Florida Ambulance Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1981

255 N.L.R.B. 286 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SAS Ambulance Service, Inc., d/b/a Florida Ambu-
lance Service; MSK Ambulance Service, Inc.,
d/b/a Atlas Ambulance Service; and LBJ Am-
bulance Service, Inc., d/b/a C & R Ambulance
Service and SAS Ambulance Workers Organiz-
ing Committee, 1199, National Union of Hospi-
tal & Health Care Employees, RWDSU, AFL-
CIO. Case 12-CA-8960
March 26, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 15, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
J. Pargen Robertson issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions' of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order. 2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, SAS Ambu-
lance Service, Inc., d/b/a Florida Ambulance
Service; MSK Ambulance Service, Inc., d/b/a
Atlas Ambulance Service; and LBJ Ambulance
Service, Inc., d/b/a C & R Ambulance Service,
Pinellas County, Florida, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order, except that the at-
tached notice is substituted for that of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge.
We do not rely upon the Administrative Law Judge's citation of
Johnnie's Poultry Co., 146 NLRB 770 (1964), in fn. 9 of his Decision.
Johnnie's Poultry sets forth standards under which an employer may ques-
tion employees in order to investigate issues raised in an unfair labor
practice complaint and prepare for a hearing. In the usual situation, the
test of whether an employer's interrogation of an employee violates Sec.
8(a)(1) is whether, under all the circumstances, the interrogation reason-
ably tends to restrain or interfere with employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by the Act. Blue Flash Express. Inc., 109 NLRB 591,
593 (1954).
2 Member Jenkins would modify the Order to require interest to be
computed ill the manner set forth in his partial dissent in Olympic Medical
Corporation, 250 NLRB 146 (1980).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees
concerning their activities on behalf of Nation-
255 NLRB No. 31
al Union of Hospital & Health Care Employ-
ees, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees to cease
and desist their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
discharge unless they cease their union activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees to
make their working conditions worse by re-
quiring them to stay in their ambulances 24
hours a day rather than in a zone office be-
cause of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to deprive our em-
ployees of planned wage increases because of
their union activities.
WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from
contacting persons or organizations outside the
Company because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from
having visitors in zone offices because of their
union activities.
WE WILL NOT criticize or threaten to sue
our employees because they cooperate or give
a statement to the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT discharge or fail, or refuse, to
reinstate our employees because of their union
activities.
WE WILL offer Ronald Hollins and Nicholas
Bojack immediate and full reinstatment to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prej-
udice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL make Hollins and Bojack whole
for any loss of earnings they may have suf-
fered as a result of our discrimination against
them, with interest.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
WE WILL offer Ronald Hollins and Nicholas
Bojack immediate and full reinstatment to their
former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prej-
udice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges.
WE WILL make Hollins and Bojack whole
for any loss of earnings they may have suf-
FLORIDA AMBULANCE SERVICE 287
fered as a result of our discrimination against
them, with interest.
SAS AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.,
D/B/A FLORIDA AMBULANCE SERV-
ICE; MSK AMBULANCE SERVICE,
INC., D/B/A ATLAS AMBULANCE
SERVICE; AND LBJ AMBULANCE
SERVICE, INC., D/B/A C & R AMBU-
LANCE SERVICE
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard on May 12 and 13, 1980, in Tampa,
Florida. The charge was filed on January 15, 1980. The
complaint, which issued on February 7, 1980, was
amended at the hearing. The complaint alleges that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threaten-
ing employees with discharge and other unspecified re-
prisals if they did not cease and desist their union activi-
ties; threatening its employees with the loss of a pay raise
because they had engaged in union activities; threatening
its employees with more onerous working conditions if
they did not cease their union activities; promulgating
and maintaining rule prohibiting all solicitation for the
Union and prohibiting all distribution of union literature
by its employees at any place and any time; promulgat-
ing and maintaining a rule prohibiting its employees from
contacting the media or any outside agency with infor-
mation about Respondent; threatening its employees with
discharge for violating the allegedly illegal solicitation
and distribution rules; interrogating employees about
their union activities; imposing a no-visitation rule be-
cause of its employees' union activities; and threatening
its employees with the loss of pay raise due to legal fees
incurred because of its employees' organizing activities.
The complaint alleges a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) by the discharge of employees Ronald Hollins and
Nicholas Bojack. The complaint, through an amendment
made during the hearing, also alleges that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(4) by informing its employee that
he was aware that the employee had given statements to
the National Labor Relations Board and threatening that
employee with a lawsuit because the employee had given
those statements.
Upon the entire record, my observation of the wit-
nesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by
General Counsel and Respondent, I hereby make the fol-
lowing:
FINDINGS'
On November 15, 1979, a group of four of Respond-
ent's employees met to consider union organization. Al-
' Neither the allegations regarding commerce nor the status of the
Charging Party are in dispute The complaint alleges. Respondent admits.
and I find that SAS Ambulance Service, Inc., d/b/a Florida Ambulance
Service; MSK Ambulance Service, Inc.. d/b/a Atlas Ambulance Service:
and LBJ Ambulance Service. Inc., d/b/a C & R Ambulance Service,
constitute a single integrated business enterprise and a single employer
leged discriminatee Ronald Hollins spoke with a repre-
sentative of the National Union of Hospital & Health
Care Employees, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, 1199 (herein
called the Charging Party or the Union), before that
meeting. During the meeting a union organizing commit-
tee was formed. The committee included six employees.
Three of the employees on the committee were Ronald
Hollins, Nicholas Bojack, Jr., and Kevin Neville. The
committee decided to circulate a petition among the em-
ployees for the purpose of showing the Union that the
employees wanted to talk with the Union for the purpose
of organizing.
On November 22, 1979, at a second meeting of the
union organizing committee, the petition, which by that
time had been typed and was ready for circulation
among the employees, was distributed. Additionally,
members of the committee were given literature from the
Union to distribute to the employees.
On November 23, 1979, William Stanley, who is the
president of all three Respondent Corporations, called
employee Robert Underwood into his office. Stanley
asked Underwood if another employee, Carl Zalfini, had
approached him concerning union activities. Stanley ad-
mitted that, prior to calling Underwood into his office,
he had discussions with Carl Zalfini in the company
office regarding the possibility of Zalfini being engaged
in organizing employees.
In early December, Stanley received what he de-
scribed as a signed document which identified the em-
ployee members of the union committee. On December
12, Stanley called the members of that committee into his
office. Stanley told the employees (members of the com-
mittee) that they were to cease and desist their organiz-
ing activities and, if they continued those activities, they
would be terminated. Stanley said that the pay raises that
were supposed to go into effect in January 1980 would
have to be frozen because he needed the money to fight
the NLRB and handle all the lawsuits coming about be-
cause of the committee's activities. Stanley told the com-
mittee members that, if they brought the Union in, all
conditions would change drastically from having substa-
tions to being put on full time, 24 hours, in the ambu-
lances. 2
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
which is engaged in providing of ambulance service in Pinellas County.
Florida. Respondent admits, and I find, that during the calendar year
ending December 31, 1979, it, in the course and conduct of its operations.
derived gross revenues in excess of $50.00. and during the same time
period provided services valued in excess of $50,000 for the city of St.
Petersburg, Florida, which is directly engaged in interstate commerce.
Respondent admits, and I find, that at all material times it was an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act. The complaint alleges. Respondent admitts, and I find, that
the Charging Party (Union) is now, and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act.
2 Stanley admitted that he did call a meeting of members of the orga-
nizing committee during early December 1979. Stanley admitted that he
made the "implication" to the employees that they were to cease and
desist passing out union literature and that, if they continued to pass it
out, they would be insubordinate and subject to discharge. Stanley also
admitted telling the employees that he might have to delay effecting the
proposed pay raise because of his expense in fighting their organization's
activities. Stanley testified that he did not know whether he told the em-
Coninued
FLORIDA AMBULANCE SERVICE
-
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Also, on December 12, 1979, Stanley published a
memorandum to all employees prohibiting the release of
any information concerning Respondent to persons or or-
ganizations outside the Company. The memorandum in-
dicated that anyone who violated that rule would be sub-
ject to immediate termination.
On December 14, 1979, Ronald Hollins asked Stanley
about some literature of Hollins' that had been taken
from Hollins' office. During their conversation Stanley
told Hollins that he was the only one on the committee
that seemed to be having problems obeying his cease-
and-desist order in that Hollins was still bringing litera-
ture into the zone office. Stanley warned Hollins that if
he did not cease and desist, he would be terminated.3 On
December 17, 1979, William Stanley published another
memorandum to all employees. The memorandum indi-
cated that effective immediately no visitors would be
permitted in the substations. The memorandum indicated
that failure to comply with the new rule would subject
the on-duty crew to disciplinary action. The memoran-
dum closed with the statement "I regret this action is
necessary, but do [sic] to the actions of a few employees,
this action is imperative."
During the period approximately a week before
Christmas 1979, Respondent held Christmas parties for
its employees at the main office. Employee Mark Holmes
testified that he overheard William Stanley talking to Su-
pervisor Barry Mogil about pulling an ambulance away
from zone 5 because he (Stanley) did not trust Nick
Bojack. Holmes testified that he and his partner, Wayne
Johnson, went to Stanley regarding the possibility that
the ambulance, which was the ambulance used by
Holmes as well as others, would be taken away from
them. Holmes told Stanley that he did not believe
anyone was sabotaging ambulances, especially Nick
Bojack. Holmes testified that his conversation with Stan-
ley turned to the memo which Stanley had issued on De-
cember 17 prohibiting visitors in the zone offices.
Holmes testified that Stanley told him that "it was be-
cause of those six people, and that I should be upset with
those six people because I'm one of the people that
would be affected by the pay raise. That those six people
have taken $60 out of my pocket." Holmes testified that
the six people Stanley was referring to were the mem-
bers of the union organizational committee. Stanley told
Holmes that the pay raises had been set up and that
Holmes was one of the people that had been there long
enough to receive the pay raise and that Holmes should
be upset at those six people. Stanley also told Holmes
that the removal of the visitation rights in the zone office
had also been caused by those six people.
ployees that he could make them stay in the ambulances during their
entire shift.
In view of Stanley's testimony, and the testimony of employees Ronald
Hollins and Nicholas Bojack regarding the December 12 meeting, I
credit the employees' testimony that Stanley threatened them with dis-
charge if they did not cease distributing union literature, threatened them
with delay of a pay raise, and threatened them with imposition of poorer
working conditions by requiring them to stay in the ambulance 24 hours
a day because of their union organizing activities.
3 Stanley admitted telling Hollins that he was violating his orders by
continuing to bring literature in the zone office and that, if Hollins con-
tinued, he could be fired for insubordination.
Ronald Hollins testified that during the Christmas
party he attended, William Stanley told the employees,
"Those of you who are upset or worried about the
recent memo and visitations, don't worry about it. You
can still have visitors as usual. It's just that a few persons
in this Company-a few employees who are stirring up
mud-that I had imposed this new policy.4
On January 3, 1980, Stanley held another meeting with
the members of the organizing committee. According to
the testimony of Stanley, during that meeting the em-
ployee members of the committee brought him a letter
asking him to recognize "that group of individuals as a
sole bargaining agent for the employees in the Compa-
ny."
On January 8, 1980, several employees, including
Ronald Hollins and Nicholas Bojack, Jr., passed out leaf-
lets in downtown St. Petersburg. The leaflets read as fol-
lows:
HELP
YOUR AMBULANCE
WORKERS!
We answered your cry for help over 35,000 times in
1979.
Now we are calling on you for your help.
1.) Paramedics & R.E.M.T.'s work a 72 hour week
(24 hr. shifts) with little or no sleep.
2.) We have poor working conditions, no showers
or hot water in some offices.
3.) We are asked to drive unsafe ambulances.
The ambulance workers of Pinellas County want to
give you the best care possible.
Please help us change these and other conditions by
calling your civic leaders, county commissioners,
mayor.
Your support is deeply needed and appreciated.
Thank you,
Ambulance Workers
of Pinellas County
On January 9, 1980, employees Hollins and Bojack
were discharged for distributing the above-cited leaflet
on January 8.
On Wednesday, May 7, 1980, employee Mark Holmes
was in the office talking with Steve Hazell when William
Stanley walked in. Stanley asked Holmes if he had re-
ceived a subpena. Stanley then said, "By the way, I have
a bone to pick with you." Stanley asked Holmes' partner
to leave the room. He then told Holmes that he had
heard that Holmes had given a statement to the NLRB
concerning a conversation that Stanley had with Holmes.
Stanley said that the conversation they had was confi-
dential and that Holmes should not have gone down
4 The testimony of Ronald Hollins, which I credit, indicates that prior
to the issuance of the December 17, 1979, memorandum, the company
policy was that employees were permitted to have visitors in their zone
offices as long as they were not working, prior to II p.m.
FLORIDA AMBULANCE SERVICE 289
there, that he wanted to give Holmes some advice. Stan-
ley told Holmes that he had better be able to prove ev-
erything he had said because Stanley was going to cata-
gorically deny it all, and the burden of truth was on
Holmes. Stanley told Holmes he was going to hit him
with the biggest defamation of character lawsuit he had
ever seen. 5
Conclusions
A. The Discharges
The evidence is not in dispute that Hollins and Bojack
were discharged because they distributed a handbill to
the public on January 8. General Counsel argues first
that Hollins' and Bojack's distribution activity was pro-
tected by Section 7 of the Act, and that their discharge
was, therefore, violative of Section 8(a)(1). Secondly,
General Counsel argues that Hollins and Bojack were
discharged because of their union activity, which includ-
ed the January 8 distribution of the handbill, and was,
therefore, violative of Section 8(a)(3).
I find that the evidence clearly supports the General
Counsel's arguments.
The leaflets which Bojack, Hollins, and several other
employees distributed to the public on January 8 was an
appeal for aid in improving working conditions. The
leaflet begins with its caption, "Help Your Ambulance
Workers!" In the second paragraph of the body of the
leaflet, the objective of the leaflet is set out as, "Now we
are calling on you for your help." The leaflet then lists
three areas in which the employees contend they are ex-
periencing problems. All three of those areas involve
working conditions. The first paragraph (numbered "I")
complains, "Paramedics & R.E.M.T.'s work a 72 hour
week (24 hr. shifts) with little or no sleep." The second,
"We have poor working conditions, no showers or hot
water in some offices." The third, "We are asked to
drive unsafe ambulances." At the next to last paragraph
in the body, the leaflet states, "Please help us change
these and other conditions by calling your civic leaders,
county commissioners, mayor."
On cross-examination Ronald Hollins testified that
through the leaflet the employees sought to have mem-
bers of the public contact public officials who could then
bring pressure on Respondent to improve their working
conditions. Hollins testified that public officials could
assist their cause because the city of St. Petersburg had a
contract with Respondent for ambulance service. The
law appears clear that Hollins' and Bojack's January 8
s Holmes' testimony in this regard was substantially corroborated by
Respondent's assistant general manager, William Hazell. According to
Hazell, Stanley told Holmes that he had notification that Holmes had
given a statement to the National Labor Relations Board and that Stanley
had knowledge of the contents of that statement. Stanley advised Holmes
that he disputed what Holmes had given in testimony. Stanley told
Holmes that he had given an incorrect statement to the National Labor
Relations Board. Holmes replied that all he had done was tell the truth.
Stanley stated that it was not the truth, that it did not happen, and that
Holmes had best be able to prove that it had happened. Stanley said to
Holmes that, by giving a false statement like that, it leaves you vulner-
able for a lawsuit.
distribution activity is protected concerted activity, 6 and
I so find.
Respondent contends, however, that the leaflets dis-
tributed by Hollins and Bojack on January 8 were de-
famatory,' and that their activity was not protected. Re-
spondent cites N.L.R.B. v. Local Union No. 1229, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A.F.L. (Jeffer-
son Standard Broadcasting Company), 346 U.S. 464, 476
(1953), in support of its argument. However, that case is
distinguishable from the instant matter. In the Jefferson
Standard case, no reference was made in the employees'
handbills to a labor dispute or to poor working condi-
tions. The Supreme Court held, "Their attack related
itself to no labor practice of the company. It made no
reference to wages, hours or working conditions. The
policies attacked were those of finance and public rela-
tions for which management, not technicians, must be re-
sponsible."
The Board has distinguished the Jefferson Standard
case from cases in which the employees' objective was to
improve working conditions protected by the Act. Rich-
boro Community Mental Health Council, Inc., 242 NLRB
1267 (1979).
I find nothing in the January 8 leaflet, or in other evi-
dence, which would justify my finding that Hollins and
Bojack should be deprived of the protection of the Act.
In considering Respondent's defamation argument, I
notice that the leaflet did not mention Respondent. I also
find that the evidence proves that the employees had a
reasonable basis to believe that the facts contained in the
leaflet were true.
Although Respondent offered evidence demonstrating
it maintained a prudent maintenance and repair program
for its ambulances, several employees testified that they
were required to operate ambulances which they be-
lieved to be unsafe and on which they lodged complaints
to Respondent.8
As to item 2, on the leaflet, there was no dispute to
evidence that some of Respondent's stations lack show-
ers. Regarding item , Respondent's general manager,
Barry Mogil, admitted that that item could be true be-
tween December and April of each year. That was pre-
cisely the period (January 8) during which the leaflet
was distributed.
The evidence is not in dispute that the union commit-
tee called the Union and secured the Union's authoriza-
tion to distribute the January 8 handbill. I find that by
distributing the handbill Hollins and Bojack were en-
gaged in furtherance of their union activities. I also find
6 Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley, Inc., 220 NLRB 217 (1975);
Veeder-Root Company, a Division of Western Pacific Industries. Inc., 237
NLRB 1175 (1978); Golden Day Schools. Inc., 236 NLRB 1292 (1978).
7 In support of its "defamatory" argument, Respondent points to sever-
al newspaper articles which, among other things. levied additional com-
plaints against Respondent. One of those additional complaints was that
Respondent's stations were rat and roach infested. I have considered
those newspaper articles, which I received in evidence, in reaching my
decision herein. However, I specifically find that the evidence does not
prove that either Hollins or Bojack were responsible for the printing of
any of the articles or for supplying facts contained in the articles.
I credit the testimony of employees Bojack, Neville, Hollins. and
Holmes in that regard. No credible rebuttal was offered to their specific
testimony regarding the operation of unsafe ambulances.
FLORIDA AMBULANCE SERVICE
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the evidence establishes that Respondent was fully
aware of those activities. By learning of the January 8
activities, Respondent became aware that Hollins and
Bojack were engaged in both concerted and union activi-
ties.
Therefore, I find that by discharging Hollins and
Bojack because of that activity, Respondent violated
both Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8(a)(3) and, derivatively,
Section 8(a)(1).
B. The Remaining 8(a)(1) Allegations
1. The alleged November 23 interrogation
On November 23, William Stanley called employee
Rogert Underwood into his office and asked Underwood
if Carl Zalfini had approached Underwood concerning
union activities. Underwood was given no assurances
that he would not suffer because of his answer or that he
was free to engage in union activities if he desired. Un-
derwood was not told why he was being questioned.
Nor was Underwood told that he could refuse to re-
spond to Stanley's questions, and that such a refusal
would not be held against him.9
In view of the entire record, and in view of my other
findings herein, I find that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by interrogating Underwood.
2. The December allegations
William Stanley met with the employee members of
the union organizing committee on December 12.
During that meeting Stanley told the employees to
cease and desist their union activities on penalty of dis-
charge. Subsequently, on or about December 14, Stanley
told employee Ronald Hollins that he was having prob-
lems obeying Stanley's cease-and-desist order, and that
Hollins was still bringing literature into the zone office.
Hollins was told that if he did not cease that activity, he
would be discharged.
I find that Stanley engaged in conduct violative of
Section 8(a)( ), by requiring employees to cease their
union activities and by threatening employees with dis-
charge if they did not stop their union activities.
I also find that Stanley, on December 12, threatened
the committee members that working conditions could
be worse with a union, that he could require them to
stay in their ambulances 24 hours a day rather than in a
zone office. I find that statement violates Section 8(a)(1).
Stanley threatened the committee members that the
pay raises scheduled for 1980 would not be granted be-
cause of expenses necessitated by their union activities.
During Respondent's Christmas party, Stanley threat-
ened employee Mark Holmes that the union committee
employees had cost him his pay raise. By threatening its
employees with loss of their 1980 pay increases because
of its employees' union activities, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1).
On December 12, Respondent published a memo pro-
hibiting the employees from releasing any information
concerning Respondent to persons or organizations out-
side the Company. In the context of the occurrences on
9 Johnnies Poultry Co., 146 NLRB 770 (1964).
that day and before, I find that rule was designed to limit
the employees' union and concerted activities by prohib-
iting them from contacting unions or other outside agen-
cies. Therefore, I find that memo constitutes action vio-
lative of Section 8(a)(1).
Respondent's December 17 memo prohibiting visitors
in the zone offices constitutes a change during an orga-
nizing campaign which was designed to limit, or which
had the reasonably foreseeable consequence of limiting,
employee associations for union and concerted activities.
Additionally, by stating in the memo that its action re-
sulted because of the actions of a few people and, there-
after, at the Christmas party by telling employees that
the memo resulted from the union committee's actions,
Respondent sought to interfere with its employees' union
activities. I find in agreement with the General Counsel
that, by issuing that memo, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1).
C. The 8(a)(4) Allegation
Stanley's statements to employee Mark Holmes on
May 7, 1980, constitute action violative of the Act. I fail
to see any reason why Stanley would chastise Holmes in
the company office for giving a statement to the NLRB,
other than to discourage such activity by employees. By
threatening Holmes with a lawsuit, Stanley engaged in
activity designed to cause Holmes to cease to cooperate
with the Regional Office or, at the very least, to water
down his testimony regarding Stanley. I find that Stan-
ley's actions violated Section 8(a)(1).°0
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. SAS Ambulance Service, Inc., d/b/a Florida Am-
bulance Service; MSK Ambulance Service, Inc., d/b/a
Atlas Ambulance Service; and LBJ Ambulance Service,
Inc., d/b/a C & R Ambulance Service, constitute a
single integrated business enterprise and is a single em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. SAS Ambulance Workers Organizing Committee,
1199, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Em-
ployees, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent, by interrogating its employee concern-
ing its employees' union activities; by informing its em-
ployees to cease and desist their union activities; by
threatening its employees with discharge if they did not
cease and desist their union activities; by threatening its
employees to make their working conditions worse by
requiring them to stay in their ambulances 24 hours a
day rather than in a zone office because of their union
activities; by telling its employees that they would not
receive a planned wage increase because of their union
activities; by prohibiting its employees from contacting
persons or organizations outside the Company because of
its employees' union activities; by prohibiting its employ-
ees from having visitors at their zone stations because of
'o However, no evidence was offered showing that Respondent dis-
charged or otherwise discriminated against Holmes. Therefore, I do not
find that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(4) of the Act.
FLORDA AMBULANCE SERVICE 291
their union activities; by criticizing its employee because
he cooperated with the Regional Office of the National
Labor Relations Board, and by threatening that employ-
ee with a lawsuit because of his cooperation with the
National Labor Relations Board, has engaged in, and is
engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(aXl) of the Act.
4. Respondent, by discharging its employees Ronald
Hollins and Nicholas Bojack, and thereafter failing and
refusing, and continuing to fail and refuse, to reinstate
them, because of their concerted activities and their
union activities, has engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)I) and (3) of the Act.
5. Respondent did not engage in unfair labor practices
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in
the complaint, as amended.
The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaninq of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged Ronald Hollins and Nicholas Bojack, I shall rec-
ommend that Respondent be ordered to offer them im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent po-
sitions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges. I shall further recommend that Re-
spondent be ordered to make Ronald Hollins and Nicho-
las Bojack whole for any loss of earnings they may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
Backpay should be computed as described in F WI
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest
as prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977). 11
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 2
The Respondent, SAS Ambulance Service, Inc., d/b/a
Florida Ambulance Service; MSK Ambulance Service,
Inc., d/b/a Atlas Ambulance Service; and LBJ Ambu-
lance Service, Inc., d/b/a C & R Ambulance Service,
Pinellas, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
i. Cease and desist from:
'' See, generally. Isis Plumbing d Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
(a) Interfering with, restraining, and coercing employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, by interrogating its employee concerning its em-
ployees' union activities; by informing its employees to
cease and desist their union activities; by threatening its
employees with discharge if they did not cease and desist
their union activities; by threatening its employees to
make their working conditions worse by requiring them
to stay in their ambulances 24 hours a day rather than in
a zone office because of their union activities; by telling
its employees that they would not receive a planned
wage increase because of their union activities; by pro-
hibiting its employees from contacting persons or organi-
zations outside the Company because of its employees'
union activities; by prohibiting its employees from
having visitors at their zone stations because of their
union activities; and by criticizing an employee because
he cooperated with the Regional Office of the National
Labor Relations Board and by threatening that employee
with a lawsuit because of his cooperation with the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board.
(b) Discharging and thereafter failing and refusing to
reinstate its employees because of their concerted activi-
ties or union activities.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist a labor organiza-
tion, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Ronald Hollins and Nicholas Bojack immedi-
ate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges; and make Hollins and Bojack whole for any
loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its facilities in Pinellas County, Florida, in-
cluding its main office and all its zone offices, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' 3 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 12, after being duly signed by an authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
J 3 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeal Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
FLORIDA AM UL NC SE VCX