APD Transport Corp.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APD Transport Corp. and its Alter Ego, National Book Consolidators, Inc. and Local 804, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 22-CA-9259 November 25, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO Upon a charge filed on May 30, 1979, by Local 804, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, herein called the Union, and duly served on APD Transport Corp. and its alter ego, National Book Consolidators, Inc., herein called Respond- ent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by its Regional Director for Region 22, issued a complaint on August 3, 1979, against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac- tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge and complaint and notice of hearing before an administrative law judge were duly served on the parties to this proceeding. The Regional Director granted several requests by Re- spondent and extended the time for filing an answer until September 27, 1979. Respondent, however, failed to file a timely answer to the com- plaint. On January 10, 1980, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment. Subsequently, on February 7, 1980, Respondent filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment in which it summarily denied the allegations of the complaint and further requested that the Board dismiss the Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following: Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, provides: The respondent shall, within 10 days from the service of the complaint, file an answer there- The Respondent has requested oral argument. This request is hereby denied as the record, and the briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 253 NLRB No. 56 to. The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint, unless the respondent is without knowledge, in which case the respondent shall so state, such statement operating as a denial. All allegations in the complaint, if no answer is filed, or any allegation in the complaint not specifically denied or explained in an answer filed, unless the respondent shall state in the answer that he is without knowledge, shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and shall be so found by the Board, unless good cause to the contrary is shown. The complaint and notice of hearing served on Respondent herein specifically states that unless an answer to the complaint is filed within 10 days of service thereof "all the allegations in the complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and may be so found by the Board." Further, according to the uncontroverted allegations in the Motion for Summary Judgment, by a letter dated October 26, 1979, counsel for the General Counsel confirmed a prior telephone conversation and advised Respond- ent's attorney that an answer had not been received notwithstanding two prior extensions and that unless an answer was received by October 31, 1979, the General Counsel would move for sum- mary judgment. By letter dated October 30, 1979, Respondent's attorney advised counsel for the Gen- eral Counsel that Respondent and Charging Party had reached an agreement to settle the complaint. Thereafter, however, Respondent failed to file an answer or to make any attempt to resolve the issues raised by the complaint. In the absence of an answer, request for withdrawal or other disposition of the case, counsel for the General Counsel tele- phoned Respondent's attorney on January 3, 1980, and advised him of an intention to file immediately a Motion for Summary Judgment. Again, Respond- ent failed to file an answer, and on January 10, 1980, the General Counsel filed the Motion for Summary Judgment. On January 16, 1980, the Board issued a Notice To Show Cause and set Jan- uary 30, 1980, as the deadline for filing a response. Thereafter, the Board granted requests by Re- spondent and Charging Party and extended the time for filing a response. On February 7, 1980, Respondent filed a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment in which it denied all of the substantive allegations of the complaint and re- quested that the Motion for Summary Judgment be dismissed. Although Respondent's motion and op- position to the Motion for Summary Judgment were filed in a timely fashion, Respondent gave no 468 APID TRANSII CORP. explanation for its failure to file a timely answer to the complaint. On May 30, 1980, Respondent filed another motion in response to the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Board's Notice To Show Cause. Subsequently, the General Counsel filed a reply urging that the Board dismiss Respondent's May 30 motion because it had not been filed in a timely fashion. We find merit in the General Counsel's position. On February 7, 1980, after granting a second ex- tension of time to file a response to the Notice To Show Cause, the Board notified the parties that the time for filing a response had been exte ided until February 20, 1980, but that no further extension for filing would be granted. In addition, Section 102.24 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, requires that motions, such as Respond- ent's May 30 motion, "shall be filed promptly and within such time as not to delay the proceeding." Respondent, however, has not offered any explana- tion for filing its May 30 motion over 3 months after the filing date set by the Board, and, by any measure, such a late filing is dilatory and fails to comply with Section 102.24. Accordingly, in these circumstances, we find that the May 30 motion is untimely, and that it should be denied for that reason. 2 2 Moreover, een if we were to consider the contenriions raised b Re- spondent in its May 30 motion, we v ould deny the motion as lacking in merit In its May 30 motion, Respondent's nesw attorney asserts that Re- spondent's former attorney had been advised by counsel for the General Counsel that an answer would not be necessary if Respondent and Charging Party entered into a written settlement agreement. On October 30, 1979, Respondent nformed the General Counsel that it had reached an out-of-Hoard agreement with Charging Party settling the complaint: but Charging P'art did not file a request to withdraw charges until Janu- ary 8, 1980 The General Counsel. however, refused to approve the et- tlement or permit the charges to he withdrawn because the settlement failed substantially to remedy the unfair labor practices alleged in the charges (See infr. sec. III, for a fuller discussion.) We find no merit to Respondent's contenitions that it ss as misled into believing that an answer was unnecessary because counsel for the General Counsel failed to Inform Respondent that a proposed settlement required approval by the General Counsel before the matter could be concluded Assuming. arguendo Respondent's former attorney was under the im- pression that there was no necessity to file an answer because of a pro- posed withdrawal of charges and an attempt Ito settle the complaint, Charging Party did not actually file a withdrawal request until January 8. 1980, a date well beyond the deadline for filing an answer As set forth in an affidavit attached to Respondent's August 18, 1980, motion requesting oral argument. Respondent's former attorney asserted that counsel for the General Counsel had stated that "if the matter was actuallv settled, and withdrawn" (emphasis supplied). an answer would not be necessary Thus, Respondent's answer which had been due on September 27. 1979. was already more than 3 months oerdue when Charging Party filed its request for withdrawal of charges Further the complaint filed n August 3. 1979, explicitly informed Respondent that an answer was nec- essary, and Respondent's former attoriey understood a answer was nec- essary because he filed a number of requests for extensions of time to file such an answer. In addition, the General Counsel's letter dlated October 26, 1979, informed Respondent that a Motion for Summary Judgment would be filed unless an answer was received Finally, on January 3, 1980, the General Counsel again informed Respondent that a Motion for Summary Judgment would he filed unless Respondent filed an answer to the complaint In the absence of an answer. on January 1I), 19(0, the On June 4, 1980, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because of an "out-of-Board" settlement reached between Respondent and Charging Party. The General Counsel filed a re- sponse urging the Board to deny Respondent's motion because the alleged settlement agreement failed to remedy the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. We find merit to the General Counsel's position. The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the Act by closing its Maspeth, New York, terminal and removing its operations to Paterson, New Jersey, under the name of its alter ego, National Book Consolidators, Inc., without notice to or affording Charging Party an opportunity to bargain about the decision to close its terminal and/or to bargain about the ef- fects of the closing on the unit employees and that Respondent discharged and failed to reinstate and./ or transfer unit employees to its Paterson facility. Respondent asserts, however, that after protracted negotiations, it signed an agreement with Charging Party which purported to settle the outstanding complaint. The agreement provided that Respond- ent would provide certain sums of money to pay, in specified priorities, portions of debts owed to Charging Party, to various trust funds, and to em- ployees. On January 8, 1980, Charging Party filed a request to withdraw charges with the General Counsel.: The General Counsel, however, refused to approve the settlement because the settlement failed to provide a full remedy for all of the com- plaint allegations. Thus, for example, the settlement agreement made no provisions to provide backpay or reinstatement or transfer rights to employees discharged because of Respondent's alleged unlaw- ful termination of its New York facility. In addi- tion, the settlement agreement made no provision for the posting of a notice to inform employees of Respondent's unfair labor practices and of Re- spondent's intention to cease and desist from com- mitting such unfair labor practices. Nevertheless, Respondent contends that the Board should permit Charging Party to withdraw its charges and that the Board should dismiss the complaint because Respondent and Charging Party have reached an amicable settlement of their differ- General Counsel filed its Motion for Summary Judgment Respondent. however, did not file an answer until February 7, 1980, when it filed a response o the Notice To Show Cause In these circumstances. where the complaint was first filed on August 3. 1979, and Respondent failed to file a timely answecr despite repeated warning that a Motion for Summary Judgment would be filed. we find that Respondent has failed to offer a sufficient reason to explain its failure to file a timely answer :' The request to withdraw charges was filed ilth the Regional Office after the General Counsel had mailed its Motion for Summary Judgment IIt the Hoard I)ECISI()NS ()01 NATI)NAI. I.ABf()R R Al)IONS OARkl) ences. We disagree. As pointed out in Community Medical Services of Clea(rfield, Inc., d/b/a Clear Haven Nursing Ilotne, 236 NLRB 853 (1978), the Board will approve a withdrawal of charges and a settlement agreement only when the alleged unfair labor practices are substantially remedied and a dis- missal of the charges would effectuate the policies of the Act. "[T]he willingness of a charging party to withdraw charges is not necessarily a ground for dismissal of a complaint 'for once a charge is filed, the General Counsel proceeds, not in vindication of private rights, but as the representative of an agency entrusted with the power and the duty of enforcing the Act in which the public has an inter- est."' 4 It is clear that, once a matter has ripened to involve the Board, the Board cannot ignore the rights of discriminatees and the public by giving effect to a private agreement between a charging party and a respondent when approval of that agreement would not effectuate the policies of the Act. In this connection, we note that a number of employees have expressed objections to the terms of the settlement agreement between Respondent and Charging Party and have urged the General Counsel to proceed with the case. We agree with the General Counsel that the failure to provide backpay and reinstatement to discriminatorily dis- charged employees falls far short of a substantial remedy. In view of the failure of the settlement agreement to provide a substantial remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, we will not approve the request to withdraw charges and dismiss the complaint. Accordingly, under the rule set forth above, no good cause having been shown for the failure to file a timely answer, the allegations of the com- plaint are deemed admitted and found to be true, and we grant the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment. On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes the following: FININIINS 01 FACT 1. THE BUSINESS 01; RESPONDENT APD Transport Corp. (APD), a New York cor- poration, has maintained its principal office and place of business in Maspeth, New York, where it has been engaged in the business of delivering books, stationery, and related supplies. During the 12-month period ending on or about December 1, 4 Clear Haven Nursing Ilone upra at 853, citing hc Ingalls Steel (n- oruction Compuny, 126 NlRB 54 at fn I ( 196)) 1 In joining his colleagues in graning the Genleral Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment, Membher P'enello relies solely on Respondent's failure to file a timely answer to the complaint and ils failure to sho'A sufficient cause for not doing so Accordingly, he does not rel oin (ar Halven Nursing ome, upra. in which he dissenlted 1978, said operations being representative of its op- erations at all times material herein, APD derived gross revenues in excess of $50,(00 from the trans- portation of books, stationery, and other goods and materials to its Maspeth terminal directly from States other than the State of New York. National Book Consolidators, Inc. (NBC), a New Jersey corporation, has maintained its principal office and place of business in Paterson, New Jersey, where it has been engaged in the business of providing and performing parcel delivery serv- ices and other related services and has been en- gaged in the business of transporting books, statio- nery, and other goods and materials. In the course and conduct of its business operations during calen- dar year 1979, said operations being representative of its operations at all times material herein, NBC derived gross revenue in excess of $50,000 from the transportation of books, stationery, and other goods and materials to its Paterson terminal in interstate commerce directly from States other than the State of New Jersey. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that APD and NBC separately and individually are, and have been at all times material herein, employers en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. II. HE L.ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 804, International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. IHF UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICES At all times material herein, APD and NBC have been affiliated business enterprises with common officers, ownership, directors, manage- ment, and supervision, have formulated and admin- istered a common labor policy affecting employees of these enterprises, have common premises and facilities, have provided services for each other, have interchanged personnel with each other, and have held themselves out to the public as a single integrated enterprise. On or about July 17, 1978, NBC was established by APD as a subordinate in- strument to and a disguised continuation of APD. By virtue of the acts and conduct described above, we find that NBC is, and has been at all times ma- terial herein, an alter ego of APD. In addition, by virtue of its operation described above, APD and NBC constitute a single ntegrated business enter- prise and a single employer within the meaning of the Act. At all times material herein, Angelo Cor- nacchia and K. Shim have been and are now super- 470 API) TRANSI-I COR()KI' visors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and have been and now are agents of both APD and NBC within the meaning of Section 2(13). For approximately 30 years prior to December 1, 1978, and at all times thereafter to date. the Union has been and is now the exclusive representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit: All terminal and other employees employed by APD at its Maspeth terminal but excluding ex- ecutives and their immediate assistants; station managers and department managers; day and night supervisors; watchmen; shop and auto- motive maintenance department employees; general office and C.O.D. employees; employ- ees engaged in sales, systems, timestudy, uni- form, telephone, payroll, personnel and secre- tarial work. By virtue of Section (9)(a) of the Act, the Union has been and is now the exclusive representative of the employees in said unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. On or about December 1, 1975, APD and the Union entered into a collec- tive-bargaining agreement effective from Dece- meber 1, 1975, through November 30, 1978, cover- ing the employees in the above unit. Respondent interfered with. restrained, and co- erced employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act by engaging in the following acts: on or about December 1, 1978, Respondent ceased operation at its Maspeth, New York, terminal, and on an unknown date in or about January 1979, Respondent, under the name of NBC, opened its Paterson, New Jersey, terminal and resumed its former Maspeth terminal oper- ations at that location. Since that date, Respondent has been continuously engaged at its Paterson ter- minal in the business of delivering books, statio- nery, and related supplies, and in providing and performing parcel delivery services and other relat- ed services. Prior to December 1, 1978, and at all times thereafter, Respondent failed and refused to notify the Union and failed and refused to bargain collec- tively with the Union with respect to its decision to close its Maspeth terminal and remove its oper- ations from Maspeth to its Paterson terminal. In ad- dition, prior to December 1, 1978, and at all times thereafter to date, Respondent has failed and re- fused to bargain collectively with the Union with respect to the effects of the cessation of its oper- ations at its Maspeth terminal upon unit employees. By its conduct described above, Respondent pre- vented the Union from demanding bargaining over the transfer of unit employees from its Maspeth to its Paterson terminal and thereby discharged its employees by refusing to offer them the opportuni- ty to transfer. In addition, Respondent terminated operations at Maspeth, transferred operations to Paterson, and discharged and failed and refused to reinstate and/or transfer unit employees to its Pa- terson terminal because its employees joined or as- sisted the Union or engaged in other concerted ac- tivities for the purposes of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or protection. Finally, in March or April 1979, at its Paterson terminal. Respondent. by its agent, Angelo Cornacchia, refused to rein- state Ralph Napolitano and Carmine Pisano, unit employees, formerly employed by Respondent at its Maspeth terminal. Accordingly, we find that by the aforesaid con- duct Respondent discriminatorily closed its Ma- speth terminal and transferred its operations to its Paterson terminal, discriminatorily refused to bar- gain about the closing or the effect of the closing of its Maspeth terminal and the transfer of its oper- ations to its Paterson terminal, discriminatorily dis- charged and/or refused to reinstate or offer unit employees the opportunity to transfer to its Pater- son terminal, and discriminatorily refused to trans- fer and/or reinstate former Maspeth employees Ralph Napolitano and Carmine Pisano and that Re- spondent has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act and, by such conduct, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. We also find that, by the aforesaid conduct, Respondent has, since November 1978, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu- sive representative of its employees in the appropri- ate unit and that, by such refusal, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. IV. I'LHI I:FICT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III., above, occurring in connection with its oper- ations described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf- fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob- structing commerce and the free flow of com- merce. 471 DECISIONS ()F NATIONAL I.ABOR RELAFIONS BOARD V. THE REMEDY Having found that Responent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by closing its Maspeth terminal and moving its operations to its Paterson terminal and by discharging unit employ- ees and refusing to transfer and/or reinstate unit employees at its Paterson terminal for discriminato- ry reasons, and Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by closing unilaterally its Maspeth terminal and transferring its operations to its Paterson terminal without notice or bargaining over the closing and transfer and without bargaining over the effects of the closing and transfer of operations. In the cir- cumstances of this case, where the plant closing and the transfer of operations were discriminatorily motivated, we find it necessary, in order to effectu- ate the purposes of the Act, to restore the status quo ante by ordering Respondent to reopen its Ma- speth terminal.6 Accordingly, we shall order Re- spondent to restore the status quo ante by reopen- ing its Maspeth terminal, reinstituting the work of its unit employees at its Maspeth terminal, and by offering the terminated bargaining unit employees reinstatement to their former positions, or substan- tially equivalent positions, with backpay computed from the date of termination to the date of rein- statement, less net earnings to which shall be added interest computed thereupon in the manner pro- scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977); 7 see, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962). We shall also order Respondent to bargain over any decision to close its Maspeth terminal and transfer its oper- ations elsewhere, and if a decision is reached to close the Maspeth terminal, we shall order Re- spondent to bargain over the effects of such clos- ing. In addition, we shall order Respondent to 6 The Board's usual remedy for violations similar to those found against this Respondent, involving as they do discriminatorily motivated conduct, is to order a respondent to restore the status quo ante by reestab- lishing the closed operations, unless the respondent can show that such a remedy would be "unduly burdensome." See National Family Opinion, Inc.. 246 NLRB No. 84 (1979); N. C. Coastal Motor Lines. Inc., 219 NLRB 1009 11975), enfd. 542 F.2d 637 (4th Cir 1976). In the instant case, Respondent failed to file a timely answer, or introduce evidence showing a reopening to be unduly burdensome; accordingly, all of the allegations of the complaint have been deemed to be admitted as true In these circumstances, Respondent has failed to meet its burden of estab- lishing that the reopening of its plant would be "unduly burdensome." I Member Jenkins would compute interest in the manner set forth in his dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250 NLRB 146 (198(). make the Union whole for damages resulting from its unlawful activity.8 The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts in the entire record, makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. APD Transport Corp., and its alter ego, Na- tional Book Consolidators, Inc., is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 804, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All terminal and other employees employed by APD at its Maspeth terminal but excluding ex- ecutives and their immediate assistants; station man- agers and department managers; day and night su- pervisors; watchmen; shop and automotive mainte- nance department employees; general office and C.O.D. employees; employees engaged in sales, systems, timestudy, uniform, telephone, payroll, personnel and secretarial work, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section (9)(b) of the Act. 4. At all times material herein, the above-named labor organization has been and now is the exclu- sive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section (9)(a) of the Act. 5. By closing its Maspeth terminal and moving its operations to its Paterson terminal, by discharg- ing unit employees and refusing to transfer and/or reinstate unit employees at its Paterson terminal for discriminatory reasons, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 6. By closing its Maspeth terminal and transfer- ring its operations to its Paterson terminal without giving notice or bargaining over the closing and by transferring and not bargaining over the effects of the closing of operations, Respondent has engaged " Because the provisions of employee benefit fund agreements are ari- able and complex, the Board does not provide at the adjudicatory stage of the proceeding for the addition of interest a: a fixed rate on unlawfully withheld fund payments WeV leave to the compliance stage the questlon whether Respondent must pay any additional amounts into the health and welfare trust fund in order to satisfy our "make whole" remedy These additional amounts may be determined depending on circumstances of each case by reference to provisions in the documents governing the fund and. if there are no governing provisions, by eidence of any loss directly attributable to the unlawful withholding action, which might include the loss of return on investment of the portion of refunds withheld, additional administrative costs etc, but not collateral losses Merryweather Optical Company, 240 NLRB 1213, fn. 7 (1979). and Inland Citie, Inc., 241 NLRB 374, fn. 52 (1979) 472 AI'D TRANSIT CORP in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and () of the Act. 7. By the aforesaid discriminatory conduct and unlawful refusal to bargain, Respondent has inter- fered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfer- ing with, restraining, and coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec- tion 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practiecs are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, APD Transport Corp., Maspeth, New York, and its alter ego, National Book Consolidators, Inc., Pa- terson, New Jersey, their officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees with regard to transfer or rein- statement rights or any other types of rights be- cause of the union activities of its employees. (b) Terminating any of its operation in retaliation for activities of its employees in support of the above-named Union, or any other union or labor organization. (c) Refusing to recognize and bargain with Local 804, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer- ica, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the following unit: All terminal and other employees employed by APD at its Maspeth terminal but excluding ex- ecutives and their immediate assistants; station managers and department managers; day and night supervisors; watchmen; shop and auto- motive maintenance department employees; general office and C.O.D. employees; employ- ees engaged in sales, systems, timestudy, uni- form, telephone, payroll, personnel and secre- tarial work. (d) In any other manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Reopen its Maspeth, New York, terminal and reinstitute the work of its unit employees and offer immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to established equivalent positions, without prejudice to their se- niority or other rights and privileges and make them whole for their loss or earnings in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Bargain collectively with Local 804, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, War- ehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclu- sive bargaining representative of Respondent's em- ployees in the appropriate unit described above with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copy- ing, all payroll records, social security payment re- cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its terminals in Maspeth, New York, and Paterson, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after being duly signed by an author- ized 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. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re- spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 22, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 9 In the event that this Order i enfiorced h a Judgment of a Untied Slate, Court of Appeals, the '%ords im the notice reading "P'osted by Order of the National L.ahor Rlatrois Board" shall read "P',lied Pursu- ant to it Judgment of he LUnited States ('court of Appeal, l[nforcing arn Order of he National Labor Relations oard APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAl. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WEI: WILL NOI discourage membership in Local 804, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organi- zation, by discharging employees, or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, 473 I)ECISI()NS ()OF NAI'I()ONAI. LAIB()R RKI., '\IO(NS BO()ARI) their transfer or reinstatement rights, or any term or condition of employment. Wi WVII.I. NO'I terminate any of our oper- ations in retaliation for activities of our em- ployees ill support of the above-named Union, or any other union or labor organization. WlI W.l. NO'' fail and refuse to bargain with the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, representing our employees in an appropriate unit, respecting the decision to cease operations at one of our terminals or the decision to transfer or the effects of the de- cision to transfer the work of any employees in the following appropriate unit: All ternminal and other employees employed by AP'D at its Maspeth terminal but cxclud- ing executives and their immediate assistants; station managers and department managers; day and night supervisors; watchmen; shop and automotive maintenance department em- ployees; general office and C.O.D. employ- ecs; employees engaged in sales, systems, ti- mestudy, uniform, telephone, payroll, per- sonnel and secretarial work. WI wVVl . NOI' ill any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer- cise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec- tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engaged in concerted activi- ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid, or to refrain from any or all such activities. We will reopen our former Maspeth termi- nal and restore all unit work to that terminal. Wi. w 1. offer all unit employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those positions no longer exist, to sub- stantially equivalent positions, without preju- dice to their seniority and other rights and privileges and We Will make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against them. Wie wii.L., upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of our employees in the above appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. APD TRANSPORT CORP. ANI ITS AI.TER EGO, NATIONA. BOOK CON- SOIIDATORS, INC. 474