Sunset Taxi Co.

SUNSET TAXI COMPANY, INC. Sunset Taxi Company, Incorporated and Ronald Boccio and Stanley Salanitri. Cases 29-CA-5306 and 29-CA-5331 December 7, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY On July 13, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Bruce C. Nasdor issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge, to modify his remedy so that interest is to be computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977),2 and to adopt his recom- mended Order, as modified herein. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon- dent, Sunset Taxi Company, Incorporated, Babylon, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so modified: 1. In paragraph 2(a), delete the words "at the rate of 6 percent." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b): "(b) Pay Ronald Boccio and Stanley Salanitri interest on their accident bonds in the manner and at the rate prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). If either or both should decline offers of reinstatement, return the money posted for the accident bonds, plus interest as prescribed in Florida Steel, supra." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the Administrative Law Judge. I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. Respondent has also excepted to the Board's assertion ofjurisdiction over its operations. We find no merit in the exception. In this regard we note that 233 NLRB No. 143 in addition to admitting to the paragraphs in the complaint relating to jurisdiction and set forth by the Administrative Law Judge as a basis for finding jurisdiction, Respondent amended its answer at the hearing and admitted par. 4(c) of the complaint. That paragraph avers that in the past year Respondent purchased goods, products, and materials valued in excess of $30,000 from other enterprises located in the State of New York, each of which enterprises had received said goods, products, and materials in interstate commerce directly from States of the United States other than New York. 2 See, generally, Isis Plumbing d Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi- nate against our employees because of their union or concerted activities. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our em- ployees concerning their union membership, activities, and desires or those of their fellow employees. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis- charge or other reprisals for engaging in union activities or for engaging in protected concerted activities, or for refusing to sign lease agreements. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer to Ronald Boccio and Stanley Salanitri immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with- out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, and WE WILL compensate them for any loss of pay suffered by reason of their termina- tions, with interest. WE WILL pay interest on the accident bonds to Ronald Boccio and Stanley Salanitri. If they or either of them refuse reinstatement, WE WILL return the money they posted for their accident bonds, plus interest. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining members of Local 707, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. SUNSET TAXI COMPANY, INCORPORATED 987 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BRUCE C. NASDOR, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Brooklyn, New York, on April 18, 1977. The charge in Case 29-CA-5306 was filed by Ronald Boccio on November 12, 1976. The charge in Case 29-CA-5331 was filed by Stanley Salanitri on November 22, 1976. The order consolidating cases, complaint and notice of hearing issued on January 26, 1977. The complaint alleges that the Sunset Taxi Company, Incorporated (herein called Respondent or Company), committed various independent violations of Section 8(a)(l) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act), and discriminatorily discharged two active union adherents in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Respondent in its answer denies each and every allegation. Upon the entire record,' including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION At the hearing Respondent moved to amend its answer by admitting to those paragraphs in the complaint relating to jurisdiction. The motion was granted. Accordingly, I find that Respondent is a New York corporation engaged in the business of operating taxicabs in the county of Suffolk and State of New York. During the past year, a representative period, Respondent in the course and conduct of its business derived gross revenues therefrom in excess of $500,000. During the same representative period, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, derived in excess of $35,000 for services rendered to the Suffolk County Department of Social Services, an employ- er that would be directly in interstate commerce, if it were subject to the Act. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Local 707, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues 1. Whether Respondent created the impression it was engaging in the surveillance of union activities and meeting places. 2. Whether Respondent interrogated and/or threat- ened employees with discharge and other reprisals for engaging in union activity. I The parties waived the filing of briefs. 2 All dates are in 1976 unless otherwise stated. 3. Whether Charging Parties Ronald Boccio and Stanley Salanitri quit their jobs or were fired for engaging in union and concerted activities. B. Union Activity of Ronald Boccio Ronald Boccio began working for the Company, as a driver, in early April 1976.2 He generally worked 6 days a week on 12-hour shifts. The location of the taxistand which is involved in this proceeding is the Babylon Railroad Station, on Long Island, New York. On November 7, Boccio and several of his coworkers including Stanley Salanitri, the other alleged discriminatee, were discussing various benefits which could derive from having a union represent the drivers. Salanitri, a part-time cab driver, was employed full time as a tractor-trailer driver for the Reliance Plastic Corporation. Although the drivers are unrepresented at Reliance, Salanitri had become acquainted with one Ralph Alimena, a union representative with Teamsters Local 707. Boccio requested Salanitri to call Alimena. Salanitri placed the call which resulted in a meeting that afternoon at the Babylon Railroad Station between Alimena and Boccio. A general discussion ensued relating to the employee complement and what showing of interest might be forthcoming. Alimena gave Boccio 15 or 20 union authorization cards. A subsequent meeting was set for 7 o'clock that evening to give Alimena an opportunity to speak with the other drivers and get any cards that Boccio may have had signed during the interim. Between 3 and 7 p.m., Boccio procured 12 signatures.3 At 7 p.m. Boccio, Alimena, and several drivers, including Salanitri, met at the same location. Union benefits were discussed, and both Boccio and Salanitri turned over their signed cards and the signed cards they had received as a result of solicitations. Thereafter Boccio procured addition- al signed cards. On November 10, a petition was filed in Case 29-RC- 3647. C. The Discharge of Boccio On November 11, at approximately 11:30 a.m., while on call, Boccio received a radio dispatch to report in, park his cab and await a call from the president and owner of the Company, Albert Tumbiolo. He reported in and received the call from Tumbiolo who instructed him to report to Tumbiolo's home, which also serves as his office. When he arrived at the house, Harry Foley, vice president of the Company, was also present. According to Boccio's testimony, Tumbiolo asked him to sit at the kitchen table. Tumbiolo proceeded to interrogate Boccio regarding his past employment. He then asked him what was going on, to which Boccio replied, "about what." Tumbiolo told him not to play dumb, that they already knew he had signed a union card. Tumbiolo then requested that Boccio reveal the names of other drivers who had signed cards. He read the drivers' names from a list, requesting Boccio to indicate which drivers signed. Foley then stated to Tumbiolo that he need not get the names 3 Boccio gave Salanitri five or six cards. 988 SUNSET TAXI COMPANY, INC. from Boccio, because he. Foley, could get them on his own. Tumbiolo then showed Boccio a lease agreement which he ordered Boccio to sign. He stated that all of the drivers must sign similiar agreements in order to attain indepen- dent contractor status, thus avoiding the Union. Boccio asked what would happen if he refused to sign the agreement to which Tumbiolo replied, he would be fired. Tumbiolo asked Boccio what he would do for the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. Boccio asked to be refunded the $95 he had advanced as bond. Tumbiolo feigned ignorance of any bond and stated that there would never be a union in his place, he would, "lock and close down my place before the Union steps on my grounds." He further stated to Boccio, "The representative of your union, you tell him under the rail (railroad station) I'll f-- him or anyplace he wants to be f--ed." Tumbiolo told Boccio he would make sure that Boccio never would be able to get a job any place. Boccio testified that this was the first he had ever heard of any lease agreement. Throughout the conversation he continued to refuse to sign the lease agreement or reveal the names of card signers. At the conclusion of the discussion, Boccio asked whether signing the lease agree- ment and revealing the names would serve as a basis for Tumbiolo to reinstate him. Tumbiolo responded affirma- tively. Boccio then left the premises. D. The Discharge of Stanley Salanitri Salanitri was hired as a part-time driver on July 12, 1976. As set forth heretofore, he was the individual who made the initial contact with the union representative on November 7. He also procured signatures on union authorization cards and attended the meeting at the railroad station on the evening of November 7. The essence of his testimony regarding the meeting parallels in detail Boccio's version, and will not be reiterated here. On November I , when Salanitri returned home from his job at Reliance Plastic Corporation, he was informed by his wife that Tumbiolo had called and informed her that Salanitri was not to go to work at 6 o'clock that night, rather he was to call Tumbiolo at home. At 7 p.m., Salanitri reached Tumbiolo by telephone. According to Salanitri, Tumbiolo's first words were, "Oh Skip (Salanitri's nick- name), the big organizer. You and Ronnie (Boccio), what are you trying to do? Are you trying to ruin me?" Salanitri asked what Tumbiolo meant. Tumbiolo responded, "You know what you did for all the fellows at the cab station now with Christmas coming up, Thanksgiving coming up, they'll never be a union in here. I'll lock the door first." He then asked Salanitri what cards he signed, to which Salanitri responded that 90 percent of the men signed-not just him. Tumbiolo told Salanitri not to work, to stay away from the cabstand until Tumbiolo could speak to him again. Tumbiolo then asked Salanitri to come to his home. Salanitri replied that he had to take his pregnant wife to the doctor. Tumbiolo told him to call back after he, Salanitri, returned from the doctor's office. At or about 10:30 p.m., Salanitri again called Tumbiolo. Tumbiolo asked Salanitri to come to his home, and Salanitri refused. Tumbiolo stated, "Well I guess you quit." Salanitri responded he had not quit and Tumbiolo stated that Salanitri was refusing to come to his home so he, Salanitri, quit. Salanitri asked about his $50 bond, Tumbiolo said they would talk about that later. On November 12, Salanitri again called Tumbiolo at 4 or 5 p.m. He asked Tumbiolo if he could come in to work. Tumbiolo responded, "No you quit." Tumbiolo again asked Salanitri to come to his home to sign the lease agreement. Salanitri stated he would if his wife could accompany him. Tumbiolo said that he would not allow Salanitri's wife into the house. Tumbiolo asked him, "why did you call in a union?" Salanitri answered that he did not bring in the Union, Tumbiolo's own men did. Tumbiolo's rejoinder was that his men would not go against him. On November 17, Salanitri stopped at the cabstand to recover money he had loaned to Tumbiolo's son, Richard Tumbiolo. He asked Richard Tumbiolo for his money and commented that he was going to appear before the National Labor Relations Board as a witness in an unfair labor practice hearing. Richard Tumbiolo then asked Salanitri why he did not sign the rental agreement. Tumbiolo stated that he was surprised that Salanitri and another employee, John Kane, had signed union cards, his father would shut down the cab station, and the Union will never come into this taxistand. Richard Tumbiolo, al- though present at the hearing, was not called upon to testify. He then called his father at this point and related his conversation with Salanitri. He gave Salanitri the phone. Albert Tumbiolo told Salanitri not to appear at the Labor Board hearing. He then asked Salanitri if there was a union where he, Salanitri, was working, to which Salanitri responded in the negative. Tumbiolo said, "Unionize your place." Salanitri asked Tumbiolo if he was trying to get him fired. Tumbiolo responded that he would "throw up pickets." On November 18, Salanitri was terminated from his job at Reliance Plastic Corporation. Salanitri believes that he was observed by Sunset management in a Reliance truck bearing the name and phone number of that company. He feels that Tumbiolo is responsible for having him discharged from Reliance. Theresa Salanitri, the wife of Stanley Salanitri, corrobo- rates her husband regarding the first phone call from Tumbiolo on November 11. On November 17, Tumbiolo called Salanitri's house at 12:30 in the afternoon. Theresa Salanitri answered the phone. Tumbiolo told her to tell her husband to stay away from the cab station or he would be locked up for trespassing. She asked if her husband was fired and he answered that Salanitri had quit. Tumbiolo stated that Salanitri was an instigator and an organizer, that he would never have a union, and he could afford to "shut down and still eat good." Furthermore, according to her testimony, Tumbiolo stated that the other men who signed cards did so because they were painted a picture of paradise, and no one has ever bugged him before but her husband. In addition, Tumbiolo stated that she should try to control her husband because he was on probation and Tumbiolo did not want to have to do anything to have it revoked. She stated that the probation officer was well aware of what was going on. He said that she may not have much money for the holidays, but it would be nice to have her husband 989 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD around. He stated that if she had any influence over her husband to "curb him." She responded that her husband was not a dog. Tumbiolo said, that when you let dogs loose in the street, the dogcatcher picks them up. He then questioned her about Salanitri's job at Reliance-whether it was unionized. She asked how he handled the other men who had signed union cards. He responded that some were reprimanded and put back on the job, others were put on probation and others were let go. E. Respondent's Defense Albert Tumbiolo, Respondent's president and owner, was the principal witness testifying on behalf of Respon- dent. Throughout his testimony, Tumbiolo characterized himself as being embarrassed because of his poor memory, confused and unrehearsed. At other times, he refused to answer questions on cross-examination stating, "I really can't answer a question that I think I'm going to lie about." Tumbiolo maintains that Boccio quit because he was not furnished with a new taxicab, and Salanitri quit because "the job was too much for him." Much of his testimony was devoted to establishing that Boccio had been involved in several automobile accidents. The relevance of Boccio's driving record escapes me in view of Respondent's defense. Tumbiolo could not, or would not remember why he insisted that Salanitri come to his house. He agreed that Salanitri was a good employee, and he had no trouble with him in any way. He also acknowledged his hurt and displeasure upon learning of Salanitri's union activity. Tumbiolo's attitude when asked whether he would be willing for Salanitri to return to work is as follows: Q. If he came back to work today, would you use him? A. No, I wouldn't. Q. Why? A. There's no need for me to have him back to work for me. Why should I have him back to work for me for? Q. .... Do you have animosity which would keep him from returning? A. To be perfectly honest, I'm not happy about it, no.... I've got to be an idiot to turn around and be happy about somebody trying to go against me. Tumbiolo testified that Boccio worked long hours, sometimes, 7 days a week, and was the Company's top earner. According to Tumbiolo, Boccio requested to see him at Tumbiolo's home on November 11. Furthermore, Tumbiolo avers that the "list" Boccio referred to in his testimony is a figment of Boccio's imagination. With respect to the leasing agreements, Tumbiolo testified that normally all employees execute leasing agreements, but the Company has been "lax" and "slip- shod" in this area. Moreover, according to Tumbiolo's testimony, Boccio signed a leasing agreement prior to any union activity,4 although Tumbiolo did not deem it necessary to require that Salanitri sign an agreement. 4 The agreement was never produced. 5 Case 29-RC-3647. With regard to the point in time in which Tumbiolo first became aware of any union activity, he responded early in his testimony that he did speak to drivers as to whether or not they were interested in the Union and whether or not they had signed union cards. He acknowledged that these conversations occurred after the petition5 was filed, because he only became aware of union activity after the filing of said petition. This witness also acknowledged that after the petition was filed, but prior to when the alleged discriminatees left the Respondent's employ (throughout his testimony Tumbiolo made references to when they were fired), he had heard rumors from other drivers that Boccio and Salanitri were involved in the Union's organizational activities. Tumbiolo commenced to change and contradict his prior testimony. For example, on redirect examination, he testified that he acquired knowledge through rumor, "after" Boccio and Salanitri were 'fired" (emphasis supplied). Indeed, he began to argue with his own counsel who acknowledged the timing of his conversations with the alleged discriminatees. Q. (By Mr. Passalaqua) .... You were aware that the union had filed a Petition at the time you had a conversation with Mr. Boccio? A. No I wasn't. How would I be aware of it? Q. This is the day after you got the papers?6 This is the day that you met at your house? A. And the day we met at my house was prior to this here piece of paper or after? Q. (Mr. Passalaqua) After. A. So then I knew about the .... so then I knew about the piece of paper. This puts us one day before the meeting that I had with him at my home? Is this what you're saying? Q. I'm saying? A. I doubt that very, very much. I think everybody is wrong there. I don't think that he came to my house before the . . . after the piece of paper. What do you think of that? Edward Joseph Ihne, a driver, testified that he was told by Salanitri, that Salanitri was quitting due to strain from his full-time job. In addition, this witness testified that he was present during a part of a conversation between Boccio and Tumbiolo, when he overheard Boccio refuse to work. Ihne had no idea of when the alleged conversation between himself and Salanitri occurred. Thomas J. Pasquale, a driver, testified that he heard Boccio tell another driver that he, Boccio, had quit. He also testified that Salanitri told him that he had to give up his job because he was working too many hours. Both Boccio and Salanitri deny so much as suggesting that they in any way communicated to anyone that they were quitting. Record testimony regarding Richard Tumbiolo, Albert's son, reveals that as a dispatcher he will, on occasion, make employment applications available to prospective employ- ees, although there is nothing in the record to indicate that he does the actual hiring, or makes effective recommenda- 6 Petition. 990 SUNSET TAXI COMPANY, INC. tions. Nor is there any evidence that he has the authority to fire employees. Basically, he directs the drivers to pick up the passengers at various locations depending upon when the passenger has placed the phone call requesting service. The dispatchers, including Richard Tumbiolo, also serve as drivers. F. Analysis and Conclusions In view of Albert Tumbiolo's admissions that he spoke to drivers as to whether or not they were interested in the Union or signed cards, and from my observation of the witnesses, I credit the testimony of Boccio and Salanitri that Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by engaging in the following: 1. On November 11, Harry Foley, vice president of Respondent, 7 and Albert Tumbiolo, created the impression of surveillance when Foley stated in the presence of Tumbiolo and Boccio, that he, Foley, was in a position to obtain the names of union adherents through his own sources. 2. On November 11 and 12, Albert Tumbiolo interro- gated Boccio and Salanitri concerning their membership in, activities on behalf of, and sympathy for Local 707, and the sympathy and activities of other employees. 3. On November II11, Albert Tumbiolo threatened Salanitri and Boccio with discharge and other reprisals if they became or remained members of Local 707 or if they rendered any assistance and support to it. 4. On November 11, 12, and 17, Albert Tumbiolo and Richard Tumbiolo, as an agent 8 of Respondent, threatened employees that the Company would go out of business if they became or remained members of Local 707 or if they rendered any assistance and support to it. 5. On November 17, Albert Tumbiolo threatened to cause Salanitri's parole status to be revoked if he continued to remain active on behalf of Local 707. 6. On November 11 and 12, Albert Tumbiolo threat- ened to discharge Boccio and Salanitri if they did not sign the lease agreements. In this regard, the record reveals that from the inception of the Union's organizational campaign, Tumbiolo has attempted by artifice to create independent contractors of the drivers, rather than employees. Indeed, he maintained at the hearing in Case 29-RC-3647, that the drivers were independent contractors, although footnote 11 of the Decision and Direction of Election (G.C. Exh. 2) reflects that employer representatives left the hearing room after refusing to provide information as to jurisdiction or related matters. In any event the record herein is clear that Tumbiolo attempted to force Boccio and Salanitri into signing the agreements at threat of discharge. Although he seemed unsure, Tumbiolo testified that Boccio signed an agree- 7 He did not testify. thus the testimony of Boccio in this regard stands unrefuted. s I find that Richard Tumbiolo does not possess the authonty to affect the employment status of employees. Moreover. as a dispatcher, his direction of employees is of a routine nature, and I find that in performing his functions he does not exercise sufficient independent judgment to meet the statutory definition of a supervisor. Nevertheless, I conclude that his ment prior to any union activity. The agreement was never produced. Furthermore, by his own admission, Tumbiolo was lax and slipshod in getting the agreements executed. 7. On November 11, Albert Tumbiolo refused to return accident bonds to Boccio and Salanitri in retaliation for their union activities. The testimony in this regard stands unrefuted by Tumbiolo. As to the allegation in the complaint that Albert Tumbiolo threatened employees that he would cause them to be discharged from jobs which they held with other employers, the only reference in the record to other employers are the telephone conversations between Albert Tumbiolo and Salanitri on November 17, and between Tumbiolo and Theresa Salanitri on the same date. During both conversations Tumbiolo asked Salanitri and his wife if there was a union where Salanitri was employed full time. When Salanitri asked Tumbiolo if he was trying to get him fired, Tumbiolo responded that he would "throw up pickets." On the basis of these conversations, I cannot conclude that Respondent, by Tumbiolo, engaged in the threat as alleged. I will recommend that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed. In reaching this conclusion, I am not unmindful of the fact that the day after the conversations referred to above, Salanitri was terminated from his full-time job. Nor am I able to conclude from the evidence before me that Tumbiolo effected or caused Salanitri to be discharged from his job at Reliance Plastic Corporation. Although the timing of Salanitri's discharge raises considerable suspi- cion, the General Counsel has not established by evidence of preponderant weight that Tumbiolo caused Salanitri's discharge from Reliance. The nexus relating to Salanitri's union activities at Sunset Taxi and his discharge from Reliance is not present, thus leaving room in the record for substantial doubt. Although Tumbiolo's various conversa- tions amount to flagrant violations of the Act, I find that they are not tantamount to a threat to cause Salanitri to be fired from his job at Reliance. Accordingly, I will recommend that the allegation in the complaint that Tumbiolo caused Salanitri's discharge at Reliance be dismissed. Turning now to the terminations of Boccio and Salanitri, both individuals impressed me as being frank and forth- right witnesses. They testified in detailed specificity enough to convince me that their testimony was not fabricated. Nor was there any significant variance in their testimony on cross-examination. Accordingly, I find that they are entitled to full credence. On the other hand, I place no reliance on the testimony of Albert Tumbiolo, who was vague, confused, self-contra- dictory, and his recollection was faulty. I find the testimony of Edward Joseph Ihne and Thomas J. Pasquale unconvincing and too "pat." As set forth previously, Ihne had no recollection of when his alleged statements are imputable to Respondent although there is no direct evidence that said statements were authorized. Broyhill Company, 210 NLRB 288 (1974). Furthermore, Richard Tumbiolo's family relationship was well known to all of the employees who could have reasonably attnbuted the statements to his father. Cf. Federal Prescription Service, Inc., and Drivex Co., 203 NLRB 975 (1973). 991 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD conversation with Salanitri occurred. Nor was he present during the entire conversation between Boccio and Albert Tumbiolo. Furthermore, Ihne's testimony is not necessarily inconsistent with Boccio's testimony regarding Tumbiolo's ultimatum-sign the lease agreement or do not go to work. Pasquale, who admitted being antiunion, testified that Salanitri told him, he, Salanitri, had "packed it in," because of working too many hours. He testified further that he overheard Boccio telling one out of a group of nine diivers that he, Boccio, had quit. I specifically discredit the testimony of Ihne and Pasquale, but even if their testimony were to be given any weight, it would be minimal. The factors marshalled below make out a conclusive case that Boccio and Salanitri were discharged because of their union activity, regardless of what they may have told their coworkers. The record reflects that the taxicab industry on Long Island is unorganized. Tumbiolo recognized that the advent of a union would cost him money or, in the alternative, he would have to cut back on service. The record is replete with Tumbiolo's union animus, and his particular displeasure and disenchantment with Salanitri. Respondent's affirmative case is overwhelmed by these cumulative factors. Tumbiolo, in headlong haste, called in the two leading union adherents, on the day he received the petition. He then engaged in serious violative conduct motivated by his desire to restrain and coerce his employees from engaging in union activities, and by firing the leaders to discourage union membership. Tumbiolo, during his testimony, frequently lapsed into characterizing the "quits" as "firings." The preponderance of the evidence and the record in its entirety leave no doubt in my mind that the discriminatees were fired for engaging in union activity, and I so find. Salanitri originally sought the job as a part-time venture to defray additional expenses resulting from his wife's pregnancy. There is no evidence in the record that the extra hours spent driving part time placed a burden on Salanitri, or that he ever complained to management, requesting shorter shifts. Boccio, by Respon- dent's own admission, worked long hours and was the Company's top earner. According to Tumbiolo, Boccio quit because he was not furnished a new vehicle. I reject this defense, in my view it is inherently incredible. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By coercive interrogation of employees and threats of reprisals for union and concerted activity, found above, Respondent has committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By creating the impression of surveillance Respon- dent has committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. 5. By refusing to return accident bonds to employees, as a retaliatory act because of their union activities, Respondent has committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act. 6. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employ- ment of Ronald Boccio and Stanley Salanitri because of their concerted and union activities, Respondent has violated Section 8(aX 1) and (3) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 8. Respondent did not threaten employees that he would cause them to be discharged from jobs which they held with other employers. 9. Respondent did not cause Stanley Salanitri to be discharged from a job that he held with Reliance Plastic Corporation. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent illegally discriminated against Ronald Boccio and Stanley Salanitri in violation of Section 8(aX)) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to ones which are substantially equivalent thereto, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges, and that they be compensated for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the formula and methods prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and payment of 6-percent interest per annum shall be computed in the manner prescribed by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices herein found which clearly demonstrate a proclivity to violate the Act, Respondent shall be further ordered to cease and desist from "in any manner" infringing upon the rights guaran- teed to its employees by Section 7 of the Act. In view of my recommendation that Boccio and Salanitri be offered full reinstatement, I will not require that Respondent return the amounts of money they posted for their accident bonds. I will recommend that they be paid at the rate of 6-percent interest compounded quarterly for the period beginning from the date of their discharges until the date Respondent makes unconditional offers to return them to work. In the event that either or both of the discriminatees refuse reinstatement, Respondent is ordered to immediate- ly reimburse to them the money they posted for their accident bonds plus interest at 6 percent, compounded quarterly. The alleged discriminatees took money out of their own pockets, so to speak, to comply with Respondent's requirement that a bond be posted before they were allowed to drive. In my opinion, this is money which should not be reimbursed based upon computations as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., supra. This is not backpay which the discriminatees would have earned but for the discharges. Rather it is money advanced by the discriminatees to 992 SUNSET TAXI COMPANY, INC. protect Respondent and limit its liability in the event of an accident. I therefore conclude that under these circum- stances compound interest is warranted to effectively remedy the aforesaid unfair labor practices. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue the following recommended: ORDER9 Respondent Sunset Taxi Company, Incorporated, Baby- lon, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Creating the impression that it is engaging in surveillance of its employees' union activities. (b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union membership, activities, and desires or those of fellow employees. (c) Threatening employees with discharge and other reprisals for engaging in union and/or concerted activities. (d) Threatening to cause employees' parole status to be revoked if said employees remain active on behalf of the Union. (e) Threatening to discharge employees who do not sign lease agreements. (f) Refusing to return employees' accident bonds in retaliation for their union activities. (g) Discouraging membership in the Union by discharg- ing employees or otherwise discriminating in any manner in respect to their tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment for engaging in protected concerted activity or union activity. (h) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: 9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. (a) Offer Ronald Boccio and Stanley Salanitri immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to positions which are substan- tially equivalent thereto, without prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them with interest at the rate of 6 percent as provided in the section above entitled "The Remedy." (b) Pay Ronald Boccio and Stanley Salanitri interest on their accident bonds in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" section of this Decision. If either or both should decline offers of reinstatement, return the money posted for the accident bonds, plus interest as set forth in the section above entitled, "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examining and copying, all payroll records and reports and all other records necessary to ascertain and compute the amount, if any, of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (d) Post at its premises at The Babylon Railroad Station, Babylon, New York, copies of the notice marked "Appen- dix."' 0 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Respondent shall take reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. to In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a 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." 993