NOTICE: This
opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes
of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested
to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
First Student, Inc. and Teamsters Local No. 449. Case 3–CA–26584
November 28, 2008
DECISION AND ORDER
By Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman
On September 3, 2008, Administrative Law Judge George Carson II issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed answering briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board1 has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended
Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, First Student,
Inc.,
Dated,
______________________________________
Peter C. Schaumber, Chairman
______________________________________
Wilma B. Liebman, Member
(seal) National
Labor Relations Board
APPENDIX
Notice To Employees
Posted by Order
of the
National Labor Relations
Board
An Agency of the
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, without notice to or bargaining with the
Included: All full-time
and regular part-time school bus drivers, aides and mechanics employed by the
Respondent at its
Excluded: All office clerical employees, technicians-in-charge, dispatchers, guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees.
We will not discharge any of you pursuant to the unilateral enforcement of our driving under the influence policy.
We will not fail and refuse to meet and bargain with the Union regarding the discharge of any of you in the appropriate unit represented by the Union who have been discharged by our illegal enforcement of our driving under the influence policy.
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 rescind the unilateral change that we made in the terms and conditions of employment of unit employees by enforcing our driving under the influence policy.
We will, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Matthew Raimondo, Carl Antholzner, and Shawn Kazmierczak full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
We will make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, with interest.
We will, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlawful discharges of Matthew Raimondo, Carl Antholzner, and Shawn Kazmierczak and within 3 days thereafter notify them in writing that this has been done and that the discharges will not be used against them in any way.
First Student, Inc.
Linda M. Leslie, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Vincent J. Tersigni, Esq., for the Respondent.
E. Joseph Giroux Jr. and Catherine Creighton (on brief), Esqs., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
George Carson
II, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by all parties, I make the following
Findings of Fact
i.
jurisdiction
The Respondent, First Student, Inc., the Company, is engaged
in the business of providing bus transportation services from various
facilities throughout the
The Respondent admits, and I find and conclude, that Teamsters
Local No. 449, the
ii. alleged
unfair labor practices
A. Background
The Company, as its name implies, is chiefly engaged in
the transportation of school children. The
managers of its multiple facilities report to superiors located in various locations.
At the relevant times herein, the North
Tonawanda, New York facility, was supervised by General Manager Mary Deschamps,
the highest ranking official at that location, and Safety Coordinator and
Assistant Manager Linda Malczewski. Malczewski,
who is still employed by the Company, is currently the Acting Manager at
another location. Deschamps reported
upon safety matters to Regional Safety Manager Nicholas DeSantis, who was located
in North Haledon,
At the
The Company began providing bus service from its
The Company has a policy prohibiting employment as a driver of any individual who has been convicted of driving under the influence or while impaired due to drugs or alcohol within the past 15 years. There is no evidence that the predecessor had any such prohibition.
Employees Matthew Raimondo and Carl Antholzner, both of
whom had been convicted of driving while impaired by alcohol and both of whom
had been driving for the predecessor, applied for jobs as drivers with the
Company and were hired. The offense in
It is undisputed that Deschamps and Malczewski at North Towanda and Regional Safety Manager DeSantis and Regional Vice President Luciano in New Jersey were aware that employees Matthew Raimondo and Carl Antholzner had been convicted of DUI prior to their being hired by the Company and that both worked for over 18 months before being discharged.
Late in 2007, over a year after the Company assumed the operations
at
Included: All full-time and regular part-time school bus
drivers, aides and mechanics employed by the Respondent at its
Excluded: All office clerical employees, technicians-in-charge, dispatchers, guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees.
B. Facts
Matthew Raimondo was hired by TNT in October 1999, following an interview with Linda Malczewski and filling out an application. Thereafter, in October 2000, he was convicted of a DUI and his license was suspended. Upon the reinstatement of his license in March 2001, he returned to work driving a bus. At the point that TNT was acquired by Atlantic Express, Raimondo spoke with Malczewski concerning the effect, if any, of his conviction upon his continued employment. He continued to work. He spoke with Malczewski again when the Company, First Student, began taking applications in May 2006. Malczewski said that she would check, and she did so. About 2 weeks after Raimondo spoke with her, Malczewski informed him that she and General Manager Deschamps had “good news for me and them, and that First Student is keeping me on.” Although Raimondo signed for the Company employee handbook, he was unaware of the policy relating to DUI convictions within 15 years.
On January 18, Raimondo was called into the office of General Manager Deschamps where she and Malczewski informed him that he was being released due to his DUI in 2000. Raimondo protested that they had to be “kidding me, . . . we had already discussed this.” Deschamps and Malczewski confirmed that they had done so, that they knew it was “not fair, but that’s what we have to do.”
Carl Antholzner began working for TNT in December 2005. At the time he applied, Antholzner’s license
had been suspended due to a DUI conviction. He filled out an application and explained his
situation to Malczewski. Malczewski
called the New York Department of Motor Vehicles and learned that Antholzner
would have his license reinstated and be cleared to drive a bus on January 12,
2006. He was hired and worked as a bus
aide until his license was reinstated. On
May 24, 2006, Antholzner filled out an application for the Company and was
interviewed by a woman whose name he did not recall. They reviewed his application which reflected
the DUI. Antholzner pointed out the DUI.
The woman who was interviewing him shook
her head and continued the interview. Antholzner
recalls that the woman, in the interview, informed him that he was hired, but
it appears that he may have been mistaken in that regard because all
applications and driving records were reviewed in
On January 18, Antholzner was called into the office of General Manager Deschamps. Malczewski was present. Deschamps informed him that he was being released due to his driving record. Antholzner protested that they knew his driving record, that he “was upfront and honest.” Deschamps and Malczewski agreed and stated that they explained the situation to the “main office and argued with them,” but to no avail.
Shawn Kazmierczak had not worked for TNT. He was hired by the Company in September 2007. He applied and spoke with Linda Malczewski. In their interview he explained that he had a DUI some 7 years ago, in 2000, and that the DUI occurred when he and some friends with whom he was partying had an encounter with a police officer while riding bicycles. He had not been driving a motor vehicle. Malczewski, who though the situation was “funny and crazy,” stated that it would not be a problem but she would check. She left the room, and Kazmierczak observed her talking to another woman who he later learned was General Manager Deschamps. Malczewski returned and informed him that the DUI should not be a problem and that “as far as she knew that there was only a five year policy.” Kazmierczak was hired, trained, qualified for a license, and began driving a bus.
On February 1, Kazmierczak was called to the office of General Manager Deschamps who informed him that he was being let go “because of your DUI.” Kazmierczak responded that the Company knew that when they hired him, but had hired him and trained him.
Deschamps denied being aware of Kazmierczak’s DUI conviction. I find that she forgot about the conviction. Kazmierczak credibly testified that, after he informed Malczewski of the circumstances of the DUI, he observed her consulting with Deschamps before she informed him that he could be hired. Malczewski, who is still employed by the Company, did not testify. The delay between the discharges of Raimondo and Antholzner and the discharge of Kazmierczak is immaterial. Assistant Manager Malczewski certified that she had reviewed a driver abstract dated December 11, 2007, which reports the conviction. Thus, the Company had notice of the conviction. Even assuming that Deschamps forgot the conversation with Malczewski, there can be no credible claim that the Company was not aware of the conviction at the time Kazmierczak was hired.
When Deschamps stated to Kazmierczak that he was being
discharged because of his DUI, Kazmierczak responded that the Company knew that
when he was hired. Deschamps did not
deny that assertion, she simply stated that “this is not coming from me.” She indicted that she was “very bothered” by
having to let him go and gave him the number of the
In late May 2006, Regional Safety Manager DeSantis, Regional
Vice President Luciano, and approximately eight other individuals came to the
Regional Safety Manager DeSantis acknowledged that
Deschamps and Malczewski informed him of the DUI convictions of the three
employees. He acknowledged that it was
the intent of the Company to “keep as many employees as possible.” He also acknowledged that he had “the
authority to simply say no we can’t hire these people, because we have this
very strict policy,” but did not do so. DeSantis
initially testified that Vice President Frank Luciano “brought the information up
to HR [Human Resources in Cincinnati] to see if there was anything we could do
to retain these employees, but at the time there was no one—there was no
approval given at the time of the acquisition.” He immediately elaborated, stating, “We
brought it up to the top person in
Upon questioning by Charging Party’s counsel, DeSantis testified that he, not Luciano, had attempted to contact Rick Villines in human resources at Company headquarters:
Q. [By Attorney Giroux] Now despite the strict policy, you decide you’re not going to invoke it. Instead you call Mr. Velintes [sic]?
A. [By Manager DeSantis] Villines.
Q. Villines, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you talked to him, correct?
A. At that point it was a message.
Q. It was a message. You left him a voice mail?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Okay. Did he call you back?
A. No.
Q. He never called you back?
A. No.
Q. Okay. You went through this hiring process for the next month and a half to close to two months, . . . and you never revisited that issue during that time frame?
A. No[,] I did not.
DeSantis explained that, after the files of the applicants
were reviewed, if they were not disqualified, the applicants were hired by the
Company by “sending the file back [to
In late 2007, the Company acquired Laidlaw Transit, Inc.,
a competitor. In October 2007, the chief
executive officer of First Student was coming to give assurances to the First
Student employees, “talking to the employees about the new acquisition;
[and telling them] not to be threatened by it.” About this same time, the
Also in October 2007,
employee Tamara Baldwin was selected for a random drug test. Contemporaneously, DeSantis learned that her
license was about to be suspended for failure to pay a ticket for an
unspecified traffic offense. DeSantis,
upon review of
On this occasion, DeSantis testified that he called and spoke directly with Rick Villines, who informed him that all three employees must be terminated consistent with Company policy. When asked by counsel for the Respondent whether he would call his failure to have followed up in 2006 an “oversight,” DeSantis answered, “Yes.”
The Company’s policy manual provides that “[a]ny of the following may disqualify a driver: . . . c. Conviction for driving while intoxicated or substance abuse during the past 15 years.” (Emphasis added.) As the Charging Party points out in its brief, the 2006 employee handbook provided that “no applicant or employee” with a DUI conviction within 15 years could drive for the Company whereas the 2007 handbook applies the qualifications only to “applicants.” Notwithstanding the foregoing inconsistencies, it is undisputed that a DUI conviction within the past 15 year’s policy was the basis for the termination of the three employees at issue herein.
DeSantis claims that he called Deschamps and informed her
of what she had to do, terminate all three because they had DUIs within the
past 15 years. Deschamps claims that she
protested, but to no avail. She further
testified that “Linda Malczewski was a part of that conversation as well.” Thereafter, Deschamps testified that “Linda Malczewski and myself
weren’t real happy about the situation” and called DeSantis explaining that “it
was going to be hard to terminate these employees.” Deschamps stated that Malczewski was also involved
in that conversation and that DeSantis repeated his instruction, telling them
that they “still had to follow directions for [from] First Student.”
When asked whether, consistent with the purported directive
from DeSantis, she discharged
Deschamps claims that she had no further contract with her
superiors and, notwithstanding the absence of further directives, discharged
Raimondo and Antholzner on January 18, because she “knew I had to do it under the
directive. I had put it off long enough.”
The acquisition of Laidlaw resulted in DeSantis being assigned
different duties shortly after October 2007. He had no further responsibility for
The
C. Credibility
The Respondent, relying upon the testimony of Deschamps and DeSantis, argues that the decision to discharge was made in October 2007, before the Respondent had a bargaining obligation. There is no documentation of any directive to discharge. As hereinafter discussed, I do not credit the testimony of Deschamps and DeSantis in that regard.
The testimony of DeSantis regarding contact with Human
Resources Director Villines in 2006 was contradictory. After first testifying that Vice President
Luciano contacted Villines and that “[w]e brought it up to the top person in
Contrary to the testimony of DeSantis, I further find that
no conversation with Villines occurred in October 2007. Villines did not testify. I do not credit the testimony of DeSantis
that, after being informed of the
I agree with the argument of the Charging Party that
General Manager Deschamps, a competent and reliable supervisor, would not
ignore “the clear mandate of a superior.” She would not disobey a direct order to
terminate specific employees, those who were working notwithstanding their DUI
convictions. Although claiming that she
received a direct order in October 2007, to discharge those employees,
Deschamps did not do so. I find that
incredible. The fact that Deschamps did
not immediately terminate
I do not credit the testimony of Deschamps that she heard
nothing in January regarding the employees who were working notwithstanding
their DUI convictions. There was not “too
much going on” after the visit of the CEO and certification of the
D. Analysis and Concluding Finding
The complaint alleges that the Respondent unilaterally began enforcing its policy relating to driving under the influence, that such enforcement resulted in the termination of three employees, and that the Respondent thereafter refused to meet and bargain with the Union regarding the termination of two of the three terminated employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
It is undisputed that there was no notice to or bargaining
with the
The Respondent argues, citing various cases, that the decision to discharge was made prior to its bargaining obligation. Those cases are inapposite insofar as I have not credited the testimony of Deschamps that she was directed to discharge the employees in October 2007. The directive to discharge the employees and the effectuation of that directive by Deschamps occurred in January 2008.
Accepting, arguendo, the claim of an October 2007
directive, this case does not involve an economic decision that was held in
abeyance in order to assure that there was no interference with a union
organizational campaign or an upcoming representation election. See Starcraft
Aerospace, Inc., 346 NLRB 2006 (2006). There is no claim herein that the failure of
Deschamps to act was to avoid potential interference. Any such claim would be rebutted by the fact
that she discharged
Even if I were to have found that the directive was given
in October 2007, the discharge decision was made by Deschamps in January 2008. The Respondent, in its brief, argues that the
delay in discharging Raimondo and Antholzner was “due to Ms. Deschamps own personal
decision not to follow Mr. DeSantis’ direct order until January.” Accepting that argument, it cannot be found
that the directive was the operative decision. Deschamps did not rely upon the
directive when discharging
A commonsense understanding of when a discharge “happens” suggests that notice to the discharged employee is the operative event. Moreover, the Board itself chose the date of notice (rather than the date of decision) as the date of discharge in Mt. Carmel Hospital, 255 NLRB 833 fn. 2 (1981). We thus conclude that . . . [the employee’s] discharge occurred post-certification and that the Company therefore is obliged to bargain with the certified union on this issue.
Thus, even if it be assumed that the directive was given
in October 2007, as pointed out in the brief of the General Counsel, the
Respondent, by General Manager Deschamps at North Tonawanda, “condoned the
violation of its policy” by allowing the employees to continue to work. The enforcement of the policy with regard to
unit employees at the
Notwithstanding the foregoing discussion, I reiterate
that I find that both the directive to discharge and the effectuation of
that directive occurred in January. The
unilateral enforcement of the DUI policy constituted a change in the working
conditions of the unit employees and violated the Act. “[T]he vice involved
in [a unilateral change] . . . is that the employer has changed the existing conditions of employment. It is this change which is prohibited
and which forms the basis of the unfair labor practice charge.” Daily
News of Los Angeles, 315 NLRB 1236, 1237 (1994), enfd. 73 F.3d 406 (D.C.
Cir. 1996), cert. denied 519
The bargaining obligation in this proceeding is the bargaining
obligation for the unit at the
The Respondent’s unilateral enforcement of the DUI policy resulted in the discharge of three employees. “If the Respondent’s unlawfully imposed rules or policies were a factor in the discipline or discharge, the discipline or discharge violates Section 8(a)(5).” Great Western Produce, 299 NLRB 1004, 1005 (1990). The unilateral enforcement of the DUI policy resulted in the discharge of Matthew Raimondo, Carl Antholzner, and Shawn Kazmierczak. I find that those discharges violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
The
The Respondent argues that the General Counsel has
failed to carry the burden of proof with regard to this allegation because no
other business agent or witness testified “as to what happened” after Business
Agent Zak retired, which occurred in late February. Contrary to that argument, the General Counsel
established that the
The Charging Party argues that, in view of the failure of the Respondent to respond to the request to meet regarding the discharges of Raimondo and Antholzner, that any request to meet with regard to Kazmierczak, who was not discharged until February 1, would have been futile. I agree. However, Business Agent Zak acknowledged that he was unaware of the discharge of Kazmierczak. Furthermore, there is no complaint allegation relative to a failure to meet regarding his discharge. Thus, I shall make no finding regarding an unalleged violation.
Conclusions of Law
1. By unilaterally enforcing its previously unenforced driving under the influence policy with regard to North Towanda, New York, unit employees without notice to or bargaining with the Union, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging Matthew Raimondo, Carl Antholzner, and Shawn Kazmierczak pursuant to its unilateral enforcement of its driving under the influence policy, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing to meet and bargain with the Union regarding the discharge of employees pursuant to its unilateral enforcement of its driving under the influence policy, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) 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.
The Respondent must rescind its unilateral change in the enforcement
of its driving under the influence policy with regard to the
The Respondent having unlawfully discharged Matthew Raimondo, Carl Antholzner, and Shawn Kazmierczak pursuant to enforcement of its previously unenforced driving under the influence policy, it must offer them reinstatement and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from January 18, 2008, in the cases of Raimondo and Antholzner, and from February 1, 2008, in the case of Kazmierczak, 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).
Counsel for the General Counsel has proposed a notice that includes an obligation to meet and bargain regarding the discharges of Raimondo and Antholzner. My recommended Order will direct that the unilateral change and discharges pursuant to that change be rescinded. Therefore the predicate for an affirmative order to bargain with regard to the discharges no longer exists; the discharges will have been rescinded.
I am mindful that the underlying reason for the policy of the Respondent relates to safety. This decision does not address the merit of that policy. The foregoing remedy addresses only the unilateral change that altered the status quo pursuant to which the Respondent operated for over a year and a half.
The General Counsel requests compound interest upon any backpay due. Consistent with the decision of the Board in Glen Rock Ham, 352 NLRB No. 69, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2008), not to deviate from its current practice of awarding simple interest, I deny that request.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, First Student, Inc.,
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unilaterally, without notice to or bargaining with the
Included: All
full-time and regular part-time school bus drivers, aides and mechanics
employed by the Respondent at its
Excluded: All office clerical employees, technicians-in-charge, dispatchers, guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees.
(b) Discharging employees pursuant to its unilateral change in enforcement of its driving under the influence policy.
(c) Failing and refusing to meet and bargain with the
(d) 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.
(a) Rescind the unilateral change made in the terms and conditions of unit employees by enforcement of its driving under the influence policy.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Matthew Raimondo, Carl Antholzner, and Shawn Kazmierczak full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(c) Make whole Matthew Raimondo, Carl Antholzner, and Shawn Kazmierczak for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any reference to the unlawful discharges, and within 3 days thereafter, notify Matthew Raimondo, Carl Antholzner, and Shawn Kazmierczak in writing that this has been done and that the discharges will not be used against them in any way.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place 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 determine the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facilities in
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated,
APPENDIX
Notice To
Employees
Posted
by Order of the
National
Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the
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, without notice to or
bargaining with the
Included: All
full-time and regular part-time school bus drivers, aides and mechanics
employed by the Respondent at its
Excluded: All office clerical employees, technicians-in-charge, dispatchers, guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees.
We will not discharge any of you pursuant to the unilateral enforcement of our driving under the influence policy.
We will not fail and refuse to meet and bargain with the Union regarding the discharge of any of you in the appropriate unit represented by the Union who have been discharged by our illegal enforcement of our driving under the influence policy.
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 rescind the unilateral change that we made in the terms and conditions of employment of unit employees by enforcing our driving under the influence policy
We will, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Matthew Raimondo, Carl Antholzner, and Shawn Kazmierczak full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and we will make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
We will, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlawful discharges of Matthew Raimondo, Carl Antholzner, and Shawn Kazmierczak and within 3 days thereafter notify them in writing that this has been done and that the discharges will not be used against them in any way.
First Student, Inc.
1 Effective midnight
December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
There are no exceptions to the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) by failing and refusing to meet and bargain with the Union regarding the discharges of employees Antholzner and Raimondo.
3 The substitute notice reorders the notice paragraphs in accord with the Board’s traditional practice of including all injunctive provisions prior to affirmative remedial provisions.
1 The transcript is hereby corrected to reflect the July 16 date of hearing. All dates are in 2008, unless otherwise indicated. The charge was filed on February 13, and amended on April 21.
2 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.
3 If this Order is
enforced by a judgment of a