APD Transport Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 25, 1980

253 N.L.R.B. 468 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APD Transport Corp. and its Alter Ego, National
Book Consolidators, Inc. and Local 804, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case
22-CA-9259
November 25, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
Upon a charge filed on May 30, 1979, by Local
804, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, herein called the Union, and duly served on
APD Transport Corp. and its alter ego, National
Book Consolidators, Inc., herein called Respond-
ent, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by its Regional Director for
Region 22, issued a complaint on August 3, 1979,
against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of
hearing before an administrative law judge were
duly served on the parties to this proceeding. The
Regional Director granted several requests by Re-
spondent and extended the time for filing an
answer until September 27, 1979. Respondent,
however, failed to file a timely answer to the com-
plaint.
On January 10, 1980, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on February 7,
1980, Respondent filed a response to the Motion
for Summary Judgment in which it summarily
denied the allegations of the complaint and further
requested that the Board dismiss the Motion for
Summary Judgment.
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.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer there-
The Respondent has requested oral argument. This request is hereby
denied as the record, and the briefs adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
253 NLRB No. 56
to. The respondent shall specifically admit,
deny, or explain each of the facts alleged in
the complaint, unless the respondent is without
knowledge, in which case the respondent shall
so state, such statement operating as a denial.
All allegations in the complaint, if no answer
is filed, or any allegation in the complaint not
specifically denied or explained in an answer
filed, unless the respondent shall state in the
answer that he is without knowledge, shall be
deemed to be admitted to be true and shall be
so found by the Board, unless good cause to
the contrary is shown.
The complaint and notice of hearing served on
Respondent herein specifically states that unless an
answer to the complaint is filed within 10 days of
service thereof "all the allegations in the complaint
shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and may
be so found by the Board." Further, according to
the uncontroverted allegations in the Motion for
Summary Judgment, by a letter dated October 26,
1979, counsel for the General Counsel confirmed a
prior telephone conversation and advised Respond-
ent's attorney that an answer had not been received
notwithstanding two prior extensions and that
unless an answer was received by October 31,
1979, the General Counsel would move for sum-
mary judgment. By letter dated October 30, 1979,
Respondent's attorney advised counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel that Respondent and Charging Party
had reached an agreement to settle the complaint.
Thereafter, however, Respondent failed to file an
answer or to make any attempt to resolve the
issues raised by the complaint. In the absence of an
answer, request for withdrawal or other disposition
of the case, counsel for the General Counsel tele-
phoned Respondent's attorney on January 3, 1980,
and advised him of an intention to file immediately
a Motion for Summary Judgment. Again, Respond-
ent failed to file an answer, and on January 10,
1980, the General Counsel filed the Motion for
Summary Judgment. On January 16, 1980, the
Board issued a Notice To Show Cause and set Jan-
uary 30, 1980, as the deadline for filing a response.
Thereafter, the Board granted requests by Re-
spondent and Charging Party and extended the
time for filing a response. On February 7, 1980,
Respondent filed a response to the Motion for
Summary Judgment in which it denied all of the
substantive allegations of the complaint and re-
quested that the Motion for Summary Judgment be
dismissed. Although Respondent's motion and op-
position to the Motion for Summary Judgment
were filed in a timely fashion, Respondent gave no
468
APID TRANSII CORP.
explanation for its failure to file a timely answer to
the complaint.
On May 30, 1980, Respondent filed another
motion in response to the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment and the Board's
Notice To Show Cause. Subsequently, the General
Counsel filed a reply urging that the Board dismiss
Respondent's May 30 motion because it had not
been filed in a timely fashion. We find merit in the
General Counsel's position.
On February 7, 1980, after granting a second ex-
tension of time to file a response to the Notice To
Show Cause, the Board notified the parties that the
time for filing a response had been exte ided until
February 20, 1980, but that no further extension for
filing would be granted. In addition, Section 102.24
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, requires that motions, such as Respond-
ent's May 30 motion, "shall be filed promptly and
within such time as not to delay the proceeding."
Respondent, however, has not offered any explana-
tion for filing its May 30 motion over 3 months
after the filing date set by the Board, and, by any
measure, such a late filing is dilatory and fails to
comply with Section 102.24. Accordingly, in these
circumstances, we find that the May 30 motion is
untimely, and that it should be denied for that
reason. 2
2 Moreover, een if we were to consider the contenriions raised b Re-
spondent in its May 30 motion, we v ould deny the motion as lacking in
merit In its May 30 motion, Respondent's nesw attorney asserts that Re-
spondent's former attorney had been advised by counsel for the General
Counsel that an answer would not be necessary if Respondent and
Charging Party entered into a written settlement agreement. On October
30, 1979, Respondent nformed the General Counsel that it had reached
an out-of-Hoard agreement with Charging Party settling the complaint:
but Charging P'art did not file a request to withdraw charges until Janu-
ary 8, 1980 The General Counsel. however, refused to approve the et-
tlement or permit the charges to he withdrawn because the settlement
failed substantially to remedy the unfair labor practices alleged in the
charges (See infr. sec. III, for a fuller discussion.) We find no merit to
Respondent's contenitions that it ss as misled into believing that an answer
was unnecessary because counsel for the General Counsel failed to
Inform Respondent that a proposed settlement required approval by the
General Counsel before the matter could be concluded
Assuming. arguendo Respondent's former attorney was under the im-
pression that there was no necessity to file an answer because of a pro-
posed withdrawal of charges and an attempt Ito settle the complaint,
Charging Party did not actually file a withdrawal request until January 8.
1980, a date well beyond the deadline for filing an answer As set forth in
an affidavit attached to Respondent's August 18, 1980, motion requesting
oral argument. Respondent's former attorney asserted that counsel for the
General Counsel had stated that "if the matter was actuallv settled, and
withdrawn" (emphasis supplied). an answer would not be necessary
Thus, Respondent's answer which had been due on September 27. 1979.
was already more than 3 months oerdue when Charging Party filed its
request for withdrawal of charges Further the complaint filed n
August 3. 1979, explicitly informed Respondent that an answer was nec-
essary, and Respondent's former attoriey understood a answer was nec-
essary because he filed a number of requests for extensions of time to file
such an answer. In addition, the General Counsel's letter dlated October
26, 1979, informed Respondent that a Motion for Summary Judgment
would be filed unless an answer was received Finally, on January 3,
1980, the General Counsel again informed Respondent that a Motion for
Summary Judgment would he filed unless Respondent filed an answer to
the complaint In the absence of an answer. on January 1I), 19(0, the
On June 4, 1980, Respondent filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint because of an "out-of-Board"
settlement reached between Respondent and
Charging Party. The General Counsel filed a re-
sponse urging the Board to deny Respondent's
motion because the alleged settlement agreement
failed to remedy the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint. We find merit to the General
Counsel's position.
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the Act by closing
its Maspeth, New York, terminal and removing its
operations to Paterson, New Jersey, under the
name of its alter ego, National Book Consolidators,
Inc., without notice to or affording Charging Party
an opportunity to bargain about the decision to
close its terminal and/or to bargain about the ef-
fects of the closing on the unit employees and that
Respondent discharged and failed to reinstate and./
or transfer unit employees to its Paterson facility.
Respondent asserts, however, that after protracted
negotiations, it signed an agreement with Charging
Party which purported to settle the outstanding
complaint. The agreement provided that Respond-
ent would provide certain sums of money to pay,
in specified priorities, portions of debts owed to
Charging Party, to various trust funds, and to em-
ployees. On January 8, 1980, Charging Party filed
a request to withdraw charges with the General
Counsel.: The General Counsel, however, refused
to approve the settlement because the settlement
failed to provide a full remedy for all of the com-
plaint allegations. Thus, for example, the settlement
agreement made no provisions to provide backpay
or reinstatement or transfer rights to employees
discharged because of Respondent's alleged unlaw-
ful termination of its New York facility. In addi-
tion, the settlement agreement made no provision
for the posting of a notice to inform employees of
Respondent's unfair labor practices and of Re-
spondent's intention to cease and desist from com-
mitting such unfair labor practices.
Nevertheless, Respondent contends that the
Board should permit Charging Party to withdraw
its charges and that the Board should dismiss the
complaint because Respondent and Charging Party
have reached an amicable settlement of their differ-
General Counsel filed its Motion for Summary Judgment Respondent.
however, did not file an answer until February 7, 1980, when it filed a
response o the Notice To Show Cause In these circumstances. where
the complaint was first filed on August 3. 1979, and Respondent failed to
file a timely answecr despite repeated warning that a Motion for Summary
Judgment would be filed. we find that Respondent has failed to offer a
sufficient reason to explain its failure to file a timely answer
:' The request to withdraw charges was filed ilth the Regional Office
after the General Counsel had mailed its Motion for Summary Judgment
IIt the Hoard
I)ECISI()NS ()01 NATI)NAI. I.ABf()R R Al)IONS OARkl)
ences. We disagree. As pointed out in Community
Medical Services of Clea(rfield, Inc., d/b/a Clear
Haven Nursing Ilotne, 236 NLRB 853 (1978), the
Board will approve a withdrawal of charges and a
settlement agreement only when the alleged unfair
labor practices are substantially remedied and a dis-
missal of the charges would effectuate the policies
of the Act. "[T]he willingness of a charging party
to withdraw charges is not necessarily a ground for
dismissal of a complaint 'for once a charge is filed,
the General Counsel proceeds, not in vindication of
private rights, but as the representative of an
agency entrusted with the power and the duty of
enforcing the Act in which the public has an inter-
est."' 4 It is clear that, once a matter has ripened to
involve the Board, the Board cannot ignore the
rights of discriminatees and the public by giving
effect to a private agreement between a charging
party and a respondent when approval of that
agreement would not effectuate the policies of the
Act. In this connection, we note that a number of
employees have expressed objections to the terms
of the settlement agreement between Respondent
and Charging Party and have urged the General
Counsel to proceed with the case. We agree with
the General Counsel that the failure to provide
backpay and reinstatement to discriminatorily dis-
charged employees falls far short of a substantial
remedy. In view of the failure of the settlement
agreement to provide a substantial remedy for the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, we
will not approve the request to withdraw charges
and dismiss the complaint.
Accordingly, under the rule set forth above, no
good cause having been shown for the failure to
file a timely answer, the allegations of the com-
plaint are deemed admitted and found to be true,
and we grant the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board
makes the following:
FININIINS 01 FACT
1. THE BUSINESS 01; RESPONDENT
APD Transport Corp. (APD), a New York cor-
poration, has maintained its principal office and
place of business in Maspeth, New York, where it
has been engaged in the business of delivering
books, stationery, and related supplies. During the
12-month period ending on or about December 1,
4 Clear Haven Nursing Ilone upra at 853, citing hc Ingalls Steel (n-
oruction Compuny, 126 NlRB 54 at fn I ( 196))
1 In joining his colleagues in graning the Genleral Counsel's Motion
for Summary Judgment, Membher P'enello relies solely on Respondent's
failure to file a timely answer to the complaint and ils failure to sho'A
sufficient cause for not doing so Accordingly, he does not rel oin (ar
Halven Nursing ome, upra. in which he dissenlted
1978, said operations being representative of its op-
erations at all times material herein, APD derived
gross revenues in excess of $50,(00 from the trans-
portation of books, stationery, and other goods and
materials to its Maspeth terminal directly from
States other than the State of New York.
National Book Consolidators, Inc. (NBC), a New
Jersey corporation, has maintained its principal
office and place of business in Paterson, New
Jersey, where it has been engaged in the business
of providing and performing parcel delivery serv-
ices and other related services and has been en-
gaged in the business of transporting books, statio-
nery, and other goods and materials. In the course
and conduct of its business operations during calen-
dar year 1979, said operations being representative
of its operations at all times material herein, NBC
derived gross revenue in excess of $50,000 from the
transportation of books, stationery, and other goods
and materials to its Paterson terminal in interstate
commerce directly from States other than the State
of New Jersey.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that APD
and NBC separately and individually are, and have
been at all times material herein, employers en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
II. HE L.ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 804, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. IHF UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICES
At all times material herein, APD and NBC
have been affiliated business enterprises with
common officers, ownership, directors, manage-
ment, and supervision, have formulated and admin-
istered a common labor policy affecting employees
of these enterprises, have common premises and
facilities, have provided services for each other,
have interchanged personnel with each other, and
have held themselves out to the public as a single
integrated enterprise. On or about July 17, 1978,
NBC was established by APD as a subordinate in-
strument to and a disguised continuation of APD.
By virtue of the acts and conduct described above,
we find that NBC is, and has been at all times ma-
terial herein, an alter ego of APD. In addition, by
virtue of its operation described above, APD and
NBC constitute a single ntegrated business enter-
prise and a single employer within the meaning of
the Act. At all times material herein, Angelo Cor-
nacchia and K. Shim have been and are now super-
470
API) TRANSI-I COR()KI'
visors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the
Act, and have been and now are agents of both
APD and NBC within the meaning of Section
2(13).
For approximately 30 years prior to December 1,
1978, and at all times thereafter to date. the Union
has been and is now the exclusive representative of
the employees in the following appropriate unit:
All terminal and other employees employed by
APD at its Maspeth terminal but excluding ex-
ecutives and their immediate assistants; station
managers and department managers; day and
night supervisors; watchmen; shop and auto-
motive maintenance department employees;
general office and C.O.D. employees; employ-
ees engaged in sales, systems, timestudy, uni-
form, telephone, payroll, personnel and secre-
tarial work.
By virtue of Section (9)(a) of the Act, the Union
has been and is now the exclusive representative of
the employees in said unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment. On or about December
1, 1975, APD and the Union entered into a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement effective from Dece-
meber 1, 1975, through November 30, 1978, cover-
ing the employees in the above unit.
Respondent interfered with. restrained, and co-
erced employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by engaging in
the following acts: on or about December 1, 1978,
Respondent ceased operation at its Maspeth, New
York, terminal, and on an unknown date in or
about January 1979, Respondent, under the name
of NBC, opened its Paterson, New Jersey, terminal
and resumed its former Maspeth terminal oper-
ations at that location. Since that date, Respondent
has been continuously engaged at its Paterson ter-
minal in the business of delivering books, statio-
nery, and related supplies, and in providing and
performing parcel delivery services and other relat-
ed services.
Prior to December 1, 1978, and at all times
thereafter, Respondent failed and refused to notify
the Union and failed and refused to bargain collec-
tively with the Union with respect to its decision
to close its Maspeth terminal and remove its oper-
ations from Maspeth to its Paterson terminal. In ad-
dition, prior to December 1, 1978, and at all times
thereafter to date, Respondent has failed and re-
fused to bargain collectively with the Union with
respect to the effects of the cessation of its oper-
ations at its Maspeth terminal upon unit employees.
By its conduct described above, Respondent pre-
vented the Union from demanding bargaining over
the transfer of unit employees from its Maspeth to
its Paterson terminal and thereby discharged its
employees by refusing to offer them the opportuni-
ty to transfer. In addition, Respondent terminated
operations at Maspeth, transferred operations to
Paterson, and discharged and failed and refused to
reinstate and/or transfer unit employees to its Pa-
terson terminal because its employees joined or as-
sisted the Union or engaged in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
other mutual aid or protection. Finally, in March
or April 1979, at its Paterson terminal. Respondent.
by its agent, Angelo Cornacchia, refused to rein-
state Ralph Napolitano and Carmine Pisano, unit
employees, formerly employed by Respondent at
its Maspeth terminal.
Accordingly, we find that by the aforesaid con-
duct Respondent discriminatorily closed its Ma-
speth terminal and transferred its operations to its
Paterson terminal, discriminatorily refused to bar-
gain about the closing or the effect of the closing
of its Maspeth terminal and the transfer of its oper-
ations to its Paterson terminal, discriminatorily dis-
charged and/or refused to reinstate or offer unit
employees the opportunity to transfer to its Pater-
son terminal, and discriminatorily refused to trans-
fer and/or reinstate former Maspeth employees
Ralph Napolitano and Carmine Pisano and that Re-
spondent has thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act
and, by such conduct, Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. We also find that,
by the aforesaid conduct, Respondent has, since
November 1978, and at all times thereafter, refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of its employees in the appropri-
ate unit and that, by such refusal, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
IV. I'LHI I:FICT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III., above, occurring in connection with its oper-
ations described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
471
DECISIONS ()F NATIONAL I.ABOR RELAFIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Responent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act. We have found that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by closing its
Maspeth terminal and moving its operations to its
Paterson terminal and by discharging unit employ-
ees and refusing to transfer and/or reinstate unit
employees at its Paterson terminal for discriminato-
ry reasons, and Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by closing unilaterally its Maspeth terminal and
transferring its operations to its Paterson terminal
without notice or bargaining over the closing and
transfer and without bargaining over the effects of
the closing and transfer of operations. In the cir-
cumstances of this case, where the plant closing
and the transfer of operations were discriminatorily
motivated, we find it necessary, in order to effectu-
ate the purposes of the Act, to restore the status
quo ante by ordering Respondent to reopen its Ma-
speth terminal.6 Accordingly, we shall order Re-
spondent to restore the status quo ante by reopen-
ing its Maspeth terminal, reinstituting the work of
its unit employees at its Maspeth terminal, and by
offering the terminated bargaining unit employees
reinstatement to their former positions, or substan-
tially equivalent positions, with backpay computed
from the date of termination to the date of rein-
statement, less net earnings to which shall be added
interest computed thereupon in the manner pro-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977); 7 see, generally, Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962). We shall also
order Respondent to bargain over any decision to
close its Maspeth terminal and transfer its oper-
ations elsewhere, and if a decision is reached to
close the Maspeth terminal, we shall order Re-
spondent to bargain over the effects of such clos-
ing. In addition, we shall order Respondent to
6 The Board's usual remedy for violations similar to those found
against this Respondent, involving as they do discriminatorily motivated
conduct, is to order a respondent to restore the status quo ante by reestab-
lishing the closed operations, unless the respondent can show that such a
remedy would be "unduly burdensome." See National Family Opinion,
Inc.. 246 NLRB No. 84 (1979); N. C. Coastal Motor Lines. Inc., 219
NLRB 1009 11975), enfd. 542 F.2d 637 (4th Cir 1976). In the instant
case, Respondent failed to file a timely answer, or introduce evidence
showing a reopening to be unduly burdensome; accordingly, all of the
allegations of the complaint have been deemed to be admitted as true In
these circumstances, Respondent has failed to meet its burden of estab-
lishing that the reopening of its plant would be "unduly burdensome."
I Member Jenkins would compute interest in the manner set forth in
his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 NLRB 146 (198().
make the Union whole for damages resulting from
its unlawful activity.8
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
in the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. APD Transport Corp., and its alter ego, Na-
tional Book Consolidators, Inc., is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 804, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All terminal and other employees employed
by APD at its Maspeth terminal but excluding ex-
ecutives and their immediate assistants; station man-
agers and department managers; day and night su-
pervisors; watchmen; shop and automotive mainte-
nance department employees; general office and
C.O.D. employees; employees engaged in sales,
systems, timestudy, uniform, telephone, payroll,
personnel and secretarial work, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section (9)(b) of the
Act.
4. At all times material herein, the above-named
labor organization has been and now is the exclu-
sive representative of all employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section (9)(a) of the
Act.
5. By closing its Maspeth terminal and moving
its operations to its Paterson terminal, by discharg-
ing unit employees and refusing to transfer and/or
reinstate unit employees at its Paterson terminal for
discriminatory reasons, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
6. By closing its Maspeth terminal and transfer-
ring its operations to its Paterson terminal without
giving notice or bargaining over the closing and by
transferring and not bargaining over the effects of
the closing of operations, Respondent has engaged
" Because the provisions of employee benefit fund agreements are ari-
able and complex, the Board does not provide at the adjudicatory stage
of the proceeding for the addition of interest a: a fixed rate on unlawfully
withheld fund payments WeV leave to the compliance stage the questlon
whether Respondent must pay any additional amounts into the health and
welfare trust fund in order to satisfy our "make whole" remedy These
additional amounts may be determined depending on circumstances of
each case by reference to provisions in the documents governing the fund
and. if there are no governing provisions, by eidence of any loss directly
attributable to the unlawful withholding action, which might include the
loss of return on investment of the portion of refunds withheld, additional
administrative costs etc, but not collateral losses Merryweather Optical
Company, 240 NLRB 1213, fn. 7 (1979). and Inland Citie, Inc., 241
NLRB 374, fn. 52 (1979)
472
AI'D TRANSIT CORP
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and () of the Act.
7. By the aforesaid discriminatory conduct and
unlawful refusal to bargain, Respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfer-
ing with, restraining, and coercing, employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practiecs are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
APD Transport Corp., Maspeth, New York, and
its alter ego, National Book Consolidators, Inc., Pa-
terson, New Jersey, their officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating
against employees with regard to transfer or rein-
statement rights or any other types of rights be-
cause of the union activities of its employees.
(b) Terminating any of its operation in retaliation
for activities of its employees in support of the
above-named Union, or any other union or labor
organization.
(c) Refusing to recognize and bargain with Local
804, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees in the following unit:
All terminal and other employees employed by
APD at its Maspeth terminal but excluding ex-
ecutives and their immediate assistants; station
managers and department managers; day and
night supervisors; watchmen; shop and auto-
motive maintenance department employees;
general office and C.O.D. employees; employ-
ees engaged in sales, systems, timestudy, uni-
form, telephone, payroll, personnel and secre-
tarial work.
(d) In any other manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Reopen its Maspeth, New York, terminal and
reinstitute the work of its unit employees and offer
immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to established
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their se-
niority or other rights and privileges and make
them whole for their loss or earnings in the manner
set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Bargain collectively with Local 804, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, War-
ehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of Respondent's em-
ployees in the appropriate unit described above
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(d) Post at its terminals in Maspeth, New York,
and Paterson, New Jersey, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 22, after being duly signed by an author-
ized representative of Respondent, shall be posted
by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
9 In the event that this Order i enfiorced h a Judgment of a Untied
Slate, Court of Appeals, the '%ords im the notice reading "P'osted by
Order of the National L.ahor Rlatrois Board" shall read "P',lied Pursu-
ant to it Judgment of he LUnited States ('court of Appeal, l[nforcing arn
Order of he National Labor Relations oard
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAl. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WEI: WILL NOI discourage membership in
Local 804, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, or any other labor organi-
zation, by discharging employees, or in any
other manner discriminating against them in
regard to their hire or tenure of employment,
473
I)ECISI()NS ()OF NAI'I()ONAI. LAIB()R RKI., '\IO(NS BO()ARI)
their transfer or reinstatement rights, or any
term or condition of employment.
Wi WVII.I. NO'I terminate any of our oper-
ations in retaliation for activities of our em-
ployees ill support of the above-named Union,
or any other union or labor organization.
WlI W.l. NO'' fail and refuse to bargain
with the above-named Union, or any other
labor organization, representing our employees
in an appropriate unit, respecting the decision
to cease operations at one of our terminals or
the decision to transfer or the effects of the de-
cision to transfer the work of any employees
in the following appropriate unit:
All ternminal and other employees employed
by AP'D at its Maspeth terminal but cxclud-
ing executives and their immediate assistants;
station managers and department managers;
day and night supervisors; watchmen; shop
and automotive maintenance department em-
ployees; general office and C.O.D. employ-
ecs; employees engaged in sales, systems, ti-
mestudy, uniform, telephone, payroll, per-
sonnel and secretarial work.
WI wVVl . NOI' ill any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of their rights to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist the above-named Union, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engaged in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid, or to refrain from any or all
such activities.
We will reopen our former Maspeth termi-
nal and restore all unit work to that terminal.
Wi. w 1. offer all unit employees immediate
and full reinstatement to their former positions
or, if those positions no longer exist, to sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges and We Will make them whole for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered by
reason of our discrimination against them.
Wie wii.L., upon request, bargain collectively
with the above-named labor organization as
the exclusive representative of our employees
in the above appropriate unit with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and
other terms and conditions of employment.
APD TRANSPORT CORP. ANI ITS
AI.TER EGO, NATIONA. BOOK CON-
SOIIDATORS, INC.
474