First Student, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 7, 2011

36-CA-010762 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 7, 2011)

JD(SF)–47–11
Molalla, Lake Oswego
and Gresham, OR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
FIRST STUDENT, INC.
and Cases 36-CA-10762
36-CA-10766
OREGON SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 36-CA-10767
ASSOCIATION 36-CA-10848
36-CA-10870
Daniel G. Mueller Esq., for the General Counsel
Naomi Loo, Esq., for the Charging Party.
Kristen J. Huening, Esq., for the Respondent.
Table of Contents
Statement of the Case ...................................................................................................... 1
Findings of Fact ................................................................................................................ 2
I. Jurisdiction.............................................................................................................. 2
II. Labor Organization ................................................................................................ 2
III. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices....................................................................... 2
A. The Facts ....................................................................................................... 2
1. The Molalla Unit ....................................................................................... 3
2. The Lake Oswego Unit............................................................................. 5
a. The wage issue................................................................................. 5
b. Good attendance bonus.................................................................... 6
3. The Gresham Unit.................................................................................... 6
a. Wage increase .................................................................................. 6
b. Retirement Plan ................................................................................ 7
c. Information requests.......................................................................... 7
d. Bargaining......................................................................................... 11
B. The Analysis................................................................................................... 14
1. The 8(a)(5) Allegations............................................................................. 14
a. The Unilateral Changes .................................................................... 14
b. Failure to Negotiate on Economic Issues .......................................... 16
c. Failure to meet at reasonable times from April 15, 2011
through August 2, 2011...................................................................... 17
d. Cancellation of Bargaining Sessions ................................................. 19
e. The Requests for Information............................................................ 20
2. The 8(a)(1) Allegations............................................................................. 23
Conclusions of Law........................................................................................................... 25
APPENDIX
JD(SF)–47–11
Molalla, Lake Oswego
and Gresham, OR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
FIRST STUDENT, INC.
and Cases 36-CA-10762
36-CA-10766
OREGON SCHOOL EMPLOYEES 36-CA-10767
ASSOCIATION 36-CA-10848
36-CA-10870
Daniel G. Mueller Esq., for the General Counsel
Naomi Loo, Esq., for the Charging Party.
Kristen J. Huening, Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
JOHN J. MCCARRICK, Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried in Portland,
Oregon on August 8 and 9, 2011, upon the Third Order Consolidating Cases, Third
Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing, as amended, complaint, issued on July 7, 2011,
by the Acting Regional Director for Region 19.
The complaint alleges that First Student, Inc., Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by telling employees that they would not receive raises because of the Union and
contract negotiations, that employees would not receive retroactive wage increases if they
engaged in a strike, that attendance bonuses would not be paid due to contract negotiations,
that employees’ wages were frozen because of contract negotiations, and that only non union
employees would receive matching contributions to Respondent’s Retirement Savings Plan.
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by unilaterally
cancelling or delaying annual step increases for its employees in the Molalla, Lake Oswego and
Gresham bargaining units, and by delaying attendance bonuses in the Lake Oswego unit.
The complaint also alleges Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act concerning
the Gresham bargaining unit by: refusing to negotiate economic terms and conditions of
employment until agreement was reached on all non economic issues, by failing to meet at
reasonable times and places for bargaining with the Union and by unilaterally cancelling
bargaining meetings.
The complaint finally alleges Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing
and refusing to furnish the Union with information relevant and necessary to the Union’s
performance of its duties as collective bargaining representative of employees in the Gresham
bargaining unit.
JD(SF)–47–11
2
Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint stating it had committed no
wrongdoing.
Findings of Fact5
Upon the entire record herein, including the briefs from the Counsel for the Acting
General Counsel, herein General Counsel, Charging Party and Respondent, I make the
following findings of fact.
10
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent admitted that it is a State of Delaware corporation with offices and places of
business in Molalla, Lake Oswego and Gresham, Oregon and is engaged in the business of
providing school bus transportation services to various school districts. During the 12 months, 15
in conducting its business, Respondent purchased and received at its Molalla, Lake Oswego
and Gresham, Oregon facilities goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside
the State of Oregon.
Based upon the above, Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the 20
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. Labor Organization
Respondent admitted and I find that the Oregon School Employees Association, herein 25
union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. The Facts30
Respondent provides school bus transportation for school districts in Molalla, Lake
Oswego and Gresham, Oregon. Respondent employs about 45 full and part time drivers in
Molalla, 40 drivers in Lake Oswego and 110 drivers in Gresham. Respondent’s managers are
Tammy Clifford at Molalla, Darryl Jefferson at Lake Oswego and Michael Jourdan at Gresham. 35
An entity related to Respondent, First Group America, provides labor relations assistance to
Respondent. Peter Briggs is director of labor relations for First Group America and was
Respondent’s chief negotiator at Gresham. Respondent’s director of human resources is Kim
Mingo. Mingo acted as Respondent's lead negotiator in collective bargaining with the Union at
Respondent's Lake Oswego and Molalla facilities. Respondent’s regional operations manager is 40
Kay Hemstreet. Respondent admitted that these individuals were supervisors or agents of
Respondent within the meaning of the Act.
Since April 27, 2007, the union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the following unit of employees:45
All full time and regular part time school bus operators and driver trainers employed by
Respondent at its Molalla, Oregon, facility; but excluding all other employees, managers,
technician in charge (mechanics), technicians (mechanics), clerical employees, and
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.50
JD(SF)–47–11
3
Respondent’s recognition of the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the above unit has been embodies in a collective bargaining
agreement effective from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010.
On January 15, 2010, the Union was certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining 5
representative of employees in the following unit:
All full time and regular part time drivers employed out of Respondent’s Lake Oswego,
Oregon facility; but excluding all mechanics/technicians, office clerical employees,
professional employees, dispatchers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and 10
all other employees.
On June 18, 2010, the Union was certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of employees in the following unit:
15
All full time and regular part time bus drivers and driver trainers at Respondent’s
Gresham-Barlow School District Location; but excluding all other employees, including
dispatchers, mechanic technicians, and guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
20
This case surrounds separate collective bargaining between Respondent and the Union
in 2010 and 2011 at Respondent’s three facilities at Molalla, Lake Oswego and Gresham,
Oregon, described above. Respondent’s employees at each of the three locations work during
for the most part during the school year beginning after Labor Day in September unit school is
out in June of the following year. At each of the locations prior to the advent of the Union, 25
employees were given wage increases when they returned to work in September. At Molalla
the Union negotiated a wage scale effective July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2010.
1. The Molalla Unit
30
Respondent has provided school bus transportation services out of its Molalla facility
pursuant to a contract with the Molalla River School District since about 1998. After the Union
was certified at Respondent’s Molalla facility, the parties entered into negotiations that
culminated in the 2007-2010 collective bargaining agreement.1 Prior to the Union’s certification,
from 2003-2006 drivers got an annual pay increase at the beginning of the school year. The 35
collective bargaining agreement provided for wage increases each July through its expiration in
June 2010 as follows:
ARTICLE 16 – WAGES
40
Section I. Route Wages.
Effective July 1, 2007
Years Employed Per hour rate
45
1st year $11.60
2nd year $11.80
3rd year $12.00
4th year $12.10

1 GC Exh. 33.
JD(SF)–47–11
4
5th year $12.35
6th year+ $13.75
Grandparented $14.80
Effective July 1, 20085
Years Employed Per hour rate
1st year $11.65
2nd year $11.8510
3rd year $12.10
4th year $12.25
5th year $12.40
6th year+ $14.05
Grandparented $15.5015
Effective July 1, 2009
Years Employed Per hour rate
20
1st year $11.70
2nd year $11.95
3rd year $12.20
4th year $12.45
5th year $12.6025
6th year+ $14.50
Grandparented $15.85
Section 2. Steps. Employees shall be moved ahead step by step on the salary schedule
each July 1 or upon the first day of work in each school year, whichever comes later.30
Prior to the expiration of the 2007-2010 contract, the parties commenced negotiations for
a successor contract in March 2010. At the start of the 2010-2011 school year, Molalla Unit
drivers who were not at the top step under the wage scale effective July 1, 2009, did not receive
a step increase. 35
During bargaining Respondent’s Regional Human Resources Manager, Kim Mingo, took
the position that drivers would be given no raises in September 2010 because the expiring
contract did not provide for raises after June 2010 and because the parties were in negotiations
to bargain for increases. However in February 2010 Respondent moved its Molalla drivers up 40
one step in pay grade in an effort to settle a pending unfair labor practice and to make a
movement in bargaining. In July 2011, the parties reached agreement on a successor contract,
effective from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2012.2 The 2010 contract included a 9-step pay
scale which increased wages from the 2007 collective bargaining agreement. In about June
2011, Respondent paid the wage increases set forth in the 2010 contract retroactively to 45
July 1, 2010, without interest, but only for drivers who worked the entire 2010-2011 school
year.3 Several drivers who worked during the 2010-2011 school year, but left Respondent's
employment prior to the end of that year, did not receive retroactive pay.

2 GC Exh. 36.
3 GC Exh. 37.
JD(SF)–47–11
5
2. The Lake Oswego Unit
a. The wage issue
5
Respondent has provided school bus transportation services out of its Lake Oswego
facility since at least 2008 pursuant to a contract with the Lake Oswego School District. After
certification in January of 2010, the parties commenced bargaining and in January 2011 entered
into a collective bargaining agreement effective from 2011-2013. Prior to the Union’s
certification in January 2010, drivers received annual pay raises in September from 2006 to 10
2009 according to a pay scale that provided hourly wage increases based upon time in service.4
Drivers spent one full year at each step, and moved up the scale automatically each year.5 At
the start of the 2009-2010 school year, drivers who had spent a full year in their current step
received a step increase. That school year, the hourly rate at steps 1-5 of the wage scale was
unchanged from the 2008-2009 school year, but the hourly rate in step 6 increased by $0.25, so 15
even drivers who had been at the top of the 2008-2009 pay scale received a pay increase. The
2009-2010 wage scale provides:
Years 09/10 wage
20
New Drivers $11.80
1-2 year $12.00
2-3 year $12.5025
3-4 year $13.00
4-5 year $13.40
30
5 years and
beyond $14.65
While Respondent contends that employees in the Lake Oswego Unit had their wages frozen at
the start of the 2009-2010 school year, manager Jefferson testified that every driver who had 35
been in their current step a full year received a step increase at the start of the 2009-2010
school year. The hourly rate earned at Steps 1-5 of the 2009-2010 wage scale was the same
hourly rate earned under Steps 1-5 of the 2008-2009 school year, but drivers nevertheless
moved up the scale, receiving their step increases. Further, the hourly rate at Step 6 increased
by $0.25, which ensured that even drivers who had been at the top of the 2008-2009 pay scale 40
received a pay increase.
During bargaining in September 2010 the Lake Oswego drivers received no pay
increase. On August 25, 2010, driver Brian McLaughlin was told by manager Jefferson, that he
would not get a pay raise because the parties were under contract negotiations. Jefferson 45
admits that during these one-on-one meetings on August 25 he told every driver that there
would be no pay increases "until the negotiations were done."

4 GC Exh. 42.
5 R Exh. 12.
JD(SF)–47–11
6
At a bargaining session on August 31, 2010, Union field representative Kimberly Bonner
asked Mingo if drivers were getting pay raises. Mingo told Bonner that there would be no raises
while bargaining was ongoing but raises would be paid retroactively when the contract was
signed. However, Mingo added if the employee struck there would be no raises. There were
several bargaining unit employees at this bargaining session.5
Respondent and the Union reached a first contract at the Lake Oswego facility in early
2011. The contract was ratified in January 2011 and finalized by the parties in March 2011.
After the contract was ratified, wage increases were paid retroactively to September 1, 2010,
the effective date of the contract. However, only drivers who were employed as of the contract 10
ratification date received retroactive pay increases around February or March 2011.
b. Good attendance bonus
Prior to 2010 a $60 good attendance bonus was paid monthly to drivers with perfect 15
attendance in the previous month. Driver McLaughlin had perfect attendance for the month of
September 2010. However he did not receive a bonus the following month. When McLaughlin
complained to Jefferson, Jefferson told McLaughlin that while the parties were in negotiations
there would be no bonuses paid. Shortly thereafter Jefferson wrote on the bulletin board in the
break room: “Attendance bonuses checks will not be issued due to ongoing negotiations.” 20
Jefferson admitted that during this meeting he told McLaughlin that attendance bonuses would
not be paid until negotiations were complete.
Later that same day, Jefferson wrote a note on the chalkboard in the employee break
room, which he customarily uses to communicate with drivers, stating: "Attendance bonus 25
checks will not be issued due to negotiations." At hearing, Jefferson admitted that attendance
bonuses earned in September 2010, were not timely paid, explaining that he had been
"instructed not to pay the attendance bonuses until negotiations were done."
McLaughlin was paid his September bonus in November 2010. However, Respondent 30
never repudiated its unlawful refusal to pay bonuses during
negotiations.
3. The Gresham Unit
35
Respondent has provided school bus transportation services out of its Gresham facility
since 2000 pursuant to a contract with the Gresham-Barlow School District. The Union was
certified at the Gresham facility on June 18, 2010. Dr. Fernando Gapasin, herein Gapasin, the
Union’s field representative, was responsible for bargaining with Respondent at Gresham.
40
a. Wage increase
On August 19, 2010, Gapasin attended a meeting of drivers at the Gresham facility prior
to the start of the school year. At this meeting driver Jennie Seibel asked Gresham manager
Jourdan if employees were going to get a pay raise. Jourdan replied no, due to the Union and 45
settling on a committee in Cincinnati. When Seibel asked what had to be done to get a raise
Jourdan said "that’s the way it is till things are settled and pay rates decided upon."
Employee testimony, as well as the testimony of Dr. Jourdan, establishes that, until the
2010-2011 school year, Gresham Unit drivers customarily received a pay increase at the start of 50
every school year. Dr. Jourdan, the manager at the Gresham facility since January 2008,
admitted that it is customary for Gresham Unit drivers to receive an annual pay increase. As
JD(SF)–47–11
7
confirmed by the spreadsheet6 produced by Respondent pursuant to subpoena, Gresham Unit
drivers received a wage increase each August from 2006 through 2009, the year prior to the
Union's certification . The information contained in the spreadsheet further establishes that
Respondent maintained a several step pay scale for its Gresham drivers.
5
At hearing, Respondent suggested that Gresham Unit drivers did not receive a wage
increase at the start of the 2010-2011 school year due to an alleged wage freeze implemented
in July or August 2009. Respondent did not produce its 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 wage
scales, despite subpoena. However, Jourdan admitted that all Gresham Unit drivers received a
pay increase at the start of the 2009-2010 school year. Jourdan stated that the pay increases 10
that drivers received at the start of the 2009-2010 school year were merely step increases under
the 2008-2009 wage scale, which had not been revised. Further, The spreadsheet shows that in
August 2009, eight drivers received a pay increase to $15.40 an hour, a rate that no driver
earned the year before. This indicates that there was no such rate under the 2008-2009 wage
scale. Thus, consistent with the custom at the Gresham facility, all Gresham Unit drivers 15
received a pay increase at the start of the 2009-2010 school year. Furthermore, no
documentary evidence was proffered that Respondent implemented any sort of wage freeze.
While Jourdan testified that a wage freeze was
implemented in July or August 2009, he admitted that the wage freeze may have been only a
rumor that was discussed and he was not aware of any final decision concerning a wage freeze. 20
b. Retirement Plan
On November 10, 2010, Respondent's President Burtwistle sent Gresham Unit drivers a
letter regarding Respondent's Retirement Savings Plan.7 In his letter, Respondent announced 25
that it was reinstating its "employer matching contribution," retroactive to January 2010. The
"employer matching contribution," however, would be paid to only "non-union participants:"
All non-union participants will receive an employer matching contribution of 100% of the
before tax savings contributions that the participant contributes to the Plan. . . .30
c. Information requests
On August 23, 2010, Cory Blacksmith, the president of Union chapter 204 at the
Gresham facility sent a letter8 to Jourdan that stated: 35
We are formally requesting the step up raise sheets that have been issued to Payroll for
the past 5 years (2004-2005 thru 2009-2010 school years) and all First Student Policy’s
regarding this matter.
40
The wage scale shows, in table format, the hourly rate paid to drivers at each step of the scale;
the steps of the wage scale are based on years of service. Blacksmith had seen such a wage
scale in the Payroll office in 2006, and again in 2010.

6 GC Exh. 44, pages 1-31.
7 GC Exh. 31.
8 GC Exh. 2.
JD(SF)–47–11
8
On August 31, 2010, Gapasin sent an email9 to Respondent’s vice president, labor
relations, Tom Secrest, with a copy to Jourdan requesting information about pay increases
together with a copy of Blacksmith’s August 23, 2010 letter.
On October 14, 2010, Gapasin sent an email10 to Peter Briggs, Respondent’s chief 5
negotiator for Gresham and again requested wage increase information as well as a list of all
bargaining unit employees, including names, addresses, rates of pay and benefits and date
hired.
On November 2, 2010, by email11 Gapasin requested from Briggs dates for negotiation 10
meetings. In addition Gapasin requested additional information including the current service
contract made between the Gresham School District and Respondent. The Union again
requested a current list of all bargaining unit personnel including their names, addresses, phone
numbers, date of hire, job assignment, hours worked per day, hourly pay and benefits received
as well as past and current First Student policies regarding annual salary increases. 15
Briggs replied to Gaspasin’s information request on November 2, 201012 denying the
request for the contract between Respondent and the Gresham School District, the annual
wage increase information names, addresses, phone numbers, date of hire, job assignment,
hours worked per day, hourly pay and benefits received as well as past and current First 20
Student policies regarding annual salary increases. Brigg’s response stated in part:
In addition to the foregoing, be advised that the Company believes its contract with the
Gresham School District is proprietary information so if you desire that document you
could pursue such through the District as we believe it is public information and is not 25
our place to share the document directly with the union. Furthermore, how we have
conducted our processes for adjusting wages as a non-union entity is also considered
proprietary information, however we will provide you the current pay rates for all
members of the bargaining unit as part of the information Mr. Jourdan will be forwarding
to you.30
The Union did not agree that the wage information it had requested was
proprietary, but nevertheless offered, repeatedly, to discuss the issue of confidentiality with
Respondent.13 Respondent, however, never accepted the Union's repeated offers to negotiate
confidentiality protections. 35
With respect to dates for bargaining, Briggs stated:
With respect to possible dates for bargaining, this will be challenging due to holidays and
the respective schedules of the Company’s bargaining team members. Therefore, by 40
copy of this message to Michael and Kay, I am sharing with all of you my possible dates,
these of course being subject to everyone’s availability and how such may mesh with
your own schedule. As things stand now, we could begin discussions on December 1
and 2 or December 6 and 7. Another alternative might be November 22 and 23 however
this is the week of Thanksgiving and flights may be hard to come by.45

9 Ibid
10 GC Exh. 3.
11 GC Exh. 4 and 5.
12 GC Exh. 6.
13 GC Exhs. 7-11.
JD(SF)–47–11
9
Attached to Briggs email of November 2, 2010 was Respondent’s proposal for ground rules.14
Respondent’s proposed ground rules included item 2 which stated in part, “Non economic
discussions will be concluded before any economic talks will be entertained.” At no time did the
Union agree to this proposal. In fact on November 17, 2010, the Union responded to 5
Respondent’s ground rules and struck the provision of ground rule 2 that stated, “Non economic
discussions will be concluded before any economic talks will be entertained.”
The Union also made another request for information on November 17, 2010.15 The
request included:10
1) Fleet cost information including the depredation log, miles driven and total number of
gallons of fuel purchased in the 2010 fiscal year (through March 31, 2010} by each
vehicle used in the Gresham Barlow School District.
15
2) Maintenance costs per vehicle to include hours billed and price per hour, services
rendered, and if the services were for scheduled maintenance or outside of scheduled
maintenance regarding the Gresham Barlow contract in the 2010 fiscal year.
3) All costs associated with building leases, loans, mortgages, debt service and/or rents 20
regarding the Gresham Barlow contract for the 2010 fiscal year and scheduled for the
2011 fiscal year.
4) All actual costs associated with purchasing supplies for the 2010 fiscal year regarding
the Gresham Barlow contract.25
5) Total amount of fuel purchased separated by vehicles used to transport Gresham
Barlow students and other vehicles for the 2010 fiscal year.
6) Total number of hours including route hours, overage hours, athletic/field trip route 30
hours and athletic/field trip layover hours for the 2010 fiscal year.
7) Total cost of any additional surcharge costs for mountain trips or overnight hours for
the 2010 fiscal year.
35
8) Total costs billed to Gresham Barlow school district by object to include payroll
associated payroll costs; supplies, purchased services, capital outlay, or other costs in
the 2010 fiscal year.
9) All revenue earned from charter services of the fleet used to transport Gresham 40
Barlow students in the 2010 fiscal year.
10) All past and current cost estimates, contract addendums and price escalation
agreements.
45
At the bargaining table on March 22, 2011, Briggs claimed that information regarding annual
pay increases was not available. However, Jourdan's testimony established that there is an
annual wage scale at the Gresham facility stored on a computer, with a hard copy maintained in

14 GC Exh. 6, page 3.
15 GC Exh. 12.
JD(SF)–47–11
10
Jourdan's office. The wage scale shows the wage rates for the current year, as well as the
preceding year, broken down by steps. During bargaining at the Gresham facility, Respondent
never produced any wage scale to the Union.
Respondent, moreover, never produced any Gresham wage scale to General Counsel, 5
despite subpoena. General Counsel served on Respondent a subpoena seeking "documents
and communications related to or showing the wage rates and wage increases at Respondent's
facility in Gresham, Oregon, from January 1, 2006, through the present, including but not limited
to, ... wage sheets and wage summaries." (TR 563:7-14). Dr. Jourdan admitted receiving a copy
of this subpoena before the hearing and looking for responsive documents. (TR 563:7-16). 10
Respondent, however, did not produce to Counsel for the Acting General Counsel the wage
scales that Dr. Jourdan described at hearing. On the third and final day of hearing,
Respondent's counsel belatedly offered to produce the subpoenaed wage scales, but the Court
properly rejected this offer as untimely. (TR 586:122). Respondent's wage scales were
undeniably relevant, as they relate to the core issue of whether Respondent unlawfully ended its 15
practice of granting Gresham Unit drivers a pay increase at the start of every school year, and
they should have been produced before the hearing commenced. The Acting General Counsel,
therefore, requests that an adverse inference be drawn against Respondent for failing to
produce such relevant documents. Specifically, the Acting General Counsel asks that Judge
McCarrick find that: (1) the wage scales that were not produced would confirm that Respondent 20
had a custom of granting its drivers a pay increase at the start of every school year, as already
established by documentary and testimonial evidence, and (2) there was no wage freeze in
2009, as Dr. Jourdan claimed, as at least the rate at the top step of the pay scale increased that
year.
25
At the March 22, 2011 bargaining session, the Union made an additional information
request16 that included:
4. Please provide the number of employees and their work hours per day that fit into the
following categories: Driverltrainer, Special Education driver, Bus washer, Cover driver 30
and Translator (hours spent translating would suffice).
The Union sought this information in order to enable the Union to accurately cost its contract
proposals, including a differential for the different categories of workers. Respondent had not
previously provided the Union with this information. Jourdan testified that Respondent's payroll 35
department should be able to generate the information requested in Item #4 of the Union's
March 22 request. Nevertheless, Respondent refused to provide this information, telling the
Union that it did not have those categories of workers and the Union had received all it was
going to get. Respondent said that they had no information responsive to item 4 and that the
Union had all the information they were going to get on bus drivers.1740
Respondent's first contract language proposal, given to the Union during
bargaining on February 8, Respondent included a management rights clause that stated18:
The relevant portions of the contract between the company and its client under which an 45
employee of the company performs work shall be incorporated by reference into this

16 GC Exh. 10.
17 Jordan’s response of November 8, 2010, GC Exh. 20, did not contain all of the
information the Union requested in its March 22, information request.
18 GC Exh. 18, page 5.
JD(SF)–47–11
11
Agreement, to the extent only that such provisions impose terms, conditions or
requirements upon the Company’s employees that are not required under the terms of
this Agreement. In a situation in which a provision of this Agreement is in conflict with
any of the provisions of said contract or the directives of the Company’s client regarding
the Company’s employees, the relevant portions of said contract or the client’s directives 5
shall prevail for all employment related purposes. All employees of the Company are
employed subject to the consent of the Company’s Client. Should the client consent be
denied or withdrawn, the employee must be discharged. Such discharge shall not be
subject to the grievance or arbitration procedures of this Agreement.
10
On February 8, at the bargaining table, the Union told Respondent that it could not agree
to Respondent's proposed management rights language without seeing a copy of the Gresham
Revenue Contract, referenced in Respondent’s February 8 proposal. Respondent refused to
produce the Gresham Revenue Contract claiming it is both proprietary and publicly available.
15
In its second contract language proposal19, given to the Union during bargaining on
March 21, Respondent's proposed management rights clause was unchanged from February 8.
The following day, the Union gave Respondent a written request for the Gresham Revenue
Contract.20
20
On April 7, 2011, the Union again requested21 revenue agreements between
Respondent and the Gresham School District in response to Respondent’s proposed
management rights clause The Union requested the Gresham Revenue Contract again on
April 7 and 17, but Respondent still did not provide it to the Union.
25
Respondent never provided the Gresham Revenue Contract to the Union, despite
having referenced it in each of its contract proposals through April 14, 2011. Although Briggs
testified that he expected the Union to trust his representations as to what the Gresham
Revenue Contract provided although he admitted he is not familiar with the specific terms of the
Gresham Revenue Contract. 30
On several occasions, including March 15, 17, 18, and 22, as well as April 7 and
17 2011, the Union requested22 that Respondent produce copies of its revenue contracts with
the school districts in Sandy and West Linn-Wilsonville, Oregon. The Union requested these
contracts because Respondent had represented at the bargaining table that its proposed 35
management rights language was required in all of its contracts, and the Union wanted to verify
that assertion. Respondent never provided the Union with copies of its revenue contracts with
the school districts in Sandy and West Linn-Wilsonville, Oregon.
d. Bargaining40
The parties first bargaining session was scheduled for December 2, 2010. However,
Respondent refused to meet with the Union because the Union had brought about 22 observers
to the meeting. Gapasin told Briggs that Respondent had permitted observers at the Molalla
and Lake Oswego bargaining sessions and Respondent should discuss this with the Union. 45
Briggs replied he was not going to bargain in front of an audience.

19 GC Exh. 19.
20 GC Exh. 10.
21 GC Exh. 21.
22 GC Exhs. 8-11 and 21.
JD(SF)–47–11
12
The next bargaining session did not take place until January 6, 2011. At that time
Respondent presented its second ground rules proposal23 which continued to include item 2
requiring all non economic issues be resolved before economic issues would be discussed.
Bargaining lasted for about three hours and consisted almost entirely of discussing ground 5
rules. No agreement was reached regarding ground rules because of the parties’ disagreement
over rules 2 and 4. Respondent’s proposed ground rule 4 excluded any bargaining unit
observers from being present during bargaining sessions. At this meeting the Union gave
Respondent a comprehensive bargaining proposal.24
10
On January 14, 2011 Briggs confirmed that the parties had agreed to meet on
February 7 and 8, 2011 and he proposed additional meetings for March 21, March 22-23, April
14 and 15 and June 21-23, 2011. On February 1, 2011, Gapasin confirmed those dates and
also requested May 26 and 27. Briggs responded he could not meet on May 26 and 27 due to
previous commitments.2515
On January 17, 2011, the Union sent a copy of its proposed ground rules26 to
Respondent. The Union’s proposed ground rules deleted any reference to non economic issues
being resolved before economic issues could be discussed but agreed that there would be no
observers in bargaining sessions.20
At the February 7, 2011 bargaining session the entire three hours was devoted to
discussion of ground rules with Respondent insisting that non economic issues being resolved
before economic issues could be discussed. Finally at the February 8, 2011 bargaining session
the parties agreed to ground rules27 with no agreement on the order of discussion of economic 25
versus non economic issues. The rules stated in part at item 2:
It is the intent of the Company that non-economic discussions will be concluded before
any economic talks will be entertained. The union’s intent is to the contrary.
30
At the February 8 session Respondent made its first substantive proposal.28 It
contained no economic proposals.
The next bargaining took place on March 21-23, 2011. Respondent made
another proposal on March 21, 2011.29 Once again Respondent’s proposal contained 35
no economic terms.
Respondent continued to refuse to bargain on economic issues at the March bargaining
meetings.
40
The next bargaining sessions took place on April 14 and 15, 2011. At the April 14
meeting, the Union made a full contract proposal to Respondent.30 However, Respondent

23 GC Exh. 13.
24 GC Exh. 14.
25 GC Exh. 15.
26 GC Exh. 16.
27 GC Exh. 17.
28 GC Exh. 18.
29 GC Exh. 19.
30 GC Exh. 22.
JD(SF)–47–11
13
continued to refuse to bargain over economics. Respondent made a new proposal on April 15,
however it contained no economic terms.31
Ground rules at Lake Oswego took ½ hour to agree to and Respondent did not insist on
all non economic issues being resolved before economic issues were discussed.5
On April 17, 2011, the Union made yet another contract proposal that contained
economic concessions. The offer was made contingent upon its being accepted by Respondent
by April 20, 2011. Respondent made no response to this proposal.
10
The next bargaining was not scheduled to take place until June 21, 2011. In a further
effort to advance the negotiations, on April 24, 2011, the Union again requested bargaining
dates prior to June 21.32 The Union requested more bargaining dates prior to the next
scheduled June dates, and offered to meet via teleconference. Briggs denied this request the
following day, stating that the June 2011 dates were "established in good faith" and "there are 15
no other dates available for us to meet."33 On April 25, the Union urged Respondent to find time
for bargaining prior to June 21.34 Again on May 19, 201135, the Union made requests to
Respondent to bargain before June 21.
The Union also sought the assistance of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 20
which offered to mediate bargaining any time during the week of June 6, 2011.36 Respondent
declined FMCS’ invitation:
Please be advised that we are aware of the services provided by FMCS, but the parties
to the subject negotiation have NOT mutually agreed to utilize your services at this time. 25
Accordingly we are expecting to meet with representatives of the OSEA as originally
scheduled, their repeated attempts to alter the normal process notwithstanding.37
Despite the agreed upon bargaining date of June 21, 2011, Respondent refused to
bargain with the Union on the ground that the employees in the Gresham bargaining unit had 30
filed a decertification petition.38 However, Respondent had no evidence of how many
employees supported the decertification petition.
The following day Briggs retracted his refusal to bargain with the Union.39 As noted in his
email of June 22, 2011, Briggs advised Gapasin:35
Dr. Gapsin, contrary to my previous communications regarding the impact of the
decertification filed by our employees, please be advised we will continue to bargain with
you in the interest of attempting to continue to build positive relations.
40

31 GC Exh. 23.
32 GC Exh. 25.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 GC Exh. 27.
36 GC Exh. 26.
37 Ibid.
38 GC Exh. 28.
39 GC Exh. 29, pages 4-5.
JD(SF)–47–11
14
Briggs suggested meeting on June 27-29, 2011. Gapasin responded by proposing the
dates of July 11-13, 2011.40 Briggs countered with August 2-4.41 Gapasin agreed to meet
August 2-4.
At the August 2, 2011, meeting Respondent made its first economic proposals.42 5
Respondent’s proposals included a one year contract duration and a wage scale effective
August 2011 with no wage increases.
As of August 4, 2011, Respondent had provided none of the information requested by
the Union since October 14, 2010 other than Jordan’s November 8, 2010 letter providing 10
employee names, hire dates, daily average hours worked and hourly pay rates.
B. The Analysis
1. The 8(a)(5) Allegations15
a. The Unilateral Changes
Complaint paragraphs 7(a), (b) and (d) allege that between July 1 and August 2010,
Respondent canceled or delayed annual wage increases for its Molalla, Lake Oswego and 20
Gresham employees.
Complaint paragraph 7(c) alleges that on about October 15, 2010 Respondent delayed
payment of monthly attendance bonuses to its Lake Oswego employees.
25
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act provides that, “It shall be an unfair labor practice for an
employer-(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representative of his employees . . . .”
It is well established that when employees are represented by a labor
organization their employer may not make unilateral changes in their terms and 30
conditions of employment. This is the so called “status quo” which the employer must
maintain. See NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 747 (1962); Jensen Enterprises, 339 NLRB
877, 877 (2003). It is not a defense that unilateral changes were made pursuant to
established company policy, or without antiunion motivation. Id. To be found unlawful,
the unilaterally imposed change must be "material, substantial, and significant" and 35
impact the employees or their working conditions. Toledo Blade Co., 343 NLRB 385
(2004).
The duty to maintain the “status quo” imposes an obligation upon the employer not only
to maintain what it has already given its employees, but also to implement benefits that have 40
become conditions of employment by virtue of prior commitment or practice. Jensen
Enterprises, supra. Periodic wage increases become conditions of employment if they are, "an
established practice. . . regularly expected by the employees." Daily News of Los Angeles, 315
NLRB 1236 (1994), enfd., 73 F.3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 1996). As the Board noted in Jensen at 877:
45

40 Ibid at page 4.
41 Ibid at page 3.
42 GC Exh. 30.
JD(SF)–47–11
15
Accordingly, following its employees' selection of an exclusive bargaining representative,
an employer may not unilaterally discontinue a practice of granting periodic wage
increases. By withholding customary increases during the potentially long period of
negotiations for an agreement covering overall terms and conditions of employment, an
employer, in effect, changes existing terms and conditions without bargaining to 5
agreement or impasse, in violation of Section 8(a)(5).
Accord, Covanta Energy Corp., 356 NLRB No. 98, slip op. at 14-18 (Feb. 25, 2011).
The Board has recognized a limited exception to the general rule that there may be no 10
implementation of a unilateral change prior to impasse. Stone Container Corp., 313 NLRB 336
(1993); TXU Electric Co., 343 NLRB 1404 (2004); Neighborhood House Assn, 347 NLRB 553
(2006); and Covanta Energy Corp., supra.
The Stone Container exception provides that:15
[I]f a term or condition of employment concerns a discrete recurring event, such as
annually scheduled wage review, and that event is scheduled to occur during
negotiations for an initial contract, the employer may lawfully implement a change in that
term or condition if it provides the union with a reasonable advance notice and an 20
opportunity to bargain about the intended change.” Neighborhood House Ass’n, 347
NLRB 553, 554 (2006).
In order to rely on this exception, the employer cannot simply propose elimination of the
annual practice but must be willing to bargain over the amount of the annual payment for that 25
particular year. Neighborhood House Association Ass’n, 347 NLRB at fn. 4 and 556. Thus, the
employer is “obliged to maintain the fixed elements of the [practice or program] and to negotiate
with the Union over the discretionary element of the [practice or program]—the amount.”
Mission Foods, 350 NLRB 336, 337–338 (2007). Further, "The employer relying on the Stone
Container exception has to tell the Union that it is not going to continue the specified terms and 30
conditions of employment." Covanta Energy Corp., 356 NLRB No. 98, slip op. at 16-17.
Respondent, in its brief, acknowledges its obligation to maintain the status quo but
contends that the Stone Container exception applies here with respect to the annual wage
increases. Respondent’s reliance is misplaced. 35
The facts are undisputed that Respondent had a past practice of granting annual wage
increases at each of its three facilities involved here. While both Jourdan and Jefferson denied
there was a wage increase in the 2009-2010 year, the wage stubs of employees as well as
spreadsheets provided by Respondent belie this assertion. Respondent contends that any past 40
practice of annual wage increases at the Molalla facility were superseded by the 2007-2010
collective bargaining agreement. Respondent fails to recognize that it had an obligation to
continue following the economic terms of the expired Molalla collective bargaining agreement
which provided for annual step increases.
45
Here Respondent utterly failed to bargain with the Union over the amount to be paid
under its extant wage programs. Rather, Respondent unilaterally eliminated the annual wage
increases at all of its facilities by when it first announced to employees they would be getting no
annual raise while negotiations continued, suggesting a fait accompli, not a meaningful
proposal. Covanta Energy Corp., supra, slip op. at 17.50
JD(SF)–47–11
16
Any suggestion that Respondent’s announcements concerning annual wage increases
to employees and Dr. Gapasin at Gresham and to employees at Lake Oswego, constituted
notice to the Union and an opportunity to bargain is specious since the employees were
presented not with a proposal but a final decision.
5
Finally Respondent’s novel argument that the unilateral changes in its annual wage
increases were not material since there is no 8(a)(3) allegation herein is unsupported in the law.
Moreover, there is nothing de minimus about a unilateral change during the course of initial
bargaining for a collective bargaining agreement.
10
With respect to the attendance bonus at the Lake Oswego facility, there is no dispute
that Respondent failed to make a timely payment of the bonus to McLaughlin. There is no
dispute that Jefferson told McLaughlin and later wrote on the employees’ bulletin board that the
reason employees would not be paid attendance bonuses until negotiations were completed.
Like the annual wage increases, the attendance bonus was Respondent’s extant practice. Prior 15
to its discontinuance of the bonus, Respondent never gave the Union notice or an opportunity to
bargain over the amount of the bonus but presented its decision as a fait accompli. Under these
circumstances, the Stone Container exception does not apply. Further, since the bonus is a
term and condition of employment whose cessation occurred while in the first year of bargaining
for an initial agreement, Respondent’s discontinuance of the bonus for one month is a material 20
change. Moreover, while McLaughlin was later paid his September bonus in November,
Respondent never repudiated Jefferson’s statement. Thus, I can not find Respondent’s action
de minimus.
I find that in ceasing its annual wage increases and its attendance bonus Respondent 25
violated section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act as alleged.
b. Failure to Negotiate on Economic Issues
Complaint paragraph 8(b) alleges that from December 2010 through April 15, 2011, 30
Respondent failed to negotiate economic issues in collective bargaining with the Union until
agreement was first reached on all non economic issues.
Section 8(d) of the Act defines the obligation to bargain collectively as the requirement of
an employer and the representative of its employees to, "meet at reasonable times and confer in 35
good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, or the
negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder . . . ."
While a determination of whether an employer bargained in good faith, requires an
examination of the totality of the Respondent's conduct both at and away from the bargaining 40
table, see Hardesty Co., Inc., 336 NLRB 258, 259 (2001), enfd, 308 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2002), it
has long been settled that an employer may not condition bargaining over economic issues
upon resolution of all non-economic issues. Erie Brush & Manufacturing Corp., 357 NLRB No.
46, slip op. at 11 (2011) (citing John Wanamaker Philadelphia, 279 NLRB 1034 (1986); South
Shore Hospital, 245 NLRB 848 (1979) enfd. 630 F.2d 40 (1st Cir. 1980); also see Eastern 45
Maine Medical Center, 253 NLRB 224, 245 (1980) enfd. 658 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1981); Northwest
Graphics, Inc., 342 NLRB 1288, n. 24 (2004)).
The facts establish that Respondent continuously, from at least January 6, 2011 until
August 2011, refused to bargain over economic terms until all non economic terms had been 50
JD(SF)–47–11
17
concluded. This position was embodied in Respondent’s ground rules proposal43 which
included item 2 that required all non economic issues be resolved before economic issues
would be discussed. From the first bargaining session on January 6, 2011 until Respondent
made its first economic proposals on August 2, 2011, all bargaining consisted of discussions on
non economic issues. Despite the Union’s efforts to discuss economic issues and present 5
economic as well as non economic proposals, Respondent steadfastly refused to discuss
economics.
Respondent contends that its insistence on resolution of all non economic items as a
prerequisite for economic discussions was part of a strategy of hard bargaining motivated by its 10
business considerations. This is no defense since it is well established that such conduct is
unlawful. Respondent further asserts that it never refused to negotiate economic items with the
Union. This contention is simply not supported by the record. The record is clear that
Respondent never submitted an economic proposal or discussed economic items until
August 2011. While the parties ultimately agreed to ground rules, the record is clear that there 15
was never a meeting of the minds concerning ground rules for discussing economic items
absent full agreement on non economic terms. The ground rules44 are clear that Respondent
insisted on full agreement on non economics first while the Union insisted on discussing both
economic and non economic issues together. It is pure sophistry to suggest that item 6 of the
ground rules was an agreement to discuss non economics first. This interpretation flies in the 20
face of ground rule item 2. Item 6 merely states that the economic package shall be agreed
upon as a whole not that economics cannot be discussed until non economics are resolved.
I find that in insisting from January 6 to August 2, 2011 on resolution of all non economic
issues before there could be any discussion of economic issues, Respondent bargained in bad 25
faith in violation of section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act as alleged.
c. Failure to meet at reasonable times from April 15, 2011 through August 2, 2011
Complaint paragraph 8(c) alleges that from April 15, 2011 through June 20, 2011, 30
Respondent failed to meet at reasonable times and places for bargaining with the Union
concerning employees at the Gresham facility.
Complaint paragraph 8(e) alleges that from June 21, 2011 through August 2, 2011,
Respondent failed to meet at reasonable times and places for bargaining with the Union 35
concerning employees at the Gresham facility.
As noted earlier, Section 8(d) of the Act defines the obligation to bargain collectively as
the requirement of an employer and the representative of its employees to, "meet at reasonable
times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of 40
employment, or the negotiation of an agreement or any question arising thereunder . . . ."
An employer’s obligation to bargain in good faith includes a duty to make its authorized
representative available for negotiations at reasonable times and places. Nursing Center at
Vineland, 318 NLRB 901, 905 (1995). See also Milgo Indus., Inc., 229 NLRB 25, 31 (1977). An 45
employer acts at its peril when it chooses as a bargaining agent someone who is encumbered
by conflicts. Caribe Staple Co., 313 NLRB 877, 893 (1994); O & F Machine Products Co., 239
NLRB 1013, 1019 (1978); Imperial Tile Co., 227 NLRB 1751, 1754 (1977). The fact that its

43 GC Exh. 13.
44 GC Exh. 17.
JD(SF)–47–11
18
attorney may have been too busy to meet as scheduled does not serve to excuse an employer
from its obligation to bargain in good faith. Lawrence Textile Shrinking Co., 235 NLRB 1178,
1179 (1978); see also Caribe Staple Co., 313 NLRB 877, 893 (1994); O & F Machine Products
Co., 239 NLRB 1013, 1019 (1978);
5
In assessing Respondent’s good faith or lack thereof, one cannot look at isolated
circumstances, i.e., merely the scheduling of meetings. This case did not occur in a vacuum.
Respondent’s unilateral changes in refusing to grant annual wage increases and monthly
attendance bonuses had the effect of undermining the Union’s support among its members.
Respondent further unlawfully insisted on negotiating all non economic terms before it would 10
consider the meat of the collective bargaining agreement-wages, hours and benefits. In
addition Respondent, as will be discussed further below, placed the Union in an untenable
position in bargaining by refusing to provide information the Union had requested that was
essential to the Union in making informed decisions in bargaining.
15
Between certification of the Union at the Gresham facility in June 18, 2010 and
August 2, 2011, a period of almost 14 months, there were a total of 15 bargaining sessions
scheduled. The parties met only 11 times because Respondent refused to meet without
justification on four of those sessions. Between December 2, 2010 and August 2, 2011, a
period of eight months a total of 11 bargaining sessions took place. Respondent refused to 20
meet at the initial session on December 2, 2010, because the Union had brought about 22
observers to the meeting. Gapasin told Briggs that Respondent had permitted observers at the
Molalla and Lake Oswego bargaining sessions and Respondent should discuss this with the
Union. Nevertheless, Briggs refused to bargain in front of an audience. Before the scheduled
June 21-23, 2011 bargaining sessions, Respondent refused to bargain with the Union on the 25
basis of a decertification petition file by employees in the Gresham bargaining unit. Though
Respondent repudiated its withdrawal of recognition, the June 21-23 bargaining sessions were
cancelled. While the Union repeatedly requested additional bargaining sessions with and
without a Federal Mediator, Respondent repeatedly refused to more bargaining sessions.
30
The parties did not meet for bargaining from April 15, 2011 to August 2, 2011. On
April 24, the Union requested more bargaining dates prior to the next scheduled June dates,
offering to meet via teleconference. Briggs denied this request on April 25, stating that the June
2011 dates were "established in good faith" and "there are no other dates available for us to
meet."45 On April 25, the Union urged Respondent to find time for bargaining prior to June 21. 35
Again on May 1946, the Union made requests to Respondent to bargain before June 21.
The Union also sought to utilize the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service which
offered to mediate bargaining any time during the week of June 6, 2011. Respondent declined
to utilize the services offered by FMCS, explaining to the FMCS Mediator that Respondent 40
would bargain directly with the Union under the long-established schedule on June 21-23.
After having unilaterally cancelled the June 21-23 bargaining sessions, Briggs suggested
meeting on June 27-29, 2011. Since the school year was over and many drivers had left the
area for other work, Gapasin responded by proposing the dates of July 11-13, 2011. Briggs 45
countered with August 2-4.47 Gapasin agreed to meet August 2-4.

45 General Counsel Exh. 25.
46 GC Exh. 27.
47 Ibid at page 3.
JD(SF)–47–11
19
Respondent met with the Union less that once a month between certification and August
2, 2011. Between April 15, 2011 and June 20, 2011 the parties failed to meet. Respondent
contends that Briggs and its bargaining team were too busy to meet more frequently. However,
as the Board has held, once a month meetings are scarcely regular intervals. Milgo Indus., Inc.,
229 NLRB 25, 31 (1977). Moreover, the unavailability of its chosen negotiator does not excuse 5
Respondent of its obligation to bargain in good faith at reasonable times. Nursing Center at
Vineland, 318 NLRB 901, 905 (1995); Caribe Staple Co., 313 NLRB 877, 893 (1994); Lawrence
Textile Shrinking Co., 235 NLRB 1178, 1179 (1978). As the ALJ, affirmed by the Board, found
in Caribe Staple Co., 313 NLRB 877, 893 (1994):
10
The statute does not restrict any party’s right to select whom they please as bargaining
representative, provided that this designation does not collide with the duty under
Section 8(d) ‘‘to meet at reasonable times.’’ Considerations of personal convenience,
including geographic or professional conflicts, do not take precedence over the statutory
demand that the bargaining process take place with expedition and regularity.15
An employer acts at its peril when it selects an agent incapacitated by these or any other
conflicts.
Respondent’s argument to justify the large gap in bargaining was Briggs’ busy schedule.
The Board, however, has repeatedly rejected this “busy negotiator” argument. Calex Corp., 322 20
NLRB 977, 978 (1997); Barclay Caterers, 308 NLRB 1025, 1035-37 (1992). Furthermore, in
Barclay Caterers, Inc., at 1037 the ALJ went on to reason that the violation in that case was
“especially clear here where much of the little time that Respondent allowed for bargaining was
spent attempting to get Respondent to comply with its statutory duty to furnish relevant
information and its statutory duty to meet more often.”25
In this case, in the context of the Union unsuccessfully seeking relevant information,
unsuccessfully seeking earlier bargaining dates and Respondent arbitrarily cancelling scheduled
meetings since December 2, 2010, I find that between April 15 and August 2, 2011 Respondent
refused to meet at reasonable times and violated section 8(a)(5) of the Act as alleged.30
d. Cancellation of Bargaining Sessions
Complaint paragraph 8(d) alleges that on June 21, 2011, Respondent unilaterally
cancelled bargaining scheduled for June 21-23, 2011.35
In Dresser Industries, 264 NLRB 1088 (1982), the Board held that the filing of a
decertification petition alone does not provide a reasonable ground for an employer to refuse to
recognize a bargaining representative or to withdraw from bargaining. In this regard the Board
held:40
A decertification petition may be properly filed with the Board on the basis of a
representation, evidenced by authorization cards or other signatures, that 30 percent of
the unit employees desire such an election. On its face, the petition indicates nothing
more than the disaffection of a minority of unit employees. Absent evidence ... that a 45
majority of the employees supported the petition, such a petition in no way reflects, or
purports to reflect, the sentiment of the unit majority. Dresser Industries, 264 NLRB at
1088.
Other than the decertification petition itself, Respondent offered no evidence to justify its 50
refusal to meet and bargain with the Union. While Respondent withdrew its June 21, 2011
refusal to bargain the following day by offering to bargain during the week of June 27,
JD(SF)–47–11
20
Respondent never repudiated its unlawful announcement, made on June 21 that it would not
bargain with the Union until after the decertification election due to the fact that the Union's
status had been questioned. Passavant Memorial Area Hospital, 237 NLRB 138, 138 (1978).
Respondent contends it was privileged to refuse to bargain with the Union on June 21, 5
2011 because it had a good faith doubt that the Union continued to represent a majority of its
employees. This argument is without merit. No evidence was adduced that Respondent
entertained a good faith doubt as to the Union’s continued majority support of the employees in
the Gresham bargaining unit. As the Board held in Dresser Industries, supra, the mere filing of
a decertification petition does not supply Respondent with a good faith doubt.10
Moreover, contrary to Respondent’s argument, the mere attempt to reschedule
bargaining after June 23, “. . . in the interest of attempting to continue to build positive relations .
. .” does not satisfy the requirements of Passavant Memorial Area Hospital at 138-139 for in
order to be effective the repudiation: 15
[M]must be "timely," "unambiguous," "specific in nature to the coercive conduct," and
"free from other proscribed illegal conduct." Douglas Division, The Scott & Fetzer
Company, 228 NLRB 1016 (1977), and cases cited therein at 1024. Furthermore, there
must be adequate publication of the repudiation to the employees involved and there 20
must be no proscribed conduct on the employer's part after the publication. Pope
Maintenance Corporation, 228 NLRB 326. 340 (1977). And, finally, the Board has
pointed out that such repudiation or disavowal of coercive conduct should give
assurances to employees that in the future their employer will not interfere with the
exercise of their Section 7 rights. See Fashion Fair, Inc., et al.. 159 NLRB 1435, 1444 25
(1966): Harrah’s Club, 150 NLRB 1702. 1717 (1965).
In the instant case, the so called repudiation was not free of other proscribed illegal
conduct, including Respondent’s refusal to meet at reasonable times, its unilateral changes and
as will be seen below its refusal to furnish information. In addition Respondent’s “repudiation” 30
was not published to its employees with assurances that in the future it would not interfere with
the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
I find that in arbitrarily cancelling the June 21-23 bargaining sessions without good
cause, Respondent failed to bargain in good faith by refusing to meet at reasonable times and 35
places and violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as alleged.
e. The Requests for Information.
Complaint paragraph 9(a) alleges that on about August 23, 2010 the Union requested 40
that Respondent furnish it with step up raise sheets for the past 5 years and all related policies
at the Gresham facility.
Complaint paragraph 9(b) alleges that on about August 31, October 14 and
November 2, 2010 and January 25, March 15, 18, 22 and April 17, 2011, the Union requested 45
that Respondent furnish the Union with wage step up information at the Gresham facility.
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act mandates that employers must provide unions, upon request,
with information which is relevant for the purpose of contract negotiations. NLRB v. Acme
Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-36 (1967); Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., 315 NLRB 258, 50
259 (1994). The Board has held that an employer is obligated to furnish a union information
relevant and necessary to enable the union to carry out its statutory obligations as the
JD(SF)–47–11
21
employees' exclusive bargaining representative including information related to contract
negotiations. Day Automotive Group, 348 NLRB 1257, 1257, 1262 (2006); Newcor Bay City
Division, 345 NLRB 1229, 1237 (2005). Information about bargaining unit employees' terms
and conditions of employment is presumptively relevant. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 110
NLRB 2097 (1954), enfd., 223 F.2d 58 (1st Cir. 1955).5
The record reflects that since August 23, 2010, the Union has repeatedly made requests
for wage raise sheets Respondent used in giving drivers wage increases at the Gresham unit.
Given Respondent’s failure to give step increases in 2010, this information was relevant to the
Union in order to determine if Respondent had violated a past practice and for the purposes of 10
collective bargaining.
First Respondent contends that there is no evidence that such information exists. This
argument is refuted by its own witness, Gresham manager Jourdan who admitted that there is
an annual wage scale at the Gresham facility stored on a computer, with a hard copy 15
maintained in Jourdan's office.
Respondent next argues that what the Union requested was Respondent’s policies
regarding step up pay increases and Respondent has no such policies. There is no doubt what
the Union requested on August 23, 2010, when Cory Blacksmith, the president of Union at the 20
Gresham facility sent the letter48 to Jourdan requesting:
. . . the step up raise sheets (emphasis added) that have been issued to Payroll for the
past 5 years (2004-2005 thru 2009-2010 school years) and all First Student Policy’s
regarding this matter.25
The wage sheets were never supplied. This information was necessary and relevant to
the Union in performing its duties as exclusive collective- bargaining representative and since it
relates to wages it is presumptively relevant. In failing to provide this information Respondent
violated section 8(a)(5) of the Act.30
Complaint paragraphs 9(c) and (d) allege that on about February 8, April 7 and April 17,
2011, the Union requested that Respondent furnish the Union with the current service contract
between the Gresham School District and Respondent.
35
Respondent interjected the Gresham Revenue Agreement into bargaining when it
proposed on February 8, 2011 that the Gresham Revenue Agreement be incorporated into the
parties’ collective bargaining agreement. The Union could not agree to such a proposal without
reviewing the document since portions of the Revenue Agreement deal with discipline of
bargaining unit employees. Since the Revenue Agreement deals with discipline it is 40
presumptively relevant and must be produced.
Respondent’s contention that the Gresham Revenue Agreement is proprietary
information is not supported by the case law. In Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 301 NLRB
1104, 1105-06 (1991) the Board established a test for dealing with an employer’s claimed 45
confidential information:
It is clear from the foregoing that in dealing with union requests for relevant, but
assertedly confidential information, the Board is required to balance a union's need for

48 GC Exh. 2.
JD(SF)–47–11
22
the information against any “legitimate and substantial” confidentiality interests
established by the employer. The appropriate accommodation necessarily depends on
the particular circumstances of each case. The party asserting confidentiality has the
burden of proof. (footnote omitted) Legitimate and substantial confidentiality and privacy
claims will be upheld,(footnote omitted) but blanket claims of confidentiality will 5
not.(footnote omitted) Further, a party refusing to supply information on confidentiality
grounds has a duty to seek an accommodation. Thus, when a union is entitled to
information concerning which an employer can legitimately claim a partial confidentiality
interest, the employer must bargain toward an accommodation between the union's
information needs and the employer's justified interests. (footnote omitted)10
In this case, Respondent has failed in its threshold obligation to establish that it has a
confidential or proprietary interest in the Gresham Revenue Agreement. Moreover, the record
establishes that Respondent made no effort to bargain to an accommodation with the Union 15
regarding the Revenue Agreement. Rather the evidence establishes that Respondent simply
refused to provide the agreement to the Union.
Respondent’s contention that the Union could have obtained the requested information
elsewhere, likewise fails. The Board has held that an employer may not refuse to furnish 20
relevant information to a union on the grounds that the union has an alternative source or
method of obtaining that information. Hospitality Care Center, 307 NLRB 1131, 1135 (1992);
Public Service Corp. of Colorado, 301 NLRB 238 (1991); Washington Hospital Center, 270
NLRB 396, 401 (1984); Kroger Co., 226 NLRB 512–514 (1976)
25
Respondent’s contention that the management rights clause was later withdrawn does
not obviate the relevance of the document at the time of the demand. No final agreement has
been reached at this point and there is nothing to prevent Respondent from renewing its
previous management rights language. Respondent’s management rights proposal that 30
incorporated the Gresham Revenue Agreement was not withdrawn until April 15, 2012.49
Respondent’s argument that the refusal to furnish this information was somehow de
minimus is likewise rejected in view of the plethora of other violations of the Act Respondent has
committed.35
Thus, Respondent refused to provide relevant information from February 8, 2011 and
violated section 8(a)(5) of the Act as alleged.
Complaint paragraph 9(e) and (f) allege that on about March 15, 22, April 7 and 40
17, 2011, the Union requested that Respondent furnish it with the current service contracts
between Respondent and the Sandy and West Linn-Wilsonville School Districts.
Again Respondent interjected outside revenue agreements into bargaining when it
represented at the bargaining table that its proposed management rights language, 45
incorporating its revenue agreement with the Gresham School District, was required in all of its
revenue contracts. The Union wanted Respondent’s agreements with the Sandy and West
Linn-Wilsonville School Districts to verify that assertion.

49 Compare the language of GC Exh. 19 with GC Exh. 23.
JD(SF)–47–11
23
I have already rejected Respondent’s argument that these revenue agreements are
protected from disclosure to the Union because Respondent has failed to either establish that
these revenue agreements are proprietary or that it bargained with the Union to reach some
accommodation. Moreover, the documents continue to be relevant until a final agreement has
been reached.5
Thus, Respondent refused to provide relevant information from March 15, 2011, and
violated section 8(a)(5) of the Act as alleged.
Complaint paragraph 9(g) alleges that on about March 22, 2011, the Union requested 10
Respondent furnish it the number employees in each of several job classifications in the
Gresham facility.
The Union sought this information in order to enable it to make wage proposals for the
different categories of employees. This information is presumptively relevant as it relates to 15
wages of bargaining unit employees.
Respondent contends that it provided the Union with this information. Contrary to
Respondent’s assertion, the list provided by Jourdan50 did not contain the information requested
by the Union, i.e., the number of employees and their work hours per day in each category was 20
not contained in Jourdan’s list nor could it be extrapolated from the list. Nor was the information
request vague or ambiguous in any manner.
By failing to provide the information regarding number employees in each of several job
classifications in the Gresham facility since March 22, 2011, Respondent has violated section 25
8(a)(5) of the Act.
2. The 8(a)(1) Allegations
Complaint paragraph 6(a) alleges that on August 25, 2010 Respondent through its 30
manager Jefferson, at the Lake Oswego facility told employees that they would not receive
raises because it did not want to give raises during contract negotiations.
I have found that On August 25, 2010, driver Brian McLaughlin was told by his
supervisor, Lake Oswego manager Darryl Jefferson, that he would not get a pay raise because 35
the parties were under contract negotiations. Jefferson admits that during these one-on-one
meetings on August 25 he told every driver that there would be no pay increases "until the
negotiations were done."
Similar statements have been previously found unlawful as a threat to change the status 40
quo in connection with this Respondent in First Student, 341 NLRB 136, 141 (2004). See also
Covanta Energy Corp., 356 NLRB No. 98, slip op. pages 9-11 (2011).
Respondent contends that the statements are lawful and truthful because Respondent
cannot make unilateral changes while in bargaining. Respondent is simply wrong in view of the 45
above analysis of Covanta Energy and Stone Container.
Jefferson’s August 25, 2010, statements to drivers that there would be no pay increases
until the negotiations were done violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged.

50 GC Exh. 20.
JD(SF)–47–11
24
Complaint paragraph 6(b) alleges that on August 31, 2010 Respondent, through Director
of Human Resources Mingo, at the Lake Oswego facility told employees that they would not
receive customary wage increases until contract negotiations were completed and that any
raises would not be paid retroactively if employees engaged in protected job actions such as a 5
strike.
I have found that at a bargaining session on August 31, 2010, Mingo told Union
representative Bonner, in the presence of bargaining unit employees, that there would be no
raises while bargaining was ongoing but raises would be paid retroactively when the contract 10
was signed. However, Mingo added if the employee struck there would be no raises.
Mingo’s statement that there would be no raises while bargaining was ongoing violated
section 8(a)(1) of the Act. First Student, supra; Covanta Energy Corp., supra. Similarly, her
statement that if the employee struck there would be no raises violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act 15
as threatening a reprisal for engaging in activity protected by section 7 of the Act.
Respondent’s contention that Mingo’s statements are de minimus flies in the face of the
multitude of other unfair labor practices that Respondent has committed and is rejected
20
Complaint paragraph 6(c) alleges that on October 15, 2010 Respondent, through
manager Jefferson, at the Lake Oswego facility told employees that monthly attendance
bonuses would not be paid due to contract negotiations.
I have found Jefferson made these statements. 25
An employer violates section 8(a)(1) of the Act if it tells employees they will lose a
benefit because they are represented by a union. Goya Foods of Florida, 347 NLRB 1118, 1131
(2006); VOCA Corp., 329 NLRB 591 (1999). I find Jefferson’s statements violated section
8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged.30
Complaint paragraph 6(d) alleges that on August 20, 2010 Respondent, through
Jourdan, at the Gresham facility told employees they were not getting raises because of the
Union.
35
Complaint paragraph 6(e) alleges that on August 24, 2010 Respondent, through
Jourdan, at the Gresham facility told employees that their wages were frozen during contract
negotiations with the Union.
There is no dispute that at an August 19, 2010, meeting of drivers at the Gresham facility 40
prior to the start of the school year, Jourdan told employees that they were not going to get a
pay raise due to the Union and settling on a committee in Cincinnati. Likewise on August 24,
2010, Jourdan told employee Blacksmith that drivers would not be receiving a raise unless and
until the parties reached a collective-bargaining agreement.
45
As noted above, such statements violate section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I conclude Jourdan’s
statement to Blacksmith violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged.
Complaint paragraph 6(f) alleges that on November 10, 2010 Respondent by
letter told its employees at the Gresham facility that only non union participants in its 50
Retirement Savings Plan would receive an employer matching contribution.
JD(SF)–47–11
25
The November 10, 2010, letter51 from Respondent's President Burtwistle sent to
Gresham Unit drivers states:
This letter is to inform you of important changes regarding the FirstGroup America, Inc.
Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan"). I am pleased to announce that the Company has 5
reinstated the employer matching contribution and has implemented the contribution
retroactively to January 2010.
All non-union participants will receive an employer matching contribution of 100% of the
before tax savings contributions that the participant contributes to the Plan....10
As noted above, An employer violates section 8(a)(1) of the Act if it tells employees they
will lose a benefit because they are represented by a union. Goya Foods of Florida, 347 NLRB
1118, 1131 (2006); VOCA Corp., 329 NLRB 591 (1999).
15
In seeking to distinguish the above cases and Niagara Wires, Inc., 240 NLRB 1326,
1327 (1979), Respondent contends that it has not run afoul of the Board’s ruling, “. . . that the
promulgation, maintenance, and publication of an employee benefit plan whose benefits are
conditioned on the unrepresented status of the employees are themselves sufficient for finding
an 8(a)(1) violation, . . . .”20
Respondent maintains that union employees were eligible to participate in its Retirement
Savings Plan, but that they were ineligible to receive employer matching contributions. I fail to
see how this limitation on the benefits of employer matching contributions is not a limitation on
employer pension benefits conditioned on unrepresented status. In view of the numerous 25
violations of sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, this violation cannot be viewed in isolation as a
de minimus violation.
I find that Respondent, in limiting matching contributions to those in an unrepresented
status violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act.30
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent First Student, Inc., is an employer engaged in commerce and in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 35
2. Oregon School Employees Association is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times since April 27, 2007, the Union has been the exclusive collective-40
bargaining representative of the following unit of employees:
All full time and regular part time school bus operators and driver trainers employed
by Respondent at its Molalla, Oregon, facility; but excluding all other employees,
managers, technician in charge (mechanics), technicians (mechanics), clerical 45
employees, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. At all times since January 15, 2010, the Union was certified by the Board as the
exclusive collective- bargaining representative of employees in the following unit:

51 GC Exh. 31.
JD(SF)–47–11
26
All full time and regular part time drivers employed out of Respondent’s Lake
Oswego, Oregon facility; but excluding all mechanics/technicians, office clerical
employees, professional employees, dispatchers, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act and all other employees.5
5. At all times since June 18, 2010, the Union was certified as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of employees in the following unit:
All full time and regular part time bus drivers and driver trainers at Respondent’s 10
Gresham-Barlow School District Location; but excluding all other employees,
including dispatchers, mechanic technicians, and guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
6. By engaging in the following conduct, the Respondent committed unfair labor 15
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act:
a. On or about August 25, 2010, by telling its employees at the Lake Oswego facility
that they would not be receiving raises because Respondent did not want to give raises during
contract negotiations. 20
b. On or about August 31, 2010, telling its employees at the Lake Oswego facility that
they would not receive their customary wage increase until contract negotiations were
completed and that any wage increase would not be paid retroactively if employees engaged in
a strike.25
c. On or about October 15, 2010, by telling its employees at the Lake Oswego facility
that monthly attendance bonuses would not be paid due to contract negotiations.
d. On or about August 20, 2010, by telling its employees at the Gresham facility that 30
they were not getting wage increases because of the Union.
e. On or about August 24, 2010, by telling its employees at the Gresham facility that
their wages were frozen during contract negotiations with the Union.
35
f. On or about November 10, 2010, by informing its employees in the Gresham facility
that only non-Union participants in its Retirement Savings Plan would receive an employer
matching contribution.
7. By engaging in the following conduct, the Respondent committed unfair labor 40
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act:
a. Since on or about July 1, 2010, by cancelling annual step increases for its
employees in the Molalla bargaining unit.
45
b. Since about August 2010, by cancelling annual step increases for its employees in
the Lake Oswego and Gresham bargaining units.
c. Since about October 15, 2010, by cancelling or delayed payment of monthly
attendance bonuses to employees in the Lake Oswego bargaining unit. 50
JD(SF)–47–11
27
d. From December 2, 2010 through August 1, 2011, by refusing to negotiate wages,
benefits and other economic matters in collective bargaining with the Union in the Gresham
bargaining unit until agreement was reached on all non economic issues.
e. From between April 15, 2011 and August 1, 2011, by failing to meet at reasonable 5
times and places for bargaining with the Union in the Gresham bargaining unit.
f. On about June 21, 2011 by unilaterally cancelling bargaining meetings scheduled
for June 21-23, 2011.
10
g. From August 23, 2010 through April 17, 2011, the Union made various demands
for relevant information including Respondent’s step increases at its Gresham facility for the
past 5 years, Respondent’s service contracts with the Gresham, Sandy and West Linn-
Wilsonville School Districts, and the number of employees in each of several job classifications
in the Gresham bargaining unit. The Respondent did not reply to any of these requests nor did 15
not provide the requested information in a timely manner.
The Remedy
General Counsel seeks the remedy of an extension of the certification year at the 20
Gresham facility in which the Respondent is ordered to bargain with the Union upon request, in
good faith for “the period required by” Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962).
The Board has long held that where there is a finding that an employer, after a union’s
certification, has failed or refused to bargain in good faith with that union, the Board’s remedy 25
therefore ensures that the union has at least 1 year of good-faith bargaining during which its
majority status cannot be questioned. Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc., supra. The Board has also held that
the certification year should be extended in cases in which the employer has engaged in
pervasive and extensive illegal practices that commenced at the outset of bargaining. In re
PrattTowers, Inc., 338 NLRB 61, 74 (2002); Frank Leta Honda, 321 NLRB 482 (1996). 30
In this case on June 18, 2010, the Union was certified as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of employees at Respondent’s Gresham facility. Bargaining did not
commence until January 6, 2011. However, even prior to the commencement of bargaining,
Respondent had embarked on a pervasive campaign of unfair labor practices which had as its 35
object undermining the Union’s support among its members by unilaterally ceasing wage step
increases, matching pension contributions and attendance bonuses. In addition on November
2, 2010, Respondent commenced a stonewalling of the Union’s efforts to obtain relevant
information from Respondent in order to preclude the Union from engaging in meaningful
collective bargaining. Further on December 2, 2010, Respondent began a series of delays in 40
bargaining that resulted in the cancellation of four bargaining sessions and the scheduling of
only 11 sessions between December 2, 2010 and August 2, 2011.
The sessions that occurred from January 6, 2011 until August 2, 2011, were devoted
entirely to Respondent’s unlawful insistence upon bargaining first over non economic subjects. 45
I conclude that the Union is entitled to a period free from Respondent’s failure to bargain
in good faith and I recommend that the certification year be extended for one year from the date
that Respondent complies with any Order issued by the Board. Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB
785 (1962); In re PrattTowers, Inc., 338 NLRB 61, 74 (2002).50
JD(SF)–47–11
28
The Respondent will be ordered to offer reinstatement to Rhandy Villanueva who it
unlawfully terminated and make him whole for any wages or other rights and benefits he may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in accordance with the formula set
forth in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as provided for in New Horizons
for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) and Jackson Hospital Corporation d/b/a Kentucky 5
River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended.52
10
ORDER
The Respondent, First Student, Inc., its successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from15
(a) Refusing to bargain with the Union as the duly designated representative of a
majority of its employees in the bargaining units appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
20
All full time and regular part time school bus operators and driver trainers employed
by Respondent at its Molalla, Oregon, facility; but excluding all other employees,
managers, technician in charge (mechanics), technicians (mechanics), clerical
employees, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
25
All full time and regular part time drivers employed out of Respondent’s Lake
Oswego, Oregon facility; but excluding all mechanics/technicians, office clerical
employees, professional employees, dispatchers, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act and all other employees.
30
All full time and regular part time bus drivers and driver trainers at Respondent’s
Gresham-Barlow School District Location; but excluding all other employees,
including dispatchers, mechanic technicians, and guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
35
(b) Unilaterally cancelling scheduled collective bargaining sessions.
(c) Failing to meet at reasonable times and places for collective bargaining with the
Union in the Gresham bargaining unit.
40
(d) Unilaterally ceasing to grant established step increases for employees in the
Molalla, Lake Oswego and Gresham bargaining units.
(e) Unilaterally ceasing to grant or delaying in granting established attendance
bonuses to its employees in the Lake Oswego bargaining unit.45

52 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Section
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections shall be waived for all
purposes.
JD(SF)–47–11
29
(f) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union with the information the Union has
requested which is necessary and relevant to the collective bargaining process and to fulfill its
obligations as representative of bargaining unit employees.
(g) Telling employees that they will not be granted step increases during contract 5
negotiations.
(h) Telling employees that they will not be granted retroactive step increases if they
engage in protected activities.
10
(i) Informing employees that only non union participants in its Retirement Savings
Plan will receive an employer matching contribution.
(j) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 15
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective- bargaining
representative of Respondent’s employees at the Gresham bargaining unit, and for 12 months 20
thereafter, as if the certification year had not expired, concerning wages, hours and other terms
and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding
in a signed agreement.
(b) On request pay its Gresham Unit employees their customary annual pay 25
increases, dating back to the start of the 2010-2011 school year.
(c) On request fully remedy its failure to pay its Lake Oswego and Molalla Unit
employees, including those who worked during part of the 2010-2011 school year, but who were
not employed as of the date Respondent used to determine eligibility for retroactive pay 30
increases, their customary pay increases due at the start of the 2010-2011 school year.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make available at reasonable places
designated by the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, 35
including an electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze
the amount of back pay due under the terms of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Molalla, Lake
Oswego and Gresham, and mail a copy thereof to each bargaining unit member laid off 40
subsequent to July 1, 2010, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.” 53

Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper45
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an

53 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words
in the notice reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD”
shall read “POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD(SF)–47–11
30
internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with
its employees by such means and that those Notices be distributed and read to the employees
in the Units by a responsible representative of Respondent.
(f) Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are 5
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of
these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the
notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since July 1, 2010.10
(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.
15
Date, Washington, D.C. December 7, 2011
______________________20
John J. McCarrick
Administrative Law Judge
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which we appeared, argued and presented evidence, the National Labor
Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has directed
us to post this notice to employees in both English and Spanish and to abide by its terms.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES EMPLOYEES 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
Chose not to engage in any of these protected activates
Accordingly, we give our employees the following assurances:
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the Union as the duly designated representative of a
majority of its employees in the bargaining units appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full time and regular part time school bus operators and driver trainers employed by
Respondent at its Molalla, Oregon, facility; but excluding all other employees, managers,
technician in charge (mechanics), technicians (mechanics), clerical employees, and
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
All full time and regular part time drivers employed out of Respondent’s Lake Oswego,
Oregon facility; but excluding all mechanics/technicians, office clerical employees,
professional employees, dispatchers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and
all other employees.
All full time and regular part time bus drivers and driver trainers at Respondent’s
Gresham-Barlow School District Location; but excluding all other employees, including
dispatchers, mechanic technicians, and guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally cancel scheduled collective bargaining sessions.
WE WILL NOT fail to meet at reasonable times and places for collective bargaining with the
Union in the Gresham bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally cease to grant established step increases for employees in the
Molalla, Lake Oswego and Gresham bargaining units.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally cease to grant or delaying in granting established attendance
bonuses to its employees in the Lake Oswego bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish the Union with the information the Union has requested
which is necessary and relevant to the collective bargaining process and to fulfill its obligations
as representative of bargaining unit employees.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that they will not be granted step increases during contract
negotiations.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that they will not be granted retroactive step increases if they
engage in protected activities.
WE WILL NOT inform employees that only non union participants in its Retirement Savings Plan
will receive an employer matching contribution.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL immediately bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent’s employees at the Gresham bargaining unit, and for
12 months thereafter, as if the certification year had not expired, concerning wages, hours and
other terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the
understanding in a signed agreement.
WE WILL on request pay our Gresham Unit employees their customary annual pay increases,
dating back to the start of the 2010-2011 school year.
WE WILL on request fully remedy our failure to pay the Lake Oswego and Molalla Unit
employees, including those who worked during part of the 2010-2011 school year, but who were
not employed as of the date we used to determine eligibility for retroactive pay increases, their
customary pay increases due at the start of the 2010-2011 school year.
WE WILL furnish the necessary and relevant information requested by the Union.
FIRST STUDENT INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s San
Francisco, California Regional office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website:
www.nlrb.gov.
601 SW 2nd Ave. Suite 1910, Portland, Oregon 97204-3170
(503) 326-3085, Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND
MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE
REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (206) 365-6284.
THIS NOTICE AND THE DECISION IN THIS MATTER ARE PUBLIC RECORDS
Any interested individual who wishes to request a copy of this Notice or a complete copy of the
Decision of which this Notice is a part may do so by contacting the Board’s Offices at the
address and telephone number appearing immediately above.