Safe Disposal Systems,Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 29, 2003

04-CA-032343 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 29, 2003)

JD–143–03
Philadelphia, PA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES

SAFE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC.

and Case 4−CA−32343

ABEL ROMAN, an Individual

Edward J. Bonnett, Jr. Esq., for the General Counsel.
Peter Quist, Esq., (Gallagher, Flynn LR, LLC), of Burlington,
Vermont, for the Employer.
Richard C. McNeill, Jr. and Jennifer B. Leibman, Esqs.,
(Jennings, Sigmond), of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
for the Union.

DECISION

Statement of the Case

WILLIAM G. KOCOL, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania on October 28, 2003. The charge, first amended charge, and second amended
charge were filed August 6, September 29, and 30, 2003,1 respectively and the complaint was
issued September 30. The complaint alleges that Safe Disposal Systems, Inc. (herein
Respondent) made several statements to employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by issuing a written warning to employee Abel Roman, preventing him
from continuing to use a room to change his clothes, and discharging him because he
supported the Metropolitan Regional Council of Carpenters, Eastern Pennsylvania, State of
Delaware, and Eastern Shore of Maryland (herein the Union). Respondent filed a timely answer
that as amended at the hearing denied the substantive allegations of the complaint.
.
On the entire record,2 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following

Findings of Fact

I. Jurisdiction

Respondent, a corporation, is engaged in the business of the disposal of appliances at
its facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where it annually purchases and receives goods valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning

1 All dates are in 2003 unless otherwise indicated.
2 The General Counsel’s unopposed motion to correct transcript is granted.

JD–143−03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
of Section 2(5) of the Act.

II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices

A. Background

The main issue in this case is whether Roman is a supervisor with in the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act. Respondent contends that Roman supervised a total of four
employees−Kirk Johnson, Charles Renwrick, William Boyer, and Dearld Steadman.
Respondent contends that Roman became a supervisor in early January when he received a
significant wage increase.

Respondent came into existence in 1992 as a response to federal legislation that
required refrigerants such as Freon to be extracted from domestic appliances such as
refrigerators and air conditioners. These appliances are delivered to Respondent’s facility
where Respondent removes and recycles the refrigerants and tears down and recycles the
appliances. Respondent’s facility consists of three warehouses. Approximately 18 persons
worked for Respondent during the relevant time period. Brian Conners is Respondent’s
president. Harvey Conners, Brian’s father, is Respondent’s controller. Both Brian and Harvey
Conners act as general supervisors in the production aspects of the business; they both
exercise supervisory authority over the employees. During the relevant time period Brian spent
about 50 percent of his time in the warehouse while Harvey spent about 50-60 percent of his
time there. Respondent contends that around the time of the election there were also four other
supervisors−Roman, Randy Ramos, Bob Pieczonka, and Angel DeJesus. Ramos and
Pieczonka were truck drivers who allegedly each supervised a helper. DeJesus allegedly
supervised the laborers and shredders. Rounding out the picture, Merideth Conners, Brian’s
mother, did office and clerical work and dispatched the two truckdrivers and two driver helpers.

On July 18 the Union filed a petition to represent certain of Respondent’s employees.
On July 28 the parties entered into a Stipulated Election Agreement and a secret ballot election
was held on August 27, 2003. The election results showed that four votes were cast for the
Union and five against, with two decisive challenged ballots. At the hearing in this case I issued
a bench decision upholding the challenge to one ballot, thereby assuring that the Union lost the
election regardless of the vote cast by the remaining challenged ballot. The Union’s attorney
admitted that at the meeting that resulted in the Stipulated Election Agreement the Union orally
agreed that it would not do anything on Roman’s behalf to advance an argument that he was an
employee and not a supervisor.

B. Supervisory Status

Roman began working for Respondent in May 2000; he was terminated August 6, 2003.
He worked as a refrigeration technician. He extracted the refrigerants from the appliances and
stored them in tanks. Roman was certified by the Environmental Protection Agency to do so;
Brian Conners was the only other person employed by Respondent who also had such a
certification. Roman spent 95 percent of his time performing these tasks. Roman worked in
warehouse number 1 where he had a desk and used the desk area to change clothes. Roman
spent the remaining five per cent of his time doing some electrical work and driving a forklift. In
November or December 2002 Roman obtained a certification to drive a forklift. As a result he
would sometimes help the truck drivers unload and transport air conditioners. After he received
his forklift certification Roman asked Brian Conners for a salary increase. Roman asked for a
$50 dollar per week increase. Conners told Roman that he would receive $100 per week
increase but he had to exercise more oversight authority over the work in the air conditioning
2

JD–143−03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

unit.3 His salary was actually increased from $13.75 to $16.25 per hour.

As indicated, Respondent contends that Roman supervised the employees in the air
conditioning station. Charles Renwrick, Kirk Johnson, and Bill Boyer worked there; they took
apart the air conditioners after Roman removed the refrigerants. At the start of the workday the
employees reported to their work areas and began working; there was no need to assign work
to them at the start of each day. Sometimes Roman and the other employees would assist
each other with certain of their task. Brian or Harvey Conners sometimes made the
determination of when this should happen. Roman relayed the instructions from Brain and
Harvey Conners to the three employees.4 On one occasion near the start of the year Roman
told Renwrick to help him work on the tanks; this was after Brian or Harvey Conners told Roman
to have Renwrick help him. Renwrick questioned whether Roman had the authority to tell him
what work to do so Renwrick asked Harvey Conners. Harvey Conners told Renwrick that he
should do as Roman told him to do. But as Renwrick testified at the hearing he did not receive
this type of direction from Roman every day; only when things “got tight” would Roman ask him
to perform tasks other than those that he had been performing. In addition, Roman also told the
employees on a daily basis to perform certain tasks such as what tanks they should work on
next in consolidating the storage of refrigerants. This was not done pursuant to specific
instructions from Brian or Harvey Conners.

Roman observed that Johnson and Boyer were constantly arguing. Concerned that
physical violence might occur Roman reported this situation to Brian and Harvey Conners and
suggested that something needed to be done, but the Conners’ took no action at that time.5
Later Roman learned that Johnson and Boyer had a fistfight. Roman suggested to Boyer that
Boyer return to working as a shredder outside the air conditioning station and that Boyer switch
positions with Dearld Steadman, who would then work in the air conditioning unit. Roman then
presented this suggestion to Harvey Conners. Harvey Conners then asked Boyer and
Steadman if they agreed to the switch. After they indicated that they did, Harvey Conners
3 The reason for this pay increase is a matter of dispute between Roman and Brian Conners. I
conclude that neither’s testimony is wholly credible. Roman testified that he asked for a $50
increase as a result of obtaining his forklift certification and that Conners gave him a $100
increase instead with no additional strings attached. I find that highly unlikely. I also have
considered Brian Conners’ testimony that he gave Roman the $100 salary increase to take care
of the “whole thing” in the air conditioning station and that Roman agreed. I find this testimony
to be exaggerated. Based on my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the entire
record, I conclude that Roman was asked to take on additional responsibilities, contrary to his
testimony, but he was not asked to take over the “whole thing” contrary to Conners’ testimony.
I have also considered Harvey Conners’ testimony that he and Brian decided to put Roman “in
charge” of the air conditioning unit in mid January. However, Harvey Conners’ testimony in this
regard was procured through the use of leading questions and his testimony was often
conclusory in nature. I conclude this testimony is exaggerated and do not credit it to the extent
that it is inconsistent with my findings set forth above.
4 I have considered Brian Conners’ testimony that he never told Roman who the work in the
air conditioning station should be assigned to but rather only told Roman when he could not
assign work to those employees because they were needed elsewhere. Here again Conners’
testimony appears exaggerated and his demeanor unconvincing. I once again do not credit
Conners’ testimony.
5 I have considered Conners’ testimony that when Roman advised him of the situation
between the two employees he instructed Roman to take care of the problem. Again, I
conclude that this testimony is exaggerated and I do not credit it.
3

JD–143−03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

effectuated the transfer. Roman became aware the Renwrick had certain training. He
suggested to Brian Conners that he begin training Renwrick to perform certain tank transferring
tasks. Conners agreed and Roman began training Renwrick to perform the tasks. Roman later
asked Harvey Conners how they would deal with the fact that Renwrick would lose some of his
air conditioning bonus while he performed the new tasks. Harvey Conners told Roman to tell
Renwrick that he would not lose the bonus payments.6

Harvey Conners handed out warnings that resulted from poor attendance; Roman
played no role in that matter. On July 2 Brian Conners issued Johnson a written warning when
he saw Johnson commit an unsafe act while operating the shredder. Conners put Johnson on
30 days probations and indicated that Johnson would be terminated if he broke any rules during
that time period. On another occasion Brian Conners wrote up Johnson when Johnson failed to
appear for work and apparently gave a false reason to explain his absence. On another
occasion Johnson was placed on probation for a 45-day period. Roman was not involved in
these matters.

C. Roman’s Termination

In July Roman encountered Union Representative Jose Cruz at the facility; Cruz gave
Roman an authorization card that Roman signed on July 11. Roman then told other employees
about the Union. As indicated above, on July 18 the Union filed its petition for an election.
Brian Conners explained that he felt hurt after he learned that the petition was filed.

6 I have considered Boyer’s testimony that in January Roman told him, Renwrick, and
Johnson that he was now their “supervisor” in the air conditioning area. According to Boyer,
Roman said that he would now hook up and disconnect the air conditioners for them and that if
they needed air conditioners he would get them with the forklift. Boyer testified that when the
employees had no work to do Roman would assign them to do clean up chores. Boyer
confirmed that he and Johnson did not get along. He testified that he asked Roman if he could
transfer out of the department before things got out of hand and Roman answered that he would
see what he could do. Apparently nothing happened until after the physical altercation took
place. Boyer claimed that Roman then transferred him out of the air conditioning unit. Boyer
testified that he had no conversations with either Brian or Harvey Conners about the transfer.
Yet Harvey Conners himself admitted that he spoke to Boyer about this matter. Boyer also
testified that Roman assigned work to him, Johnson, and Renwrick and no one else did so, but
it is clear that both Brian and Harvey Conners continued to exercise supervisory authority over
the employees in that area even after Respondent asserts that Roman became a supervisor.
Indeed, Harvey Conners testified that he continued to direct work in the air conditioning unit
when Roman was not available to do so. Boyer also testified that he told Roman that he
(Boyer) was being transferred out of the air conditioned unit, rather than the other way around,
but he did not explain how he discovered that fact if Roman did not tell him about it and if he
never talked to Brian or Harvey Conners about the transfer. Renwrick did not testify that Roman
announced that he was the supervisor of the air conditioning unit. For these reasons, as well as
my observation of the relative demeanor of the witnesses, I do not credit Boyer’s testimony.
Finally, in his brief the General Counsel asks that an adverse inference be drawn against
Respondent for its failure to call Steadman as a witness. I decline to do so; Steadman was not
an agent of Respondent’s and was equally available to the General Counsel to call as a
witness.
4

JD–143−03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

On July 21 Brian Conners was waiting with a clipboard in his hands as Roman arrived to
work. Conners told Roman that he was going to write him up because he was 5 minutes late.
Roman looked at his watch; it showed that he was only 2 minutes late. Although Roman
normally arrived to work on time on occasion he had arrived a few minutes late and had not
been disciplined. Roman proceeded to his desk area and began to change into his work clothes
as he normally did. He had been changing in this area since he began working for Respondent.
Conners told Roman that he was a regular employee and was supposed to change his clothes
in the locker room with the other employees. Conners said that he was going to write up
Roman for that too. He asked Roman to sign the writeup but Roman refused. Later that day
Conners again appeared to write up Roman, this time for operating equipment without wearing
protective goggles. Conners had advised Roman in the past that he should wear the goggles
when he was using the big hoses in dealing with refrigerants, but on this occasion Roman was
not using the big hoses. Otherwise Roman only wore his own glasses while working and had
never been disciplined for this before. Still later that day an employee approached Roman and
asked to use his cell phone. Conners quickly came to Roman and told him that he was not to
talk to the employees. This was the first time Roman had ever been told not talk to employees;
he had freely talked to employees in the past. That same day Conners told Roman that he
knew Roman was soliciting for the Union. Roman did not respond. He noticed that Conners
was writing as he spoke and Roman said that he knew how to write too. Conners said that he
was going to write up Roman for that remark also.

On July 28 Roman was summoned to an office where Brian Conners and Peter Quist,
Respondent’s attorney, were present. Conners said the Roman was a supervisor and could not
vote for the Union. Conners said that if Roman did not help Conners break the union effort
Conners would fire him. Conners said that he was going to provide Roman with benefits. Later,
some time in early August, Conners explained to Roman in greater detail the health insurance
benefits that he would be provided. He gave Roman some written information to review and
said that Roman should make up his mind about helping to break the union effort or get fired.
On August 6 Brian Conners again approached Roman about the insurance matter. Roman said
that he could not afford to pay his share of the costs for the health insurance benefits and said
that he needed more time. Conners responded that Roman had to decide that same day and
that if he did not decide that day Conners was going to fire him. Roman answered that he could
not do anything about that and Conners then told Roman that he was fired. As Roman was
changing out of his work clothes Conners hit him in the chest and told him how stupid he was.7

As indicated above, on July 28 the parties entered into the Stipulated Election
Agreement. Respondent then sent the employees a notice that set forth the date, time, and
location for the election. It also said:

It was determined by the company in agreement with the
Union representatives that the following people are supervisors
under the law and are not eligible to be union members or vote:
1. Angel DeJesus, 2. Able Roman, 3. Rob Pieczonka, 4. Randy
Ramos
7 The facts in this section are based on Roman’s credible testimony. They are largely
undisputed. Respondent agrees that Roman was fired because he refused to help in
Respondent’s campaign against the Union. As Brian Conners testified “I gave him an
ultimatum. I need you to support me …in my campaign or you’re going to have to leave.” When
Roman refused to commit, Conners fired him.

5

JD–143−03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

In another letter Respondent urged the employees to vote no in the election.

III. Analysis

A. Roman’s Supervisory Status

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the burden of establishing supervisory status
rests with the party asserting its existence. NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, 532 U.S.
706 (2001). In this case, therefore, Respondent bears the burden of showing that Roman was a
supervisor. This burden cannot be established by general or conclusory assertions. Crittendon
Hosp., 328 NLRB 879 (1999). Section 2(11) of the Act defines a supervisor as:

any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other
employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or
effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the
exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but
requires the use of independent judgment.

These criteria are to be read in the disjunctive; possession of only one of the criteria is sufficient
to establish supervisory status. Juniper Industries, 311 NLRB 109, 110 (1993). However, the
Board has indicated that the statutory definition of a supervisor should not be too broadly
construed because employees’ rights under the Act are at stake. Chicago Metallic Corp., 273
NLRB 1677, 1689 (1985). The Supreme Court has described a three-part test for determining
whether a person is a supervisor as defined in the Act. To be a supervisor a person must (1)
hold the authority to engage in one of the 12 functions listed in Section 2(11); (2) the exercise of
that authority is not merely routine or clerical in nature but instead requires the use of
independent judgment; and (3) the authority is held in the interest of the employer. Kentucky
River Community Care, supra at 712.

There is no evidence worthy of discussion that Roman possessed any authority to
discipline, promote, suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, hire, or reward as defined in Section
2(11). Concerning the ability to adjust grievances and transfer employees, I have described
above the role Roman played in transfers of Boyer and Steadmen. Roman initially pointed out
the problem to Brian and Harvey Conners but they did not act upon Roman’s suggestion. Later
Roman did in fact facilitate the transfer of the two employees, but Harvey Conners
independently assessed the situation by talking to the employees and he made the decision to
transfer them. This evidence falls short of showing that Roman effectively recommended the
transfer or otherwise adjusted any grievances. Moreover a single isolated instance is
insufficient to establish supervisory status. Kanawha Stone, 334 NLRB 235, 237 (2001).

In its brief Respondent argues that Roman had the authority to assign or direct the work
of employees. As describe above, in January Roman was assigned additional responsibilities in
overseeing the work in the air conditioning unit but Respondent has failed to show precisely
what those additional duties were. I have also concluded above that Roman’s duties included
relaying instructions from Brian and Harvey Conners concerning the assignment of work to the
employees in the air conditioning unit. However, the fact that an employee acts as a conduit for
instructions from higher level authorities does not establish supervisory authority. Hausner Hard
Chrome, 326 NLRB 426 (1998). I have also concluded that Roman told the employees certain
tasks that the employees were to work on next. The assignment of such tasks does not alone
establish supervisory status; rather the assignments must be made by the exercise of
6

JD–143−03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
independent judgment. Clark Machine Corp., 308 NLRB 555, 556 (1992). The burden of
establishing the use of such independent judgment rests in this case with Respondent, and it
has failed to meet that burden. In summary, I conclude that Respondent has failed to show that
Roman was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.

B. Alleged Violations of the Act

In his brief the General Counsel urges me to apply the analysis set forth in Wright Line,
251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 989 (1982) in
determining whether Roman was unlawfully terminated. However, that analysis is used only
when the motivation for a termination is at issue. Here motivation is not an issue because
Respondent admits that it terminated Roman because he refused to join its campaign against
the Union. As an employee Section 7 of the Act protected Roman’s refusal to do so. By
terminating Roman because he supported the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1). The complaint also alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by issuing
Roman a written warning on July 21. But there is no evidence that issued anything in writing to
Roman on July 21; rather the evidence shows only that Respondent made certain oral
statements. Likewise the complaint alleges that Respondent changed Roman’s terms and
conditions of employment by prohibiting him from using the desk area to change his clothes.
But while Respondent did make statements to the effect, there is no evidence that Respondent
made good on those statements. Rather, so far as this record shows Roman continued to use
that area to change clothes. I shall dismiss the 8(a)(3) portion of these allegations and I shall
deal with the remaining 8(a)(1) allegations below.

The complaint alleges that on July 21 Respondent threatened to discipline Roman
because he supported the Union. I have described above how on that date Brian Conners
threatened to discipline Roman on a number of occasions. All of the threats were for matters
that Roman had not been disciplined for in the past. In context it was clear that the threats of
discipline were because Roman continued to support the Union. By threatening to discipline
Roman because he supported the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). The complaint
alleges that on that same day Respondent prohibited Roman from talking to other employees in
order to prevent him from engaging in union activity. I have found above how on that same day
an employee approached Roman and asked to use his cell phone. Conners quickly came to
Roman and told him that he was not to talk to the employees. This was the first time Roman
had ever told not talk to employees; he had freely talked to employees in the past. In context it
is clear that Conners issued this prohibition in order to prevent Roman from discussing union
and related matters. By prohibiting Roman from talking to other employees in order to prevent
him from engaging in union activity, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1). The complaint also
alleges that on that same day Respondent interrogated Roman concerning his union activity.
That day Conners told Roman that he knew Roman was soliciting for the Union. Roman did not
respond. I conclude that Conners statement did not amount to an interrogation. I note that the
General Counsel in his brief does not argue that this statement otherwise violated the Act.
Accordingly, I shall dismiss this allegation in the complaint.

The complaint next alleges that on or about July 25 Respondent solicited the grievances
of an employee and thereby promised him improved working conditions in order to discourage
him from supporting the Union. The complaint alleges that on that same day Respondent
threatened to discharge an employee if he did not engage in antiunion activity. However the
complaint allegations do not match the record. There is no evidence in the record concerning
any events occurring on July 25. However, there is evidence that on July 28 Conners said the
Roman was a supervisor and could not vote for the Union. Conners said that if Roman did not
help Conners break the union effort Conners would fire him. Conners said that he was going to
7

JD–143−03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50
provide Roman with benefits. Yet the complaint alleges only that on July 28 Respondent
interrogated an employees concerning his union activities but there is no evidence of the any
interrogation. The complaint alleges that on about August 5 Respondent promised health
insurance benefits to Roman in order to discourage his support for the Union. I have concluded
above that in early August Conners explained to Roman in greater detail the health insurance
benefits that he would be provided. He gave Roman some written information to review and
said that Roman should make up his mind about helping to break the union effort or get fired.
Lastly, the complaint alleges that on about August 6 Respondent again unlawfully offered health
insurance benefits to Roman and also threatened to discharge him if he did not engage in an
antiunion campaign. On that date I have concluded that Brian Conners again approached
Roman about the insurance matter. Roman said the he could not afford to pay his share of the
costs for the health insurance benefits and said that he needed more time. Conners responded
that Roman had to decide that same day and that if he didn’t decide Conners was going to fire
him.

In his brief the General Counsel does not address these inconsistencies but instead
argues, without any reference to the transcript, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act in five ways at unspecified times between July 21 and August 6. The first two of the five
ways occurred on July 21 and have already been addressed above. In his brief the General
Counsel argues that Respondent also threatened Roman with discharge if he did not give up
support for the Union. Brian Conners made such a threat on July 28, and this finding is closely
related to the allegation in the complaint that this occurred on July 25. By threatening to
discharge Roman if he did not give up support for the Union, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1). The fourth way the General Counsel argues that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
was by promising Roman it would improve his benefits if Roman agreed to help Respondent
defeat the Union. I have concluded above that on July 28 Brian Conners said that he was going
to provide Roman with benefits, yet the complaint alleges only that Respondent unlawfully
interrogated Roman on that day and there is no allegation in the complaint that Respondent
unlawfully promised benefits in general as opposed to specific health insurance benefits.
Because I do not see a match between these assertions and the allegations of the complaint
and because the General Counsel does not argue that this matter was fully and fairly litigated I
decline to find this violation. Lastly, the General Counsel argues that Respondent unlawfully
offered Roman health insurance benefits in order to get him to help Respondent defeat the
Union. As indicated above the complaint allegations cover this allegation and the facts support
it. By offering Roman healthcare benefits to get him to support Respondent’s campaign to
defeat the Union Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

Conclusions of Law

1. By the following conduct Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

(a) Threatening to discipline Roman because he supported the Union.

(b) Prohibiting Roman from talking to other employees in order to prevent
him from engaging in union activity.

(c) Threatening to discharge Roman if he did not give up support for the Union.

(d) Offering Roman healthcare benefits to get him to support Respondent’scampaign to
defeat the Union.

8

JD–143−03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

By discharging Roman because he supported the Union Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

Remedy

Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Respondent having discriminatorily discharged Abel Roman, it
must offer him reinstatement and make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits,
computed on a quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement,
less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus
interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).

On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended8

ORDER

The Respondent, Safe Disposal Systems, Inc., 7333 Milnon Steet, Philadelphia
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall

1. Cease and desist from

(a) Threatening to discipline employees because they support the Metropolitan Regional
Council of Carpenters, Eastern Pennsylvania, State of Delaware, and Eastern Shore of
Maryland or any other labor organization.

(b) Prohibiting employees from talking to other employees in order to prevent them from
engaging in union activity.

(c) Threatening to discharge employees if they do not give up support for the Union or
any other labor organization.

(d) Offering employees new or improved benefits to get them to support a campaign to
defeat the Union.

(e) Discharging employees because they supported the Union or any other labor
organization.

(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, 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.

8 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.
9

JD–143−03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Abel Roman 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.

(b) Make Abel Roman whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
decision.

(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful discharge, and within 3 days thereafter notify the employee in writing that this has been
done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way.

(d) 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 designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of back pay due under the terms of this
Order.

(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”9 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent 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 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 Respondent at any time since July 21, 2003.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.

Dated, Washington, D.C. December 29, 2003

__________________________
William G. Kocol
Administrative Law Judge
9 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment 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 JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
10
JD–143–03
Philadelphia, PA

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 threaten to discipline you because you support the Metropolitan Regional
Council of Carpenters, Eastern Pennsylvania, State of Delaware, and Eastern Shore of
Maryland or any other labor organization.

WE WILL NOT prohibit you from talking to other employees in order to prevent you from
engaging in union activity.

WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you if you do not give up support for the Union or any
other labor organization.

WE WILL NOT offer you new or improved benefits to get you to support a campaign to defeat
the Union.

WE WILL NOT discharge you because you support the Union or any other labor organization.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Abel Roman 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 make Abel Roman whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from his
discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.

JD–143−03

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any
reference to the unlawful discharge of Abel Roman, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter,
notify him in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him
in any way.

Safe Disposal Systems, Inc.
(Employer)

Dated By
(Representative) (Title)

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.
615 Chestnut Street, One Independence Mall, 7th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19106-4404
(215) 597-7601, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 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, (215) 597-7643.

- ii -

12