Sawgrass Auto Mall

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 30, 2008

12-CA-025466 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 30, 2008)

JD(ATL)-11-08
Miami, FL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
MORSE OPERATIONS, INC. d/b/a
SAWGRASS AUTO MALL and
d/b/a ED MORSE CHEVROLET
and CASES 12-CA-25466
12-CA-25478
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION 12-CA-25493
OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE 12-CA-25674
WORKERS, AFL-CIO
and
CRAIG ROBINSON, an Individual
Nicholas Ohanesian, Esq. and Marinelly Maldonado,
Esq., for the Government.1
Jeffery M. Smith., Grand Lodge Representative,
for the Union.2
Stuart A. Rosenfeldt, Esq., and Todd I. Stone, Esq.
for the Company.3
DECISION
Statement of the Case
WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This is a wrongful discharge
and interference with employee rights case. I heard these cases in trial in Miami, Florida, on
March 3 and 4, 2008. These cases originate from charges filed by International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, USA-CIO (Union) between June and December,
2007. The prosecution of these cases was formalized on February 8, 2008, when the
Regional Director for Region 12 of the National Labor Relations Board (Board), acting in the
name of the Board’s General Counsel, issued an Order Further Consolidating Cases,
Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing (Complaint) against the Company.
The Complaint alleges the Company, at various times during the months of June and
July 2007, interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights

1 I shall refer to Counsel for General Counsel as Counsel for the Government or Government.
2 I shall refer to the Representative for the Charging Party as Union Representative or the Union.
3 I shall refer to Counsel for the Company as Counsel for the Company or Company.
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 2 -
guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, (Act) thus
violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Specifically during specified times it is alleged the
Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by its supervisors and/or agents: interrogating
employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies; created an impression
among its employees their union activities were under surveillance; threatened and impliedly 5
threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals; threatened its employees with discharge;
and, told an employee he could not be rehired because of his union activities. It is also
specifically alleged the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by on or about
June 27, 2007, discharging and thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate its employee Craig
Robinson (Robinson) because he joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted 10
activities and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.
The Company, in a timely filed answer to the complaint, denied having violated the
Act in any manner alleged in the complaint.
15
The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. I carefully observed the
demeanor of the witnesses as they testified. I have studied the whole record,4 the post trial
briefs, and the authorities cited therein. Based on more detailed findings and analysis below,
I conclude and find the Company violated the Act substantially as alleged in the complaint.20
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction, Labor Organization Status, and Supervisor/Agency Status
25
The Company is a Florida corporation with offices and places of business located at
2677 Northlake Boulevard, North Palm Beach, Florida (Ed Morse Chevrolet) and at 14401
West Sunrise Boulevard, Sunrise, Florida, (Sawgrass Auto Mall) where it is, and has been,
engaged in the business of the sale of new and used vehicles and the service and repair of
vehicles. During the twelve months ending February 8, 2008, a representative period, the 30
Company derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000. During the same time period the
Company purchased and received at its above described locations goods and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Florida. The evidence
establishes, the parties admit, and I find, the Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.35
The parties admit, and I find, the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
It is admitted that Sawgrass Auto Mall General Manager Harry Astor (General 40
Manager Astor), Sawgrass Auto Mall Director of Fixed Operations Mike Byrne (Operations
Director Byrne), Sawgrass Auto Mall Service Director John Myers (Service Director Myers),
Sawgrass Auto Mall Technical Service Manager David Quenzer (Technical Service Manager
Quenzer), and Ed Morse Chevrolet Service Manager Daniel P. Leatherman (Chevrolet

4 The Government’s unopposed Motion to Correct the transcript, as set forth in Judge’s Exhibit 1, is
hereby granted.
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 3 -
Service Manager Leatherman) are supervisors and agents of the Company within the
meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
5
A. Facts
1. Government’s Evidence
The events herein arise in the context of an organizing campaign by the Union at the 10
Company during the summer of 2007. The Representation Petition filed by the Union (Case
12-RC-9262) was, for example, served on the Company via fax on June 19, 2007, and
Operations Director Byrne gave a campaign speech to an assembled group of service
technicians in the Company’s lunch room on June 28, 2007. The divisions of the Company
at focus in these proceedings are the Service and Parts Departments which are sometimes15
collectively referred to as the Fixed Operations division of the business. These departments
are supervised by Operations Director Byrne. Parts Manager Joe Benitez, Service Director
Myers and Technical Service Manager Quenzer all report to Operations Director Byrne.
Service Director Myers supervises all employees coming in contact with customers of the
Company related to services such as; service advisors, drivers, porters and cashiers. 20
Technical Service Manager Quenzer, on the other hand, supervises all employees that
actually perform repairs on the vehicles. Operations Director Byrne has under his overall
supervision approximately 60 employees 22 to 24 of which are service technicians in the
Service Department.
25
Service Technician Robinson, who started with the Company in July 2005, was
discharged on June 27, 2007. During his employment he was essentially the only service
technician performing the heavy line work of repairing and overhauling transmissions.
Robinson reported to Technical Service Manager Quenzer. Overall Robinson has 30 years of
technician experience, is school trained, and has received various Mark of Excellence service 30
awards from General Motors.
Robinson was the technician who contacted Union Organizer David Porter on June
11, 2007, to ascertain what a union could and could not do for the technicians at the
Company. According to Robinson, Union Organizer Porter told him if he “was serious about 35
starting a union … [he] should get a group of ten trust members together” and then he,
Porter, would meet with them. Robinson explained “trust members” were employees he
could trust not to leak information regarding their attempts at starting a union at the
Company. Robinson prepared invitations to a party at his home for 6 p.m. on June 14, 2007.
He distributed the invitations at work on June 14 by placing them on employee tool boxes 40
and handing them out in the parking lot. The invitations made no mention of the Union. Ten
technicians attended Robinson’s home meeting where Union organizer Porte explained what
the Union could and could not do for the employees and what their rights were.
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 4 -
Robinson asked technicians the next day, June 15, 2007, in the parking lots, on
breaks, and around their tool boxes to sign cards for the Union. As noted above, the Union
thereafter on June 19, 2007, filed with the Board a representation petition for the employees.
On June 20, 2007, at around 2 or 3 p.m., Robinson and fellow technician Kevin Rose 5
took a work break together in the employee parking lot where the two of them observed what
they described as incoming stormy weather. According to both technicians, General
Manager Astor and Operations Director Byrne approached and greetings were exchanged.
Robinson and Rose testified General Manage Astor asked Robinson how the leader of the
rebel gang was doing today. Robinson responded, fine. General Manager Astor then made 10
some mention of safety glasses and he and Operations Director Byrne left the area. Robinson
testified Rose told him “you just got licked.” Robinson asked Rose what he meant and Rose
told him, “you were just tagged the Union leader.” Rose said the meeting lasted for
approximately 3 to 5 minutes and although others may have passed by in the parking lot, the
conversation only involved the four of them.15
Robinson was called to Operations Director Byrne’s office at around 8 a.m. on June
27, 2007, where he met with Byrne and Warranty Administrator Maryanne Rayot.
According to Robinson, Operations Director Byrne showed him three invoices and talked,
among other things, about work claimed and transmission fluid charged.20
On the first invoice, Byrne asked Robinson why he always charged for 16 quarts of
transmission fluid on every transmission overhaul. Robinson explained it took 10 to 12
quarts for the transmission refill after overhaul and five to eight quarts for the flush flow
machine procedure.25
Robinson said the automatic transmission flush flow machine worked to flush metal
and debris from the system. The process involves attaching hoses to the flush flow machine
and the repaired transmission to flush and back flush the system by expelling fluid into the
cooler where it is cleaned of debris. It takes approximately 30 seconds to perform the flush 30
and back flush procedure and then a flow test is run for 15 to 20 seconds to ascertain if the
cooler is actually good or not. Robinson explained that in performing this flush flow
machine procedure, five to eight quarts of transmission fluid are needed.
Former Company automotive technician for heavy engine repairs and back up 35
transmission repairs James Norton testified he currently teaches automobile repair at
Broward Community College. Norton worked with Robinson at the Company and after
Robinson was discharged, he (Norton) became the transmission repair technician at the
Company. Norton testified that the amount of transmission fluid needed for a transmission
overhaul and a flush would depend on each individual application but on average most 40
transmissions held between nine and 12 quarts and in a transmission flush six to eight quarts
were needed. Norton testified that four gallons of transmission fluid for a transmission
overhaul and flush would not be excessive. Norton testified he kept transmission fluid in his
work area and from time-to-time would have 10 to 12 gallons in his work area. Norton
explained he kept it on top of his tool box, on the work bench, on the floor or anywhere else 45
he could find space to store it. Norton stated that sometime in July, he was told he could no
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 5 -
longer store transmission fluid in his work area but prior to that he had been so allowed.
According to Norton, transmission fluid came in one gallon containers but after he became
the transmission technician, the Company went to an overhead reel system for fluids.
Robinson testified the second invoice Operations Director Byrne discussed with him 5
related to punch times which were not consistent with work performed or time charged for
the work. Robinson believed the punch time on the invoice was for 7 hours and he thought
he was paid for 10 hours on the invoice. Robinson could not understand exactly what Byrne
was talking about; however; he believed Byrne did not think he had punched off and back on
long enough after receiving a part or for starts and stops.10
Robinson explained that when a technician starts work on a vehicle, the technician
punches a ticket for that vehicle to prove he is working on the vehicle. If the technician stops
working on the vehicle for lunch or to wait for parts, the technician punches out on the ticket
for that vehicle. Robinson explained that in following the process over 30 years with General 15
Motors “just because you clock it on for a set amount of time doesn’t mean you have to be
working on that vehicle for that whole time. If you’re clocking on for 60 percent of the time,
that’s okay, and that’s what I did.”
The third invoice Operations Director Byrne discussed with Robinson involved two 20
separate repair orders. The first repair order was for a transmission overhaul and an
alignment. Byrne told Robinson it looked like the alignment sheet had been altered.
Robinson agreed but said he had not done the alignment that it had been performed, he
believed, by automotive technician David Ranier.
25
Robinson again explained that when more than one repair is listed for a vehicle, he
would complete, for example, the transmission repairs and then take the keys to the vehicle
and the repair order to, for example, the alignment technician. The alignment technician
would perform the alignment and return the vehicle to the parking lot and return the
paperwork to Robinson. Robinson would then take the paperwork along with the vehicle 30
keys to the service or warranty writer explaining what had been performed on the vehicle and
by whom. Robinson said he would not actually see the invoices or what the clerks entered
into computers that generated invoices.
Robinson testified the second separate repair order on the third invoice he was shown 35
was again for an alignment repair with a date two weeks before the time Robinson had
repaired the transmission. Operations Director Byrne told Robinson he was paid for the
alignment. Robinson protested telling Byrne he did not even know how to perform an
alignment that he didn’t have a “clue” even how to work the machine.
40
Robinson testified Operations Director Byrne told him that because he got paid for
the alignment they were going to “separate” him. Robinson asked what he meant and then
asked “did you just fire me?” Byrne said, yes. Robinson said he was shocked and looked
over at Maryanne Rayot and “the look on her face was total shock.”
45
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 6 -
Robinson left the meeting with Operations Director Byrne, “packed all my tools,
rented a van, a moving van, and called a tow truck and they carted everything away.”
Robinson’s immediate supervisor, Technical Service Manager Quenzer, stayed with
Robinson until he got his equipment and left Company property.
5
Sometime after June 27, 2007, but before July 9, 2007, Robinson telephoned
Chevrolet Service Manager Leatherman and asked if he needed any technicians. Robinson
testified Leatherman told him, “yeah,” and said, “I’d hire you in a second, you know, come
on down.” Robinson said he went to Ed Morse Chevrolet on July 9, 2007, and while looking
for a parking place saw Chevrolet Service Manager Leatherman coming out of the shop and 10
waved at him. Leatherman came over to Robinson’s car where they talked as Leatherman
leaned into the car window. Robinson asked about employment and testified Leatherman
“… apologized to me, and he says, man, I’m sorry, I can’t hire you. Ed Morse has
blackballed you because of your union activity. And I said really? And he said yeah, I’m
sorry. So that was about all that was said and, of course, I was mad, and I drove off in a 15
huff.” Robinson said he nevertheless left an employment resume with Leatherman before
driving away.
Five-year Company employee service technician Christopher Oland testified he had a
conversation with Service Director Myers in the middle of the Sawgrass Auto Mall shop 20
service area sometime in July 2007. Oland could not recall how the conversation got started
but added, “somehow the Union popped up” and Myers asked “if I went to one of the
meetings.” Oland told Myers he did not go to any of the meetings because no one told him
about them. Oland recalled telling Myers he was not going to vote and he was against it.
Oland said Myers encouraged him to vote but added he could not tell Oland how to vote. 25
Oland told Myers he just wanted to be left alone he just wanted to do his job.
On June 28, 2007, Operations Director Byrne delivered a campaign speech in the
lunchroom of the Company to an assembled group of automotive technicians. The speech
follows:30
As David mentioned in the beginning of this meeting, we are now
engaged in a campaign so that you can decide whether or not you will be
represented by a Labor Union. I feel strongly that you would be making a big
mistake by voting for a Union to represent you in your employment 35
relationship with the Company. I have worked for many car dealerships
during my career, and I have never experienced one more employee-friendly
than Ed Morse Auto Mall. You are paid well, treated fairly and given every
consideration to make your workplace comfortable and supportive. For
instance, we are not required to spend over a $100,000.00 to install the giant 40
fans in the service area. We did it because some of you came to us and
complained about the heat. Additionally, when we installed the new carwash,
we did not limit it to customer cars; we permitted you to have free use of the
carwash for your personal vehicles.
45
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 7 -
We have a family atmosphere at Ed Morse Auto Mall. As part of our
family, you are treated with consideration and respect. This is the only
dealership I have ever worked for that has a 401-K pension plan and matches
your contributions. This is the only dealership that I have ever worked at
where all employees share in the dealership rewards for having a good CSI 5
score. Many of you received checks for as much as $1,800.00 when we got
our last rating. In addition, we had a family barbeque and applauded
ourselves, both management and employees, for a job well done, because the
Company recognizes your good work and that you are a part of whatever the
Company achieves. Other dealerships where I have worked did not even tell 10
their employees that the dealership would receive CSI money, let alone share
it with them or recognize their contributions.
If you were represented by a Union, we would not be able to simply
meet with you and discuss your concerns; we would have to meet with 15
outsiders who are not part of our family. I received the petition filed by the
Union, and I noticed that it was signed by someone from Texas and someone
from Maryland. It is the International Union that is attempting to organize
you; not a Local Union. Do you really think that, once they got your dues
money, this Union is going to give a hoot about 26 guys located hundreds or 20
even thousands of miles away?
While ultimately, the law gives you the choice of whether or not you want to
be represented by a Union, I truly believe that you would be making a serious
mistake by agreeing to have them represent you. I am afraid that this 25
interference by an outside stranger could change our family relationship
forever, and we would lose the closeness that I know I have come to enjoy at
Sawgrass Auto Mall. I hope that you have enjoyed it, too, and that you will
vote to maintain that family closeness by VOTING NO to the Union.
30
Broward County, Florida, automotive teacher and former Company automotive
technician Andrew Thomas Smith visited Robinson’s home on a couple of occasions and
attended a meeting for the Union at Robinson’s home in mid-June 2007. Smith testified he
thereafter sought, and obtained, a meeting with Operations Director Byrne in Byrne’s office
on June 30, 2007, because it had been brought to his attention that morning that he was being 35
viewed as an organizer for the Union. Technical Service Manager Quenzer was also present
for the meeting. Smith testified:
Well, I mean basically, I confronted them about what I had heard that
morning. I wanted a clarification on that. I said if that was the case, then I 40
would – you know, if they were looking at me, then I would just start looking
for another job, and I said to him [Byrne] now I had been to a couple of the
meetings, but then when Craig [Robinson] got fired for organizing, it had the
desired effect on me, and it basically scared me away. I couldn’t afford to
lose my job at that time.45
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 8 -
Smith said Byrne made no response to his comments and Quenzer did not speak during the
meeting.
Smith testified he was asked by either Operations Director Byrne or Technical
Service Manager Quenzer to come to Byrne’s office the afternoon of July 18, 2007. Smith 5
said they exchanged pleasantries and Byrne asked how things were going with his wife and
how they were dealing with “an immigration issue” on going at the time. According to
Smith, Operations Director Byrne stated he had worked in a union shop and when a union
was involved “we wouldn’t have the same type relationship that we had … at that time.”
Smith explained he had worked in a union shop in England where he did his apprenticeship 10
and that was not his experience that management worked with their unionized technicians
and it did not affect their relationship at all. Smith testified Byrne:
Stated that a vote for the Union would be a personal attack or you know,
would be taken as a personal attack against him. And I said that that 15
definitely wasn’t the case and, you know, hoped that he wouldn’t look at it
that way. It was more a reflection on corporate policies as opposed to him
personally.
Smith testified Byrne told him the corporation would not view it that way. The conversation 20
ended and Smith left Byrne’s office.
2. Company’s Evidence
Operations Director Byrne testified he learned from a General Motors factory 25
representative on May 28, 2007, that an auditor would be visiting all dealerships, not just the
Company herein, to audit files on vehicles that had been repurchased or bought back by the
manufacturer to identify if there were reasons the manufacturer could have avoided having to
repurchase or buy back the vehicles. Byrne was told the audit would take place within two
weeks. Byrne, who had never experienced a manufacturer audit before, decided, along with 30
Technical Service Manager Quenzer, to do a walk through inspection of the service
department that day.
During their walk through, Byrne discovered 10 to 12 unopened gallon containers of
automatic transmission fluid in Automotive Technician Robinson’s repair bay area. 35
Operations Director Byrne said if a General Motors auditor had found the transmission fluid,
the auditor would have gone through two years of previous transmission warranty claims and
have made charge backs against the Company for all warranty repairs on transmissions
where excess transmission fluid had been requested, billed for, but not used. Byrne
estimated charge backs could have cost the Company tens of thousands of dollars.40
Byrne did not immediately confront Robinson about the transmission fluid nor did he
return the transmission fluid to the parts department, but, rather conducted an investigation of
his discovery.
45
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 9 -
Operations Director Byrne noticed on or about June 4 or 5, 2007, the 10 to 12 gallons
of transmission fluid was no longer in Robinson’s repair bay area. Byrne checked and the
transmission fluid had not been returned to inventory. Byrne still did not speak with
Robinson regarding the whereabouts of the fluid but rather pulled all of Robinson’s repair
orders from the previous 30 days. Byrne also asked Warranty Administrator Maryanne 5
Rayot to start personally giving him all transmission repair orders that came across her desk.
Byrne said he discovered Robinson consistently billed for four gallons of transmission fluid
for each repair job which, according to Byrne, was one to one and a half gallons too much.
Operations Director Byrne did not tell the auditor what he uncovered about Robinson 10
and the transmission fluid when the auditor commenced his investigation at the Company on
June 13, 2007. The auditor’s concern related to whether everything was being done before
repurchases or buy backs of automobiles under warranty was accomplished. The auditor
found no fault with Robinson’s work as it related to the purpose of the auditor’s
investigation.15
Byrne continued his personal investigation of Robinson over a 2-week period and
randomly selected three repair orders that raised concerns. Operations Director Byrne
discussed his concerns related to the three repair orders with General Manager Astor on June
18, 2007. Byrne testified, “I explained to [General Manager Astor] the investigation that I 20
had performed and the findings that I had, and I recommended termination [of Robinson].”
General Manager Astor told Operations Director Byrne to terminate Robinson if he was
comfortable with the supporting documentation. Byrne said his recommendation to terminate
Robinson was specifically based on warranty fraud, namely charging and being paid for work
not performed and for products ordered but not used. More specifically, Byrne said 25
Robinson was terminated for “transmission fluid billed out and not used.”
Byrne indicated, in his pre-trial Board affidavit, that he and General Manager Astor
decided on June 18 that Robinson would be terminated on June 22, 2007. Byrne indicated in
his pre-trial affidavit that he was faxed a copy of the Union petition on June 20, 2007. 30
Operations Director Byrne indicated that after a discussion with General Manager Astor
reference the petition, they decided to put Robinson’s termination on hold and sought legal
advice. It was thereafter decided Robinson would be terminated on June 27, 2007. In his
pre-trial Board affidavit, Byrne indicated he notified Robinson’s immediate Supervisor,
Technical Service Manager Quenzer, on the evening of June 26, 2007, that Robinson would 35
be terminated the next day. Byrne, in his pre-trial affidavit, indicated he asked Warranty
Administrator Rayot the night of June 26, 2007, to be a witness at the termination of
Robinson the next morning. According to Byrne, Rayot never spoke during the meeting that
she was there to observe only.
40
Operations Director Byrne along with Warranty Administrator Rayot met with
Robinson on June 27, 2007, to discuss the three invoices and the surplus of transmission
fluid. Byrne testified he explained to Robinson his investigation revealed Robinson was
billing a gallon and a half too much transmission fluid on each of his repair orders. Byrne
said Robinson explained he flushed the transmission coolers which accounted for the fluid to 45
which Byrne stated “you use a gallon and a half to flush the transmission cooler, and his
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 10 -
response was, no, you’re right, I probably bill out two quarts more than I use. So that’s when
I said there was no further investigation.” According to Byrne, Robinson was immediately
terminated.
Warranty Administrator Maryanne Rayot testified she attended, as a witness, the June 5
27, 2007, termination meeting with Operations Director Byrne and Robinson. Rayot’s brief
testimony in pertinent part follows:
We went over some warranty issues, transmission repairs, specifically fluid,
overcharges on repair orders. Mike [Byrne] questioned Craig [Robinson]. I 10
was there as a witness. We thought we were about six quarts over on every
job. Craig explained that with flushes he used about four quarts and that we
were over two quarts on every job, at which point Mike terminated him
[Robinson].
15
Operations Director Byrne stated, in his pre-trial affidavit, he personally terminated
two other employees for theft. According to Byrne, the first was automotive technician
James Petersen who worked on someone else’s vehicle during working hours and was being
paid by outside sources without the Company being paid for the work. Byrne said that
Petersen ever bought parts with the employee discount for the outside repair. Further, in his 20
pre-trial affidavit, Byrne indicated a second employee engaged in fraud and was terminated,
namely Mike Broch.
General Manager Astor testified he never spoke to Robinson in the employee parking
area on June 20, 2007, nor did he call Robinson a rebel leader. According to Astor, June 20, 25
2007, was a clear day.
Chevrolet Service Manager Leatherman testified that sometime in July 2007,
Robinson contacted him by telephone and asked if he was looking for any technicians.
Leatherman asked Robinson if he was still doing transmission type work. Robinson said he 30
was, and Leatherman told Robinson he was not hiring a transmission technician but he would
keep Robinson in mind if in the future he needed someone. Leatherman said their telephone
conversation lasted maybe 40 seconds. Leatherman testified Robinson did not thereafter
come to the dealership or meet with him about reemployment. Leatherman specifically
denied speaking with Robinson in the parking lot at the dealership or at anytime thereafter 35
about employment, and said Robinson never provided the Company a resume.
B. Discussion Credibility Determinations and Conclusions
1. Interference Allegations40
It is alleged at paragraph 5 of the Complaint that on or about June 20, the Company
by General Manager Astor, at the Company’s Sawgrass Auto Mall employee parking lot
interrogated its employees about their union membership activities and desires and created an
impression among its employees their union activities were under surveillance by the 45
Company.
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 11 -
The question of whether a meeting between General Manager Astor, Operations
Director Byrne, automotive technicians Robinson and Rose took place on June 20, 2007, is
contested. Robinson and Rose testified in detail about such a meeting while Astor denied
any meeting occurred and further specifically denied ever making the comments attributed to 5
him. Operations Director Byrne did not address this issue in his trial testimony. Byrne did
deny, in a pre-trial Board taken affidavit, hearing such comments.
Resolution of credibility conflicts are often difficult, requiring the weighing of
plausible narrations of testimony by witnesses who appear truthful and no more biased or 10
prejudiced than others testifying totally differently. Indeed resolution by the judge, or a jury
in a jury trial, is simply a practical solution not a mark of truth absolute. Mindful of the
above, I am nonetheless persuaded Robinson attempted to honestly recall pertinent facts and
events to the best of his ability. He, for the most part, was calm and confident as he testified
with only an occasional emotional response. I am persuaded he felt strongly about his case 15
but I am also convinced his feelings did not impact his ability and willingness to recall events
and conversations accurately. Rose corroborated Robinson’s testimony. I note that while
Operations Director Byrne testified, he was not asked whether such a meeting took place and
if so what was said. I am not unmindful that Robinson and Rose perceived the weather was
looking like a storm was incoming while General Manager Astor viewed the weather as clear 20
on the day in question. I am persuaded both could be correct in their perceptions in that it
might appear, by wind direction or otherwise, that a storm could be coming in while the sky
is clear. Accordingly, I place no weight on the conditions of the weather in making my
credibility determinations.
25
Does General Manager Astor’s comments, which I find were made to Robinson,
namely, how the leader of the rebel gang was doing that day constitute unlawful interrogation
and/or create an impression among the employees their union activities were under
surveillance by the Company?
30
I note certain guiding principles before I address this allegation of interrogation and
of an impression of surveillance.
Interrogation is not, by itself, a per se violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The test
for determining the legality of employee interrogation regarding union sympathies is whether 35
under all the circumstances the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain, coerce, or interfere
with rights guaranteed employees by the Act. Under this totality of circumstances approach
consideration is given to; whether the interrogated employee is an open or active supporter of
the union, the background surrounding the interrogation, the nature and purpose of the
information sought, the identity of the questioner, the place and/or method of the 40
interrogation, and the truthfulness of any reply by the questioned employee. Rossmore
House, 269 NLRB 1176, 1177 (1984), enfd. sub. nom. H.E.R.E Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d
1006 (9th Cir. 1985). These factors are not to be mechanically applied but rather are to be
useful indicia that serve as a starting point for assessing the totality of the circumstances.
That the interrogation might be courteous, funny and/or low keyed instead of boisterous, 45
rude, and/or profane does not alter the case.
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 12 -
The Board’s test for determining whether an employer has created an impression of
surveillance is whether the employee would reasonably assume from the statement in
question that his or her union activities have been placed under surveillance. When an
employer creates the impression among its employees that it is watching or spying on their 5
union activities, or employees’ future union activities, their future exercise of their Section 7
rights tend to be inhibited. Link Manufacturing, 281 NLRB 294 (1986), enfd. mem., 840
F.2d 17 (6th Cir. 1988), cert denied 488 U.S. 854 (1988). The idea behind finding an
impression of surveillance as a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act is employees should
be free to participate in union organizing campaigns without fearing members of 10
management are peering over their shoulders, taking note of who is involved in union
activities, and in what particular ways.
I am persuaded General Manager Astor’s question directed to Robinson about how
the leader of the rebel gang was doing constituted interrogation and created an impression the 15
employees’ union activities were under surveillance. Robinson had only days earlier
contacted the Union about representation. It appears Robinson attempted to keep his
activities for the Union secret. He invited employees to his home for a party on June 14,
2007, but did not mention the Union in the invitation. He was told by the Union to select
employees that would not leak information about the Union to the Company. When 20
collecting signatures for the Union on June 15, 2007, he attempted to do so without the
Company knowing about it. The Company, however, knew generally there was union
activity. The parties stipulated the Company received by fax, at approximately 4 p.m. June
19, 2007, the petition for an election in Case 12-RC-9262. General Manager Astor clearly is
a high ranking Company official. General Manager Astor was conveying to Robinson and 25
Rose the Company knew about their union activities including the meeting at Robinson’s
home and Robinson’s support for the Union. No valid purpose was, or for that matter could
have been, advanced for the inquiry. Automotive Technician Rose confirmed the Company
was pointing out Robinson as the leader when Rose told Robinson he had just been tagged by
Astor as the leader for the Union. To ask how the rebel leader was doing in these 30
circumstances constitutes unlawful interrogation and I so find. It also leaves employees with
the impression their activities on behalf of the Union are under surveillance by the Company
and I so find.
It is alleged at paragraph 6 of the Complaint that on or about late June or early July 35
2007, Service Director Myers at the Company’s Sawgrass Auto Mall service shop
interrogated employees about their union membership, activities and sympathies.
It is undisputed that Service Director Myers engaged service technician Oland in a
conversation about the Union on the shop floor in the service area in July 2007. Although 40
Oland could not recall how the conversation originated the subject of the Union “popped up.”
There is no showing Oland had made his union sentiments known to management. Myers
wanted to know if Oland had attended one of the Union meetings. It is clear from Myers’
question management knew of employee meetings about the Union. It is also clear the
purpose of Service Director Myers’ inquiry was to ascertain where Oland stood with respect 45
to the Union. Once Oland told Myers he had not attended any of the meetings and was
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 13 -
against it Myers encouraged Oland to vote but added he could not tell Oland how to vote. It
was not necessary at that point to tell Oland how to vote because Myers had already
established by his questioning that Oland was against the Union. Considering all the
circumstances, I find, that Service Director Myers questioning of Oland reasonably tended to
restrain, coerce and interfere with Oland’s rights guaranteed by the Act and violates Section 5
8(a)(1) of the Act.
It is alleged at paragraph 7 of the Complaint that Operations Director Byrne on about
June 28, 2007, in a speech to employees in the technician’s lunchroom at the Company’s
Sawgrass Auto Mall impliedly threatened its employees with unspecified reprisals if they 10
selected the Union as their bargaining representative.
The parties stipulated to the content of Operations Director Byrne’s speech.
Does Operations Director Byrnes’ comments in his June 28 speech to employees that 15
“I feel strongly that you would be making a big mistake by voting for a Union to represent
you in your employment relationship with the Company” impliedly threaten its employees
with unspecified reprisals? Standing alone, I am persuaded it would not, but considering the
overall content of the speech, I am persuaded it does. Byrne outlined numerous benefits the
Company provided: the employees were well paid, they were made comfortable with 20
expensive giant fans in the service area, free car washes, a 401-K pension plan with matching
contributions, dealership awards, family barbeques, and recognition for a job well done.
Byrne advised, however, if the employees were represented by a union the Company could
no longer meet with the employees but with outsiders who were not part of their family, and
added the employees would be making a serious mistake by agreeing to have a union 25
represent them; that this interference by an outside stranger could change the family
relationship forever. Implied in the totality of the speech is the clear message that employees
are no longer going to enjoy the good times and benefits they currently enjoyed if they
selected the Union to represent them but would rather face reprisals. Such is coercive and
violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and I so find.30
It is alleged at paragraph 8 of the Complaint that on or about July 18, 2007, at the
Company’s Sawgrass Auto Mall in Operations Director Byrne’s office, Byrne threatened
employees with discharge and unspecified reprisals if they selected the union as their
bargaining representative.35
I note the test in determining whether an employer’s conduct constitutes an unlawful
threat or implied threat of reprisals or retaliation for employees’ engaging in protected
activity is whether the remark(s) may reasonably be said to have a tendency to interfere with
the free exercise of employee rights under the Act, and does not turn on the motivation for 40
the remark(s) or rely on the failure or success of the coercion. Joy Recovery Technology
Corp., 320 NLRB 356, 365 (1995), enfd. 134 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. 1998). When applying this
standard, the Board considers the totality of the relevant circumstances.
It is undisputed employee Smith was asked to meet with Operations Director Byrne in 45
Byrne’s office on July 18, 2007. It is likewise undisputed Byrne inquired about “an
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 14 -
immigration issue” Smith and his wife had ongoing at the time. Operations Director Byrne
then told Smith that he (Byrne) had worked in a union shop and when a union was involved,
management and the employees would not have the relationship they had without union
involvement. Smith explained he had worked in a union shop in England and his experience
was that management worked with their unionized technicians without affecting their 5
relationship. Operations Director Byrne also told Smith a vote for the Union would be taken
as a personal attack against him. Smith told Byrne that was not the case and hoped Byrne
would not look at it that way that it was more a reflection on corporate policies as opposed to
Byrne personally. Byrne told Smith the Company would not view it that way.
10
For a manager, as Byrne did, to tell an employee the manager would consider a vote
for the Union as a personal attack against him calls in question the employee’s loyalty to the
Company. This is especially so here in light of the fact Smith told Byrne such was not the
case and he hoped Operations Director Byrne would not look at it that way. Byrne
responded by telling Smith the Company would not view it that way. Thus, I find such to be 15
coercive and a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Such leaves the employee with the
clear impression of future unspecified reprisals for voting for union representation.
It is alleged at paragraph 9 of the Complaint that on or about July 9, 2007, the
Company, by Chevrolet Service Manager Leatherman at the Company’s Ed Morse Chevrolet 20
facility told an employee he could not be rehired by the Company because of his union
activities.
Robinson, as earlier noted, was terminated by the Company on June 27, 2007. It is
undisputed Robinson and Leatherman knew each other and had worked together some years 25
earlier at an unrelated Chevrolet dealership in the greater Miami, Florida, area. It is likewise
undisputed that Robinson telephoned Leatherman, sometime in July 2007, after he had been
terminated at the Sawgrass Auto Mall facility of the Company, about work at the Ed Morse
Chevrolet dealership of the Company. It is however very much in dispute regarding what
was said in the telephone call and whether the two thereafter personally met regarding 30
Robinson’s reemployment and whether Robinson provided Leatherman with a job resume.
I find Chevrolet Service Manager Leatherman told Robinson in their July 2007,
telephone conversation he needed technicians and would hire Robinson in a minute, as
testified to by Robinson, and for Robinson to come to the dealership. I am persuaded 35
Robinson went, as he testified, to the dealership with a resume, but was told by Leatherman
he could not be hired he was “blackballed’ by Ed Morse because of his union activities.
Robinson’s expectation of being hired is supported by his taking a resume to Ed Morse
Chevrolet. Robinson left the resume with Leatherman even thought he was not hired and
told he could not be hired because of his union activities. To tell an employee he can not be 40
hired or rehired because of his union activities clearly violates the Act and I so find.
It is alleged at paragraph 10 of the Complaint the Company on or about June 27,
2007, discharged its employee Robinson and thereafter failed and refused to reinstate or
reemploy Robinson because he joined and assisted he union and engaged in concerted 45
activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 15 -
To establish a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the government must prove, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that an individual’s protected activity was a motivating
factor in the employer’s action. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d
899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982). Once the government makes this 5
showing, the burden of persuasion then shifts to the employer to prove its affirmative defense
that it would have taken the same action even in the absence of the protected conduct. To
sustain its burden the government must show the employee was engaged in protected
activity, the employer was aware of that activity, the activity or the employee’s union
affiliation was a substantial or motivating reason for the employer’s action, and, there was a 10
causal connection between the employer’s animus and its challenged conduct or decision.
The government may meet its Wright Line, supra, burden with evidence short of direct
evidence of motivation, i.e. inferential evidence arising from a variety of circumstances such
as union animus, timing or pretext may sustain the government’s burden. Furthermore, it
may be found that where an employer’s proffered non-discriminatory motivational 15
explanation is false, even in the absence of direct evidence of motivation, the trier of fact
may infer unlawful motivation. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466, 470
(9th Cir. 1966); Flour Daniel, Inc., 304 NLRB 970 (1991). Motivation of union animus may
be inferred from the record as a whole, where an employer’s proffered explanation is
implausible or a combination of factors circumstantially support such inference. Union 20
Tribune Co. v. NLRB, 1 F.3d 486, 490-492 (7th Cir. 1993). Direct evidence of union animus
is not required to support such inference. NLRB v. 50-White Freight Lines, Inc., 969 F.2d
401 (7th Cir. 1992). If it is found an employer’s actions are pretextual, that is, either false or
not relied upon, the employer fails by definition to show it would have taken the same action
for those reasons and it is unnecessary to perform the second part of the Wright Line analysis. 25
Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722 (1981), enfd. 705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982).
Robinson engaged in union activities. He contacted the Union, held meetings for the
Union at his home, solicited union authorization cards, and spoke to employees at the facility
about the Union. The credited evidence establishes management at the highest levels knew 30
Robinson not only supported the Union but was its employee leader. General Manager Astor
considered Robinson the employee Union leader when, on June 20, 2007, he asked Robinson
how the leader of the rebel gang was doing that day. General Manager Astor’s comments
indicate, or at least imply, the Company knew of its employees’ union activities that it had
their activities under surveillance and could thus identify who (namely Robinson) was the 35
employee leader.
Furthermore, it is clearly established the Company harbored animus against its
employees’ union activities and against Robinson’s union activities in particular. The
Company’s animus is demonstrated, in part, by the fact it not only interrogated Robinson and 40
left the impression his and other employees’ activities were under surveillance; but,
management representatives interrogated other employees, threatened employees with
unspecified reprisals because of their union activities and specifically told Robinson he could
not be rehired because of his involvement with the Union.
45
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 16 -
Timing also strengthens a showing of anti-union animus by the Company. Robinson
contacted the Union on June 11, conducted one of at least two meetings at his home for the
Union on June 14, solicited cards for the Union on June 15, is identified by the Company as
the leader of the rebel (union) gang on June 20, and is discharged on June 27, 2007. In the
middle of the activity related to Robinson, the Union files a representation petition on June 5
19, 2007. The causal connection between Robinson’s union activities and his discharge is
highlighted by Chevrolet Service Manager Leatherman’s telling Robinson he could not be
hired at Ed Morse Chevrolet because Ed Morse had blackballed Robinson as a result of
Robinson’s union activities.
10
I am persuaded the Government clearly established a strong prima facie showing the
Company discharged Robinson because of his union activities.
The Company’ s contention, in its post trial brief, that the decision to discharge
Robinson was made on June 18, 2007, based on theft of unused transmission fluid does not 15
withstand close scrutiny. Likewise, Operations Director Byrne’s testimony at trial that he
recommended to General Manager Astor on June 18, 2007, that Robinson be terminated
based on warranty fraud namely Robinson’s charging and being paid for work not performed
and for products not used does not withstand scrutiny.
20
I am fully persuaded the Company seized upon the transmission fluid and/or warranty
fraud concerns as a pretext to discharge Robinson. While Operations Director Byrne
contends he observed 10 to 12 unopened gallon containers of automatic transmission fluid in
Robinson’s repair bay area on May 28, 2007, he did not confront Robinson with his
discovery. Byrne did not return the unused fluid to the parts department. Although 25
Operations Director Byrne contends he reviewed numerous repair orders after he discovered
the excess fluid in Robinson’s work bay and further discovered Robinson had consistently
requested too much transmission fluid he only confronted Robinson with three invoices when
he terminated him on June 27, 2007, and two of the three invoices primarily addressed
Robinson not clocking in and out on work repairs and being paid for an alignment he did not 30
perform rather than stressing or dwelling on the excess fluid situation. In fact, Byrne told
Robinson in the exit interview he was going to separate him because he was paid for an
alignment he did not perform.
I note Robinson advised Byrne, when he was terminated, that the four gallons of 35
transmission fluid he requested for an overhaul and flush of an automatic transmission was
the appropriately required amount. Former Company automotive technician and current
instructor at Broward Community College, James Norton, corroborated Robinson’s
assessment of the amount of fluid needed when he testified most transmissions required 9 to
12 quarts of transmission fluid and that a transmission flush took between 6 and 8 quarts and 40
to request four gallons of transmission fluid for an overhaul and flush of a transmission was
not excessive. Norton and others noted transmission fluid only came in gallon containers and
if a smaller amount than a gallon was needed, it was necessary to request the full gallon.
The evidence does not support the Company’s basic contention Robinson stole the 10 45
to 12 gallons of transmission fluid Byrne claims to have seen at Robinson’s work station.
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 17 -
First, there is absolutely no direct evidence of any such theft. Second, after Operations
Director Byrne made his initial pre-audit walk through and in preparation for the
manufacturers’ audit, he instructed all automotive technicians to clean used parts and
everything else out of their work bay areas before the manufacturer’s representative made his
inspection or audit. This is just as logical an explanation for the “removal” of any fluid or 5
other parts from the work bay areas as is the conclusion that products were stolen. The
Company tolerated excess transmission fluid stored in the work area where automatic
transmission repairs and flushes took place. Former automotive technician Norton testified
he replaced Robinson as transmission repair technician and at times kept, depending on how
many jobs he had ongoing, 10 to 12 gallons of transmission fluid in his work area stored on 10
his work bench, the floor, his tool box, or wherever else he could find space to put it. Norton
continued to keep transmission fluid in the work area until a month or two after Robinson
was discharged and continued to do so until one Friday morning in July 2007 when
Operations Director Byrne, Service Director Myers, and Technical Service Manager Quenzer
met with the technicians and told them they could no longer keep unused items in their bay 15
areas. Norton testified that prior to that time nothing had ever been said about keeping
transmission fluid in the work bay area before.
Finally, I note the Company’s investigation of Robinson’s asserted misconduct differs
from its prior practice. A former employee, James Petersen, was discharged in December 20
2005 for performing repairs on a friend’s vehicle without approval from the Company and
without the Company being paid for the repairs. In Petersen’s situation, his immediate
supervisor, Technical Service Manager Quenzer, conducted the investigation and with
Operations Director Byrne discussed the situation with Petersen. Petersen was thereafter
suspended and ultimately discharged. In Robinson’s situation, his immediate supervisor, 25
Quenzer, was not involved in the investigation and Robinson was only confronted after a
decision had already been made to terminate him. Technical Service Manager Quenzer was,
it appears, only utilized to escort Robinson from the Company’s facility when Robinson was
terminated.
30
In a second incident in December 2005, Technical Service Manager Quenzer
discovered a situation where employee Mike Broch was working a side job not authorized or
approved by the Company. Again, Quenzer, along with Operations Director Byrne,
confronted Broch regarding the unauthorized side work and suspended him pending further
investigation. Ultimately, Broch was discharged. Here again the Company followed the 35
practice of investigating, confronting, further investigating, and then taking final action.
Such procedure was not followed with Robinson.
In light of all the above, I find the Company utilized the transmission fluid situation
with Robinson as a pretext to discharge him.40
I find the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act when it discharged Robinson
on June 27, 2007.
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 18 -
Conclusions of Law
By, since on or about June 2007, interrogating its employees about their union
membership, activities and sympathies; creating an impression among its employees that
their union activities were under surveillance; threatening and impliedly threatening its 5
employees with unspecified reprisals if they selected the Union as their bargaining
representative; and, telling an employee he could not be rehired by the Company because of
his union activities the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. By on, or about, June
27, 2007, discharging and thereafter failing and refusing to reinstate its employee Craig
Robinson because he joined and assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities and to 10
discourage employees from engaging in these activities the Company violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Remedy
15
Having found the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it
must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. The Company having discriminatorily discharged and
thereafter having failed and refused to reinstate its employee Craig Robinson, I recommend
that it, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer him full reinstatement to his 20
former job, or if his former job no longer exists to a substantially equivalent position without
prejudice to his seniority, or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make him
whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him with interest. Back pay shall be computed in accordance with F.W. Woolworth,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), and interest shall be computed in accordance with New Horizons for 25
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1978). I also recommend the Company be ordered, within
14 days of the Board’s Order, to remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
discharge of Craig Robinson and, within 3 days thereafter, notify him in writing it has done
so. I also recommend the Company be ordered, within 14 days after service by the Region, to
post an appropriate “Notice to Employees” in order that employees may be apprised of their 30
rights under the Act and the Company’s obligation to remedy its unfair labor practices.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended:
ORDER535
The Company, Morse Operations, Inc. d/b/a Sawgrass Auto Mall and d/b/a Ed Morse
Chevrolet, it officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:40
(a) Interrogating its employees about their membership, activities, and
sympathies for the Union; creating among its employees an impression that their union

5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 19 -
activities were under surveillance, threatening and impliedly threatening its employees with
unspecified reprisals if they select the Union as their bargaining representative, and telling its
employees they could not be rehired because of their activities on behalf of the Union.
(b) Discharging and thereafter refusing to reinstate its employees because 5
they joined and assisted the Union and engaged in other protected activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
10
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Within 14 days of the Board’s Order, offer Craig Robinson full
reinstatement to his former job, or, if his former job no longer exists, to a substantially 15
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
(b) Within 14 days of the Board’s Order, make Craig Robinson whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his discharge and failure to reinstate 20
him, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
(c) Within 14 days of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any
reference to Craig Robinson’s unlawful discharge and failure to reinstate him and, within 3
days thereafter, notify him in writing that this has been done and his discharge and unlawful 25
failure to reinstate him will not be used against him in any manner.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Regional Director of Region 12 of
the National Labor Relations Board, post at its North Palm Beach and Sunrise, Florida,
facilities copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the Notice, in English 30
and Spanish, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12 after being signed by
the Company’s authorized representative shall be posted by the Company and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced or covered by any other material. In the event that during the pendency of these 35
proceedings the Company has gone out of business or closed the facilities involved in these
proceedings, the Company shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the Notice
to Employees, to all employees employed by the Company on or at any time since June 20,
2007.
40
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director for Region 12 of the National Labor Relations Board sworn certification of a

6 If this order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice
reading, “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD” shall read:
“POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 20 -
responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps the Company has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., April 30, 2008.
5
_________________________
William N. Cates
Associate Chief Judge10
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 21 -
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by the Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and
has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their union membership activities
and sympathies for International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT create an impression among our employees their union activities
are under surveillance
WE WILL NOT threaten or impliedly threaten our employees with unspecified
reprisals if they select the Union as their bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees they can not be rehired because of their union
activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge and thereafter fail and refuse to reinstate our employees
because they join or assist the Union and engage in other concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, offer Craig Robinson reinstatement
to his former job, or if his former job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Craig Robinson whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
resulting from his discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any reference
to the discharge and failure to reinstate Craig Robinson, and WE WILL, within 3 days
JD(ATL)-11-08
- 22 -
thereafter, notify him, in writing that this has been done and that his discharge and our failure
to reinstate him will not be used against him in any manner.
MORSE OPERATIONS, INC., d/b/a
SAWGRASS AUTO MALL and d/b/a ED
MORSE CHEVROLET
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and
how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the
Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s
website: www.nlrb.gov.
201 East Kennedy Boulevard, South Trust Plaza Suite 530, Tampa, FL. 33602-5824
(813) 228-2641, Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY
ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE
REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (813) 228-2662