Palm Beach Metro Transportation, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 22, 2010

12-CA-025842 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 22, 2010)

JD(ATL)–05–10
West Palm Beach, FL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
PALM BEACH METRO
TRANSPORTATION, LLC.
and CASES 12-CA-25842
12-CA-25866
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, 12-CA-25969
AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1577
Karen M. Thornton, Esq.,
for the Government. 1
John M. Camillo, Esq.,
for the Company.2
Dwight Mattingly, Business Agent,
For the Union.3
DECISION
Statement of the Case
WILLIAM N. CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This a unilateral change
case which I heard in trial in West Palm Beach, Florida on January 21 and 22, 2010.4
Case 12-CA-25842 originates from a charge filed on May 1, 2008 by the Amalgamated
Transit Union, AFL-CIO, Local 1577 (Union). The prosecution of the case was
formalized on October 22, 2009, when the Regional Director for Region 12 of the
National Labor Relations Board (Board), acting in the name of the Board’s General

1 I shall refer to Counsel for General Counsel as Counsel for the Government and General Counsel
as the Government.
2 I shall refer to Counsel for the Respondent as Counsel for the Company and shall refer to the
Respondent as the Company.
3 I shall refer to the Charging Party as the Union and to its Representative as Union Representative.
4 At trial the Parties entered into an Informal Settlement Agreement, which I approved on the
record, covering the allegations set forth in the Consolidated Complaint that were based on Cases
12-CA-25866 and 12-CA-25969. I severed those cases from the complaint and remanded same to
the Regional Director for Region 12 of the Board to oversee compliance. A copy of the agreement
was entered into the record as Judge’s Exhibit 1.
JD(ATL)–05–10
2
Counsel, issued a Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of
Hearing (Complaint) against Palm Beach Metro Transportation, LLC (Company).
The Company, in a timely filed answer to the Complaint, denied having violated
the Act in any manner alleged in the Complaint. 5
The single allegation litigated concerns the Company’s reduction of the number
of hours and days of work of its employees on about April 28, 2008, in an appropriate
unit represented by the Union without prior notice to the Union and without providing
the Union an opportunity to bargain with regard to the conduct and the effects of such 10
conduct. It is alleged the Company, by the above described conduct, violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (Act)
The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant
evidence, to examine and cross–examine witnesses, and to file briefs. I carefully 15
observed the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified. I have studied the whole
record,5 the post trial briefs, and the authorities cited therein. Based on more detailed
findings and analysis below, I conclude and find the Company violated the Act as
alleged in the complaint.
20
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction, Labor Organization Status and Bargaining Unit.
The Company is a Florida corporation with an office and place of business in 25
West Palm Beach, Florida, where it has been, and continues to be, engaged in the
business of operating an intrastate Para-transit service for Palm Beach County, Florida.
During the past twelve months ending October 1, 2009, a representative period, the
Company purchased and received directly from points located outside the State of
Florida, goods and services valued in excess of $10,000. During the same period of time 30
it also had gross revenues in excess of $250,000. The parties admit, and I find, the
Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6)
and (7) of the Act.
The parties admit and/or do not dispute, and I find, the Union is a labor 35
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
It is admitted that the following employees of the Company, herein called the
Unit, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:40
All full-time and regular part-time operators employed by the Company
performing Para-transit duties for Palm Beach County out of its facility

5 I grant the Government’s unopposed Motion to correct the transcript at page 111 line 11 to delete
“four-hours” and insert “forty hours.”
JD(ATL)–05–10
3
located at 1635 Meathe Drive6, West Palm Beach, Florida; excluding all
other employees, professional employees, office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
II. The Facts5
Following a representation election held on August 10, 2007, the Union was
certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit (Case 12-RC-
9265) on February 29, 2008, and at all times since that date, based on Section 9(a) of the
Act, has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit. As the 10
Board noted in Palm Beach Metro Transportation, LLC 352 NLRB No. 70 (May 30,
2008) that about March 6, 2008, by letter, the Union requested the Company recognize
and bargain with it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.
About March 17, 2008, by letter, the Company advised the Union it would not bargain
with it. On March 20, 2008, the Union filed a charge (Case 12-CA-25789) against the 15
Company based on its refusal to bargain. The Government issued a complaint against
the Company on March 28, 2008, alleging the Company has violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act by refusing the Union’s request to bargain following the Union’s
certification. On April 21, 2008, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
with the Board and on April 23, 2008, the Board issued an order transferring the 20
proceedings to the Board with a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be
granted. In its answer and response, the Company admitted its refusal to bargain, but
contested the validity of the Union’s certification on the basis of its objections to conduct
alleged to have affected the results of the election in the representation proceeding. The
Board concluded all representation issues raised by the Company were, or could have 25
been, litigated in the prior representation proceeding and further concluded the Company
failed to offer to adduce any newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence nor
any special circumstances that would require the Board to reexamine the decision made
in the representation proceeding. The Board concluded the Company raised no
representation issue that was properly litigable before it in the unfair labor practice 30
proceeding. On May 30, 2008, the Board issued its decision finding that by failing and
refusing since about March 17, 2008, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit employees, the Company has
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Palm Beach Metro Transportation, 35
Supra. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in an unpublished
Order (11th Cir. 08-13447-JJ dated November 21, 2008) granted the Government’s
motion for summary entry of judgment against the Company enforcing the Board’s
decision of May 30, 2008.
40
Company Director Robert Glaeser testified the Company was formed in June
2004. The Company is a division of Yellow Cab Service Corporation. Gleaser describes
the Company as a Para transit ground service primarily transporting disabled, elderly,
wheelchair, ambulatory and stretcher confined customers. Those using the services are
transported to and from, for example, medical and dialysis treatments, as well as for45

6 Formerly 6620 Lakeside Road.
JD(ATL)–05–10
4
employment, shopping and recreational needs. Director Glaeser estimated 30% of all
transportation provided to its customers is for medical related reasons. The Company’s
contract for services with Palm Beach County Florida calls for the Company to provide
its Para transit services exclusively to Palm Tran, Inc., a not-for-profit entity, owned by
Palm Beach County Florida. The Company’s contract with Palm Beach County calls for 5
participation, of at least 15%, by a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. The Company’s
contract with Palm Beach County also specifies the types of vehicles to be used by the
Company in providing the services contracted for. Eighty percent of the vehicles utilized
are large buses accommodating either six or twelve ambulatory and two wheelchair
passengers, with the remainder of the fleet being mini buses. Director Glaeser stated the 10
Company started with a fleet of new Ford diesel vehicles but “system failures” “brake
failures” and “constantly overheat[ing]” caused problems for the Company. Glaeser said
the vehicle problems resulted in having to utilize two drivers for the same route, with one
driver staying with the out of service vehicle while a replacement vehicle with a second
driver vehicle finished the route for the original driver. The Company began a program 15
of replacing the defective vehicles starting with the replacement of 38 vehicles around
August to October 2007 with the remainder being swapped out about a year later in
2008.
The Company also, from July 2007 until January 2008, provided services directly 20
to Medicaid.
Director Glaeser testified that from the start of the Company employees were
scheduled to work 4 days per week but explained there was enough work available so
that employees worked 5 to 7 days per week. Glaeser specifically stated that from about 25
2005 to 2008 drivers were getting 40 hours work per week plus lots of overtime. Glaeser
explained that from the inception of the Company through April 2008 unit employees
had an opportunity to work as much as they wanted.
According to Glaeser, Palm Tran Inc., prepares driver manifests daily reflecting30
the routes and hours for each driver including pick up and drop off locations for each
customer of its services.
Company Operations Manager Jimmy Sherrod, who has been with the Company
from its inception, started as a driver, then supervisor and for the past two and half years35
has been its operations manager, helps “oversee the operation of the daily activities” at
the Company. Sherrod testified that before April 2008 employees worked 5, 6 or 7 days
per week but after April 2008 “things went down to four to five days.” According to
Sherrod “drastic cuts” came from Palm Tran Inc., resulting in the number of hours
available for the drivers to be “drastically” reduced. Sherrod explained that the number 40
of hours worked has always been, and continues to be, controlled by Palm Tran, Inc.
Company Director Glaeser testified the Company lost approximately 15
Medicaid routes in January 2008 resulting in hours for the drivers being slowly reduced.
Glaeser opined that the hours of work for Unit employees was further reduced in April 45
2008 probably as a result of the Company hiring additional drivers which resulted in it
JD(ATL)–05–10
5
taking a while for the routes and assignments for the drivers to level out. Glaeser
explained the hiring of additional drivers in conjunction with fewer employees quitting
their employment caused the Company to realize it needed to reduce the hours of work
for its Unit employees.
5
Director Glaeser testified the Company experienced performance difficulties with
the first Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Imperial Transportation, it contracted with.
Glaeser said that as a result of its difficulties with Imperial Transportation he reduced the
routes assigned to that company from 15% of the overall business to about 4% or 5% of
the business. According to Glaeser, Palm Beach County thereafter required the 10
Company to come into compliance with its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
obligations. This resulted in the Company having to obtain a substitute company, “in
around July 2008”, in order to meet its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise requirements.
Glaeser said that as of the trial herein, the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise was again
being assigned the required 15% of the Company’s overall business.15
Glaeser testified he did not, nor did anyone from the Company to his knowledge,
give notice to the Union regarding the need for a reduction in the routes and/or hours for
the Unit employees. Glaeser specifically acknowledged, he did not give notice to and
afford the Union an opportunity to bargain about the loss of work for Unit employees 20
because he did not understand he had to. Glaeser stated he knew; however, at the time,
the Union was the certified collective-bargaining representative of the Unit employees.
Union President Mattingly testified he was contacted around April 28, 2008, by
Unit employees who told him they had received notification from Company management 25
that the number of days they worked would be reduced to four per week. Mattingly
testified that at no time, form the certification of the Union as the bargaining
representative until April 28, 2008, did the Company give notice and opportunity to the
Union to bargain about any plans or intentions for a reduction in the number of hours and
days of work for the Unit employees. Mattingly said the Union was ready and available 30
to bargain if notice and the opportunity had been made available to the Union.
The Government presented Unit employees who gave testimony regarding their
hours and days of work being reduced.
35
Inez Turton started as a driver for the Company in April 2005 working five days
and over 40 hours per week. Turton worked, for a period of time, for another company,
Paramed, which was associated with the Company herein, but returned to work for the
Company on February 28, 2008. When she returned she worked Monday through Friday
for 40 hours and approximately 12 hours overtime per week. Turton was notified by her 40
supervisor, Shirley Fordham, in April 2008, her schedule would be changed to four days
with less than 40 hours per week.
Willie Mae Brown started at the Company on May 1, 2005, working Monday
through Saturday for 60 to 70 hours per week. Supervisor Fordham told Brown in April 45
2008 her work schedule would be cut to four days per week. Brown received written
JD(ATL)–05–10
6
notice of the reduction with an April 2008 pay check. Brown testified that from April
2008 through September 2009, she worked 33 to 37 hours per week.
Monica Siverain started at the Company on April 18, 2005, as a driver working
six to seven days a week. Siverain said she was promised by the individual who trained5
her, she would get at least 12 hours work per day. Siverain received that amount of work
but it changed in April 2008. Siverain said Supervisor Fordham told her the Company
was going to change her work days, and she was reduced from working five, six or seven
days to four days per week. Siverain explained that after April 2008 she obtained as
many hours as possible but was not making 40 hours per week, notwithstanding, she 10
sometimes got more than 40, while on other occasions less than 40 hours per week.
Janice Jarrell worked as a driver for the Company from May 2005 to February
2009. Jarrell said she was promised work for six days per week and twelve hours per
day. Jarrell’s work was reduced to four days per week in May 2008.15
III. Analysis, Discussion and Conclusions
It is well settled that unilateral decisions made by an employer during the course
of a collective-bargaining relationship concerning matters that are mandatory subjects of 20
bargaining are generally regarded as a refusal to bargain. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736
(1962). An employer’s duty to bargain only arises, however, if the changes are material,
substantial, and significant ones affecting terms and conditions of employment Millard
Processing Services, 310 NLRB 421, 425 (1993). Absent “compelling economic
considerations”, an employer “acts at its peril” by unilaterally changing working 25
conditions during the pendency of election issues and where the final determination has
not yet been made. And where the final determination on the objections results in the
certification of representative the Board will find the employer to have violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act for having made such unilateral changes Mike O’Connor
Chevrolet 209 NLRB 701 enf. denied on other grounds, NLRB v. Mike O’Connor 51230
F.2nd 684 (8th Cir. 1975). The Board in Mike O’Conner Chevrolet at 703 explained,
“Such changes have the effect of bypassing, undercutting, and undermining the union’s
status as the statutory representative of the employees in the event a certification is
issued. To hold otherwise would allow an employer to box the union in on future
bargaining positions by implementing changes of policy and practice during the period 35
when objections or determinative challenges to the election are pending.” Reducing the
hours and days of work of employees are changes in terms and conditions of
employment over which an employer must bargain Eugene Iovine, Inc 328 NLRB 294
(1999). Stated differently a decision to reduce or change the hours and/or particular days
of work of employees represented by a labor organization is a mandatory subject of 40
bargaining Carpenters Local 1031, 321 NLRB 30, 31 (1996). If the Government
demonstrates an employer made a unilateral change involving a mandatory subject of
bargaining the burden rests with the employer to demonstrate such a unilateral change
was in some way privileged or the employer’s change will violate the Act, Pan American
Grain 351 NLRB 1412, 1414, fn 9. In that regard, if an employer can establish that the 45
change it made was made pursuant to a longstanding practice such may amount to a
JD(ATL)–05–10
7
continuation of the status quo and not constitute a violation of the Act. Simply stated a
longstanding practice may become a term and condition of employment and an employer
would not violate the Act if it acts consistently with that practice in making unilateral
changes Courier-Journal I, 342 NLRB 1093, 1094 (2004) and Courier Journal II, 342
NLRB 1148 (2004). The party asserting the existence of a past practice bears the burden 5
of proof on the issue and the evidence must show that the practice occurred with such
regularity and frequency that employees could reasonably expect the practice to continue
or reoccur on a regular and consistent basis Eugene Iovine, Inc. 353 NLRB No. 36
(September 30, 2008).
10
An employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally changing
wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment of represented employees,
as is the case herein, without providing the bargaining representative with notice and a
meaningful opportunity to bargain about the changes.
15
First, the evidence clearly establishes the Company reduced the hours and days of
work of its Unit employees in April 2008. Employees Turton, Brown, Siverain and
Jarrell testified they worked in excess of 40 hours per week from the start of their
employment with the Company in 2005 until approximately late April 2008. Turton, for
example, worked 5 days and approximately 12 hours overtime per week but in April 20
2008 was told her work week would be reduced to 4 days with less than 40 hours work.
Brown worked 6 days for 60 to 70 hours per week from May 2005 until April 2008 when
she was informed by management, orally and in writing, her schedule would be reduced
to 4 days per week. Brown thereafter received 33 to 37 hours work per week through
September 2009. Siverain was promised 12 hour days and worked 6 to 7 days per week 25
from April 2005 until April 2008, when she was told her work week would be reduced to
4 days per week. Sevrain thereafter did not average 40 hours per week. From these
examples, it is clear the Company in April 2008 reduced the hours and/or days of work
of Unit employees. Company management acknowledges there was a reduction of Unit
work in April 2008. According to Company Director Glaeser, from the inception of the 30
Company until April 2008, Unit employees had the opportunity to work as much as they
wished, working 5 to 7 days per week, with lots of overtime. Company Operations
Manager Sherrod acknowledged that before April 2008, Unit employees worked 5, 6 or 7
days per week but after April 2008 “things went down to 4 to 5 days per week” at which
time “drastic cuts” were made.35
Second, it is clear, and I find, the decision to reduce the hours and/or days of
work of the Unit employees constitutes a material, substantial and significant change in
working conditions for the Unit employees. In fact it is difficult to think of a more
dramatic change for employees other than perhaps discharge.40
Third, it is admitted by and clear the Company did not give prior notice of the
reduction to the Union nor did the Company afford the Union an opportunity to bargain
with respect to the reduction in hours and/or days of work for Unit employees or the
effects thereof. In that regard, Company Director Glaeser specifically stated he did not 45
give notice to and afford the Union an opportunity to bargain nor did he know of anyone
JD(ATL)–05–10
8
else from management doing so. Glaeser’s explanation, he did not understand he had to
give notice to or bargain with the Union at that time, in no way justifies the Company’s
lack of notice and bargaining. Glaeser acknowledged he knew, at the time of the
changes, the Union was the certified collective-bargaining representative for the Unit
employees. Although the April 28, 2008, unilateral changes by the Company occurred at 5
a time when it was challenging the Union’s certification, such does not privilege or
justify its unilateral actions. The Company acted at its peril when it unilaterally changed
the hours and days of work of its Unit employees during the pendency of its challenge to
the Union’s certification. Here the final determination regarding the Company’s
challenges resulted in the Board upholding the Union’s certification and the Board 10
further concluded the Company had unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union in its
test of the Union’s certification.
As described above, I find the Government demonstrated the Company made
unilateral changes involving a mandatory subject of bargaining, namely reducing its 15
employees’ hours and days of work, without giving prior notice to and affording the
Union an opportunity to bargain about the decision and its effects. The Company’s
actions violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act absent the Company demonstrating the
unilateral changes were privileged or in some manner justified. As explained below, I
find the Company failed to demonstrate any justification for its actions.20
The Company’s contention it had no obligation to bargain with the Union about
the reduced hours and days of work because hours of work fluctuated prior to the advent
of the Union is without merit. The Company may no longer unilaterally exercise its
discretion with respect to hours and days of work, mandatory subjects of bargaining, for 25
its employees, because of the intervention of the bargaining representative. See e.g.,
Adair Standish Corp. 292 NLRB 890 fn 1 (1989). Simply stated the Company is
obligated to bargain with the Union over the hours and days of work for the Unit
employees.
30
The Company’s contention it could lawfully make the unilateral changes in April
2008 because the work schedules and assignments fluctuated, for reason beyond its
control, is likewise without merit. In this regard the Company points out, in part, it had
difficulties; 1) with the Ford make of busses it first utilized, 2) with the first
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise company it contracted with, 3) with its hiring new 35
drivers then experiencing a decrease in driver turn over resulting in a larger pool of
drivers, and, 4) with the loss of certain Medicaid work. Notwithstanding that these
concerns may have contributed to the Company’s decision to reduce the hours and days
of work for the Unit employees, such does not excuse the Company from its underlying
obligation to give prior notice and afford the Union an opportunity to negotiate regarding 40
the reductions. Nor may the Company justify its unilateral actions based on the fact it
had to operate through, and obtain work schedules from, Palm Tran Inc. Palm Tran Inc.
functions simply as a conduit for Palm Beach County Florida for whom the Company
provides its services; and, the arrangement with Palm Tran Inc. does not, in some
manner, insulate the Company from its bargaining obligations with the Union.45
JD(ATL)–05–10
9
I reject the Company’s contention the reduction in Unit members hours and days
of work resulted from, and was privileged by the fact the Company was following an
established past practice, and maintaining the status quo. The evidence does not
demonstrate an established past practice of fluctuations in hours and days of work that
occurred with such regularity and frequency employees could reasonably expect the 5
practice to continue or reoccur on a regular and consistent basis. Quite to the contrary, it
appears unit employees were consistently able to work as much as they desired. Even if
a past practice could be shown, which it has not been established, the time frame from
February 13, 2005, until April 28, 2008, would not show a “long term” past practice.
One of the lead cases the Company would rely on to support of its past practice defense, 10
Courier-Journal I 342 NLRB 1093. 1094-1095 (2004) is clearly distinguishable. The
employer in Courier-Journal I had for 10 years regularly made unilateral changes in
costs and of benefits for its unit employees’ healthcare program. The employer in
Courier-Journal I made the changes both pursuant to the parties’ collective bargaining
agreement and during hiatus periods between contracts. In each instance in Courier-15
Journal I the union did not oppose the changes but rather accepted and acquiesced in the
employer’s actions. In the case herein, there was no established past practice and no
prior collective bargaining agreement. Even if there had been an established past
practice, the Union herein could not be considered to have acquiesced because the Union
was not certified as the bargaining representative until February 29, 2008, and the 20
Company thereafter contested the Union’s certification.
I find, for the reasons outlined above, the Company failed to demonstrate an
established past practice regarding a reduction in hours and days of work of Unit
employees, nor did the Company establish any other justification for its unilateral actions 25
on April 28, 2008. I find, for the reason outlined elsewhere herein, the Company
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when on April 28, 2008, it reduced the
number of hours and days of work of employees in the Unit without prior notice to the
Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with it with respect to
this conduct and the effects of this conduct.30
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company, Palm Beach Metro Transportation, LLC, is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.35
2. Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, Local 1577 is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times since February 29, 2008, the Union has been the exclusive 40
collective-bargaining representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, of an
appropriate unit of employees including all full-time and regular part-time operators
employed by the Company.
JD(ATL)–05–10
10
4. By, since on or about April 28, 2008, unilaterally reducing the number of
hours and days of work of its unit employees the Company has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The Company’s unfair labor practices specified in 4 above, affect 5
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it 10
necessary to order the Company to cease and desist there from and to take certain action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. In particular, to remedy the unlawful
reduction in the number of hours and days of work of unit employees, I recommend the
Company be ordered to make whole any unit employees for losses they suffered as a
result of the unlawful reduction in their number of hours and days of work, with interest 15
as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The
identification of the employees affected and the precise amounts owed to them is, if
necessary, left for determination at the compliance stage of this proceeding.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue 20
the following recommended7
ORDER
The Company, Palm Beach Metro Transportation, LLC, its officers, agents, 25
successors and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
a) Unilaterally reducing the number of hours and days of work or 30
otherwise altering the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment of its unit employees represented by Amalgamated Transit
Union, AFL-CIO, Local 1577 without affording the Union notice and an
opportunity to bargain.
35
b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies 40
of the Act.

7 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(ATL)–05–10
11
a) Before implementing any reduction of the number of hours or days
of work or other changes affecting the wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment of unit employees, notify and, on request,
bargain with Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, Local 1577 as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees in the 5
following appropriate bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time operators employed by
the Company performing Para-transit duties for Palm
Beach County out of its facility located at 1635 Meathe 10
Drive8, West Palm Beach, Florida; excluding all other
employees, professional employees, office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
b) Make unit employees whole for any loss of earnings and other 15
benefits suffered as a result of the unilateral reduction in hours and days of
work in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
c) Preserve, and within 14 days of a request, or such additional time
as the Regional Director for Region 12 may allow for good cause shown, 20
provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board or its agents all
payroll records, Social Security payment records, time cards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of
the records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of
any back pay due under the terms of this Order.25
d) Post at its West Palm Beach, Florida location copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”9 Copies of the Notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 12 after being signed by the
Company’s authorized representative shall be posted by the Company and 30
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any
other material. In the event that during the pendency of these proceedings
the Company has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in 35
these proceedings, the Company shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the Notice, to all employees employed by the Company
on or after April 28, 2008.

8 Formerly 6620 Lakeside Road.
9 If this order is enforced by a Judgement of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the
notice reading, “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD” shall read: POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGEMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD”
JD(ATL)–05–10
12
e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional
Director for Region 12 of the National Labor Relations Board a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Company has taken to comply.
5
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 22, 2010.
10
____________________________________
William N. Cates
Associate Chief Judge
JD(ATL)–05–10
13
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 violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally reduce your number of hours and/or days of work or otherwise
alter your wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment without first affording
Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, Local 1577 notice and an opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, before implementing any reduction in your hours or days of work or other changes
affecting your wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, notify and, on
request, bargain with Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, Local 1577, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of our employees in the following appropriate bargaining
unit:
All full-time and regular part-time operators employed by the Company performing
Para-transit duties for Palm Beach County out of its facility located at 1635 Meathe
Drive10, West Palm Beach, Florida; excluding all other employees, professional
employees, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL make you whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
the unilateral reductions in your hours and/or days of work, plus interest.
PALM BEACH METRO TRANSPORTATION, LLC
(Employer)
Dated: _______________________ By: _________________________________________
(Representative) (Title)

10 Formerly 6620 Lakeside Road.
JD(ATL)–05–10
14
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the
Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional
Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
201 E. Kennedy Blvd., South Trust Plaza, Suite 530, Tampa, FL 33602–5824, (813) 228–2641,
Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (813) 228–2455