Van Lear Equipment, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 26, 2001

336 N.L.R.B. 1059 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

VAN LEAR EQUIPMENT, INC. 1059
Van Lear Equipment, Inc. and Teamsters Local Un-
ion No. 773 a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO. Case 4–CA–26781
November 26, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
On a charge filed January 13, 1998, by Teamsters Lo-
cal Union 773 a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, AFL–CIO (the Union), the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on
April 15, 1998, against Van Lear Equipment, Inc. (the
Respondent), alleging that the Respondent is a successor
employer to the Panther Valley School District (PVSD)
and that it violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the Un-
ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the Respondent’s employees in an appropriate bar-
gaining unit. The Respondent filed a timely answer ad-
mitting in part and denying in part the allegations of the
complaint.
On May 8, 2000, the Respondent, the Union, and the
General Counsel filed with the Board a stipulation of
facts. The parties agreed that the charge, the complaint,
the answer, the stipulation, and the exhibits attached to
the stipulation shall constitute the entire record in this
proceeding and they waived a hearing before and deci-
sion by an administrative law judge. On June 27, 2000,
the Board approved the stipulation and transferred the
proceeding to the Board for issuance of a Decision and
Order. The General Counsel and the Respondent filed
briefs.
On the entire record and the briefs, the Board makes
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation with its principal place
of business in Reading, Pennsylvania, is engaged in pro-
viding school bus transportation services to school dis-
tricts in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including
PVSD. In the conduct of its business operations, the Re-
spondent, in 1997, the year preceding the issuance of the
complaint, derived gross revenues in excess of $250,000
and purchased and received goods valued in excess of
$3000 directly from points outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act. The parties stipulated, and we find, that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
In January 1997,1 the Union represented a unit at
PVSD consisting of all employees working as regular
full-time bus drivers, part-time bus drivers and mechan-
ics, custodians, maintenance workers, and secretaries (the
PVSD unit). From July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1997,
the Union and PVSD were parties to a collective-
bargaining agreement covering this unit. The PVSD unit
consisted of 38 employees, of whom 21 were full-time
and part-time bus drivers.
On January 24, PVSD awarded the Respondent the
contract for pupil transportation services for a 5-year
period.2
1. The Respondent’s organization
The Respondent provides bus transportation to school
districts throughout Pennsylvania and operates 160 buses
in Berks, Carbon, Chester, Lancaster, Schuylkill, and
Lehigh Counties in Pennsylvania, with its headquarters
in Reading, Pennsylvania, and six district facilities. The
district facilities are Schuylkill Valley, Kutztown, Pan-
ther Valley, Governor Mifflin, Antietam, and Fleetwood.
The closest districts to Panther Valley are Schuylkill Val-
ley, approximately 30 miles away, and Kutztown, ap-
proximately 25 miles away.
As of August 1997 and to date,3 the Respondent’s su-
pervisors and managers at its Reading office were co-
owner and President Terry Van Lear, co-owner and Sec-
retary/Treasurer Rosann Van Lear, Manager Julie Van
Lear, and Manager Charles (Chuck) Orr, except that, as
of August 1, 1999, Deb Chambers replaced Chuck Orr as
manager.
2. Drivers’ pay and benefits
Starting in February, the Respondent accepted applica-
tions from PVSD bus drivers and others who chose to
apply for bus driver positions. In May or early June, the
Respondent informed PVSD drivers who applied that
they would be hired as part-time drivers without any
benefits. PVSD drivers were also informed by the Re-
spondent that they would earn $10.50 per hour for a
school run, $18 per run as a van driver, and $9.50 per

1 All dates are in 1997 unless otherwise indicated.
2 Following the award to the Respondent of the pupil transportation
contract, PVSD and the Union negotiated concerning a contract only
for the custodians, maintenance workers, and secretaries in the PVSD
unit. This contract was adopted on August 8, 1998, and made effective
from July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2000.
3 The phrase “to date” as used here refers to the date that the Re-
spondent signed the parties’ stipulation of facts, April 17, 2000.
336 NLRB No. 114
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1060
hour for an activity run. Under the collective-bargaining
agreement between PVSD and the Union, drivers earned
an hourly rate, which could be $9.75, $11.45, $11.75,
$12.20, or $13.20, depending on their seniority, regard-
less of the type of run they did. PVSD drivers also were
given life insurance benefits, 4 sick days and 2 personal
days a year. The three full-time bus drivers also had paid
health insurance benefits.
The Respondent also informed PVSD drivers who ap-
plied that, if there was a delay due to weather, they
would not be paid additional time unless they had al-
ready left for work when the weather delay was called. If
the weather delay was called after the drivers left for
work, they would be paid for the waiting time. Under
section M(9) of the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween PVSD and the Union, drivers earned their hourly
rate even when there was a weather delay unless they
were notified of the weather delay more than a half hour
prior to their starting time.
The Respondent informed PVSD drivers that the Re-
spondent would be contributing to the State unemploy-
ment insurance trust fund and each employee could col-
lect unemployment compensation benefits when school
was not in session. While working for PVSD, the bus
drivers could not collect unemployment compensation
benefits because under State law, certain school district
employees, including bus drivers, were not eligible to
collect State unemployment compensation benefits.
The Respondent’s drivers, in all districts, earn the
same salary. All full-time drivers earn the same benefits.
Part-time drivers do not earn benefits. All drivers are
subject to the same vacation, sickness, and time off poli-
cies and use one standard form to request vacation.
The payroll process is administered from the Reading
office. Timecards are kept by drivers and given to their
district supervisors on a biweekly basis. The district su-
pervisors review the timecards and forward them to the
Reading office for processing.
The Reading office has, on average, 2 to 10 daily tele-
phone conversations with each district supervisor con-
cerning employee performance, training, and the Re-
spondent’s policies.
3. The Respondent’s hiring of former PVSD drivers
As of August, 19 former PVSD bus drivers, not includ-
ing Howard Yeakley, and 5 former PVSD monitors,
started working for the Respondent. The former PVSD
monitors were not part of the PVSD unit. As of August,
the Respondent employed 32 employees at Panther Val-
ley: 26 bus drivers (of whom 7 were substitute drivers), 4
bus monitors, 1 maintenance/mechanic, and 1 district
supervisor. The Respondent, as of April 2000, had 35
employees at Panther Valley: 25 bus drivers (of whom 8
were substitute drivers), 8 bus monitors, 1 mainte-
nance/mechanic, and 1 district supervisor.
At all its locations, the Respondent employed ap-
proximately 218 employees during the 1997/1998 school
term and approximately 217 employees during the
1998/1999 school term.
4. The Union’s demand for recognition
On about October 29, the Union, by letter, requested
that the Respondent recognize it as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the bus drivers at Pan-
ther Valley (the unit) and bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the unit. On about November 6, the Respondent,
by letter, informed the Union that it was not a successor
employer. On about November 10, the Union, by letter,
again requested that the Respondent recognize it as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
employees and bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
employees. Since about November 10, the Respondent
has refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
unit employees.
5. The Respondent’s supervision, training, and
personnel policies
Managers and supervisors at the Respondent’s Read-
ing office select and train all district supervisory employ-
ees. For the 1997/1998 school term, the district supervi-
sors were: Judy Conard, Governor Mifflin District;
Joanne Witmoyer, Governor Mifflin District; Richard
Haag, Fleetwood District; Charlene Keller, Kutztown
District; Dan Moyer, Schuylkill Valley District; and
Howard Yeakley, Panther Valley District.
On May 9, Howard Yeakley, a former part-time PVSD
driver, was designated the Respondent’s district supervi-
sor for Panther Valley. Under PVSD, full-time driver
Robert Piscelli was the bus foreman or group leader.
Piscelli was a member of the bargaining unit and not a
supervisor under the Act. Piscelli elected to obtain full-
time employment with PVSD in a maintenance position
and accepted only a substitute driver position with the
Respondent.
After being hired by the Respondent, Yeakley accom-
panied supervisors from other districts for on-the-job
supervisory training. Supervisors do not drive buses.
However, routinely, they will be placed in driver status
in the event of last minute absenteeism.
District supervisors are required to attend a monthly
supervisor meeting in the Reading office with the Re-
spondent’s managers. In the event that a district supervi-
sor is absent, a floater supervisor is designated by the
VAN LEAR EQUIPMENT, INC. 1061
Respondent’s managers to supervise the drivers in the
district supervisor’s absence. If Yeakley is absent, Man-
ager Charles Orr is designated to supervise the Respon-
dent’s drivers at Panther Valley. District supervisors are
also required to maintain a pager, cellular phone and
two-way radio system, which are provided for and paid
by the Reading office.
All personnel policies and regulations are drafted, ad-
ministered, and maintained from the Reading office. The
Respondent requires employees when hired to sign an
acknowledgement that they received a copy of the Re-
spondent’s rules and regulations booklet. Under section J
of PVSD’s collective-bargaining agreement with the Un-
ion, PVSD could establish reasonable work rules. PVSD
did not disseminate written work rules to PVSD unit em-
ployees.
Managers at the Respondent’s Reading office place
advertisements in newspapers for hiring applicants. Dis-
trict supervisors, including Yeakley, keep applications on
hand in their districts and conduct the initial screening of
applications. They interview and recommend candidates
to the Reading office. Managers at the Reading office
then do additional State and Federal mandated screening
of applications, including criminal history, background,
and reference checks. The Respondent’s managers have
rejected recommended applicants based on their screen-
ing results and applicants’ availability.
Successful applicants are then subjected to an alcohol
test which was conducted by Charles Orr in Reading
until 1999, and is now conducted by Howard Yeakley in
Reading, and to a drug test, which is conducted at Minors
Memorial Hospital in Coaldale, Pennsylvania. Orr, and
now Yeakley, notifies applicants if they have passed the
drug and alcohol tests and arranges for them to report to
the Reading office for driver testing.
If the applicant passes the drug test, managers at the
Respondent’s Reading office notify the applicant and
arrange for the new hire to report to the Reading office
for driver training. The final driving test takes place at
the Reading office.
All new hires undergo the same driver training at the
Reading office by the same trainers. However, as the
former PVSD drivers hired by the Respondent were ex-
perienced drivers with current certifications, they were
not required to go to the Reading office for driver train-
ing. The Respondent did, however, have supervisors
from the Reading office accompany the former PVSD
drivers on their runs for about 2 hours.
All applications and personnel files are maintained at
the Reading office. Certain personnel information, pur-
suant to State law, such as copies of drivers’ licenses, are
kept locally in the district offices.
6. Driver coverage and interchange
The Respondent’s drivers are required to inform their
district supervisor when they need time off for any rea-
son. The district supervisor arranges for a substitute
driver from that area. Substitute drivers are paid at the
same rate as regularly scheduled bus drivers. If no substi-
tute is available in that area, the district supervisor noti-
fies the Reading office. The Reading office arranges for a
substitute driver from another district. To date, there has
been no need for substitute drivers from another district
to cover absences at Panther Valley because Panther Val-
ley has sufficient substitute drivers to cover absences.
Drivers may work extra hours for special trips, such as
sports trips or extracurricular activities trips. These trips
are referred to as activities runs. The district supervisor
selects from those available drivers who are interested in
working extra hours. All paperwork for these trips is
processed by the Reading office. When drivers in that
district are unavailable, the district supervisor notifies the
Reading office. The Reading office contacts other dis-
tricts for available drivers to do the activities runs. At
Panther Valley, the Respondent uses seven to eight sub-
stitute drivers to do the activity runs that the daily drivers
are not available to do. To date, no drivers from other
districts have performed work at Panther Valley because
the number of substitutes has been sufficient to cover
activities runs.
The Respondent has interchanged drivers to cover ab-
sences and activity runs at other districts when the dis-
trict does not have available drivers. Most of the drivers
who cover these absences and extracurricular activities
are based at the main terminal at the Reading office.
None of the Panther Valley drivers have worked at other
districts. In the 1997/1998 school term, drivers were in-
terchanged a total of 1909 times.
7. The Respondent’s disciplinary policy
The Respondent’s disciplinary policy applies to all
employees. For offenses which are characterized as a
minor infraction, the following discipline is given: first
offense, verbal warning; second offense, written warn-
ing; third offense, 1-day suspension; fourth offense, 3-
day suspension; fifth offense, possible termination of
employment. For major infractions, the following disci-
pline is given: first offense, possible termination of em-
ployment and/or suspension period; second offense, ter-
mination of employment. District supervisors are author-
ized to handle verbal and written warnings, which must
be reported to the Reading office to be placed in the em-
ployee’s personnel file. They are not generally author-
ized to suspend employees without express approval of
the Reading office, unless immediate action is required,
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1062
such as an alcohol, drug, or safety infraction. Discipline
involving discharges is reported to and handled by the
Reading office.
Under PVSD, there was no established written disci-
plinary policy except as noted under section J of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement, which states that PVSD
had the right to discipline employees, and to suspend or
discharge employees for proper cause.
8. Driver evaluations
The Respondent’s Reading office evaluates the per-
formance of all drivers. Drivers are evaluated based on
three criteria. One criterion is actual observation of driv-
ers’ performance by Brian Strand from the Reading of-
fice. District supervisors do not evaluate employees’ per-
formances. The districts are not informed of when or
where Strand will be evaluating the drivers’ perform-
ances. Strand’s observations are provided to the Reading
office managers but not to the district supervisors. An-
other criterion is absentee reports submitted by district
supervisors to the Reading office showing when drivers
are absent. An additional criterion is accident reports
submitted by district supervisors whenever there is an
accident. All evaluations, pay raises, and promotions are
approved through the Reading office.
All drivers use the Respondent’s buses. In the
1997/1998 school year, the Respondent had 14 school
buses and 2 vans which were used on a daily basis in
Panther Valley. Of those, two buses were purchased from
PVSD but used only for afternoon runs. The Respondent
also purchased four additional buses from PVSD that are
used as spares. The buses at Panther Valley are parked in
the same parking lot on PVSD property as before but in a
different location, in a paved area of the parking lot.
PVSD parked its buses on an unpaved area of the parking
lot.
9. Driver responsibilities and routes
The Respondent’s Panther Valley drivers are assigned
a bus and have pre-trip and post-trip responsibility for
that bus. Drivers are expected to do a pre-trip inspection
of their bus by starting the bus and doing a “walk-
around,” which includes checking all the lights, win-
dows, and tires of the bus. The Respondent does not re-
quire its drivers to check the hoses and belts of the buses
because the maintenance/mechanic checks that. The Re-
spondent’s drivers are also expected to examine the gas
gauge pre- and post-trip to make sure the gas tank is full.
They are required to notify their district supervisor if
there is any faulty equipment on the bus. Under PVSD,
the drivers were required by law to do a pre- and post-
trip inspection of the bus, which included, inter alia,
checking the hood, hoses, belts, turn signal, lights, and
tires. If the PVSD drivers found a problem, they reported
it to Robert Piscelli, the foreman, and to the full-time
mechanic who worked for PVSD.
The Respondent’s Panther Valley drivers use the same
buses in the morning and afternoon. Under PVSD, driv-
ers used different buses in the afternoon from the morn-
ing. The Respondent generally assigns newer buses to
drivers with more seniority and attempts to keep older
buses as backups. All former PVSD bus drivers are driv-
ing different and significantly newer buses than they did
under PVSD.
As they did under PVSD, the Respondent’s Panther
Valley drivers service two additional schools—Our Lady
of the Valley and St. Michael’s.
The Respondent modified each of the 1996/1997
PVSD routes. In the 1997/1998 school term, there were
16 morning and afternoon scheduled bus routes for Pan-
ther Valley. The Respondent streamlined the bus sched-
ules for the 1998/1999 school term, so that there are 15
morning and afternoon scheduled bus routes for Panther
Valley.
10. Miscellaneous
All the Respondent’s drivers wear hats and/or jackets
bearing the Respondent’s logo. All drivers receive copies
of the Respondent’s monthly newsletter. The Respondent
has also formed a safety and wellness committee in
which all employees may participate. The Respondent
also hosts an annual holiday party for all employees to
attend.
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent is a
successor to PVSD, as the Respondent hired almost all of
the former PVSD drivers, there is substantial continuity
between the operations of PVSD and the Respondent at
Panther Valley, and the Panther Valley drivers constitute
an appropriate bargaining unit. Therefore, the General
Counsel contends, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the representative of the Respondent’s Pan-
ther Valley drivers.
The Respondent contends that it is not a successor to
PVSD because the appropriate bargaining unit is the Re-
spondent’s entire work force, not the drivers located at
Panther Valley. The Respondent also contends that it is
not a successor because there is not substantial continuity
between it and PVSD, as the Respondent’s drivers at
Panther Valley who formerly worked for PVSD are in a
significantly different job situation as employees of the
Respondent.
VAN LEAR EQUIPMENT, INC. 1063
C. Discussion
We agree with the General Counsel that the Respon-
dent is a successor to PVSD with respect to the Panther
Valley drivers. The test for determining successorship
has been summarized as follows:

An employer, generally, succeeds to the collec-
tive-bargaining obligation of a predecessor if a ma-
jority of its employees, consisting of a “substantial
and representative complement,” in an appropriate
bargaining unit are former employees of the prede-
cessor and if the similarities between the two opera-
tions manifest a “‘substantial continuity’ between
the enterprises.” Fall River Dyeing Corp. v. NLRB,
482 U.S. 27, 41–43 (1987), citing, inter alia, NLRB
v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272, 280 fn. 4
(1972).4

We find these criteria satisfied here. As of August 1997, the
Respondent employed 26 bus drivers at Panther Valley, 19
of whom were former PVSD bus drivers. Thus, the vast
majority of the Respondent’s Panther Valley bus drivers
were former PVSD unit employees. Additionally, in Octo-
ber, when the Union first requested that the Respondent
recognize and bargain with it as the representative of the
Respondent’s Panther Valley drivers, the Respondent em-
ployed a substantial and representative unit complement, as
the Respondent’s Panther Valley location was already fully
staffed. In preparation for the 1997/1998 school year, the
Respondent had 26 Panther Valley bus drivers employed as
of August, a number which did not thereafter increase.
Additionally, we find a unit composed of the Respon-
dent’s Panther Valley bus drivers to be an appropriate
unit. Single-location units are presumptively appropriate.
See, e.g., New Britain Transportation Co., 330 NLRB
397 (1999). This presumption is particularly strong
where, as here, the employees have historically been rep-
resented in a single-location unit. See, e.g., Montauk Bus
Co., 324 NLRB 1128, 1135 (1997). Under the facts here,
the Respondent has failed to overcome the single-
location presumption. Thus, while there is companywide
uniformity on such matters as wages and benefits, the
Respondent’s Panther Valley facility is geographically
distant from its other locations, as Kutztown and Schuyl-
kill Valley, the Respondent’s closest districts to Panther
Valley, are at least 25 miles away from the Panther Val-
ley facility. Further, there has been, to date, no inter-
change of drivers between the Respondent’s Panther Val-
ley facility and its other locations, as the Respondent’s
Panther Valley district supervisor has been able to obtain
sufficient drivers locally to cover drivers’ absences and

4 Hydrolines, Inc., 305 NLRB 416, 421 (1991).
to drive for sports and extracurricular activity trips.
Moreover, although the Respondent is centrally managed
from its Reading office, its district supervisors, including
its Panther Valley supervisor, maintain discretion and
independence on certain matters, such as interviewing
job applicants and deciding whether to recommend them
to the Reading office, issuing verbal and written warn-
ings to employees, and suspending employees for alco-
hol, drug, or safety infractions. Thus, the Respondent’s
Panther Valley drivers clearly share a community of in-
terest among themselves.
Contrary to the Respondent’s contention, we find that
the present case is quite unlike P.S. Elliott Services, 300
NLRB 1161 (1990). In that case, the Board found that 7
employees who performed cleaning services at a single
office building no longer constituted an appropriate bar-
gaining unit after they were hired by a larger cleaning
firm and subsumed into a work force of 175 employees.
Unlike the present case, the work locations of the large
cleaning firm were not geographically distant from each
other, the cleaning firm also assigned other employees to
the building at which the seven employees worked, and
all personnel matters were handled exclusively at the
firm’s central office. As noted above, here the Respon-
dent Panther Valley facility is distant from its other fa-
cilities, there has been no interchange of drivers between
the Respondent’s Panther Valley facility and its other
locations, and some personnel matters are handled lo-
cally by the Respondent’s district supervisor at Panther
Valley. Additionally, unlike P.S. Elliott Services, em-
ployees here are hired for a specific work location. Ac-
cordingly, P.S. Elliott Services does not compel a finding
that the single-location unit at issue here is inappropriate.
Turning to the issue of substantial continuity between
the predecessor and successor enterprises, the Supreme
Court in Fall River Dyeing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27,
41–43 (1987), identified the following factors as rele-
vant:

[W]hether the business of both employers is essentially
the same; whether the employees of the new company
are doing the same jobs in the same working conditions
under the same supervisors; and whether the new entity
has the same production process, produces the same
products and has basically the same body of customers.

These factors are assessed primarily from the perspective of
the employees, that is, “whether ‘those employees who have
been retained will . . . view their job situations as essentially
unaltered.’” Id., quoting Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB,
414 U.S. 168, 184 (1973).
In this case, the business of PVSD, to the extent that it
engaged in the operation of pupil transportation services,
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1064
and the business of the Respondent is essentially the
same. The 19 former PVSD bus drivers who were hired
by the Respondent at Panther Valley are doing the same
jobs under generally similar working conditions as they
did previously. While they do not have the same supervi-
sor, a former fellow PVSD bus driver, Howard Yeakley,
has become their supervisor as the Respondent’s Panther
Valley district supervisor. The bus drivers follow the
same “production processes” and serve the same body of
customers in that the drivers continue to drive daily
routes taking school children to and from the same
PVSD schools.
There are, of course, some differences between the Re-
spondent’s operations at Panther Valley and the prior bus
operations of PVSD. For example, under the Respondent,
the drivers are driving newer buses than before and, con-
trary to prior practice, they use the same buses in the
morning and the afternoon. The buses are parked in the
same parking lot as before but in a different area of the
parking lot. The bus routes have been modified. The
drivers’ pay rates are different than before. Additionally,
the drivers no longer receive life insurance or sick or
personal days, but, under the Respondent, they now are
eligible to collect unemployment compensation benefits
when school is not in session.
Nevertheless, viewed from the drivers’ perspective, the
drivers are performing the same work that they per-
formed as PVSD employees—transporting school chil-
dren to and from PVSD schools by school bus and van.
In sum, we would not find that the employees’ “job
situation has so changed that they would change their
attitudes about being represented.” Derby Refining Co.,
292 NLRB 1015 (1989), enfd. sub nom. Coastal Derby
Refining Co. v. NLRB, 915 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
Additionally, even though the Respondent did not take
over all the operations and functions of the prior PVSD
bargaining unit—the custodians, maintenance workers,
and secretaries remained with PVSD—a finding of suc-
cessorship is not precluded. Indeed, the Board has fre-
quently found substantial continuity where the successor
employer has taken over only a discrete portion of the
predecessor’s heterogeneous bargaining unit. See Bronx
Health Plan, 326 NLRB 810 (1998), enfd. 203 F.3d 51
(D.C. Cir. 1999); M.S. Management Associate, 325
NLRB 1154 (1998), enfd. sub nom. NLRB v. Simon De-
Bartelo Group, 241 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2001); Lincoln
Park Zoological Society, 322 NLRB 263 (1996), enfd.
116 F.3d 216 (7th Cir. 1997); Louis Pappas’ Homosassa
Springs Restaurant, 275 NLRB 1519 (1985); and Stewart
Granite Enterprises, 255 NLRB 569 (1981). Further, the
successorship doctrine continues to apply even though
the predecessor, PVSD, is a public employer. Lincoln
Park Zoological Society, supra at 265; JMM Operational
Services, 316 NLRB 6, 12 (1995). Accordingly, we find
that there is substantial continuity between PVSD and the
Respondent at its Panther Valley facility and that the
Respondent, with regard to its Panther Valley facility, is
a successor to PVSD.
Having found the Respondent to be a successor to
PVSD, we further find that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) on November 10, 1997, by failing
and refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the Respondent’s Panther Valley bus drivers.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Van Lear Equipment, Inc., Reading, Penn-
sylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with Teamsters
Local Union 773 a/w International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed below.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of em-
ployment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody
the understanding in a signed agreement:

All full-time and regular part-time bus drivers of the
Respondent employed in the Panther Valley School
District, excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.

(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
facility in Lansford, Pennsylvania, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places

5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
VAN LEAR EQUIPMENT, INC. 1065
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily 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 Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate 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 November 10, 1997.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.

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 the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with
Teamsters Local Union 773 a/w International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO, as the exclusive represen-
tative of the employees in the bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL bargain with the Union and put in writing
and sign any agreement reached on terms and conditions
of employment for our employees in the bargaining unit:

All full-time and regular part-time bus drivers of the
Employer employed in the Panther Valley School Dis-
trict, excluding all other employees, office clerical em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
VAN LEAR EQUIPMENT, INC.