Unique Moving and Storage Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 40 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Unique Moving and Storage Co., Inc., and Alliance
Fireproof Warehouse Co., Inc. and Ulysses Wanna-
maker, Ernest Moseley,' Bobby Lofton. Cases 29--
CA-5504-1, 29-CA-5504-2, and 29-CA-5560
January 23, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENELLO. MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On September 6, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Platonia P. Kirkwood issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Charging Parties
filed 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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, to
modify her remedy,3 and to adopt her 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 Respondents, Unique Moving and Stor-
age Co., Inc., and Alliance Fireproof Warehouse Co.,
Inc., Brooklyn, New York, their officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order.
The name of the Charging Party was corrected at the hearing.
2 The Charging Parties have 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 Products, Inc. 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefull
examined the record and find no basis for reversing her findings.
See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PLATONIA P. KIRKWOOD. Administrative Law Judge:
These consolidated cases were heard by me in Brooklyn,
New York, on September 8 and 9, 1977. The complaint
alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.'
Respondent's answer admits certain of the jurisdictional
240 NLRB No. 47
allegations of the complaint and the allegations about the
status of the labor organization, but denies all of the al-
leged unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the brief filed by Respondents and the oral argument made
at the close of the hearing by General Counsel, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. JURISDICTION
The complaint alleges and Respondent's answer admits
that Respondent Unique Moving and Storage Co., Inc.,
and Respondent Alliance Fireproof Warehouse Co., Inc.,
herein called Alliance, are each of them corporations duly
organized under laws of the State of New York. At all
times Unique and Alliance (herein collectively called Re-
spondents) have maintained their principal offices and
places of business at 93 Lexington Avenue (Lexington fa-
cility hereafter) in Brooklyn, New York, and also have a
place of business at 1356 Rockaway Parkway (Rockaway
facility hereafter), Brooklyn, New York. They have been
continuously engaged at those locations in performing
moving and storage services and related services. Both of
them are affiliated businesses with common officers, own-
ership, and directors and constitute a single, integrated
business enterprise. The directors and officers formulate
and administrate common labor policy for the aforemen-
tioned Companies affecting the employees of these Com-
panies.
At times here material Respondent Unique was a mem-
ber of the Moving Van Owners, Inc., a trade association
duly organized under and existing under the laws of New
York (the Association hereafter), and the Association was
performing in behalf of Respondent Unique and other of
its members the function of negotiating, executing, and ad-
ministering collective-bargaining agreements with unions
representing member employees. At times here material,
the Association was composed of approximately 30 em-
ployer members, including Respondent Unique, who were
located in the Brooklyn metropolitan area and who were
engaged in performing moving, storage, and related ser-
vices in the moving and storage industry.
During the past year, which period is representative of
their annual operations generally, the member firms of the
Association, including Respondent Unique, in the course
and conduct of their collective business operations, per-
formed services valued in excess of $3 million, part of
which services, valued in excess of $50,000, were performed
for various enterprises located in States other than the
State wherein they were located. The complaint alleges,
Respondent's answer admits, and I find that the Associa-
The relevant docket entries are as follows: the charge in Case 29 CA
5504 I was filed by Ulysses Wannamaker: the charge in Case 29 -CA5504-
2, was filed by Ernest Moseley on March 10. 1977; the charge in Case 29
CA-5560 was filed April 4. 1977, by Bobby Lofton. At the hearing a motion
was to amend the documents to show the correct spelling of Ernest and Sam
Lee Mosley to be Moseley. That motion is hereby granted.
UNIQUE MOVING AND STORAGE 41
tion and each of its member firms, including Respondent
Unique, are now, and have at all times material herein
been, employers engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union 20408 of the United Warehouse Industrial
and Affiliate Trades Employees Union (herein called Local
20408) is and has been at all times material herein a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and the Complaint's Setting
The complaint alleges that, in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (I) of the Act, Respondents discharged and refused to
reinstate Bobby Lofton, Samuel Moseley, Ernest Moseley,
and Ulysses Wannamaker on or about March 7, 1977, be-
cause they joined or assisted Local 20408, and further that,
in violation of Section (a)(4) of the Act, Respondents dis-
charged and/or refused to reinstate the two Moseleys and
Wannamaker because each of them testified at a National
Labor Relations Board hearing.
Respondents' answer, as amended or explained at the
hearing, denied that Respondents had any employer rela-
tionship with the employees on March 7, 1977, but asserted
that if they did, they did not commit the conduct attributed
to them by the complaint.
Respondents' principal officers and owners are Blossom
Goodman and her husband, Milton Goodman. Mrs.
Goodman is Respondents' president, and Mr. Goodman,
the corporate secretary. Samuel Morrison, an individual
identified in the record as the Respondents' foreman is re-
sponsible for the day-to-day conduct of Respondents' busi-
ness. He dispatches the trucks to customers of Respon-
dents and arranges for the manning of the trucks with
drivers and crews of helpers needed to perform the services
a particular customer job may require.
At all times here relevant the Association of which Re-
spondent Unique was a member (see sec. 1, supra) had a
collective-bargaining agreement with Local 814, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, which covered certain em-
ployees at its operations. According to the testimony of
Mrs. Goodman at the hearing, Respondents had certain
"steady employees" (all covered by the Teamster contract)
but frequently required additional employees to handle
and service its customer orders. When additional personnel
was needed, Respondent Unique was obligated under the
bargaining contract to call the Teamsters first. If the Team-
sters could not furnish the needed employees, Respondent
Unique was then free to hire employees from other sources.
Over the past several years, individuals seeking employ-
ment have gathered at Respondent's Lexington facility by
6:30 or 7 a.m., in various numbers, to shape up for any
work Respondents may have for them to do.2
2 The individuals at the shape up were dispatched to do work not only for
Respondents but also for an additional company which apparently operated
Each of the four alleged discriminatees testified that he
had shaped up daily at the Lexington facility on a regular
basis for 3 or more years. Each further testified that he had
worked an average of 3 or 4 days a week up to the time that
the events here in issue took place. Each was paid every
Friday on cash basis. Each received from Foreman Morri-
son an envelope on that day based on an hourly wage of
$3.50 for helpers and $4 for drivers, together with a yellow
slip of paper apparently denoting the dates and numbers of
hours worked the prior week.
I credit the testimony of each of these witnesses about
their employment relationship with the Respondents.
Chronology of Relevant Events
Sometime in early 1977, 3 Samuel Lee Moseley, one of
the alleged discriminatees, contacted Matthew Eason, the
president of Local 20408, and obtained from him a number
of authorization cards for purpose of "getting a Union on
my job." 4 Samuel Moseley then solicited and obtained sig-
natures on the union authorization cards from the other
three of the alleged discriminatees as well as from two
other employees who regularly shaped up at Respondent's
Lexington facility. Thereafter Local 20408 filed a represen-
tation petition with the Board (Case 29-RC-3740) in which
the Teamsters intervened.
The Board conducted a hearing on Local 20408's repre-
sentation petition between 9:30 a.m. and about 4:30 p.m.
on March 7 and again on March 10 and on various days in
May.
The incidents on which the complaint is founded took
place on March 7.5
The uncontradicted and mutually consistent testimony
of the two Moseleys and Wannamaker 6 reports about the
events immediately affecting tbe three of them as follows:
About 7 a.m. on March 7, the three of them came to the
facility to shape up. As Foreman Morrison had not called
on any of them to do any work by 8:30 or so, the three of
them borrowed an auto owned by Moseleys' uncle 7 and
went to the Board's offices to attend the representation
hearing, where they remained all day. The two Moseleys
were called on to testify as union witnesses, but Wanna-
maker was not called. Also present at the hearing at the
time were Mrs. Goodman and Dean DeRenzo, an office
employee of Respondents who had accompanied Mrs.
Goodman to the hearing (and who also accompanied her
at the hearing before me).
The hearing was adjourned at or near 5 p.m. everyone
present was notified that the hearing would be resumed at
1:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 10.
Wannamaker and the two Moseleys and Local 20408
agent Matthew Eason left the hearing together in the auto
which Ernest Moseley was driving that day. After taking
out of that same facility. Kenmore Moving & Storage Company.
All dates hereafter mentioned are for 1977 unless otherwise stated.
4 Moseley testified that he had been a member of Local 20408 since about
1970.
The complaint alleges that the four complainants were unlawfully fired
that day.
6 The two Moseleys were brothers, and Wannamaker was their cousin.
Lofton. the other alleged discnminatee. was their close friend.
The uncle was then employed at Respondent's facility.
UNIQUE MOVING AND STORAGE '
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Eason to his residence, Wannamaker and the two Moseleys
returned to Respondent's warehouse facility. When they
arrived they observed Mrs. Goodman and DeRenzo in an
auto parked outside or near the facility and saw that Fore-
man Sam Morrison was standing near the auto talking to
the two of them. The two Moseleys and Wannamaker then
entered Respondents' premises. A little later, Mrs. Good-
man approached Sam Moseley and told him to tell Ernest
Moseley and Wannamaker that Foreman Morrison want-
ed to see them. When Ernest Moseley and Wannamaker
responded to that summons, Foreman Morrison told the
two of them that they were fired, paid them the moneys
owed them for work performed since they had last been
paid, and also told them that "they didn't need a union
now.
The two Moseleys and Wannamaker then left Respon-
dents' premises together. Lather that evening, Samuel
Moseley phoned Local 20408 agent Eason and reported
what had taken place. Eason advised them to continue to
turn up at the Lexington facility daily for shapeup and to
carry with them picket signs stating "On Strike" and car-
rying the name of Local 20408.8
Pursuant to Eason's advice, the two Moseleys and Wan-
namaker turned up at the Lexington facility the next day,
March 8, and again the following day, March 9, but none
of them obtained any work. Apparently, they picketed on
and off on both these days or at least on the last of those 2
days.
The events of March 7, 8, and 9 which affected Bobby
Lofton were as follows: Lofton also turned up at the Lex-
ington facility to shape up on March 7. Unlike the other
three men, supra, he, however, obtained some employment
for that day for a few hours. When he completed his work
assignment he returned to the Lexington facility. Sometime
after he came back, Foreman Morrison saw him and said
to him, "Why don't you go downtown and join the rest of
them?" Nonetheless, Lofton remained at the premises.
Sometime later, Morrison saw him again and ordered him
to "get out" and paid him off. Lofton learned from the
other three men, sometime on March 8 or 9, what Eason
had advised the men to do. He therefore turned up at the
facility on Wednesday afternoon, March 9, with a picket
sign, where he saw the others "walking [picketing] and
joined the line."
On Thursday morning, March 10, the two Mosele)s,
Wannamaker, and Lofton all came to the facility at about
7 a.m. and again joined the shapeup group. Foreman Mor-
rison advised them that work would be assigned out of the
Rockaway facility. The four men then drove to that facility
in Ernest Moseley's automobile. Upon their arrival, some-
one in the office gave them withholding tax forms to fill
out, and they did so. When they returned those forms to
office personnel, Foreman Morrison gave Ernest Moseley
a bill of lading-i.e., a contract calling for a moving job-
and directed him to pick up a truck and to take with him as
helpers Samuel Moseley and Lofton.9 Wannamaker was
There is no evidence as to who prepared those signs.
The bill of lading was in Respondent Unique's name. It identified Miss
B. Osterwell as the shipper and described the job as one requiring the mov-
ing of I- 1'2 rooms of furniture from 60 East 9th Street in Manhattan to 477
told to "go along with them if he wanted to." He testified
he didn't know whether this meant he was hired or not.
The four men then arranged between them that Samuel
Moseley would take Wannamaker in Ernest's car and park
it near the Moseleys' grandmother's house (somewhere be-
tween Washington Street and St. Marks Street in Brook-
lyn) and that Ernest Moseley and Lofton would meet them
there with Respondents' truck.
None of the four men ever arrived at the customer's
house. Instead, they parked Respondent's truck at or near
the house where the Moseleys' grandmother lived (near
Washington Street and St. Marks Street), and the four of
them then left in Ernest Moseley's car about 1:30 p.m. to
go to the Board's offices and to attend the representation
hearing. Either before or after that time-the matter is in
dispute-Ernest Moseley called Respondents' office and
reported that the truck had a mechanical breakdown.
At the representation hearing Samuel Lee Moseley and
Lofton were called upon to testify as Local 20408 witness-
es.' Meanwhile, either while the hearing was going on or
at its conclusion, Ernest Moseley and Wannamaker filed
the charges herein in Cases 29-CA-5504-1, and 5504-2
each respectively alleging he had been fired on March 7
because he had testified at the hearing on that day and/or
because of his support of Local 20408.1'
All four of the complainants returned to the premises the
following morning. At this point Ernest Moseley returned
the truck keys to Foreman Morrison, who then called
Bob's Towing Garage (a service station customarily used
by Respondents) and had the tow truck come by Respon-
dents' facility so that Ernest Moseley could show the two
truck driver where Respondents' truck was parked. Ernest
Moseley then got on the tow truck, and Samuel Moseley,
Wannamaker, and Lofton got into Moseley's auto and pro-
ceeded ahead of the tow truck to the location where Re-
spondents' truck was parked. The latter was then towed
away.
Each of the four complainants testified that although
they continued to shape up regularly thereafter, none of
the four of them was ever employed again for any work.
B. Respondents' Decision to Discharge the Four Men, and
the Asserted Reasons for That Decision
In her testimony Mrs. Goodman conceded that Respon-
dents decided, on March 11, that they would never again
willingly employ any of the four men. Although the four of
them were given employment on March 10, in good faith,
she believed they accepted their work assignment on that
day with knowledge that they would not perform the work
and with the intent of prejudicing Respondents' economic
interests by "vandalizing" and hiding the truck.
According to Mrs. Goodman, once Respondents' truck
was delivered to the possession of the men on March 10 for
Broom Street, also in Manhattan. The job was scheduled for 12:30 p.m.
For reasons not made clear on the record, the hearing on that day did
not open at the scheduled time. It actually commenced about 4:30 p.m.
instead of the initially scheduled time of 1:30 p.m.
I have made this finding of fact based upon the documentary evidence
of the charges. ach of these two charges is dated March 10, 1977, and is
marked with the official stamp of the Board as "Received, March 10, 1977,
5:45 p.m"
UNIQUE MOVING AND STOP-AGE 43
purposes of performing the moving job described in the bill
of lading, no one at Respondents' facility heard anything
from any of them until 8 p.m. that evening. Then, a call
was received from Ernest Moseley, reporting that the truck
had broken down and was parked near Washington Street
and St. Marks Street in Brooklyn. Meanwhile, earlier in the
afternoon (about 2:30), Respondents received at their facil-
ity a "frantic" telephone call from the customer who had
given Respondents the moving contract, asking where the
truck was. Respondents' office personnel advised her that
the truck was on the way. About an hour later, Respon-
dents received a telephone call from a Mr. Verdi of the
New York Department of Transportation, who advised
them a complaint had been submitted by Respondents'
customer of nonperformance of her moving contract and
that a fine was therefore being levied on Respondents in
the amount of $100 to $150. Respondents were about to
call the police to look for the truck when Ernest Moseley
called, and following that call they dispatched Bob's Tow-
ing Garage to pick up the truck where Moseley said that it
was parked. Bob's Towing Garage reported that the tow
truck could not find Respondents' vehicle, and it was for
this reason that on the next morning (March I 11) Respon-
dents directed the complainants to show the tow truck
where Respondents' vehicle was parked. When the truck
ultimately arrived at Bob's Towing Garage, they later
found that the only thing wrong with it was that the wires
had been disconnected from the battery.
The four complainants' version of the occurrences of
March 10 was quite different.
The story told by Ernest Moseley, the driver of the truck
(and by custom the man "in charge" of the crew of helpers
assigned to go on the moving assignment with him), was
that he stopped at his grandmother's house to change into
work clothes.'2 He avers that after he changed his clothes
and came down ready to drive the truck to the customer's
house, he and his helpers too in the truck, he tried to start
it up and found that it would not "turn over" at all. He
then called Respondents' office facility and reported the
breakdown to Foreman Morrison. The latter told him to
remain with the truck until a tow truck came to pick up
Respondents' vehicle. He asserts that he waited for about
an hour to an hour and a half for the tow truck, and he
then called Local 20408 agent Eason and told him what
had happened. Eason advised him to leave the truck where
it was and to come down to the representation case hear-
ing.' 3 Thereupon, he and the three other complainants got
in his car and drove to the Board offices. He admitted that
he did not call Respondents to report that he was leaving
their truck unattended and that he took the keys to the
truck with him. He testified also that the tow truck could
tow Respondents' vehicle even though it was all locked up
- He explained that he had come to the facility that day in a $25 pair of
slacks because he did not expect to be called in to work. This did not strike
me as true. since he also testified that he was turning up at the facility even
morning at the direction of Local 20408 agent Fason to shape up and or to
picket in the event other individuals from the shapeup crew were assigned to
jo,, .
By custom, the driver and crew dispatched to do a moving job were
paid only from the time of arrival at the customer's house until the time they
completed the moving work.
and that a mechanic could get under the hood without
having to unlock the truck. 4
Concluding Findings
Based on my review of all the relevant testimony, I re-
solve the various questions of fact and law posed by the
complaint in its defense as follows:
I. I find consistent with the General Counsel's position
that the four complaintants were "employees" of Respon-
dents within the meaning of the Act on March 7. Although,
as later noted, I do not credit certain portions of their testi-
mony concerning the events of March 10, I believe the four
ot them were telling the truth about their regular appear-
ance on shapeup at Respondents' premises over the year or
two preceding March 7 and about Foreman Morrison's
assignment of work to them in that period on an average of
3 to 4 days per week. 5
2. 1 also credit the undisputed testimony of Ernest
Moseley and Wannamaker in which the two of them re-
ported that after returning from the representation hearing,
Foreman Morrison told them they were fired and that they
did not need a union now. In addition, I credit Lofton's
testimony that earlier that afternoon, Foreman Morrison
advised him, in essence, to "get out" of Respondents'
premises and go join his friends downtown-a statement
which Lofton understandably interpreted as a meaning
that he was fired because of his support or suspected sup-
port of Local 20408 once Lofton found out what had been
told to Moseley and to Wannamaker by Morrison. In the
setting of surrounding events, I find this testimony to be
plausibly consistent with the logic of inherent probabili-
ties. 16
Based on the foregoing evidence, I conclude that Re-
spondents terminated the employee status of Ernest Mose-
ley, Ulysses Wannamaker, and Bobby Lofton on March 7;
that it did so because of their support of or membership in
Local 20408; and that Respondents thereby violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. I also find that in the case of
Wannamaker and Ernest Moseley, Respondents' discharge
action also violated Section 8(a)(4) of the Act.
I find no evidence, however, that Respondents delivered
to Samuel Lee Moseley any termination notice on that day.
In the circumstances, I do not find proved the complaint's
allegations that he was also discriminatorily terminated on
that day.
3. 1 do not credit the testimony of any of the complain-
ants which reports or suggests that: (a) they intended, in
good faith, to perform the work assignment given them by
Respondents on March 10; (b) Ernest Moseley gave Re-
14 In response to a question I asked him. Moseley admitted he had previ-
ously left a broken-down truck unattended and had been reprimanded by
Mornson for so doing.
- Mornson, I note, was not called upon to testify at the hearing, and his
absence was not explained. In these circumstances, I may and do infer that
his testimony would not have been favorable to Respondents. Mrs. Good-
man. who testified to the effect that "these people" were unknown to her,
was not in a position to know what Foreman Morrison was doing with
respect to the selection of particular individuals from shapeup. Nor was she
personally aware of who was part of the regular shapeup group during the
periods of time here relevant.
Morrison. as noted, was not called on to testify in this proceeding.
UNIQUE MOVING AND STORAGE
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondents a report about the truck's location and its
"breakdown" early in the day on March 10; and (c) none
of them was aware of what was wrong with the truck when
they left it unattended and went to the Board hearing.
None of this part of their story rang true as I heard each of
them deliver it. And on reviewing all the evidence, I believe
that they did not perform their work assignment because
they wanted to go to the Board hearing; that they deliber-
ately disconnected the battery cables so as to make it ap-
pear that they had justifiable cause for their failure to per-
form the work assignment; and that, as reported by Mrs.
Goodman, Moseley did not telephone Respondents to ad-
vise them where the truck was until well after the hearing
was over. This finding, of course, represents a judgment
that the opposite of what they said had taken place was
true, since I have no direct evidence so showing. But, in my
view, such a judgment is warranted and is consistent with
"inherent probabilities," given the undisputed facts that:
(a) all of them picketed Respondents on March 8 and/or 9:
(b) charges initiating from this proceeding and describing
Respondents' March 7 "termination" actions were filed on
the evening of March 10-the day Respondents gave all
four complainants an assignment by picking them to do a
moving job from the shapeup group; (c) three of the four
knew, because of their presence at the representation hear-
ing on March 7, that the representation hearing for March
10 was scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m.-about the time
that they were supposed to be at the customer's location: 17
(d) when the four complainants turned up at Respondents'
facility on March II, Respondents had to have them ac-
company the tow truck to show the latter where Respon-
dents' vehicle was parked (the location, I note, was in
Brooklyn, and, as was conceded, the towing service was
one Respondents customarily used); and (e) the mechani-
cal "difficulty" with Respondents' vehicle (disconnected
battery cables) was one which an experienced driver would
have looked for if the starter wouldn't turn over and could
easily have coped with and resolved.
Further, in light of my findings and conclusions about
the conduct of the four complainants on March 10, I am
constrained to credit Mrs. Goodman's representations that
the reason Respondents decided, on March 11, that they
could no longer employ any of the four complainants was
because she and/or Morrison believed the four of them
accepted Morrison's work assignment on March 10 with
knowledge that they would not perform it and had then
deliberately "vandalized" Respondents' truck and wrong-
fully withheld possession of it from Respondents for the
entire business day.
For the above reasons, I hold with Respondents that
they committed no violation of the Act by deciding not to
employ any of the four complainants on and after March
11, 1977.
17 General Counsel suggested. in her oral argument at the close of the
hearing, that Respondents assigned the work to the four complainants on
that day in order to keep them from going to the hearing. However, there is
no evidence that Respondents knew, or had an) reason to know, that any of
the four were "due" at the hearing or had planned to go. They were not
under subpena. and none of them notified Respondents that they had plan-
ned to go to the hearing.
THE REMEDY
My recommended Order shall include the usual cease-
and-desist notice posting provisions consonant with the un-
fair labor practice findings made above. In addition, and in
light of the finding that Respondents unlawfully terminat-
ed the employee status of Ulysses Wannamaker, Ernest
Moseley, and Bobby Lofton on March 7, 1977, my recom-
mended Order shall provide that Respondents make each
of them whole for any loss of earnings and benefits each
may have suffered by reason of Respondents' illegal activi-
ty. The sum of money due each shall be computed in ac-
cordance with the formulas prescribed in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corpora-
tion, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). This amount shall be comput-
ed from March 7, the date of their illegal discharge, to
March I1,8 the date on which Respondents terminated
them for cause after reemploying them on March 10. 1
shall further recommend that Respondents be required to
preserve and make available to the Board agents, upon
request, all pertinent records and data necessary in analyz-
ing and determing whatever backpay may be due.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 9
Respondents Unique Moving and Storage Co., Inc., and
Alliance Fireproof Warehouse Co., Inc., their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to hire or rehire workers because of their
membership in or activities on behalf of Local 20408 of the
United Warehouse Industrial and Affiliate Trades Em-
ployees Union or any other labor organization or because
said workers have given testimony under the Act in con-
nection with cases pending before the Board.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, coercing, or
restraining any employees or prospective employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Ulysses Wannamaker, Ernest Moseley,
and Bobby Lofton for any loss of pay and benefits which
they may have suffered by reason of the illegal activity, to
be computed in accordance in the manner set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
18 It is my opinion that Respondents' reemployment on March 10 of the
three men it "fired" on March 7 meets any instatement or reinstatement
obligation Respondents incurred under law by reason of their unlawful sev-
erance of those three men's employment on March 7. I so find.
l 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, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
UNIQUE MOVING AND STORAGE 45
sary to a determination of compliance with paragraph (a)
above.
(c) Post at its Brooklyn, New York, facilities copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 20 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 29, after being duly signed by Respondents' au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by Respondents
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 cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondents to insure that said noitces are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
20 In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of a nited
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted b Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the nited States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National abor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EPItOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing, during which all parties were given an
opportunity to present evidence and argument, it has been
determined that we violated the law by committing unfair
labor practices. In order to remedy such conduct, we are
being required to post this notice. We intend to comply
with this requirement and to abide by the following com-
mitments:
WE WILL NOT discharge or refuse to hire or rehire
workers or discriminate in any other manner with re-
gard to their hire or tenure of employment, or any
term or condition of their employment, because of
their membership in or activities on behalf of Local
20408 of the United Warehouse Industrial and Affili-
ate Trades Employees Union, or any other labor orga-
nization, or because said workers have given testi-
mony under the National Labor Relations Act in
connection with cases pending before the National
Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees or prospective employees in any manner
with respect to the exercise of those rights which Sec-
tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act guaran-
tees.
WE WILL make whole Ulysses Wannamaker, Ernest
Moseley, and Bobby Lofton for any loss of pay they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
practiced against them.
UNIQUE MOVING & STORAGE Co.. INC. ND AL-
LIANCE FIREPROOF WAREHOUSE COMPANY INC.
UNIQUE MOVING AND STORAGE 5