EZ PARK, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 2014

360 N.L.R.B. 672 (N.L.R.B. 2014)

672 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
360 NLRB No. 84
EZ Park, Inc. and Temesgen Dasa. Case 04–CA–
092571
April 23, 2014
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS MISCIMARRA, HIROZAWA,
AND SCHIFFER
On August 13, 2013, Administrative Law Judge Rob-
ert A. Giannasi issued the attached decision. The Charg-
ing Party, Temesgen Dasa, filed exceptions. The Re-
spondent, EZ Park, Inc., filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions1 and brief and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions3
and to adopt the recommended Order.

1 In many of his exceptions, the Charging Party attempts to intro-
duce new evidence and arguments to support the alleged unfair labor
practices. We reject these exceptions because “[a] contention raised for
the first time in exceptions to the Board is ordinarily untimely raised
and, thus, deemed waived.” Yorkaire, Inc., 297 NLRB 401, 401
(1989), enfd. 922 F.2d 832 (3d Cir. 1990).
2 The Charging Party has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
In upholding the judge’s credibility findings, we do not rely on the
judge’s statement that “Dasa knew he was doing something wrong”
when he scratched off and reused a ticket.
3 In affirming the judge’s determination that Respondent did not co-
ercively interrogate Dasa in violation of Sec. 8(a)(1), we do not rely on
the judge’s statement that “[former General Manager] App’s conversa-
tion with Dasa in June was not coercive because, at that point, App
favored bringing a union in.” The Board has recognized that question-
ing can be coercive even though the questioner supports the employees’
efforts to unionize. See Acme Bus Corp., 320 NLRB 458, 458 (1995),
enfd. 198 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 1999).
In affirming the judge’s determination that Respondent did not ter-
minate Dasa for engaging in union activities in violation of Sec. 8(a)(3)
and (1), we clarify that App’s knowledge and Area Manager
Mengesha’s possible knowledge of Dasa’s union activities should not
be imputed to Respondent. See Dobbs International Services, 335
NLRB 972, 973 (2001) (finding that a supervisor’s knowledge is typi-
cally imputed to the employer). Both App and Mengesha credibly
denied sharing this information with Respondent, and App was a pro-
moter of the union campaign. In these circumstances, their knowledge
should not be imputed to Respondent. See Dr. Phillip Megdal, D.D.S.,
Inc., 267 NLRB 82, 82 (1983); Efficient Medical Transport, 324 NLRB
553, 553 fn. 1 (1997).
We also clarify that Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662
F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), does not
require a showing of particularized animus. Encino Hospital Medical
Center-Prime, 360 NLRB 335, 336 fn. 6 (2014). Therefore, the Gen-
eral Counsel was not required to demonstrate animus specifically di-
rected towards Dasa.
ORDER
The recommended Order of the administrative law
judge is adopted and the complaint is dismissed.
Donna Brown, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Daniel J. Sobol, Esq. and Whitney Kummerow, Esq. (Sobol &
Sobol, P.C.), for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. GIANNASI, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on July 8, 2013. The
complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by coercively interrogating an employee and Section
8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging employee Temesgen Dasa for
engaging in union activities. The Respondent filed an answer
denying the essential allegations in the complaint. It asserts
Dasa was discharged for cause—reusing parking tickets that
suggested theft.
After the trial, the Acting General Counsel and the Respond-
ent filed briefs, which I have read and considered. Based on
the entire record, including the testimony of the witnesses, and
my observation of their demeanor, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation, with an office in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, operates some 21 parking lots
throughout the city of Philadelphia. In a representative 1-year
period, Respondent purchased and received, at its Philadelphia
location, goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Accord-
ingly, I find, as Respondent admits, that it is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
I further find, as Respondent also admits, that Laborers’ In-
ternational Union of North America, Local 332 (the Union) is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
Background
As indicated above, Respondent operates some 21 parking
lots throughout Philadelphia. The lots are ground level lots and
customers pay in advance, often in cash. Respondent employs

Member Miscimarra believes that generalized antiunion animus does
not satisfy the General Counsel’s initial burden under Wright Line
absent evidence that the challenged adverse action was motivated by
antiunion animus. As stated in Wright Line itself, the General Counsel
must make “a prima facie showing sufficient to support the inference
that protected conduct was a ‘motivating factor’ in the employer’s
decision.” 251 NLRB at 1089 (emphasis added).
Finally, we do not rely on the judge’s finding that “[i]t defies belief
that Respondent would have waited so long to discharge Dasa if indeed
it did so because of his union activities.” See United Parcel Service,
340 NLRB 776, 777 fn. 10 (2003).
EZ PARK, INC. 673
a total of about 60 parking lot attendants. Respondent’s man-
agement includes the owners, Harvey Spear and Robert Spear,
as well as Robert’s children, Gregg Spear, who identified him-
self simply as a supervisor, and Ashley Spear. From about late
2006 or early 2007 until September 12, 2012, when he was
separated from his position by Respondent, David App served
as general manager with responsibility over all of the parking
lots and the attendants working there. Immediately beneath
App in the management hierarchy were two assistant or area
managers, Nathan Potts and Zawdu Mengesha.
Temesgen Dasa worked as a parking lot attendant for the Re-
spondent from 2008 until his discharge on October 6, 2012.
During the last period of his employment, he worked at the
Respondent’s lot on Chestnut Street Monday through Friday
from 3–8 p.m., and, at Respondent’s Bainbridge Street lot on
Fridays and Saturdays from 3 p.m. to about 2 a.m. in the morn-
ing. He was the sole attendant at the Chestnut Street lot and he
worked with Ebbsa Muktar at the Bainbridge Street lot.
Dasa’s duties included acting as cashier and valet. He would
utilize a three-part numbered parking ticket, the first portion of
which he gives to the customer. The second part has a space
for the car’s control number, either the license plate number or
the vehicle identification number, as well as a list of color and
make of the car, which is to be circled. This part of the ticket is
placed on the car’s windshield, after Dasa fills it out. Dasa
testified that he always entered the license plate number, but
did not always identify the color and make of the car, in part
because he was often too busy to enter that information. The
third part of the ticket is the office copy, kept by the parking lot
attendant and placed in Respondent’s office.
Respondent’s ticket identification process is important in as-
suring that payment is accounted for in all parking situations,
particularly because payment is often made in cash. If tickets
are not filled out correctly, the tickets can be used on different
vehicles and the revenue misappropriated, a common way for
attendants to steal. (Tr. 96.) App, who was called as a witness
by the Acting General Counsel, testified that Respondent has
had problems with theft by attendants. During his tenure as
general manager, especially at the beginning of that tenure, he
fired between 40 and 60 attendants for theft and related offens-
es. (Tr. 51, 77–79, 80.) One of the means of theft was for an
attendant to take money from a customer, issue him a blank
ticket, and reuse it for another customer. (Tr. 84, 99.) Accord-
ing to App, it was “inexcusable” for an attendant to put a blank
ticket on a car, unless he was very busy. (Tr. 70.) The record
includes evidence of other discharges of attendants for theft,
including several for cash shortages, issuing a daily ticket to a
second car, and not turning in revenue, stamping tickets out
while cars were still in the lot, and switching tickets. (Exh. F to
GC Exh. 5.)
The Union Campaign
The union campaign in this case began in a somewhat unu-
sual way. General Manager App testified that he noted em-
ployee complaints about working conditions and he discussed
bringing a union into the operation with Area Manager
Mengesha. After talking to employees about their interest in
having a union represent them, App and Mengesha decided to
contact the Union. According to App, they selected four em-
ployees, none of whom was Dasa, to go with them to meet with
representatives of the Union. (Tr. 55–57.) Mengesha testified
that he never participated in organizing the employees. (Tr.
129.)
Among the employees with whom App spoke about a union
was Dasa. App first approached Dasa on June 12, 2012, and
asked if Dasa was interested in being represented by a union.
Dasa replied that he was, and, a couple of weeks later, Dasa
was contacted by a representative of the Union, whom he could
not name or identify. Dasa was working alone at Chestnut
Street when he spoke with the union representative. At that
time, Dasa signed a union authorization card and obtained sev-
eral blank cards to distribute to other employees. Over the next
few weeks, Dasa obtained signed cards from seven other em-
ployees, including Muktar, who worked with Dasa at Bain-
bridge Street. Dasa returned the other signed cards to the union
representative and never had any further contact with him. (Tr.
19.)
On August 6, 2012, the Union filed an election petition in a
unit of Respondent’s full- and part-time parking attendants. A
stipulated election was held on September 12, 2012, which the
Union lost by a vote of 48 to 11. It does not appear that objec-
tions to the election were filed.
Respondent vigorously contested the election, hiring an out-
side consultant and labor counsel to aid in the campaign. App
testified that the Spears solicited and even paid some employ-
ees to campaign against the Union. Among the employees who
campaigned against the Union was Maktar, who had earlier
signed an authorization card given to him by Dasa. App also
offered uncontradicted testimony that he was separated from
his employment after he refused to provide the names of union
supporters to the Spears.1
The Alleged Interrogation of Dasa
Dasa testified that, on October 3, 2012, some 3 weeks after
the election, he was approached by Area Manager Mengesha at
the Chestnut Street lot. According to Dasa, after some general
conversation about how business was going, Mengesha asked
him about the Union—“how many people signed and how I got
them to sign.” Mengesha then asked Dasa for “their names and
I refused to give them.” According to Dasa, after that,
Mengesha left. (Tr. 20–21.)
Mengesha denied that he had any such conversation with
Dasa. He testified that his shift overlapped with Dasa on Octo-
ber 3 for only about 1 hour and he never spoke to Dasa at all on
that day. (Tr. 128–129.)
Neither Dasa nor Mengesha was cross-examined about his
testimony concerning the alleged October 3 conversation. Such
a bare one-on-one conflict presents a difficult credibility deter-
mination for a trier of fact. But the Acting General Counsel has
the burden of proving the allegation of coercive interrogation.
That includes proof of the credibility of the witness whose ac-
count supports the allegation. As between Mengesha and Dasa,
I find that Mengesha was the more reliable witness. Dasa’s

1 None of the incidents related by App in his testimony set forth
above were alleged as unfair labor practices.
674 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testimony was incomplete because he did not testify what his
answers were to the first two questions allegedly posed by
Mengesha. Moreover, there is no proper context supplied for
why Mengesha would ask Dasa any union-related questions,
particularly well after the election, which the Union lost by a
wide margin. Neither Mengesha nor any other supervisor had
expressed an interest in Dasa’s union activities even before the
election, when that interest would have been more pertinent.
App’s conversation with Dasa in June was not coercive be-
cause, at that point, App favored bringing a union in; it was
simply an effort to see whether Dasa was interested in having a
union. Nor were there any other allegations of unlawful threats
or interrogations during the union campaign. In addition, as
noted below (fn. 3), I found one aspect of Dasa’s testimony
about the circumstances of his discharge not entirely credible.
Thus, I find Mengesha’s denial more convincing than Dasa’s
testimony about the October 3 conversation. Accordingly, I
shall dismiss the allegation that Respondent violated the Act by
coercively interrogating Dasa.
The Discharge of Dasa
On October 6, 2012, when Dasa reported for work at Bain-
bridge, both Muktar and a new employee, David Mikonnen,
who had just started working the week before, were also on
duty. Supervisor Mengesha testified that, on that day, he
stopped by the Bainbridge lot and was asked by Muktar to be
removed from that location. According to Mengesha, Muktar
said that there was “funny business going on . . . during the
night time and I don’t want to work with it.” (Tr. 129.) On
cross-examination, Mengesha testified that “funny business” is
a term he understood—and is understood in the industry—to
suggest theft. He also testified that Respondent always treats
theft as a dischargeable offense. (Tr. 131.) As a result,
Mengesha notified his superior, Gregg Spear, of Muktar’s re-
port; and he transferred Muktar to another parking lot, leaving
only Dasa and Mekonnen at the Bainbridge lot. Since Dasa
was the more experienced of the two, he handled the cashier
and ticketing function the rest of the shift.2
Thus alerted, Spear went to the Bainbridge Street lot with
another supervisor, arriving at about midnight, with the purpose
of making a parking lot inspection. Such inspections are not
unusual and involve checking whether the parking tickets
match the cars on whose windshields they appear. (Tr. 99–
100.) Dasa admitted that mismatched tickets are problems and
could result in discipline. (Tr. 42.) He also admitted that he
had been told in the past that he should not be putting mis-
matched tickets on cars. (Tr. 44.) In this connection, before
Spear started the inspection, Dasa volunteered to Spear, accord-
ing to Dasa’s own testimony, that, earlier that night, he had
scratched off information on a completed ticket and put the
ticket on another car. According to Dasa, he had done this
because the customer changed his mind after paying him and
after Dasa had filled out the ticket. Dasa then gave the custom-

2 Mengesha’s testimony about Muktar’s report to him is uncontra-
dicted.
er his money back and reused the scratched out ticket on anoth-
er car. (Tr. 23.)3
During his inspection, Spear found that, in several instances,
the license numbers on the tickets on car windshields did not
match the license plates on the cars, thus indicating that the
tickets may have been reused and that the attendant had pocket-
ed the money from the first use of the ticket. The record shows
that five such tickets were found during the lot inspection.
(Exh. C to GC Exh. 5.) None had the color and make of the car
on them, and four had a mismatched license plate number; one
had no indentifying information on it at all, not even a license
plate number. Dasa admitted that his handwriting is on all
except the blank ticket. (Tr. 30.) There is no evidence that
Mekonnen was responsible for the blank ticket. Dasa testified
that Mekonnen did very little that night. (Tr. 22–23.) And
Spear testified that he spoke with Mekonnen and was satisfied
that he had nothing to do with the improper ticketing. Mekon-
nen was being trained by Dasa and was not handling revenue or
ticketing on the night in question. (Tr. 107–108, 110, 115–
116.)4
After finding what he considered improper tickets and sus-
pecting theft of money from customers that had not been ac-
counted for in the documentary record, Spear asked Dasa for an
explanation. Dasa did not respond. (Tr. 101, 11, 119–120.)
Dasa testified he did not want to argue with Spear. (Tr. 43.)
But I find it significant that Dasa did not offer an explanation
for the improper tickets at the time, especially after he had ear-
lier volunteered to Spear that he scratched off a ticket and re-
used it. Spear then asked Dasa to leave the premises. Dasa was
later discharged. The termination notice states that Dasa’s last
day was October 6, 2012, and that he was terminated for “will-
ful misconduct, reused tickets found on other cars.” Dasa re-
fused to sign the termination notice. (Exh. D to GC Exh. 5.)
According to App and Spear, Dasa was a good employee,
who was trusted enough to work at a relatively busy parking lot
and to train a new employee. But App testified that Dasa
would not always fill out his tickets and would sometimes put
blank tickets on cars. App also testified that Dasa, like other
attendants, did not always indicate the color and make of a car
on his parking ticket; and he was cautioned about that. App
further testified, as did Spear, that that information is not as

3 I found Dasa’s testimony on this point revealing and his explana-
tion unconvincing. It was an attempt to give an innocuous explanation
for what turned out to be the offense for which Dasa was fired. The
testimony not only bears unfavorably on Dasa’s credibility as a witness,
but it supports the notion that Dasa knew he was doing something
wrong and Spear would uncover damaging evidence in his lot inspec-
tion. There is no need to scratch out information on a ticket and reuse it
since there are large quantities of blank tickets available for use by
attendants. Moreover, Dasa’s testimony is internally inconsistent. He
claimed that he did not have time to complete the information on the
tickets because he was busy. Yet, according to Dasa, he had the time to
fill out a ticket and take a customer’s money and also to scratch out the
information and return the customer’s money. I find the latter account
implausible.
4 Spear’s testimony as set forth above was uncontradicted and was
supported in part by the supervisor who accompanied him and helped
with the lot inspection.
EZ PARK, INC. 675
important as placing the correct license number on the ticket.
(Tr. 73–74, 98.)
B. Discussion and Analysis
Motive-based allegations of discrimination are decided under
the framework of the Board’s Wright Line decision.5 Under
Wright Line, the General Counsel must make out an initial
showing that the employee’s protected or union activity was a
motivating factor in the adverse employment action. That bur-
den may be satisfied by showing that the employee engaged in
union activity, and that the employer knew about those activi-
ties and bore animus toward the employee’s union activities.
Other factors supporting an initial showing of discrimination
are the timing of the adverse action and proof that the proffered
reason for the adverse action was a pretext. Vision of Elk River,
Inc., 359 NLRB 69, 71–72 (2012), and cases there cited. Once
the General Counsel makes an initial showing of discrimina-
tion, the burden of persuasion “shift[s] to the employer to
demonstrate that the same action would have been taken even
in the absence of the protected conduct.” Bally’s Atlantic City,
355 NLRB 1319, 1321 (2010).
Applying the above principles, I find that the Acting General
Counsel has not shown that Dasa’s union activities were a mo-
tivating factor in his discharge. I also find that, even if that
showing had been made as an initial matter, the Respondent has
shown that it would have discharged Dasa for valid reasons
unrelated to his union activities.
Respondent undoubtedly harbored animus against the Union,
as shown by the testimony of App, whom it dismissed after he
refused to provide the names of union supporters. But there is
no evidence that such animus was directed towards Dasa for his
union activities. Indeed, there is no specific evidence that the
Spears knew whether Dasa even supported the Union. App
refused to give the Spears Dasa’s name or the names of any of
the union supporters when asked. Dasa did, of course, sign an
authorization card and distributed several others to fellow em-
ployees and turned them in to a representative of the Union.
But he was not otherwise a particularly active union supporter.
He was, for example, not among the four employees who first
were brought to the Union to initiate the union organizing cam-
paign. And Dasa could not even name the representative of the
Union in charge of the organizing campaign, with whom he met
on only two occasions. Nor is there any evidence that Re-
spondent’s union animus lingered after the election. There
were no other contemporaneous unfair labor practices commit-
ted by Respondent; indeed, none at all either before or after the
election. Finally, the timing of Dasa’s discharge was well re-
moved from the union campaign. He was discharged almost a
month after the election, which had resulted in a resounding
loss for the Union. It defies belief that Respondent would have
waited so long to discharge Dasa if indeed it did so because of
his union activities. Thus, I cannot make the inference that his
discharge was motivated by discriminatory reasons.
Nor do I buy the Acting General Counsel’s attempt to show
that Dasa’s termination for improper ticketing was a pretext.

5 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.
1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
Dasa was indeed responsible for improper ticketing on the night
of October 6. Even before the lot inspection, Dasa admitted to
Spear that he had reused a ticket after scratching out previously
written information on it. His testimonial explanation for that
was unconvincing. Dasa was also responsible for four mis-
matched tickets and one blank ticket uncovered during the lot
inspection. He could offer no legitimate explanation for the
improper ticketing when confronted by Spear after the lot in-
spection. Moreover, there is no evidence that the report of
impropriety that caused the lot inspection was not legitimate.6
In these circumstances, it would have been irresponsible for
Respondent not to check out the accuracy of the report. There
is no doubt that the improper ticketing suggested theft and there
is likewise no doubt that Respondent viewed such conduct seri-
ously and discharged other attendants for such improprieties.
Contrary to the contention of the Acting General Counsel (Br.
at 33), there is no evidence of disparate treatment; indeed, the
evidence is that Respondent routinely fired attendants for im-
proper ticketing that amounted to suspicion of, or actual, theft.
Accordingly, I find that the reason offered by Respondent for
the discharge was not a pretext. The improprieties really hap-
pened and they were not a cover up to mask a discriminatory
reason for the discharge.7
For the reasons stated above, I find that, even if the Acting
General Counsel had satisfied the initial burden of showing
discrimination in this case, the Respondent has shown that it
would have fired Dasa for reasons unrelated to union activities.
Accordingly, I will dismiss the complaint allegation that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Respondent has not violated the Act as alleged in the
complaint.

6 Contrary to the Acting General Counsel’s contention (Br. at 25),
no adverse inference may be charged against Respondent for the failure
to call Muktar as a witness. As an employee and not a supervisor or
agent of Respondent, Muktar was equally available to either side.
Neither side chose to call him. Indeed, the prosecution had more rea-
son to call Muktar because, without his testimony, Mengesha’s testi-
mony about his conversation with Muktar was uncontradicted.
7 In her brief (Br. at 15, 28–29, 32), counsel for the Acting General
Counsel alleges that Respondent’s position statement offered other
reasons for the discharge—including that Dasa’s settlement sheets
showed cash discrepancies. Thus, according to the Acting General
Counsel, Respondent offered shifting reasons for the discharge, a factor
supporting a finding of pretext. I reject that contention. Spear’s testi-
mony and the termination notice make clear that the mismatched and
blank tickets discovered during the lot inspection were the reasons for
the discharge; in neither Spear’s testimony nor the termination notice
was there mention of settlement sheet disparities. Nor does Dasa’s
failure to note the color and make of the cars on his tickets amount to
shifting reasons. Indeed, Spear candidly testified that Dasa’s omission
in that respect did not enter into his decision to discharge Dasa. (Tr.
109–110.)
676 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended8

8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions and recom-
mended order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.