and was connected with, Joe Jr.
He told him that he needed a job and Joe Jr. told him
that he and Robert were operating as GLT Transporta-
tion, but only in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Joe Jr.
said that as Robert was away he could not make any de-
cision on hiring Cancellaro, but suggested that he call
back later. Shortly after New Year's 1978, Cancellaro
called again and went to see Robert and Joe Jr. They in-
formed him that as GLT Transportation they did not
want to handle New Jersey shipments, which was the
area covered by Cancellaro while he was employed by
Pinter. Cancellaro informed them that he had a good re-
lationship with his former customers in New Jersey, and
he felt he could get them as customers for GLT Trans-
portation. Robert said that they had nothing to lose and
told Cancellaro: "[T]ake a trailer and go over there and
see what you can do." He took the trailer to New Jersey
and was successful in obtaining his former Pinter custom-
ers for GLT Transportation, and began his employment
with Robert and Joe Jr. first as GLT Transportation,
and later as Troiano.
Cancellaro testified that about 2 weeks later Hohmann
approached him while he was leaving the Deer Park ter-
minal with a tractor and trailer 20 and said that he
wanted to speak to Cancellaro. He told Hohmann that he
could not speak to him and drove away. He testified fur-
ther that, about a week later while he was having coffee
in a Long Island restaurant with other GLT drivers, he
was approached by Spera and Lenihan. They asked him
why he was working for Bobby and Joe; he said he had
a family and they had to eat and that he had been out of
work for 2 years. He got up and left. About a week later
they again approached him while he was having coffee
'0 Cancellaro testified that at this time neither his tractor nor trailer
had the name GLT on them.
732
PINTER BROS., INC.
and asked him why he was working for Bob and Joe
with what Pinter had done to Local 807 during the
strike. Cancellaro said, "I have a family and they have to
eat and I have no choice, I have to work." They asked
him about the Union and he said he did not know that
there was a union and he did not care as long as his
family was eating. At that point Spera and Lenihan left.
In neither of these conversations was GLT Transporta-
tion named by either Cancellaro, Spera, or Lenihan.
Cancellaro testified that in March 1978 (while he was
employed by Robert and Joe Jr.) he was driving in
Jersey City for a pickup; he observed trucks driven by
Spera and another former Pinter driver, Harry Hack-
muller, and they attempted to drive him off the road.
When Cancellaro called Hackmuller that evening, to
warn him against repeating the incident, Hackmuller told
him that they were only joking around. Spera testified
that in "the early part of 1978" as he was driving a truck
in New Jersey he passed by Cancellaro driving a tractor
and trailer, each with the Pinter name; as their trucks
passed each other, Cancellaro waved to him. That night,
Spera called Cancellaro and asked, "How come you're
working for them people again?" Cancellaro said, "I
couldn't find any work, I was on the verge of losing my
house, and I had to go back to Pinter." Spera testified
that Cancellaro identified his employer as Bob Pinter.21
Spera testified that a few days after he spoke with
Cancellaro 22 he met George Rommeney and four other
former Pinter employees (all except one, a dispatcher,
had been members of Local 807) at the Deer Park termi-
nal; they told him that they were working under Troiano
rights, that Robert and Joe Jr. were in the trucking area
of the business, Franklin was involved in the warehouse,
and Joe Sr. was not involved.
As stated, supra, from November 1977 through April
1978 (as the Long Island operation of GLT Transporta-
tion) and from mid-April 1978 to the present time (as
Troiano), Robert and Joe Jr. have leased tractors and
trailers and leased doors from Pinter; it is uncontested
that numerous other companies have also leased trucks
and doors during this period from Pinter. Counsel for
the General Counsel and counsel for the Charging Party
allege that the operations of Robert and Joe Jr. were
given special privileges by Pinter over its other custom-
ers in areas such as price (or even requiring any pay-
ment), terms, or the need for a deposit. It is the conten-
tion of counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for
the Charging Party that this is a factor in establishing
that the operations of Robert and Joe Jr. are alter egos of
Pinter.
Door Leasing
Beginning on or about November 1, 1977, Robert and
Joe Jr. began leasing doors at the Deer Park terminal; at
2" Although I have generally credited Spera's testimony, I was im-
pressed by Cancellaro's frankness while testifying, and I credit his ver-
sion of this incident as regards the minor conflicts in their testimony.
2" The phrase, "A few days after he spoke with Cancellaro," would
place this conversation in early 1978; however, because Spera was in-
formed by these individuals that they were working under Troiano
rights, I find that this conversation occurred no earlier than April 1978,
when Robert and Joe Jr. began operating under the Troiano rights.
that time they leased two doors at the rate of $200 a
month per door; this was the door rate charged all its
customers at the time whether they leased I door or 26
doors. (In addition to the monthly charge for the doors,
all tenants paid an extra charge to Pinter Realty for their
employees' on-premises parking.) At the time, Robert
and Joe Jr. did not sign a lease with Pinter Realty, 2 3
they were simply billed each month for the doors. Al-
though the rule was that door rentals were payable in
advance, Robert and Joe Jr. did not advance this money
to Pinter Realty prior to beginning their use of the
doors. Franklin testified that although, theoretically,
door-lease payments were due in advance, in actuality it
was rare that these payments were received at that time
from its tenants. (He testified that although Carolina
Freight Carriers Corporation, herein called Carolina,
usually paid within the first 10 days of the month, other
tenants were often months behind.)
On or about May 2, 1977, Pinter Realty had 26 doors
leased to Carolina and Wilson, and was about to begin a
lease of 14 doors to Transcon Lines out of the 77 doors
available at the Deer Park terminal. In November 1977,
Wilson was leasing 14 doors, Carolina, 16, Transcon, 14,
and the corporate spinoff of Overnite Transportation,
herein called Overnite, rented 4 to 6 doors. At the time
of the hearing all the doors at the Deer Park terminal
were leased; Troiano was leasing 14.
A 1-year lease between Pinter and Wilson, effective
from March 1, 1977, provides for the lease of 10 speci-
fied doors at an annual rental of $24,000 (i.e., $200 per
door monthly). A deposit of $2,000 was paid to Pinter
Realty pursuant to the terms of this lease. A 1-year lease
between Pinter Realty and Wilson for the period March
1, 1978, through February 28, 1979, provided for the
lease of 14 specific doors at a yearly rental of $35,380
($210 a door, monthly). This lease gave Wilson the
option of extending the lease for an additional year at a
yearly rental of $37,044 (or approximately $220 a door,
monthly). On March 15, 1979, Pinter Realty and Wilson
executed an agreement effective for the period October
1, 1978, through September 30, 1980. The lease provided
for the rental of 26 specified doors at an annual monthly
rental of $5,400 for the first year (approximately S208
monthly per door) and $5,670 monthly for the second
year (approximately $218 monthly per door). Wilson
paid a security deposit of $5,400 to Pinter Realty pursu-
ant to this agreement.
Additionally, there is a 3-year lease of doors between
Pinter Realty and Transcon, for the period May 1, 1977,
through April 30, 1980. The lease, with an appendix that
specifies the 14 doors being leased to Transcon, provides
for yearly rentals of $33,600 ($200 a door per month),
$35,280 ($210 a door monthly), $37,044 (approximately
$220 per door monthly), and an option year at $38,896
(approximately $232 per door monthly). There is no
mention in the lease of a deposit.
There is also a 3-year door lease executed between
Pinter Realty and Carolina, for the period February 1,
1977, through January 1, 1980. This provided for the
23 Franklin testified that other tenants, as well, did not have a written
lease; this is still true.
733
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
leasing of 20 specified doors at a yearly rental of $2,400
a door for the first year ($200 monthly), $2,500 for the
second year ($210 monthly), and $2,646 for the third
year (approximately $220 monthly). Carolina paid to
Pinter Realty a deposit of $2,400 as security.2 4
In May 1978 and May 1979, Troiano executed leases
with Pinter Realty for the lease of doors at the Deer
Park terminal. The earlier lease was executed by Frank-
lin for Pinter Realty and Joe Jr. for Troiano and was for
the period May 1, 1978, through April 30, 1979, and is
for the "monthly rent of two hundred twenty five . . .
dollars per truck door used by the Tenant." No specific
doors are designated nor is the number of doors to be
leased specified in the agreement. No security deposit
was paid by Troiano to Pinter Realty. The following
lease was for the period May 1, 1979, through April 30,
1980, and was also for the "monthly rent of two hundred
twenty five . . . dollars per truck door used by the
Tenant. Again, no specific doors are designated in the
agreement, and neither is the number of doors to be
leased spelled out in the agreement. No security deposit
was paid.
Although they did not enter into a written agreement
with Pinter Realty for the leasing of doors at the Deer
Park terminal until May 1, 1978, Robert and Joe Jr. (as
GLT Transportation) began leasing doors for Pinter
Realty beginning on or about November 1, 1977. For at
least November and December 1977, they leased two
doors. There is no evidence that they were ever sent a
bill, or made any payment, for the doors they leased in
November 1977; Robert and Joe Jr. were billed for the
leasing of two doors in December and they paid this bill
($400) on December 19, 1977. No bill was sent to Robert
and Joe Jr. in January 1978 for the leasing of doors and
no payment was received from them in that month; in
February 1978 Pinter Realty sent Robert and Joe Jr. a
bill for $1,575; Franklin could not identify the period of
time for which the bill was issued, and as to whether
that bill was paid, he testified: "It might have been paid,
yes. We did not receive a check in that exact amount."
In fact the next payment received from Robert and Joe
Jr. (the first since December 19, 1977) was a check in
June 1978 in the amount of $2,969. Between the Febru-
ary billing, supra, and the receipt of this check from
Robert and Joe Jr. in June, Pinter Realty billed Robert
and Joe Jr. the following amounts: March-$1,800;
April-$ 1,484.50; May-$ 1,484.50; and June--S1,804.
Franklin testified that the Pinter Realty books indicated
that check received in June was intended to cover the
rentals billed in April and May, although he does not
know why it was credited against these months rather
than for the balance due from the billed months of Feb-
ruary and March, or the unbilled months of November
1977 or January 1978. Sometime in July 1978, Robert
and Joe Jr. paid to Pinter Realty a check in the amount
of $1,804 to cover the June billing for doors.
For the next 18 months, Pinter Realty's billing to
Robert and Joe Jr. (as Troiano), together with payments
received from them, are as follows:
14 The above-mentioned leases, although some of the largest executed
by Pinter Realty at the time, are not the only door leases it executed
during this period.
July 1978
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Billed by
Printer
Realty
$2,050
2,400
2,175
2,630
'6,750
4,500
4,500
4,500
4,500
4,500
4,500
d 4,500
Paid by
Troiano
$2050
2,400
2,175
2,630
b6,750
'9,000
'18,000
I Franklin testified that this was a combined bill for Novem-
ber and December which may have been caused by the fact that
Pinter Realty forgot to send Troiano the November billing.
Franklin also testified that this combined bill was sent to
Troiano in either December 1978 or January 1979. What is
confusing is that although Franklin testified: "I have a bill for
two months, November and December 1978"; Respondent
Pinter Exh. 26 (billings to Troiano for doors in 1978) contains
two bills for November (one for 20 doors at $4,725 and the
other for 15 doors at $3,375) and two bills for December (again
20 doors at $4,725 and I5 doors at $3,375). Robert testified that
this discrepancy may be explained by the fact that during this
period they ceased renting 20 doors and began renting 15 doors.
b This payment, received on March 15, 1979, was processed
to cover the combined November-December 1978 billing.
'This $9,000 payment, received on May 17, 1979, was applied
to the January-February 1979 rentals.
d The figures for August through December 1979 were
unavailable to Franklin during his testimony because the 1979
books of Pinter Realty that he was referring to while testifying
are on a cash basis; as July was the last month in 1979 for which
Troiano paid Pinter Realty for door rentals in that year, that
was the last entry for that year.
· This amount is represented by two payments of $9,000; one
received on December 14 and that other on December 18, 1979.
Franklin testified that the first check was applied to the April-
May 1979 rentals and the second check to the June-July rentals.
When questioned by counsel for the General Counsel
regarding these tardy rental payments by Robert and Joe
Jr., Franklin testified that Pinter Realty did not sue
Robert and Joe Jr. for these amounts or attempt to evict
them or charge them a service charge for their late pay-
ments. He testified that Pinter Realty, to compensate for
these late payments, charged Robert and Joe Jr. a higher
monthly rate per door ($225) than other tenants who
rent a similar amount of space, such as Carolina and
Wilson.
Truck and Trailer Leasing
As stated, supra, during the relevant period herein,
Pinter has owned approximately 225 pieces of rolling
stock composed of tractors, trailers, semitrailers, and
straight trucks, and since about mid-1976 Pinter has been
engaged in leasing this equipment to the public. Begin-
ning in or about November 1977, Robert and Joe Jr.
began to lease equipment from Pinter under the name
734
PINTER BROS., INC.
GLT Transportation; 25 they began with one or two
trucks and increased the number as their operation grew.
Franklin testified that, since 1976, Pinter Leasing's rates
have changed and he could not testify with certainty
that any customer with the same assets and requirements
as Robert and Joe Jr. was charged the same rates as
GLT Transportation and Troiano, although they "prob-
ably" were. This is difficult to determine because of
changing rates and variables in the size and dependability
of customers. However, as stated, infra, between April
and November 1978 Troiano entered into numerous
truck rental agreements with Pinter wherein it leased,
inter alia, tractors. These were generally tractors num-
bers 189, 190, 200, and 207; the monthly charge for each
of these tractors is stated as $1,100 a month, including
any required maintenance. There was no mileage charge.
In August and September 1977 Spector Freight, herein
called Spector, entered into truck rental agreements with
Pinter for the rental of tractors numbers 180, 182, 183,
and 185.26 The monthly charge to Spector for each of
these tractors was $900; there was no mileage charge and
Spector was responsible for full maintenance. 2 7
Pinter Leasing prepared computer readouts regularly,
listing each customer, together with the unpaid invoices
as of that date, the dollar amount of each invoice, and
the total amount due on that day. In evidence are the
Pinter leasing accounts receivable details, dated May 31,
1978, and November 30, 1978. The listing for "GLT
Transportation Lines" contains one $1,500 credit, dated
September 13, 1977, and listed as "Cash on Account." It
also lists 45 unpaid invoices (most of which are in the
anount of $157.50, presumably the $150-a-month trailer
charge, plus tax) dating from November 15, 1977,
through June 21, 1978. The "Account Total" due from
"GLT Transportation Lines" is $5,079.94. Franklin testi-
fied that this "GLT Transportation Lines" account is the
account of GLT Transportation in New Jersey and rep-
resented the invoices for the trailers it (rather than
Robert and Joe Jr.'s operation) rented from Pinter. This
account appears on both the May and November 1978
printouts.
Appearing only on the earlier printout is an account
entitled "GLT." It contains a credit balance of $197. The
invoices on this account date from December 29, 1977 (a
$2,000 credit) to May 15, 1978 (a $660 charge). Franklin
testified that this account was the account maintained for
billing of rentals to Robert and Joe Jr.'s operation. Also
listed on the May 1978 readout, but not on the Novem-
ber 1978 readout, is an account number 56400 and enti-
tled "Pinbro." All the invoices are dated between May
18 and May 31, 1978, and the total account balance is
s2 Even prior to the entry of Robert and Joe Jr. into the GLT Trans-
portation operation, GLT Transportation, in New Jersey, had leased
equipment from Pinter. On September 13. 1977. GLT Transportation of
Jersey City executed a truck rental agreement with Pinter, wherein it
leased a trailer for S150 a month, plus tax. The trailer was returned to
Pinter on May 19, 1978.
"a Pinter's tractors are numbered in the order in which they were pur-
chased. Therefore, the tractors leased to Troiano were somewhat newer
than those leased to Spector.
a? This comparison, of course, leaves something to be desired with the
difference in time (about a year), the fact that the tractors may be differ-
ent, and the fact that the record does not reflect the additional charge to
the lessee for full maintenance.
$6,025 owed to Pinter Leasing. Franklin testified that
this account was also that of Robert and Joe Jr. and this
seems reasonable as chronologically it continued from
the date that the "GLT" account ended.
Appearing in the November 1978 accounts receivable
readout, but not the one in May, is an account entitled
"Troiano" with the account number 56400, the same ac-
count number that "Pinbro" had earlier. The earliest in-
voice in this listing is June 9, 1978, and it shows a total
amount due (as of November 30, 1978) from Troiano to
Pinter Leasing of $28,871.28 There can be no doubt that
this account represents the receivables incurred by
Robert and Joe Jr.'s operation of Troiano. 29
On April 1, 1978, Troiano (by Robert) entered into a
truck rental agreement providing for the rental of nine
specified trailers3 ° at $200 a month, four specified trac-
tors at $1,100 a month, and two specified trucks at $900
a month.31 The May 1, June 1, August 1, and September
1, 1978, truck rental agreements provide for nine speci-
fied trailers at $200 a month and one specified truck at
$900 a month. The July 1, 1978, agreement provide for
nine specified trailers at $200 a month and one truck for
2 weeks at $225 a week. The October 1, 1978, agreement
provides for the same truck at $900 a month, 2 specified
tractors at $1,100 a month, and 28 specified trailers; the
30-foot trailers at $85 per month,3 2 and the 40 and 44-
foot trailers at $110 a month. The November 1, 1978,
agreement provides for 2 specified tractors at $1,100 a
month, five 30-foot trailers at $85 a month, and 17 40-
and 44-foot trailers at $110 a month. On November 1,
1978, Pinter and Troiano entered into a "Long Term
Lease" which provided that Pinter would lease to
Troiano 22 specified trailers for a term of 60 months.
The price per month (which included maintenance) was
$85 for the 30-foot trailers and $110 for the larger trail-
ers.3 3
Franklin also testified that the November 1, 1978,
long-term lease was executed because Troinao wished to
qualify for a lower rental rate. Under their leases
Troiano was not required to pay Pinter a deposit al-
though, at times, Pinter has required other lessees to pay
a deposit, depending upon their credit standing.
Robert testified that in November and December 1977
he leased a few tractor and trailers from Pinter; the first
payment he made to Pinter for this equipment was an
amount of $2,000 on December 30, 1977; the notation on
the check stub says "trucks for December, on account."
'8 As of the same date, Wilson was indebted to Pinter Leasing in the
amount of $30,000; the next largest debts on that date (aside from that of
Troiano) were in amounts of $14,000. $10,000; two $9,000 debts; and two
S8,000 debts.
29 It should be noted that these are only the unpaid Troiano invoices.
Franklin testified that Troiano did pay other invoices during this period.
'° In all the truck rental agreements discussed infra. Troiano rented
trailers of all three sizes--30 foot, 40 foot, and 44 foot.
si In these monthly truck rental agreements, the charge to Troiano in-
cludes any maintenance that had to be performed on the vehicles.
S2 There was no explanation for the substantial decrease in this month-
ly rental for trailers; however, it may be explained by the increase in the
number leased.
ss As will be stated, infra, in January 1978 and thereafter, Robert and
Joe Jr. purchased tractors. Therefore since on or about mid-1979, they
have leased only trailers, and almost exclusively from Pinter.
735
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 3, 1978, Robert and Joe Jr., paid a check to
Pinter in the amount of $3,805, with the notation "Equip-
ment and dock space, January and February." On April
7, 1978, they sent a check to Pinter s4 in the amount of
$4,173; the notation on the stub states: "Equipment, fuel
and doors." Robert testified that during this period the
number of trailers they rented from Pinter ranged from a
low of I to 3 to a high of 7 to 12; their business was ex-
panding in this period. There is no evidence that any
formal lease or truck rental agreement was executed for
the equipment rented by Robert and Joe Jr. for the
period November 1977 through March 31, 1978; Robert
testified: "I think Mr. Wolters (who was in charge of the
Pinter Leasing operation at the time) kept check."
Robert testified that he and Joe Jr. (as GLT Transporta-
tion) were billed every month or every two during this
period, although none of the parties was able to produce
any such bills or invoices or truck rental agreements to
Robert and Joe Jr.'s GLT.
January 25, 1978, Auction
On October 24, 1977, Pinter entered into an agreement
with H. J. Gray Corporation (an auctioneer) herein
called Gray, providing, inter alia, that Pinter would turn
over to Gray 39 pieces of power equipment to be sold
by Gray at a public auction. Under the terms of this
agreement, Gray's commission was 10 percent of gross
sales. The notice of the auction listed the sale date as
January 25, 1978, the location as the Deer Park terminal
and stated that 52 tractors, trucks, and trailers would be
for sale. The terms were stated in this notice as: "25%
deposit, cash or certified check. Company checks accept-
ed only with blank letter of guarantee, no personal
checks accepted." Sometime prior to the execution of
this agreement, Joe Sr. informed Robert and Franklin
that he decided to auction some of Pinter's rolling stock
and they agreed that it was a good idea. They chose the
oldest and most abused equipment as the equipment to be
auctioned, and Wolters and the Pinter maintenance em-
ployees selected the actual equipment to be auctioned;
Robert and Franklin also expressed their opinion on
what equipment should be chosen for auction.
Prior to the auction, Pinter's maintenance employees
were getting the trucks ready for the auction; during this
period, Robert spent about an hour a day for 10 to 20
days greasing and oiling the trucks and changing tires.
During this period (December 1977 and January 1978),
Robert and Joe Jr. approached Gray's representative and
informed him that they wanted to bid on some of the
equipment at the auction; Gray informed them that they
would be best off to have a stand-in at the auction to do
their bidding for them, otherwise their presence might
drive up the prices on tractors they were bidding for.
The individual they used for this purpose was recom-
mended by Gray and was paid by Robert and Joe Jr. He
actually appeared at the auction and made bids as he had
been previously instructed by Robert and Joe Jr.
At the auction, Robert and Joe Jr., under the name
Pin-Bro, purchased eight tractors for a total cost of
34 All these above-mentioned checks were made out to "Pinter Broth-
ers Inc."
$48,200. Robert and Joe Jr. paid for these purchases by a
check payable to Gray dated February 3, 1978, in the
amount of $48,20035; they paid no deposit on January 25
and had no letter of guarantee.
When Pin-Bro purchased these eight tractors at the
auction on January 25, 1978, four of the tractors were at
the Deer Park terminal, while the other four were, at the
time, on lease to Spector. In August and September
1977, Pinter Leasing commenced leasing these four trac-
tors to Spector for $900 per month. Spector did not
return these tractors to Pinter until May 1978; when
Robert was asked if he and Joe Jr. received any reim-
bursement from Pinter for the loss of 4 months use of
these four tractors of the eight they had purchased at the
auction, he testified that Pinter Leasing gave them either
a credit for the use of these trucks during this period, or
the use of four comparable tractors during this period,
because they did not know when Spector would return
the four that were on lease. It was not until May 8, 1978
(after Spector returned the four tractors it had been leas-
ing), that Robert and Joe Jr. registered these eight trucks
under the Pin-Bro name; prior to that date they were all
registered under the Pinter name. Pin-Bro did not obtain
insurance for any of these eight tractors until on or about
May 1978, and Franklin testified that because these vehi-
cles were the least popular of the tractors leased by
Pinter Leasing, Pinter Leasing ceased insuring these
eight vehicles among others, in about mid-1977. He also
testified that the vehicles that were sold at the auction
were not currently registered in New York State. Frank-
lin, however, could not adequately explain how Spector
could operate the four leased vehicles in this situation,
other than that he recalled that they were to supply their
own insurance under the lease (but query, how can you
insure unregistered vehicles?).
When Robert and Joe Jr. (as Pin-Bro) took possession
of the four available tractors (out of the eight they had
purchased) in late January or early February 1978, the
license plates had been removed; Joe Jr. went to Pinter's
maintenance department where he obtained these license
plates and placed them back on the trucks, where they
remained until on or about May 1978 when Pin-Bro reg-
istered and obtained insurance for all eight tractors.
Robert testified that they did this because they were
very short of cash at the time and were being quoted
high rates for insurance: "And as a result, we took the
chance and ran them without it."
Pin-Bro also purchased tractors from others than
Pinter. In August 1978, Pin-Bro purchased two tractors
from Castle GMC; the sales price for each one was ap-
proximately $28,000. In addition, in June 1978, Pin-Bro
purchased three trucks from Universal Ford; their prices
were $28,595, $26,394, and $29,315. In June 1978, Pin-
Bro also purchased from Husted Chevrolet two auto-
mobiles costing $12,000 as personal vehicles for Robert
and Joe Jr.
35 This money was obtained from a bank loan from the Long Island
Trust Company, the Deer Park branch, which is the bank that Pinter has
always used. It is a corporate loan to Pin-Bro, but personally guaranteed
by Robert and Joe Jr. with their homes, and more, as collateral.
736
PINTER BROS., INC.
In March 1979, Troiano purchased five 1974 tractors
(Pinter numbers 197 through 201) from Retnip for $7,500
each, or a total of $37,500s 6 which Franklin testified was
the fair market value for the tractors. Troiano paid
Retnip for this in two checks; one dated March 23, 1979,
and the other dated April 24, 1979. All of these above-
mentioned purchases (Castle GMC, Universal Ford,
Husted, and Retnip) were financed by the Long Island
Trust Company through loans secured by the assets pur-
chased (for which security agreements were signed by
Troiano), payable over periods ranging from 26 months
to 60 months. The total proceeds of these loans by Long
Island Trust Company to Troiano was $181,000.
GLT Transportation to Troiano
Early in 1978, the disagreements between Robert and
Joe Jr. on one side, and Mor on the other, began to in-
crease: The major cause of this discontent was the settle-
ment of dollars owed between the parties; Robert and
Joe Jr. claimed that Mor was being paid fully for ship-
ments in which they participated and, likewise, Mor
claimed that Robert and Joe Jr. were not crediting GLT
Transportation of New Jersey for work performed by it.
Robert testified that he and Joe Jr. also felt obligated to
repay its customers for damages caused by Mor's oper-
ations. At that point (about February or March 1978),
Robert and Joe Jr. contacted a rights broker to locate a
company that had appropriate rights that they could pur-
chase. Robert and Joe Jr. were personal friends of the
Troiano family37 and, in about February or March 1978,
they met with members of the Troiano family to discuss
the possibility of purchasing the Troiano rights. s3 8
During the discussions between the parties, Troiano's at-
torney recommended that Robert and Joe Jr. operate
under the Troiano rights for a period of time to prevent
any problems with the Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC) due to lack of usage of these rights for almost 2
years. Between April 15 and November 15, 1978, Robert
and Joe Jr. operated under the Troiano rights;39 Troiano
was not compensated by Robert and Joe Jr. for the use
of these rights during this period. During this period, it
was decided that, for a number of reasons, it would be
advantageous to purchase the Troiano stock rather than
its rights; they would not have to apply to the ICC for a
transfer of the rights, and, additionally, they could take
advantage of the Troiano tax loss. On November 15,
1978, Robert and Joe Jr. entered into an agreement with
Peter and Vito Troiano, providing for the sale of all the
stock of Troiano to Robert and Joe Jr. for the sum of
$100,000; the sum of $30,000 was paid by Robert and Joe
Jr. upon execution of the agreement with the remainder
to be paid in 36 equal monthly installments (with 8-per-
cent interest) beginning January 1, 1979. A copy of
Troiano's ICC right was attached to the agreement.
'" The December 8, 1978, sale of rolling stock from Pinter to Retnip
included these tractors. Their sale price at that time wa S3,026, Pinter's
book value for each of them.
s3 Troiano had been out of business since the strike of April 1976.
s' Robert and Joe Jr. never discussed with Franklin or Joe Sr. the pos-
sibility of purchasing Pinter's rights.
"g The Troiano lights are somewhat more extensive than Pinter's
rights.
After the execution of this agreement, the employees of
Robert and Joe Jr. (who were paid by check from Pin-
Bro beginning in early May 1978) were transferred to
their Troiano operation. On April 24, 1978, a corporate
resolution was executed under which Joe Jr. (agent),
Robert (office manager), and Mary Jane Pinter (secre-
tary) were authorized to sign checks on behalf of
Troiano. The bank they used was the Long Island Trust
Company.
GLT Using Pinter Pros.
On February 15, 1978, Robert and Joe Jr., under their
GLT Transportation operation, used two Pinter Pros.40
The date on each is listed as "2-15-78 JAP" (presumably
Joseph A. Pinter, Jr.). Joe Jr. testified that he took these
two forms from Pinter without asking anyone's permis-
sion and typed them himself because he and Robert had
run out of GLT Transportation Pros.41 As to how long
he used these Pinter pros he testified: "I don't know,
maybe two or three days, before we got them, either
Pros with our address GLT, or we got another carton
from GLT in New Jersey."4 2 Joe Jr. also testified that
he and Robert may have also used Pinter scratch pads
and Pinter drivers' manifest (a list of drivers' deliveries)
without paying Pinter for their use.
Robert testified that in February or March 1978, he
signed a collective-bargaining agreement with Local 88.
He did not remember much of the circumstances sur-
rounding this experience, 43 or the later execution of a 3-
year collective-bargaining agreement with Local 88 on
May 1, 1978, except that this agreement contained the
same terms as the agreement executed 2 or 3 months ear-
lier, but substituted Troiano for GLT Transportation.
Comparison of Employees
When Robert and Joe Jr. began their GLT Transpor-
tation operation, they did most of the driving themselves.
Since that time they have expanded their operation to re-
quire additional drivers and clerical employees; some of
these individuals were previously employed by Pinter.
The evidence establishes that in almost evey such situa-
tion (if not every situation) they were approached by the
job applicant (for example, the testimony of Cancellaro,
supra).
Robert was questioned about 48 named employees
who were employed by Robert and Joe Jr.'s GLT
Transportation operation and Troiano between Novem-
ber 1977 and October 1980. These employees were em-
40 A "pro" is similar to a bill of lading. It lists the customer, his ad-
dress, the goods shipped, the weight, charges, and the method of pay-
ment
41 These pros are numbered 188230 and 188236. Joe Jr. testified that
he had "no idea" if he used the five pros between these two, nor how
many Pinter pros he used.
"2 Robert testified that at about this time he and Joe Jr, ordered their
own GLT Transporation pros with their Long Island address, because of
their difficulty in collecting from shippers who informed them that they
paid GLT Transportation in New Jersey. The first of these new pros.
however, did not issue until March 23, 1978.
" He testified that either Mor informed him of Grossman, the repre-
sentative of Local 88, or Mor told Grossman to contact Robert and Joe
Jr.
737
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployed in all job classifications, from drivers to clerical
employees. Of these 48 individuals, 15 had been em-
ployed by Pinter prior to April 1976, and 33 had not.4 4
Comparison of Customers
When Robert and Joe Jr. began operating GLT Trans-
portation in November 1977, and later began operating
Troiano in April 1978, they (and most especially Joe Jr.
who had been in sales at Pinter) used their experience,
knowledge, and contacts at Pinter to assist them in ob-
taining customers in their new endeavors. 45 To do other-
wise would be implausible. In this regard, there are in
evidence two customer account lists; one is a listing of
the customers of Pinter dated June 11, 1976; the other is
Troiano's customer listing dated February 15, 1979. As
of the earlier date, Pinter listed in excess of 6,500 cus-
tomers; on the latter date Troiano had only 842 custom-
ers listed. 4 6 Of these 842 Troiano customers, 312 (or 37
percent) were listed as Pinter customers as of June 11,
1976.
Troiano and Pinter Work for Newsday
In or about mid-1977 (while he was employed by, and
an officer of Pinter), Robert solicited Newsday as a cus-
tomer for Pinter Warehouse. Newsday was about to
move to Melville, Long Island, where they did not have
a rail siding; the Pinter Warehouse at the Deer Park ter-
minal did have a rail siding. Newsday had rolls of paper
delivered to a rail siding; it was unloaded from the rail-
way car onto a trailer and delivered to Newsday in Mel-
ville. The agreement with Newsday was finalized in De-
cember 1977, although the first delivery to Newsday,
and subsequent billings, did not begin until June 1979.
The price originally agreed upon between Pinter Ware-
house and Newsday was an all inclusive price which in-
cluded unloading the rail cars and trucking the paper to
Melville. Since GLT Transportation and later Troiano
performed the trucking portion of this operation,4 7 the
fee received from Newsday had to be apportioned
among Pinter Warehouse and Troiano. With the excep-
44 In earlier questioning, the General Counsel questioned Robert
chronologically (from November 1977 through December 1978) about 16
named employees of GLT Transportation and later Troiano. Of these 16
employees (of all jobs classifications) II had been employed by Pinter at
one time. Following this, the General Counsel then questioned Robert
about all the employees listed on a "paysheet" of Troiano dated October
1. 1980. Of the 31 employees on this list, but not included in the earlier
questions of the General Counsel, only 3 had previously been employed
by Pinter. Unfortunately, it is not clear whether any or all of those listed
on the October 1, 1980, paysheet were employed by Robert and Joe Jr.
between November 1977 and December 1978. I therefore can make no
finding of the percentage of GLT Transportation and Troiano employees
through 1978 who had previously been employed by Pinter.
45 In the case of Cancellaro, when he was hired by Robert and Joe Jr.
in or about January 1978, he reestablished his former relationship with
the New Jersey customers he had while he was employed by Pinter prior
to April 1976, and acquired them as customers for Robert and Joe Jr.'s
operation.
46 This seems appropriate to the number of drivers employed by Pinter
in March 1976 compared with the number of drivers employed by
Troiano in February 1979.
4* Pinter Warehouse employees operate a machine that lifts the 2,000-
pound roll of paper from the rail car and places it in a Pinter trailer.
Troiano supplies the tractor and the driver and delivers the paper rolls to
Melville.
tion of a short period of time, Troiano has performed the
trucking portion of this work.
When Troiano began performing this work for Pinter
Warehouse they were paid $50 per trailer load. In Febru-
ary 1980, Pinter Warehouse requested and received a 14-
percent increase in its rate to Newsday; at that time
Troiano requested an increase, and Franklin increased
their rate to $75 per truck load. Shortly thereafter,
Franklin decided that Pinter Warehouse was not earning
enough on this Newsday work; he inquired of other
truckers who indicated that they would perform the
work for less than $75 per trailer load; when he informed
Robert and Joe Jr. of this, they refused to take less than
$75 per trailer load 48 and Franklin took the work from
Troiano and gave it to Pinter Warehouse's regular truck-
er 49 for $54 per trailer load. Shortly thereafter, Robert
and Joe Jr. met with Franklin and they agreed that they
would perform this Newsday work for $60 per trailer
load, and, since June 1980, Troiano has performed this
work at that rate.50
Prior to ceasing operations prior to the strike in April
1976, Pinter operated on a 24-hour-a-day basis on week-
days. Pinter employed approximately 80 drivers,5 ' a vast
majority of whom worked during a day. At night, other
employees loaded and unloaded the trucks. At the Long
Island terminal of GLT Transportation and Troiano, the
hours of work ranged from between 6 to 8 a.m. until 10
p.m.; drivers do the loading and unloading of their
trucks, with the assistance of some part-time employees.
At Pinter, Robert drove a truck only a couple of times a
month; at the beginning of the GLT Transportation
Long Island operation he and Joe Jr. drove every day; at
the present time they assist preparing the trucks on a
daily basis and drive about half the time. Troiano's rights
cover a broader geographic area than Pinter's rights.
Analysis
The 10(b) Defense
Section 10(b) of the Act provides "that no complaint
shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occur-
ring more than six months prior to the filing of the
charge with the Board .. . ." The earliest charge in this
matter was filed on November 6, 1978, approximately a
year after Robert and Joe Jr. began the Long Island of
GLT Transportation and more than 6 months after they
began operating under the Troiano name (but prior to
formally purchasing the Troiano stock). Without more, it
appears that this action would be barred by Section
10(b). However, the General Counsel sets forth the
4' Troiano justified this large increase by the increase in the cost of
fuel and the fact that deliveries were then being made during the day,
rather than nighttime, requiring them to obtain additional equipment.
49 Beginning prior to November 1977, and continuing to the present
time, Pinter Warehouse has used a local trucker for the transportation of
goods from its warehouse to the customer for whom the goods were
stored. This individual owned one tractor (the goods were delivered in
Pinter trailers) and was not related to the Pinter family.
so Franklin testified that he returned the work to Troiano for $60 per
trailer load, $6 per trailer load more than he was paying the regular
Pinter trucker, because that trucker was performing the work at night,
and he became unhappy with that arrangement.
5i At the present time, Troiano employs II or 12 drivers.
738
PINTER BROS., INC.
Board rule that the 6-month period does not begin to run
until the aggrieved party has received actual or construc-
tive notice of the conduct constituting the alleged unfair
labor practice. Counsel for Respondent Pinter, while ac-
knowledging that the 10(b) period is tolled until the
charging party has notice of the acts complained of, al-
leges that "the record amply demonstrates that Local
807 was on notice some ten months before the filing of
the charge."
In Metromedia, Inc. v. N.LR.B., 586 F.2d 1182 (8th
Cir. 1978), the court, affirming the Board, stated that the
6-month limitation period "does not begin to run until
the aggrieved party knew or should have known that his
statutory rights were violated." The Board, in Strick Cor-
poration, 241 NLRB 210, fn. 1 (1979), stated: "[N]otice,
whether actual or constructive, must be clear and un-
equivocal, and that the burden of showing such notice is
on the party raising the affirmative defense of Section
10 (b)."
I find that the allegations herein are not barred by Sec-
tion 10(b) for a number of reasons: as stated, supra, it is
Respondent's burden to establish that Local 807 knew, or
should have known, of the existence of GLT Transporta-
tion and Troiano earlier than November 6, 1978. An ad-
ditional factor herein is that since 1976 Pinter had been
leasing its tractors and trailers and, in all probability, in
some of these situations, the drivers for the lessees were
former drivers for Pinter, who were out of work since
April 1976 or May 1977. Under these circumstances it
was extremely difficult for Local 807 to determine that
Robert and Joe Jr. had commenced their own operation.
The strongest evidence for Respondent in this regard
is Cancellaro's testimony that he was approached by
Spera and Lenihan and asked why he was working for
Robert and Joe Jr. This occurred on two occasions, I
week apart, and, according to Cancellaro's testimony,
took place in or about February 1978. However, as clear
as this knowledge on the part of Local 807 is, it is in
regard to Robert and Joe Jr.'s operation of GLT Trans-
portation, not Troiano, which did not return to operation
until 2 months later. This is not helpful to Pinter, Retnip,
Pin-Bro, and Troiano because summary judgment was
granted as to Respondent GLT Transportation as it did
not file an answer herein (nor a 10(b) affirmative de-
fense) nor did it appear at the hearing.
What these respondents must prove herein, to accom-
plish more than an empty victory, is to establish that
Section 10(b) prevents the finding of any violations as to
Respondent Troiano. Robert and Joe Jr. began operating
under the Troiano name and rights on or about April 15,
1978; the first charge herein was filed on November 6,
1978. Therefore, only the first 3-week period of this
Troiano operation is outside the 10(b) period. The only
evidence presented of knowledge during this period was
Spera's conversation with Rommeney and four other
former Pinter employees at the Deer Park terminal who
informed Spera that they were working under Troiano
rights. However, the date of this conversation is too in-
definite to make a finding that it occurred prior to May
6, 1978. Additionally, it is not clear that, at that time,
Spera was an agent for Local 807, through whom
knowledge could be imputed; he was employed by a dif-
ferent company and it was not established that he was a
Local 807 shop steward at the time. I therefore find that
Respondents have not sustained the burden of establish-
ing that Section 10(b) is a valid defense to the allegations
against any respondent other than GLT Transportation.
Alter-Ego or Successor Status
An employer who is found to be a successor employer
is generally not bound by the terms and provisions of an
agreement between the predecessor employer and a
union, although there will be an obligation to bargain
with the union. N.L.R.B. v. The William J. Burns Inter-
national Detective Agency, Inc., 406 U.S. 272 (1972). How-
ever, an employer who is found to be an alter ego of an-
other employer is bound by an agreement between that
employer and a union. N.LR.B. v. Tricor Products, Inc.,
636 F.2d 266 (10th Cir. 1980).
In determining whether an alter ego relationship exists
there are no fixed rules; the Supreme Court stated in
Southport Petroleum Company v. N.L.R.B., 315 U.S. 100
(1942): Was there a true change in ownership and man-
agement, or "merely a disguised continuance of the old
employer." Brought home to the situation herein, the
issue is whether Robert and Joe Jr.'s operations (princi-
pally Troiano) were "merely a disguised continuance" of
the pre-1977 Pinter operation.
The Board set forth basic guidelines in this area in
Crawford Door Sales Company, Inc., 226 NLRB 1144
(1976): "Clearly, each case must turn on its own facts,
but generally we have found alter ego status where the
two enterprises have substantially identical management,
business purposes, operation, equipment, customers and
supervision, as well as ownership." Oftentimes, the
Board and courts also look to whether the discontinu-
ance of one, and the creation of the other company, was
really a sham performed in order to cease all obligations
to the union. Joe Costa Trucking Company; Edjo, Inc.,
d/b/a Joe Costa Trucking, 238 NLRB 1516 (1978);
McDonald's Ready-Mix Concrete and Jim's Ready Mix,
246 NLRB 152 (1979).
On the basis of all of the above, I find that Troiano is
not an alter ego of Pinter.5 2 Stated simply, I make the
finding because of the insufficient connections between
the Pinter operation and the Troiano operation.
Ownership: Robert and Joe Jr., who owns all of the
Troiano stock, were only two of the seven stockholders
of Pinter and owned less than 20 percent of the Pinter
stock; no other member of the Pinter family, other than
Joe Jr.'s wife, Mary Jane, has any ownership interest or
office in Troiano.
Operation: Pinter was, and Troiano is, primarily LTL
(less than truck load) carriers, and both cover approxi-
"2 I make a similar finding as to Retnip and Pin-Bro for much simpler
reasons; since its formation in December 1978, Retnip's business (the leas-
ing of tractors and trailers as Pinter Leasing) is substantially different
from that of Pinter prior to its shutdown; one was almost entirely a
trucking operation while the other is simply a truck leasing operation.
Similarly PinBro was formed to hold title to the rolling stock owned by
Robert and Joe, Jr.; there is no way to compare it to the Pinter operation
prior to the shutdown of operations. As summary judgment was granted
regarding GLT Transportation and Moon, they will not be discussed fur-
ther.
739
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mately the same geographical area, although Troiano's
rights are somewhat broader than Pinter's. Troiano's
office, and the only location it employs as a terminal, is
at the Deer Park terminal; this, of course, was also true
of Pinter. However, like other leasees of Pinter, Troiano
is allocated office space along with the doors it leases
from Pinter, and, as will be discussed, infra, the evidence
establishes that Troiano was given no preferential treat-
ment regarding these leases. The Troiano operation is
only between 10 to 20 percent as large as that of Pinter
prior to April 1976. Whereas Pinter employed a strict
separation of job classifications, at Troiano, drivers load
and unload the trucks, sometimes with the help of part-
time employees. While Pinter operated around the clock,
Troiano's hours are more limited. Pinter owned its own
rolling stock; Troiano leases its trailers. Finally, of the
customers of Troiano in February 1979, only 37 percent
had been customers of Pinter in early 1976.
Management and Labor Relations: The testimony was
clear that, at Pinter, Joe Sr. was "the boss." It is also
true that he made the major labor relations decisions
such as the decision to withdraw from associationwide
bargaining and the decision of May 2, 1977, to cease its
trucking operation.5" The testimony was also clear, how-
ever, that it was Robert who was responsible for the
day-to-day labor relations decisions at Pinter; he had the
physical daily presence on the docks, discussed problems
with Local 807, represented Pinter during negotiations
for a new collective-bargaining agreement to replace the
agreement that expired March 31, 1976, and, alone,
spoke to the employees on March 31, 1976, about the ne-
gotiations. Similarly, at Troiano, Robert was responsible
for labor relations decisions while Joe Jr. was in charge
of sales, as he had been at Pinter; in this regard, the
Pinter and Troiano operation were similar.
Equipment: This comparison is difficult because since
November 1977 Robert and Joe Jr. have leased rolling
stock almost entirely from Pinter, so that it has generally
used some of the same equipment that Pinter used, al-
though the truck rental agreements indicate that Troiano
generally leased the older equipment. Additionally, in
January 1978 and March 1979, Troiano purchased 13
tractors from Pinter in what I find to have been a good-
faith arm's-length transaction. Further, in mid-1978,
Robert and Joe Jr. (through Pin-Bro) purchased five
trucks and two automobiles from automobile dealers.
Therefore, at the present time, Troiano is operating these
18 tractors that it owns, and is generally leasing only
trailers from Pinter.
Supervision: The record testimony is insufficient to de-
termine whether the supervision at Troiano was substan-
tially identical to that at Pinter.
s" I find that this decision was substantially influenced by Joe Sr.'s
ever increasing distaste for Local 807. Admittedly, the arbitration was a
factor in his decision; this is well illustrated by his decision to cease
trucking operations on the day the three employees returned. Additional-
ly, I find that the Labor Board matter involving Pinter's clerical employ-
ees, together with the reluctance of Local 807 to allow Pinter to bargain
on an individual basis, also contributed to the decision he made to discon-
tinue the Pinter trucking operation. Of course this, by itself, does not vio-
late the Act. Textile Workers Union of America v. Darlington Manufactur-
ing Co et at, 380 U.S. 263 (1965).
In addition to the above there were areas of interac-
tion between Robert and Joe Jr. and Pinter that must be
examined in determining whether an alter ego relation-
ship exists here.
Equipment Leasing: It is true that Pinter did not enter
into any formal truck rental agreement with Robert and
Joe Jr. until 5 months after they commenced the leasing
of rolling stock from Pinter; it is also true that Robert
and Joe Jr. were quite slow in their payments to Pinter
for the leasing of the rolling stock and that on November
30, 1978, they were indebted to Pinter in the amount of
$28,871. However, on the same date, Wilson was indebt-
ed to Pinter in the amount of $30,000. Furthermore, as
best as I can determine from the record evidence, Robert
and Joe Jr. (as both GLT Transportation and Troiano)
received no special treatment in the truck rental rate
they paid (for tractors, trucks, and trailers) compared to
other comparable customers of Pinter.
Door Leasing: As was true for the equipment leasing,
Robert and Joe Jr. quickly fell behind in their payments
to Pinter Realty for the leasing of doors; by June 1978,
when Robert and Joe Jr. sent their first payment of
$2,969 to Pinter Realty since their only other payment
($400 in December 1977), they were indebted to Pinter
Realty in the amount of $9,500 (if you assume that they
leased five doors in January 1978). By late 1978, Troiano
was 2 or 3 months behind in its door payments and by
December 1979 they were 8 months behind in their pay-
ments. In addition, at the time that Troiano paid Pinter
$18,000 in mid-December 1979, they owed an amount of
almost $50,000 for door leasing (if you assume that the
door billings from January through July 1979 remained
the same through December 1979). Although this is cer-
tainly a large debt to be incurred by a customer of only
short duration, I have credited Franklin's testimony that
other tenants were often months behind in their pay-
ments and I therefore will make no positive findings of
alter ego status based upon this.5 4 As was true with its
truck leasing operation, Pinter did not grant preferential
treatment, overall, to Troiano in its door leasing oper-
ation; although Troiano did not pay any security deposit
to Pinter, and although its leases did not bind it to a set
number or location of doors, its rental fee per door was
often from $5 to $15 higher per month than other com-
parable tenants.
January 25, 1978, Auction: Any advantages that Robert
and Joe Jr. enjoyed regarding the January 25, 1978, auc-
tion are so insubstantial to the issue herein as to be
barely worth mentioning. Robert assisted in choosing the
rolling stock to be auctioned, 55 spent 10 to 20 hours as-
"4 A difficult question, and one that I find unnecessary to decide
herein, is: Absent a definitive finding that an operation was closed and a
new, and somewhat different, one was commenced to avoid the former
employer's obligation to a union, can it be found that the new operation
(the sons) is an alter ego to the old operation (the father) simply because
of substantial preferential treatment given by the father to his sons. I need
not decide this issue, because I find insubstantial preferential treatment by
Pinter to Troiuno and OLT Transportation. But, in such a situation,
should a finding of alter ego be made simply because a father wished to
grant certain favors to his sons that he did not grant his other customers?
"s As the auction agreement was executed on October 24, 1977, this
occurred, in all probability, while he was still employed by, and an offi-
cer for, Pinter, and prior to his involvement with GLT Transportation.
740
PINTER BROS., INC.
sisting Pinter's maintenance employees in preparing the
rolling stock for the auction, and he and Joe Jr. had a
stand-in bid for them at the auction; although they paid
no deposit, as the announcement stated would be re-
quired, they paid the full amount (although not by certi-
fied check) 9 days later. There being no evidence of any
collusion between Robert and Joe Jr. and Gray, these
facts are of no assistance to the General Counsel in the
findings he desires.
I would also find of little significance the fact that Pin-
Bro could not take possession of four of these eight trac-
tors purchased at the auction until May 1978 or that
these tractors were not registered or insured until May
1978. In this regard, there is no evidence of any collusion
between Robert and Joe Jr. and Pinter in the use of the
expired Pinter licenses for these tractors, or the late li-
censing or insuring of these vehicles. The record of their
payments to Pinter during this period supports Robert's
testimony that they were short of cash, at the time, and
"took the chance."
Additionally elicited by the General Counsel was that
for the period October 29, 1977, through January 31,
1978, Robert and Joe Jr. prepared/and or signed 154
truck rental agreements for Pinter. I attach no signifi-
cance to this as regards the General Counsel's attempt to
establish an alter ego relationship; prior to that date, Joe
Jr. had prepared a vast majority of these agreements; he
and Robert knew the customers and assisted Pinter in
preparing these agreements, which constituted 40 percent
of the truck rental agreements prepared during that
period. For the following 9 months the agreements pre-
pared by Robert and Joe Jr. constituted about 2 percent
of those prepared. It is not unreasonable to assume that
by that time Pinter's employees had acquired enough ex-
perience with the operation to perform it without the as-
sistance of Robert and Joe Jr. The fact that they assisted
Pinter for this 3-month period has no relationship to an
allegation of alter ego between them and Pinter.
I also attach little or no significance to the following
elicited evidence, and will discuss them no further
herein:
(a) The involvement of Robert, Joe Jr., and Franklin
in Imperial and the cancellation by Pinter of Imperial's
debt to it.
(b) The fact that it was not until 2 months after the
resignations of Robert and Joe Jr. that a new corporate
bank resolution was instituted for Pinter.
(c) That Robert and Joe Jr. together with their broth-
ers and sister and/or parents are equal shareholders or
partners in the family companies, one of which pays divi-
dends.
(d) GLT Transportation's use of Pinter pros in Febru-
ary 1978.
(e) The work performed jointly by Troiano and Pinter
for Newsday. 56
In summary, although I have found that a substantial
reason for Joe Sr.'s decision to discontinue Pinter's
trucking operation was due to his increasing unhappiness
with Local 807, there is no evidence that the entry of
Robert and Joe Jr. into their own trucking business was
i6 Glengarry Contracting Industries Inc., 258 NLRB 1167 (1981).
the finale of the families' orchestrated attempt to rid
itself of Local 807. Rather, it seems reasonable to assume
that since their family had been in the trucking business
all their lives, and they had worked regularly for the
business since they were old enough to do so, they
wanted to go into the only business they knew-truck-
ing. That their family name worked to their advantage in
their dealings with customers and others (such as the
Long Island Trust Company in obtaining their numerous
loans) does not create an alter ego. A finding of alter ego
status, based on the facts herein, would discriminate
against, and severely limit, the occupation individuals
could enter, based solely on familial relationships. United
Constructors and Goodwin Construction Company, 233
NLRB 904 (1977), involved a somewhat analogous situa-
tion. Two brothers were equal partners in Goodwin
Construction, a general construction company whose
employees were represented by a union. These two
brothers later established United Construction, also in-
volved in general construction but with no union. United
was an equal partnership of the two brothers who cre-
ated it, together with their five sons. The two reasons for
establishing United was to establish a business for their
sons, and "that there was a definite market for an open
shop contractor . . ." who could bid competitively with
nonunion contractors, which Goodwin had been unable
to do. Although this would appear to be a stronger can-
didate for alter ego status than Pinter and Troiano, the
Board found that Goodwin and United were not alter
egos. 5 7
I would likewise find that Troiano is not a successor
of Pinter. It has long been held by the Board that wheth-
er a successorship exists turns on whether the former em-
ploying enterprise has been substantially continued in ex-
istence by the new owner. Mason City Dressed Beef Inc.,
231 NLRB 735 (1977). One important consideration in
this is whether a majority of the former employer's em-
ployees have been hired by the new employer. Burns,
supra. The record herein indicates that a majority of the
employees hired by Robert and Joe Jr. in their oper-
ations had not been previously employed by Pinter; in
addition, it appears that there were a number of similari-
ties and differences between their operations and Pinter's
operation prior to May 1977. However, I find it unneces-
sary to discuss these similarities and differences in oper-
ation, because in the situation herein, I find that Troiano
cannot be a successor to Pinter. Successor cases general-
ly speak of "purchasing" companies or companies assum-
ing the operation of other companies. That is not the sit-
uation herein, but rather is more in line with Co-Op
Trucking Company, and C & E Warehouse, Inc., and S d
S Trucking Co., a partnership Inc., 209 NLRB 829 (1974).
Robert and Joe Jr. began their own business; they did
not purchase the stock, assets, or rights of Pinter; they
leased rolling stock and doors and purchased tractors
from Pinter, but at or about the same terms as everybody
else. A majority of their customers had never been
17 In United Constructors. supra, as is true herein, United maintained its
principal office in the same building as Goodwin, for which it paid rent
to Goodwin and leased some of the equipment it required from Goodwin
at standard rates.
741
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pinter customers. Basically, they did what anybody else
could have done, and, in this situation, I would find no
successorship even if a majority of their employees had
been former Pinter employees.
At the hearing, the General Counsel indicated that he
might attempt to establish a successorship in another
manner, by establishing that Robert and Joe Jr. created
the successorship obligation because they refused to hire
former Pinter employees, in order to avoid this obliga-
tion. If this were so, two violations would be estab-
lished-a violation of Section 8(aX3) for purposely refus-
ing to hire former employees of the predecessor who be-
longed to the union, Burns supra, fn 8; Howard Johnson
Co., Inc. v. Detroit Local Joint Board, Hotel & Restaurant
Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO,
417 U.S. 249, fn. 8 (1974); Macomb Block and Supply,
Inc., 223 NLRB 1285 (1976), and a violation of Section
8(aX5) by engaging in this activity in order to avoid a
successorship obligation, where the other requisite ele-
ments of successorship are present, C.J.B. Industries, 250
NLRB 1433 (1980). Suffice it to say that there is no
record evidence whatsoever to establish either of these
violations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents Pinter Bros., Inc., Troiano Express
Co., Inc., Retnip Corp., and GLT Transportation Lines,
Inc., a/k/a Moon Transportation, Inc., are each employ-
ers within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. Pin-Bro Leasing, Inc., is not an employer within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
3. Local 807 and Local 88 are each labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. Respondents Pinter, Troiano, Retnip, and Pin-Bro
have each not engaged in any conduct in violation of the
Act as alleged herein.
5. As summary judgment was granted as to Respond-
ent GLT Transportation, said GLT Transportation vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), and (5) by:
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
Local 807 in the appropriate unit described below.
(b) Failing and refusing to give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement entered into by Pinter and Local
807, and effective December 6, 1976, through March 31,
1979.
(c) Executing a collective-bargaining agreement with
Local 88, on or about February 1, 1977, covering a unit
of all employees excluding office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
(d) Failing and refusing, since on or about November
3, 1977, to recall to employment employees who were
laid off by Pinter when it ceased trucking operations on
or about May 2, 1977.
6. The appropriate unit referred to above in subpara-
graph (a) is all tractor trailer drivers, straight truck driv-
ers, hi-lo operators, helpers, platform men, checkers and
warehousemen employed by the employer, exclusive of
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that GLT Transportation has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that
it be required to cease and desist therefrom. In addition,
I recommend that GLT Transportation be ordered to
take the following affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request, to recognize and bargain with Local
807 in the appropriate unit described above, and, if a col-
lective-bargaining agreement is reached as a result of said
bargaining, to execute the agreement.
(b) To recall to employment employees who were laid
off by Pinter when it ceased its trucking operation on or
about May 2, 1977. If positions do not exist, said employ-
ees are to be offered substantially equivalent jobs, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges. Additionally, said employees are to be made whole
by GLT Transportation for any loss of earnings suffered
as a result of the refusal by GLT Transportation to recall
them to employment, by payment of a sum equal to what
they each would have earned, absent the discrimination,
with backpay and interest computed in accordance with
F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and
Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
Upon the foregoing findings of facts, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER5 8
The Respondent, GLT Transportation Lines, Inc.,
a/k/a Moon Transportation Corp., Jersey City, New
Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
Local 807 in the appropriate unit described below.
(b) Failing and refusing to give effect to the collective-
bargaining agreement entered into by Pinter and Local
807, and effective December 6, 1976, through March 31,
1979.
(c) Entering into or giving any force or effect to the
collective-bargaining agreements executed on February
1, 1977, or thereafter with Local 88, covering a unit of
all employees, excluding office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors within the meaning of the Act,
until said Union has been certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of said employees.
(d) Failing and refusing to recall to employment em-
ployees who were laid off by Pinter when it ceased
trucking operations on or about May 2, 1977.
s8 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
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, a 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 for all purposes.
742
PINTER BROS., INC.
The appropriate unit herein, and that which is referred
to above in subparagraph (a), is all tractor trailer drivers,
straight truck drivers, hi-lo operators, helpers, platform
men, checkers and warehousemen employed by the Em-
ployer, exclusive of office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Recognize and, upon request, bargain with Local
807 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of its employees in the bargaining unit set forth above,
with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment and, if an agreement is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Recall to employment the employees who were
laid off by Pinter when it ceased their trucking oper-
ations, and make them whole for any loss they may have
suffered, as set forth above in the section entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Post at its Jersey City, New Jersey, location copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 9 Copies of
said notice, on forms furnished by the Regional Director
for Region 29, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the consolidated
complaint herein be dismissed insofar as it alleges viola-
tions of the Act by Respondents Pinter, Retnip, Pin-Bro,
and Troiano.
st In the event that 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 Pursu-
ant 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 RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to give effect to the
collective-bargaining agreement entered into by
Pinter Bros., Inc., and Local 807, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warheouse-
men and Helpers of America, effective December 6,
1976, through March 31, 1979.
WE WILL NOT recognize or enter into any collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with Amalgamated
Workers Union, Local 88, Retail, Wholesale and
Department Store Union, nor give effect to any col-
lective-bargaining agreement we entered into with
Local 88 on February 1, 1977, or thereafter, cover-
ing a unit of all employees, excluding office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act unless and until Local 88 has been
certified as the representative of said employees by
the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL recognize and, upon request, bargain
with Local 807 in the appropriate unit described
below, and, if a collective-bargaining agreement is
reached as a result of said bargaining, execute said
agreement.
WE WfLL offer to recall to employment those
employees who were laid off by Pinter Bros., Inc.,
on or about May 2, 1977, when they ceased their
trucking operation, and WE WILL make said em-
ployees whole, with interest, for any loss they may
have suffered because of our earlier failure to offer
to recall or reinstate them. The appropriate unit
herein is:
All tractor-trailer drivers, straight truck drivers,
hi-lo operators, helpers, platform men, checkers
and warehousemen exclusive of office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
GLT TRANSPORTATION LINES, INC.,
A/K/A MOON TRANSPORTATION, INC.
743