SHAMROCK CARTAGE, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 2019

368 NLRB No. 42 (N.L.R.B. 2019)

368 NLRB No. 42
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Shamrock Cartage, Inc. and International Brother-
hood of Teamsters (IBT), Local Union No. 413.
Cases 09–CA–204232, 09–CA–205156, and 09–
CA–207419
August 13, 2019
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN
AND EMANUEL
The General Counsel seeks default judgment in this
case pursuant to the terms of an informal settlement agree-
ment. Upon charges filed by the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 413 (the Union), the
General Counsel issued a complaint on October 13, 2017,
in Case 09–CA–204232 against Shamrock Cartage, Inc.
(the Respondent), alleging that it violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act. The Union filed additional charges
against the Respondent in Case 09–CA–205156, alleging
more Section 8(a)(1) violations, and in Case 09–CA–
207419, alleging a failure to bargain with the Union in vi-
olation of Section 8(a)(5).
Subsequently, the parties entered into an informal set-
tlement agreement, which the Regional Director for Re-
gion 9 approved on November 16, 2017. In the Agree-
ment, the Respondent committed to make employee Shane
Smith whole and to post, distribute, and comply with the
terms and provisions of a remedial notice attached to the
settlement (the Notice). In relevant part, the Notice states
that the Respondent
WILL NOT discipline or fire you because of your un-
ion membership or support.
WILL NOT, in any other manner, interfere with, re-
strain or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed [them] by Section 7 of the Act.
WILL recognize and bargain collectively and in good
faith with [the Union] as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of our employees . . . .
The Agreement also contained a default provision trig-
gered by the Respondent’s noncompliance with any term
of the Agreement. Pursuant to that provision, the Regional
Director may, after 14 days’ notice of noncompliance to
the Respondent without remedy, reissue the complaint in

1 The motion for default judgment inadvertently states that the com-
plaint reissued on January 8, 2018.
2 The motion for default judgment attaches the unfair labor practice
charges and the original complaint in Case 09–CA–204232 and the
Case 09–CA–204232 and issue a new complaint in Cases
09–CA–205156 and 09–CA–207419. Thereafter, accord-
ing to the provision, the General Counsel may move the
Board for default judgment on the allegations in the com-
plaints. The provision further provides that those allega-
tions “will be deemed admitted,” that the Respondent will
be deemed to have withdrawn and/or waived any an-
swer(s), and that the Board may then find the allegations
“to be true and make findings of fact and conclusions of
law consistent with those allegations adverse to the [Re-
spondent] on all issues raised by the pleadings. The Board
may then issue an order providing a full remedy for the
violations found as is appropriate to remedy such viola-
tions.”
On May 1, June 12, and June 20, 2018, the Union filed
a charge and amended charges in Case 09–CA–219396,
alleging that the Respondent had committed additional un-
fair labor practices. On July 16, 2018, counsel for the
General Counsel emailed the Respondent, through its at-
torney, a letter advising that the Regional Director had
found merit in the Union’s new allegations, some of which
constituted noncompliance with the Agreement. The let-
ter explicitly provided the 14 days’ notice required by the
Agreement and stated that, if the Respondent did not rem-
edy the noncompliance and an administrative law judge
found the violations alleged, the Region would proceed
with new complaints in the settled cases and initiate de-
fault judgment pursuant to the Agreement.
On September 12, 2018, the General Counsel issued an
amended complaint in Case 09–CA–219396, alleging vi-
olations of Section 8(a)(3), (4), (5), and (1). On December
6, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin is-
sued a decision and recommended order finding that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by issuing a
discretionary suspension to Smith without providing the
Union with prior notice or an opportunity to bargain and
violated Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) by suspending and
later discharging Smith. No party filed timely exceptions
to the judge’s decision. Consequently, in accordance with
the Agreement, the General Counsel reissued the com-
plaint in Case 09–CA–204232 on January 8, 2019,1 and
issued a consolidated complaint in Cases 09–CA–205156
and 09–CA–207419 on January 10, 2019.
On January 14, 2019, the General Counsel filed a mo-
tion for default judgment with the Board concerning both
complaints, requesting a full remedy for the unfair labor
practices alleged.2 On January 18, 2019, the Board issued
unfair labor practice charges in Cases 09–CA–205156 and 09–CA–
207419, but does not attach the reissued complaint in Case 09–CA–
204232 or the consolidated complaint in the other two cases. However,
the motion (pars. 2 and 3) and the supporting memorandum (pars. 3, 6,
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an order transferring the proceedings in the three cases to
the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion
should not be granted. The Respondent did not file a re-
sponse. The allegations in the motion are therefore undis-
puted.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
According to the uncontroverted allegations in the mo-
tion for default judgment, the Respondent has failed to
comply with the terms of the Agreement. Consequently,
pursuant to the noncompliance provisions of the Agree-
ment described above, we find that the allegations in the
reissued complaint in Case 09–CA–204232 and in the
consolidated complaint in Cases 09–CA–205156 and 09–
CA–207419 are true. Accordingly, we grant the General
Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, an Illinois corpo-
ration, has performed truck spotting and hostler services.
During the calendar year periods ending August 10, 2017
(as alleged in Case 09–CA–204232), and December 31,
2018 (as alleged in the consolidated complaint in Cases
09–CA–205156 and 09–CA–207419), the Respondent has
performed those services in states outside the State of Illi-
nois and in an amount in excess of $50,000, including at
Kraft Heinz Foods Company (Kraft) and Pepsi Company
(Pepsi) jobsites in Ohio.3 We find that the Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union has
been a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. At all material times, the following individuals held
the positions set forth opposite their respective names and
have been supervisors of the Respondent within the mean-
ing of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the Respond-
ent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:
Dan O’Brien Co-Owner
Matt Harper Co-Owner4
Michael Harper General Manager
Jeremie Ibarra Manager

and 7) make clear that the motion requests a judgment encompassing
both 2019 complaints and all three cases.
3 The bargaining unit description refers to these jobsites as the DHL
and Ryder facilities. According to the General Counsel’s brief in support
Jason V. Caccamo Site Supervisor
About July 18, 2017, a majority of a unit of the Re-
spondent’s full- and regular part-time yard spotter/hostler
employees at the Kraft and Pepsi jobsites designated the
Union as their exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive, and the Union has at all times since July 18, 2017,
been the exclusive representative of that unit based on
Section 9(a) of the Act. On about August 3, 2017, the Un-
ion, by certified letter, requested that the Respondent rec-
ognize it as the exclusive representative of the unit and
bargain collectively with the Union as such. Beginning
around August 4, and until about November 16, 2017, the
Respondent failed and refused to do so. Since November
16, 2017, the Respondent has recognized and bargained
with the Union as the exclusive representative of the unit
employees, pursuant to the Agreement. Shamrock Cart-
age, Inc., Case 09–CA–219396 (ALJ Decision December
6, 2018) at 4 fn. 4, adopted January 22, 2019.
2. (a) About August 4, 2017, at the Respondent’s Kraft
jobsite, the Respondent, by Caccamo, threatened that the
Respondent would close its Kraft and Pepsi jobsites to dis-
courage union activity.
(b) About August 8, 2017, at the Respondent’s Kraft
jobsite, the Respondent, by Caccamo, threatened that an-
other employee at the Kraft jobsite was next to be fired,
and that the Respondent would close its Kraft and Pepsi
jobsites, terminate employees, and re-open under another
name to discourage union activity.
3. (a) About August 8, 2017, the Respondent dis-
charged employee Shane Smith.
(b) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
in paragraph 3(a) because Smith formed, joined and as-
sisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities, and
to discourage employees from engaging in these activities.
4. (a) About the latter part of August or the beginning
of September 2017, the Respondent, by O’Brien, in his
personal vehicle at the Kraft jobsite: (i) solicited em-
ployee complaints and grievances and promised employ-
ees increased benefits and improved terms and conditions
of employment if they refrained from organizing a union;
(ii) promised its employees improved wages and benefits,
including a 401(k) plan, vacation and holiday pay, vision
and health insurance, and pay raises; (iii) granted employ-
ees benefits by giving them $100 in cash; and (iv) offered
employees increased benefits of $100 in cash.
of his motion, DHL and Ryder provide distribution warehouses for Pepsi
and Kraft, respectively.
4 The complaint in Case 09–CA–204232 does not list Matt Harper,
but the consolidated complaint in Cases 09–CA–205156 and 09–CA–
207419 identifies Matt Harper as the Co-Owner.
SHAMROCK CARTAGE, INC. 3
(b) About the beginning of September 2017, O’Brien,
in his personal vehicle at the Respondent’s Pepsi jobsite:
(i) solicited employee complaints and grievances and
promised its employees increased benefits and improved
terms and conditions of employment if they refrained from
organizing a union; and (ii) promised employees a 401(k)
plan and health insurance.
5. (a) About the latter part of August 2017, at the Re-
spondent’s Kraft jobsite, the Respondent, by Matt Harper:
(i) solicited employee complaints and grievances and
promised its employees increased benefits and improved
terms and conditions of employment if they refrained from
organizing a union; and (ii) granted employees benefits by
purchasing them lunch.
(b) About the beginning of September 2017, at the Re-
spondent’s Pepsi jobsite, the Respondent, by Matt Harper,
granted employees benefits by purchasing them lunch.
6. About August 2017, the exact date and location be-
ing unknown, the Respondent, by Caccamo:
(a) Interrogated its employees about their union mem-
bership, activities and sympathies and the union member-
ship, activities and sympathies of other employees.
(b) Asked its employees to ascertain and disclose to the
Respondent the union membership, activities and sympa-
thies of other employees.
7. The following employees of the Respondent (the
unit) constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time yard spotter/hostler
employees employed by the Employer at the DHL facil-
ity located at 2842 Spiegel Drive, Groveport, Ohio and
at the Ryder Logistics facility located at 3880 Groveport
Road, Obetz, Ohio, excluding all Office clerical employ-
ees, all professional employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
(b) About July 18, 2017, a majority of the unit desig-
nated the Union as their collective-bargaining representa-
tive.
(c) At all times since July 18, 2017, based on Section
9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the unit.

5 In Case 09–CA–219396, the judge found, and the Board adopted in
the absence of timely exceptions filed, that since about November 16,
2017, the Respondent has recognized the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative. Shamrock Cartage, Inc., Case 09–CA–
219396, at 4 fn. 4 (December 6, 2018), adopted January 22, 2019.
6 The Agreement provides that, in the event of a default by the Re-
spondent, the Board may “issue an order providing a full remedy for the
violations found as is appropriate to remedy such violations.” In the con-
solidated complaint in Cases 09–CA–205156 and 09–CA–207419 fol-
lowing the Respondent’s breach, the General Counsel requests “all other
(d) About August 3, 2017, the Union, by certified letter,
requested that the Respondent recognize it as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit and bar-
gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the unit.
(e) Since about August 4, 2017, the Respondent has
failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit.5
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 2 and
4–6, the Respondent has been interfering with, restraining,
and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By the conduct described above in paragraph 3, the
Respondent has been discriminating in regard to the hire
or tenure or terms and conditions of employment of its
employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
3. By the conduct described above in paragraph 7, the
Respondent failed and refused to bargain collectively with
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its
employees within the meaning of Section 8(d) of the Act
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent de-
scribed above affect commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order the Respondent
to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.6
Specifically, having found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening jobsite closure
and discharge; interrogating employees about their own
and their coworkers’ union membership, activities, and
sympathies; soliciting complaints and grievances; and
promising and granting benefits and improved terms and
conditions of employment, we shall order the Respondent
relief as may be just and proper to remedy the unfair labor practices al-
leged.” In addition, the consolidated complaint modifies the remedy in
the Agreement by providing alternative methods of reading the notice
that the Agreement did not mention. The General Counsel’s memoran-
dum accompanying the motion for default judgment cites the provision
of the Agreement permitting a full remedy and seeks “all other relief as
may be just and proper to remedy the unfair labor practices alleged.”
Under these circumstances, we construe the General Counsel’s motion
as seeking a full remedy for the Respondent’s violations.
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to cease and desist from such conduct and to post a reme-
dial notice.
Having also found that the Respondent failed and re-
fused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the unit employees in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act beginning about August 4, 2017,
we will order that the Respondent cease and desist from
failing and refusing to bargain with the Union and bargain
with the Union to the extent that it has not already done
so.
Having found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging Smith, we will
order the Respondent, to the extent that it has not already
done so, to offer Smith full reinstatement to his former job
or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other
rights or privileges he previously enjoyed.7 In addition,
we shall order the Respondent to make Smith whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result
of the unlawful action against him, to the extent that the
Respondent has not already done so.8 Backpay shall be
computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in
New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded
daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356
NLRB 6 (2010). In accordance with our decision in King
Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 (2016), enfd. in relevant
part 859 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017), we shall also order the
Respondent to compensate Smith for his search-for-work
and interim employment expenses regardless of whether
those expenses exceed interim earnings. Search-for-work
and interim employment expenses shall be calculated sep-
arately from taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate
prescribed in New Horizons, supra, compounded daily as
prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra.9 We
shall further order the Respondent to compensate Smith
for any adverse tax consequences of receiving a lump-sum
backpay award, to the extent that the Respondent has not
already done so, and to file with the Regional Director for
Region 9 a report allocating the backpay award to the ap-
propriate calendar years. AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc.,
363 NLRB No. 143 (2016). The Respondent shall also be
required to remove from its files any reference to the un-
lawful discharge of Smith and to notify him in writing that

7 In Case 09–CA–219396, the Board adopted the judge’s finding that
the Respondent reinstated Smith in November 2017 and unlawfully sus-
pended and discharged him in April 2018.
8 Because it is unclear whether the total amount set forth in the Agree-
ment constitutes a full make-whole remedy, we leave to compliance a
determination of the proper amount due to Smith.
this has been done and that the unlawful discharge will not
be used against him in any way.
Finally, we shall order the Respondent to hold a meeting
or meetings, scheduled to ensure the widest possible at-
tendance on each shift, at which Dan O’Brien or Matt Har-
per will read the Notice to Employees on work time in the
presence of a Board agent and a representative of the Un-
ion, if the Union wishes its representative to attend. Al-
ternatively, the Respondent may choose to have a Board
agent read the notice during work time in the presence of
Dan O’Brien and Matt Harper and a representative of the
Union, if the Union wishes its representative to attend.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that Re-
spondent Shamrock Cartage, Inc., Groveport and Obetz,
Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening that it would close its Kraft and Pepsi
jobsites and re-open the jobsites under another name to
discourage union activity.
(b) Threatening to fire employees to discourage union
activity.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees about their un-
ion membership, activities, and sympathies and about
those of other employees, and asking employees to ascer-
tain and disclose the same to the Respondent.
(d) Soliciting employee complaints and grievances and
promising employees increased benefits and improved
terms and conditions of employment to discourage union
support or activity.
(e) Promising employees improved wages and benefits,
including a 401(k) plan, vacation and holiday pay, vision
and health insurance, and pay raises to discourage union
activity.
(f) Granting or offering employees cash or purchasing
them lunch to discourage union activity.
(g) Discharging employees because they formed,
joined, or assisted the Union and engaged in concerted ac-
tivities, and to discourage employees from engaging in
these activities.
(h) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the following unit:
9 The General Counsel additionally seeks reasonable consequential
damages incurred as a result of the Respondent’s unfair labor practices.
This issue, which was not briefed, would involve a change in Board law.
We are not prepared at this time to deviate from our current remedial
practice. Accordingly, we decline to order this relief. See, e.g., Laborers
International Union of North America, Local Union No. 91 (Council of
Utility Contractors), 365 NLRB No. 28, slip op. at 1 fn. 2 (2017).
SHAMROCK CARTAGE, INC. 5
All full-time and regular part-time yard spotter/hostler
employees employed by the [Respondent] at the DHL
facility located at 2842 Spiegel Drive, Groveport, Ohio
and at the Ryder Logistics facility located at 3880
Groveport Road, Obetz, Ohio, excluding all Office cler-
ical employees, all professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(i) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, to the
extent that it has not already done so, offer Shane Smith
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges pre-
viously enjoyed.
(b) Make Shane Smith whole, to the extent it has not
already done so, for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of his unlawful discharge, including
any search-for-work and interim employment expenses, in
the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Compensate Shane Smith, to the extent it has not
already done so, for the adverse tax consequences, if any,
of receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and file with the
Regional Director for Region 9, within 21 days of the date
the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to the
appropriate calendar years.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge of
Shane Smith, and within 3 days thereafter, notify Smith in
writing that this has been done and that the discharge will
not be used against him in any way.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records, including electronic
copies of such records if stored in electronic form, neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Order.
(f) On request, to the extent that it has not already done
so, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of

10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody
the understanding in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time yard spotter/hostler
employees employed by the [Respondent] at the DHL
facility located at 2842 Spiegel Drive, Groveport, Ohio
and at the Ryder Logistics facility located at 3880
Groveport Road, Obetz, Ohio, excluding all Office cler-
ical employees, all professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Kraft and Pepsi jobsites copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”10 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent in English and in addi-
tional languages if the Regional Director decides it is ap-
propriate to do so and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. In addition to phys-
ical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or
an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Re-
spondent customarily communicates with its employees
by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material. If the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current
employees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at the Kraft or Pepsi jobsites at any time since
August 4, 2017.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, hold a
meeting or meetings, scheduled to ensure the widest pos-
sible attendance on each shift, at which the “Notice to Em-
ployees” will be read to unit employees by owners Dan
O’Brien or Matt Harper in English and, through a transla-
tor, in additional languages if the Regional Director de-
cides that it is appropriate to do so, in the presence of a
Board agent and a representative of the Union. Alterna-
tively, at the Respondent’s option, the notice may be read
by a Board agent in the presence of Dan O’Brien and Matt
Harper and a representative of the Union. If either
O’Brien or Harper is no longer an owner, then the Re-
spondent shall designate another owner or officer to con-
duct or be present for the reading.
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 9 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 13, 2019
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
_____________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
_____________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vi-
olated 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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our Kraft and Pepsi
jobsites and to re-open the jobsites under another name to
discourage union activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten to fire you to discourage union
activity.
WE WILL NOT coercively question you about your union
membership, activities, and sympathies or those of other
employees, or ask you to ascertain and disclose the same
to us.
WE WILL NOT solicit complaints and grievances from
you or promise you increased benefits or improved terms
and conditions of employment to discourage you from se-
lecting a union representative.
WE WILL NOT promise you improved wages and bene-
fits, including a 401(k) plan, vacation and holiday pay, vi-
sion and health insurance, and pay raises to discourage un-
ion activity.
WE WILL NOT grant or offer you cash or purchase your
lunch to discourage union activity.
WE WILL NOT discharge you because you form, join, or
assist the Union and engage in concerted activities, and to
discourage you from engaging in those activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of our employees in the bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, to the extent we have not already done so, offer
Shane Smith full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL, to the extent we have not already done so,
make Shane Smith whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of his unlawful dis-
charge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest, and WE
WILL also make him whole for reasonable search-for-work
and interim employment expenses, plus interest.
WE WILL, to the extent we have not already done so,
compensate Shane Smith for the adverse tax conse-
quences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award,
and WE WILL file with the Regional Director for Region 9,
within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed,
either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the
backpay award to the appropriate calendar years.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlawful
discharge of Shane Smith, and WE WILL, within 3 days
thereafter, notify him that this has been done and that the
discharge will not be used against him in any way.
WE WILL, on request, to the extent that we have not al-
ready done so, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of our employees in
the following appropriate unit concerning terms and con-
ditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time yard spotter/hostler
employees employed by us at the DHL facility located
at 2842 Spiegel Drive, Groveport, Ohio and at the Ryder
Logistics facility located at 3880 Groveport Road,
SHAMROCK CARTAGE, INC. 7
Obetz, Ohio, excluding all Office clerical employees, all
professional employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
SHAMROCK CARTAGE, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/09-CA-204232 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.