Lucky Cab Company

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 28, 2011

28-CA-023508 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 28, 2011)

JD(SF)-51-11
Las Vegas, NV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
LUCKY CAB COMPANY
and Case 28-CA-23508
INDUSTRIAL, TECHNICAL AND
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES UNION,
LOCAL 4873 affiliated with OFFICE AND
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO
LUCKY CAB COMPANY
Employer
and Case 28-RC-6766
INDUSTRIAL, TECHNICAL AND
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES UNION,
LOCAL 4873 affiliated with OFFICE AND
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO
Petitioner
Pablo Godoy and Larry A. Smith, Attys., Las Vegas, Nevada,
for the General Counsel.
Sidney H. Kalban, Atty., New York, New York, for the
Charging Party/Petitioner.
Frederick C. Miner and David R. Keene II, Attys.,
Littler Mendelson, PC. Phoenix, Arizona and
Las Vegas, Nevada, respectively for Respondent/Employer.
DECISION
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LANA H. PARKE, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant to unfair labor practice (ULP)
charges and timely objections to a representation election of May 6, 20111 filed by Industrial,
Technical and Professional Employees, Local 4873, affiliated with Office and Professional

1 All dates herein are 2011 unless otherwise specified.
JD(SF)-51-11
2
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (the Union), the Regional Director of Region 28 of the
National Labor Relations Board (Region 28 and the Board, respectively) issued a complaint and
notice of hearing (complaint) and an order directing hearing on objections and notice of hearing
(order on objections), both dated June 30, an order consolidating cases 28-CA-023508 and 28-5
RC-006766 dated July 1, and an amendment to complaint, dated September 6.2 The complaint
alleges that Lucky Cab Company (Respondent) violated Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act).3 This consolidated case was tried in Las Vegas, Nevada on
September 20 through 23, September 26, and November 2 and 3.
10
II. Issues
A. Were road supervisors, Asrat Worku, Ioonis “John” Likos, and Karen Jacobs,
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) at material times.
B. Did Respondent violate Section 8(a)(1) by the following conduct:15
1. Threatening employees with loss of benefits including 60-day leaves of
absence, convenience leaves upon request, gas checks, clean upgraded cars,
and Friday BBQs if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative;
2. Threatening employees with unspecified reprisals if they selected the Union as
their bargaining representative;20
3. Informing employees that it would be futile to select the Union as their
bargaining representative;
4. Threatening employees with loss of benefits, including the convenience of
requesting days off, if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative;
Threatening employees with less favorable shifts if they selected the Union as 25
their bargaining representative;
5. Threatening employees with unspecified reprisals because they refused to
disclose their union membership, activities, and sympathies.
6. Interrogating employees about their union membership, activities, and
sympathies.30
C. Did Respondent violate Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by terminating the
following employees on the dates indicated:
Almethay Geberselasa – February 24 Elias Demeke – February 25
Endale Hailu – March 8 Melaku Tesema – April 635
Assefa Kindeya 4 – April 7 Mesfin Hambamo – April 21

2 At the hearing General Counsel amended the Complaint to substitute the following names and
titles for those set forth in paragraph 4:
Desiree Dante – Director of Operations Steven Gerace –Asst Cab Operations Manager
Debra Slack – Human Resources Manager Donald Chan – General Manager
Asrat Worku – Road Supervisor Joey Hicks – Trainer/Biller
Jason Awad – Owner Ioonis “John” Likos – Road Supervisor
Karen Jacobs – Driver Supervisor
The parties corrected the name of John Lyck to Ioonis “John” Likos. General Counsel withdrew
complaint allegations 6(6) and (h) and appropriately renumbered succeeding paragraphs.
3 In representation cases, an employer is traditionally referred to as “Employer” and the union as
“Petitioner.” For convenience, Lucky Cab Company will be referred to throughout as
“Respondent,” and Industrial, Technical and Professional Employees, Local 4873, affiliated with
Office and Professional Employees International Union, AFL-CIO as “the Union.”
4 The name appears as corrected at the hearing.
JD(SF)-51-11
3
D. Did Respondent engage in conduct that affected the results of the representation
election held May 6 so as to require setting it aside?
III. JURISDICTION
5
At all material times Respondent, a Nevada corporation, with an office and place of
business in Las Vegas, Nevada (the facility), has been engaged in the business of taxi cab
service in the Las Vegas, Nevada metropolitan area. During the 12-month period ending
May 12, Respondent, in conducting its business operations derived gross revenues in excess of
$250,000. During the same 12-month period, Respondent purchased and received at the 10
facility goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 that originated from points outside the
state of Nevada.5 At all material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act, and the Union has been a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
15
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CASE
Unless otherwise explained, findings of fact herein are based on party admissions,
stipulations, and uncontroverted testimony regarding events occurring during the period of time
relevant to these proceedings. On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor 20
of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by General Counsel, the Union and
Respondent, I find the following events occurred in the circumstances described below during
the period relevant to these proceedings:
A. Work Rules and Policies25
Respondent operates a fleet of taxicabs from its facility located on a large property
bordered by Diablo Drive and Wynn Road. The facility includes the administrative offices,
dispatch office, a trailer where employee meetings and training are held (the trailer), and parking
for Respondent’s taxicabs and limousines. The dispatch office looks out on the area in front of 30
the administrative offices where two sets of bleachers are located (the bleacher or waiting area).
The sets of bleachers are separated by several feet and the set to the east is designated a
smoking area. The bleacher area serves as a waiting area for drivers awaiting dispatch.
Respondent required drivers to be in the waiting area about 30 minutes prior to start of shift. A
podium utilized by the dispatcher was placed a few feet west of the non-smoking bleacher. 35
Respondent employs about 240 drivers to operate about 150 taxicabs. Drivers
employed by Respondent are initially hired as “extra” drivers, meaning they have no assigned
route or shift. As shifts/routes become available, extra drivers are converted to permanent
drivers and given specific shift/route assignments. Because of the potential to make higher 40
“book,” certain shifts/routes are more desirable than others.
The Nevada Taxi Cab Authority (TA) oversees Respondent’s taxicab operations,
enforcing various regulatory provisions of Chapter 706, Motor Carriers, of the Nevada Revised
Statute (NRS). The TA conducts periodic, random audits of taxicab companies, called 45
certificate holders, in which the TA may do the following: reconcile company records and trip
sheets, check personnel files to ensure drivers have received a copy of rules and regulations

5 At the hearing, the General Counsel amended paragraph 2(c) of the complaint to include the
words, “that originated directly from points outside the state of Nevada.”
JD(SF)-51-11
4
during employment orientation, check taxicabs for seatbelts, and check to see that drivers are
not working in excess of 12 hours a day. Agents of the TA may periodically stop and inspect
working taxicabs, checking for proper equipment, valid driver's licenses, TA driver's permits, and
accurate and complete trip sheets.6 The TA also enforces prohibitions, including the following: 5
high flagging (transporting a passenger without the meter engaged), long hauling (taking a
passenger on a longer than necessary route to inflate the fare), smoking in a taxicab, leaving
the cab unattended while on-duty, and ignoring taxicab stands. Such offenses both the
certificate holder and the taxi driver can be penalized, up to and including loss of the certificate
for the company and revocation of a driver's permit to operate a taxicab. 10
The TA issued Respondent colored metal plates called medallions, each of which was a
license to operate a specific taxicab. The medallions, 102 of which were issued to Respondent,
were affixed to individual taxi cabs and by color specified the physical operating parameters of
the cabs to which they were attached. Some medallions were geographically restricted, 15
preventing the taxi from picking up (but not dropping off) in an area known as "The Golden
Triangle": McCarren International Airport, downtown Las Vegas, and the Las Vegas Strip.7
Operating a taxi outside medallion parameters violated both state regulations and company
policy, a fact of which drivers were well aware through required TA training programs and
Respondent’s written policies, which were distributed to all drivers.20
Each taxi driver was required to hold a TA permit, to be renewed yearly. Prior to permit
expiration, a permit holder had a 30-day renewal opportunity, during which the permit holder
was required to successfully complete a safety course. If the permit expired, the permit holder
could not legally drive a cab until the permit was renewed. A driver had two chances to attend25
the prerequisite safety course; if the driver missed the first course, permit was suspended until
the class was rescheduled. Missing the second class resulted in an indefinite suspension of
permit until the safety class requirement was completed. During suspension, the certificate
holder could not permit the driver to operate a taxi.
30
The TA required each driver to keep daily trip sheets in a form prescribed by the TA,
which the TA used to monitor compliance with its rules.8 Drivers were required by law, at the
beginning of a shift or duty period to log driver name and cab number; to record the shift start
time along with current meter and odometer readings for the cab. During the shift, each driver
was required to record on the trip sheet: (1) the time, place of origin and destination of each trip 35
and (2) the number of passengers and fare for each trip. At the end of shift, each driver was to
record shift end time along with meter and odometer readings. Respondent maintained a
Global Positioning System (GPS) log of taxi positions during each shift.
Respondent’s employee handbook, entitled Lucky Cab Company Policies, Procedures & 40
Regulations (Employee Handbook) directed that trip sheets be submitted at the end of a driver's
shift and provided detailed instructions for filling them out:
Top Section: 1. Write in your TA number; 2. Print your full name; 3. Write in your current
telephone number; 4. write in the date; 5. Select your Medallion type/shift; 6. Write in the 45

6 Trip sheets, completed by each driver for each shift, detail information about the taxi’s
services.
7 Geographically restricted medallions were intended to ensure that persons outside of The
Golden Triangle would receive adequate taxi service.
8 The TA could impose sanctions for trip sheet violations against both the company and the
offending driver.
JD(SF)-51-11
5
Cab number; 7. Write in the Medallion number; 8. Write in the number of radio calls taken (if
none, put a zero)...; 9. Write in the number of NO-GO’s (if none put a zero); 10. Write in the
cost of gas; 11. Write in the number of gallons of gas. Mid Section: 2. Each time you pick-
up and drop-off a fare, do the following a.) Enter the pick-up location of the trip in the 5
“FROM” box; b.) Enter in the time of pick-up in the “TIME IN” box; c.) Enter in the drop-off
location of the trip in the “TO” box; d.) Enter in the time of the drop-off in the “TIME OUT”
box; e.) Enter in the number of passengers you are transporting in the “#of PASS” box;
f.) Enter in the amount of the fare in the “AMOUNT” box.
10
Respondent permitted drivers a 1 hour 15 minute meal break, which was to be noted on
the trip sheet. Because many of Respondent’s drivers were from Ethiopia, Respondent
permitted unpaid 60-day leaves of absence to accommodate the travel involved in visiting that
country.
15
At all relevant times the following individuals held the following positions with
Respondent. The first five named were admitted supervisors at the facility within the meaning of
Sec. 2(11) and agents within the meaning of Sec. 2(13) of the Act; the status of the last three is
in issue:
20
Jason Awad (Awad)– Owner
Desiree Dante (Dante) – Director of Operations
Steven Gerace (Gerace) –Asst Cab Operations Manager
Debra Slack (Slack) – Human Resources Manager
Donald Chan (Chan) – General Manager25
Ioonis “John” Likos (Likos) – Road Supervisor
Asrat Worku (Worku) – Road Supervisor
Karen Jacobs (Jacobs) – Road Supervisor
The Employee Handbook contained the following relevant policies and rules in pertinent 30
part:
Provisions relating to discipline:
Progressive Counseling...Lucky Cab may exercise its discretion in utilizing forms of discipline 35
that are less severe than termination in certain cases. These include verbal and written
warnings, suspension, and loss of shift. Although one or more of these steps may be taken in
connection with a particular employee, no formal order or system is necessary. Lucky Cab may
terminate the employee without following these steps.
40
General Rules and Policies
...
3. All applicable laws and the regulations of the [TA] must be adhered to and are strictly
enforced by the company.
...45
6. You cannot drive a cab without your driver's license, physical card, and T.A. [permit] in
your possession. Revocation of either card or your inability to pass a physical may result
in your termination.
...
20. Any driver that is a habitual offender with the [TA] will face disciplinary action up to and 50
including termination of employment.
...
JD(SF)-51-11
6
21. The company will not grant more than a sixty (60) day leave of absence.
...
31. Driver Productivity: Driver productivity is the lifeblood of the company. It will be
monitored very closely. Drivers that are consistently or repeatedly 10% or more below 5
average will face disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.
32. ...we DEMAND that all drivers wear their SAFETY BELTS AT ALL TIMES! It’s the law,
NRS 484.641.2.
...
34. You are entitled to a 1.15 hour lunch break and this must be noted on your trip sheet as 10
you would any other trip.
...
36. Smoking is prohibited in all company vehicles as well as in the drivers’ room and shop
area.
15
Respondent’s handbook lists 69 acts, the pertinent numbers of which are listed below, that
would “generate some type of disciplinary action up to and including termination”:
1. Any act which might jeopardize the Employer’s certificate.
...20
2. Falsifying a trip sheet.
...
14. Long hauling [taking a longer route than necessary].
...
24. Not wearing seat belts.25
...
42. Smoking in a company vehicle.
...
62. Failure to ensure that the gas tank is completely full at the end of the shift.
30
63. Unsatisfactory productivity.
...
68. Being a habitual offender of T.A. Regulations.
B. Supervisory Authority of Likos, Worku, and Jacobs 35
Likos, Worku, and Jacobs were road supervisors. Respondent’s employee handbook
stated their authority as follows:
[Assistant/Backup Road Supervisors] have the direct authority to discipline employees 40
up to and including issuing written warnings. Furthermore, through a reporting
procedure [Assistant/Backup Road Supervisors] can recommend further administrative
action, up to and including termination, which in most cases will be followed.9
Road supervisors performed normal taxi driving functions with the added responsibility of 45
responding, and providing assistance, to drivers’ problem situations, including but not limited to:
providing a battery jump start; changing vehicle tires, providing street directions, restaurant
recommendations, and trip price quotes, resolving driver-customer or inter-driver disputes,

9 While acknowledging the handbook’s authority description of road supervisors, Dante testified
that road supervisors did not issue discipline, except to send drivers home if the TA or the police
determined the driver was involved in an at-fault accident.
JD(SF)-51-11
7
completing accident investigation paperwork, and providing driver transportation when
necessary.
Road supervisors were also responsible for observing other drivers and preparing daily 5
reports of unusual situations (e.g., passenger threw up) and driver misconduct, such as traffic
code violations, medallion violations, or driver smoking in a cab. Management reviewed the
reports regularly and might take action based on reported information. Road supervisors
exercised discretion in reporting misconduct. For example, “from [his] goodness,” Worku did not
report a driver’s conduct until his February 12 report, detailed below. Some reports contained 10
subjective assessments, as follows:
From Jacobs’ reports:
1-20-11: #863 Scott-rude-told another driver...“that was the worst update he has ever
heard” I told him, that was not necessary! He also doesn’t have his radio at audio level.15
1-27-11: #834 went thru a red light Trop & Swenson.
2-3-11: #857-stopped at his car. I told him he couldn’t do that until he was clocked out!
He said he was sorry.
2-5-11: #840 Scott—argumentative. Rude! Accusing dispatch-not doing her job-then
being rude to another driver over the radio...he has done this many time-and still 20
continues to do it.
2-10-11: Mary Davis came to work late!
4-7-11: #800-he doesn’t respond to the dispatch. When he is asked a question, it takes
5 times to get him to answer.
25
From Worku’s reports:
2-12-11: #2875...[did not pick up the customer] This driver is not his first time to do like
this. He keeps doing the same thing.
4-9-11: #2895...passenger throw up in his cab...by the time he went to the yard, it was
12:20...I didn’t put him on the road.30
Road supervisors’ daily reports did not include discipline recommendations, but
Respondent relied upon them to issue discipline with or without further investigation. A road
supervisor’s report of a driver speeding, for example, could result in written discipline (“a paper
may be generated”) or an oral discussion. A report on a driver smoking in a cab would cause 35
Dante to “call [the offending driver] in and say you were observed...smoking in your cab, and to
issue a verbal warning.” Road supervisor reports of customer pickups that violated medallion
restrictions served as the basis for driver discipline.
C. Union organizational campaign40
In 2009, the Union conducted an unsuccessful organizational campaign among
Respondent’s drivers. In November 2010, hoping to renew organizational interest among
Respondent’s drivers, several drivers contacted the Union. In the two months that followed, a
number of drivers, including Almethay Geberselasa (Geberselasa), Elias Demeke (Demeke), 45
Endale Hailu (Hailu), Melaku Tesema (Tesema), and Mesfin Hambamo (Hambamo) were
named to the Union’s organizing committee. They in turn recruited additional drivers to assist in
the organizing campaign, one of whom was Assefa Kindeya (Kindeya). On February 8, the
Union provided union authorization cards to committee members to distribute among
Respondent’s drivers. By letter dated February 25, the Union informed Respondent it was 50
engaged in a union organizing campaign among the company’s drivers (the February 25
organizing letter).
JD(SF)-51-11
8
Geberselasa, Demeke, Hailu, Tesema, Kindeya, and Hambamo, employed for the length
of time and discharged as noted below, engaged in the following union activities among their
fellow drivers in the following circumstances:5
Gebersalasa (employed three years; fired February 24): After November 2010,
Gebersalasa frequently talked about the Union to other drivers in the bleacher area during the
30-35 minutes before her shifts began, asking drivers if they were willing to sign union
authorization cards; she thereafter told drivers she would obtain authorization cards from the 10
Union on Wednesday, February 23. On Wednesday, February 23, Gebersalasa obtained
authorization cards from the Union but was fired on Thursday, February 24 before she could
distribute any.
Demeke (employed six years; fired February 26): Starting in mid December, Demeke 15
talked about the Union to drivers in the bleacher area, by cell phone while waiting to pickup at
the airport, and in driver gatherings after work; from about January 15, he served on the Union’s
organizing committee, and after February 8 distributed authorization cards to other drivers in the
bleacher area. On one occasion on an unknown date, as Worku stood about a foot from him,
Demeke distributed cards to other drivers in the bleacher area, telling them they needed the 20
Union.
Hailu (employed six and a half years; fired March 8): Beginning in February, Hailu
encouraged other drivers to sign authorization cards, as they waited for shift start in the
bleacher area. Sometime about the end of February, Hailu told road supervisor Likos that if the 25
drivers had a union, Respondent would not push them so hard about getting high book. Hailu
enumerated other advantages of unionization, contrasting Respondent unfavorably with
unionized companies.
Tesema (employed about three and a half years; fired April 6): Beginning in February, 30
Tesema encouraged other drivers to complete union authorization cards while waiting for shift
start in the bleacher area and while waiting to pick up at the airport. During times when Tesema
distributed cards, Worku and Gerace were also in the bleacher area.
Kindeya (employed nearly four years; fired April 8): distributed union authorization cards 35
at the facility in areas removed from the bleacher area, such as the parking area. On March 15
during his attendance at a driver safety meeting where Dante spoke, Kindeya told Dante that
Respondent had failed to keep promises and that he was "going to choose the Union" and be
involved in the Union.
40
Hambamo (employed nearly eight years; fired April 20): Beginning February 8,
distributed union authorization cards to other drivers when he saw them waiting at the airport
and at other cab stands.
45
JD(SF)-51-11
9
A number of employees came to Dante with union authorization cards that had been
given to them, asking what the cards meant and what effect signing them would have. Dante
testified that no employee discussed authorization cards with her until about a week after receipt
of the Union’s February 24 organizing letter, an assertion I cannot accept.105
D. Alleged Independent Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
1. Respondent’s Flyer
10
Following its receipt of the Union’s February 25 organizing letter, Respondent distributed
a flyer to employees (Respondent’s flyer) that read (with emphasis as written) in pertinent part:
THE UNION WILL NOT DELIVER TO THE DRIVERS
15
** 60-DAY LEAVE OF ABSENCE
** CONVENIENCE LEAVE UPON REQUEST
** GAS CHECK
** OPEN DOOR [TO] DESIREE FOR MANAGEMENT ISSUES
** CERTAINTY CLEAN UPGRADED CARS20
** JOB SECURITY
** FRIDAY BAR-B-QUE
THE ABOVE ARE some of the many LUCKY BENEFITS EVERY DRIVER NOW
ENJOYS! ...BEWARE UNION CANNOT25
** PROVIDE JOB SECURITY -- FOR WRONGFUL & ILLEGAL ACTS11
BUT...YOU SHALL PAY EXPENSIVE UNION DUES!!
VOTE NO ON UNION!30
2. Respondent's March Statements to Employees at Driver Safety Meetings
Between March 15 and 17, Respondent held seriatim driver safety meetings at the 35
facility involving all drivers. In some, but not all, of the meetings, Dante spoke to groups of 20-
40 employees about the union organizing. Employees Sisay Eba (Eba), Tesema, and
Hambamo attended meetings at which Dante spoke. Each testified that Dante said if
employees selected the Union, they would lose the current 60-day leave of absence benefit. All
but Eba testified that Dante warned employees they would lose the gas bonus. Eba recalled that 40
Dante said the current method of scheduling shifts would change; Tesema and Hambamo
recalled Dante saying that management’s open door and vacation policies would end.
Dante denied telling employees that any benefits would change if they chose the Union.
According to Dante, she encouraged employees to educate themselves about the Union by 45

10 Dante’s testimony often appeared expedient rather than candid. I find it inherently unlikely that
although card distribution began around February 8, no drivers questioned Dante about the
cards until early March. I do not accept Dante’s testimony of when she knew of union organizing
among employees.
11 The phrase “for wrongful & illegal acts” was in smaller type than the bolded “provide job
security” phrase.
JD(SF)-51-11
10
talking to other drivers before making the decision they felt was best for them. She also
touched on some of Respondent’s unique benefits, i.e. the 60-day leave of absence, biannual
gas bonus awards, and merit shift assignments.
5
I have carefully considered the manner and demeanor of the witnesses who testified
about Dante’s remarks at the March safety meetings, and I credit the employee witnesses. In
addition to an unconvincing manner, Dante’s testimony was general and uncorroborated by any
contemporaneous notes, which might reasonably be expected when multiple employee
assemblies were addressed. Further, the witnesses’ testimonies are consistent with statements 10
in Respondent’s flyer, i.e. that the Union would not deliver 60-day leaves of absence and gas
bonus benefits or open-door management.
3. Hambamo’s April 15 conversation with Jacobs
15
On the afternoon of April 15, while Hambamo sat on the non-smoking bleachers in the
waiting area, Jacobs, standing a few feet away, crooked her finger for Hambamo to come to
her. When Hambamo complied, Jacobs asked him what the employees were trying to do with
the Union. Hambamo asked what she was talking about, and Jacobs said, “The Union, the
thing that you are trying to organize.”20
Hambamo said he was unwilling to discuss the issue with her at that location. Jacobs
said, “Are you sure?” Hambamo said he was positive and returned to the bleachers.
Jacobs went into the office; returning a few minutes later, she asked Hambamo if he was 25
quite sure he didn’t want to discuss the issue, saying, “If you don’t want to speak, I’m going to
hurt you.”
Hambamo asked why Jacobs was threatening to hurt him. Jacobs said, “Because you
said that you don’t want to discuss about the union with me. Because I want to know what you 30
guys are doing and you’re refusing. That’s why.” Jacobs said she was joking about hurting
Hambamo.12
E. Terminations of Geberselasa, Demeke, Hailu, Tesema, Kindeya, and Hambamo.
35
1. Geberselasa
According to Gerace, on February 17,13 he received a telephone complaint from an
anonymous person14 who said, “Your restricted cab is picking up at a hotel that they’re not
supposed to do that.” The next day, Gerace reviewed Geberselasa’s February 17 trip sheet. 40
The trip sheet showed that at 4:29 Geberselasa picked up at the Westin Hotel (160 East
Flamingo Road) and delivered at the Best Western Motel (both unrestricted areas). As written,

12 Jacobs denied having such a conversation with Hambamo. I found Hambamo to be a candid
and reliable witness, and I credit his account. Respondent argues the conversation could not
have taken place, as Jacobs’ shift would not have put her at Respondent’s facility at that time.
The fact that Jacobs’ shift did not overlap the time of the conversation does not preclude her
having been at the facility then.
13 Gerace initially testified the date was February 24, the “day I terminated [Gebersalasa],” then
corrected himself to say it could have been February 17.
14 Gerace testified, “I don’t know if it was a customer, other driver, Taxicab Authority, metro, I
don’t know who it was.”
JD(SF)-51-11
11
the trip sheet showed no infraction. Gerace reviewed the February 17 GPS trip log for
Geberselasa’s cab, which showed a corresponding GPS location of 103 East Flamingo Road,
the address of Bally’s, a restricted hotel a few blocks from the Westin Hotel.15 Gerace did not
contact or interview Geberselasa about her trip sheet before directing that she be fired.165
After arriving at work on February 24, Geberselasa was called to a meeting with Slack
and Dante. Slack gave Geberselasa a Personnel Action Form (PAF) and said she was being
terminated for picking up a customer from a restricted area on February 17. The PAF read:
10
1. In reviewing your trip sheet against the GPS report the following discrepancies' were
found. At approximately 4:29 p.m. your trip showed that you had picked up at the Hilton17
and dropped at the Best Western, when the GPS report showed that your Cab was at
103 E. Flamingo Rd. (Bally's).
2. Your trip sheet indicated that at 8:17 p.m. you picked up at Hooters and dropped at 15
the Venetian. The GPS report showed that your Cab was at 3746 Las Vegas Blvd - (City
Center).
3. You were also driving a Night Restricted Cab which prohibits you from picking up
passengers that are listed in (1) & (2). Reference enclosed "Geographically Restricted"
list. By doing this you placed the Company in jeopardy of losing their certificate.1820
Gebersalasa tried to explain her February 17 trip sheet, but Dante would not listen.19 Dante
gave Gebersalasa her final paycheck and wished her luck. Slack told Gebersalasa not to speak

15 Considerable testimony was taken regarding the accuracy of GPS logs, in which Gerace
assertedly placed absolute confidence. It is unnecessary to resolve a question of GPS
accuracy, as the issue is not the GPS accuracy but whether Gerace had a reasonable belief in
its accuracy sufficient to warrant his conclusion that Geberselasa had falsified her trip sheet.
16 I cannot accept Gerace’s account of his being alerted to and his later investigation of
Geberselasa’s February 17 conduct. I found Gerace to be an unreliable witness. In this, as in
later-detailed instances, his testimony was facile, self-serving, and sometimes improbable. I do
not credit Gerace’s vague testimony of a catalyzing complaint about Gebersalasa’s pickup. His
initial testimony that the complaint came on the same day as the termination appeared to be a
miscalculated ordering of events rather than mere confusion, and it is inherently implausible that
Gerace would not have a clearer recollection of the complaining party in a situation so serious
that it resulted in a discharge.
17 According to Gerace, “Hilton” was an error. The PAF should have read, “Westin,” as written
on Geberselasa’s February 17 trip sheet. The Westin was in an unrestricted area.
18 Geberselasa denied having picked up a fare in a restricted area on February 17. Both
General Counsel and Respondent offered considerable testimony as to whether Geberselasa’s
February 17 trip sheet and corresponding GPS tracking showed pick up in a restricted area, but
neither party provided evidence that clearly resolved the question. I find that while Geberselasa
may not have made an improper pickup, the trip sheet and GPS tracking, at least superficially,
may have provided contrary evidence.
19 Slack testified she always gives employees facing discharge an opportunity to explain or
justify their actions, which sometimes results in a reversal of the termination decision. Slack
initially testified that she and Dante questioned Geberselasa about what had happened, and
Slack asked Geberselasa if she wanted to explain, which offer the driver declined. When
pressed as to what questions the managers had asked Geberselasa, Slack testified that she
read the PAF to Geberselasa and asked Geberselasa if she had any questions, which does not
amount to an explanation opportunity. Where testimonies differ, I credit Geberselasa.
JD(SF)-51-11
12
to anyone as she left Respondent’s property. Before leaving, Geberselasa told Slack she knew
she was being fired for union activities. Slack only said goodbye.
Gebersalasa had improperly picked up in restricted areas in the past, which she5
documented on her trip sheets but for which she was not disciplined. Management witnesses
denied knowledge of Gebersalasa’s prior restricted-area pickups. A trip sheet completed by
Geberselasa on May 29, 2010 shows a pickup at the Grand Vacation Hilton (a restricted area);
a written notation on the trip sheet reads “6/11 Verbal...counsel[ed] regarding filling out trip
sheet accurately [Dante].” A trip sheet completed by Geberselasa on July 17, 2010 shows a 10
pickup at the Sahara (a restricted area); a written notation on the trip sheet reads “7/30
Verbal...counsel [Dante],” which verbal counseling was for failing to clock out. Gebersalasa
received neither discipline nor counseling for the restricted-area infractions noted on the May
29, 2010 and July 17, 2010 trip sheets. It is reasonable to infer from the written notations of
verbal counseling on the May 29, 2010 and July 17, 2010 trip sheets that management15
reviewed them. I find, therefore, contrary to management denial of knowledge, that
management knew of Gebersalasa’s prior restricted-area pickups.20
In explaining Respondent’s reasons for discharging Gebersalasa without prior warning,
Gerace testified:20
Geberselasa was a very aggressive driver...she was very combative with me whenever I
would talk to her about something. I was trying to help her and she would be combative.
She would storm out of my office and she would yell things out in the parking lot. She
admitted to me many times that she did the same violation over and over and over 25
again. I just felt termination was warranted with her.21
2. Demeke
During his employment with Respondent, Demeke incurred discipline for such infractions 30
as trip sheet violations, low productivity, suspension of TA permit, and threatening to shoot and
kill one of Respondent's office employees,22 but until February 25, he was not terminated.
When Demeke reported to work on February 25, he was directed to meet with Slack and
Gerace. The managers gave Demeke a PAF, which they told him to read and sign. The PAF 35
read in pertinent part:
a.) On 01/09/111 and 01/28/11 you failed to sign your Trip Sheet.
b.) On 01/15/11,01/24/11 & 02/24/11 you failed to clock in at the
end of your shift40
c.) Also you failed to list your break periods on your Trip Sheet. In
comparing your Trip Sheet against the GPS report your cab was parked
at 4249 Las Vegas Blvd at 9:54 p.m. and then again at 2:28 a.m. your

20 Respondent terminated Stanley Milano in August 2009 for picking up in a geographically
restricted area, as observed by a driver supervisor, and entering inaccurate information on his trip
sheet. No other information about the circumstances of the discharge was adduced.
21 Gebersalasa was never counseled or disciplined for being “aggressive” or “combative.”
22 Demeke was disciplined on May 21, 2010, May 29, 2010, June 5, 2010, July 15, 2010,
September 24, 2010, November 4, 2010, and December 3, 2010 for trip sheet violations.
JD(SF)-51-11
13
Cab was parked at 4727 W Flamingo Rd and nothing was written on
your Trip Sheet.23
Neither manager discussed Demeke’s past discipline, explained the PAF statements, or asked 5
Demeke for any explanation. Demeke refused to sign the PAF; the managers gave him his final
check, and Demeke left the facility.
3. Hailu
10
Respondent disciplined Hailu multiple times before firing him on March 8: multiple
counselings for trip sheet violations, a suspension for insubordination, eight low productivity
warnings, three drive cam violations, and eight notices for cash drop shortages.
A few days after Hailu’s conversation with Likos about the Union, on March 8, he was 15
directed to meet with Slack and Gerace. Slack gave Hailu a PAF and told him he was
terminated. When Hailu asked why, Slack told him to read the PAF, which, in pertinent part
stated:
1. On 02/28111 your Trip Sheet is missing the Gas dollar amount as well as the gallons 20
amount.
2. On 03/05/11, 03/06/11 & 03/07111 you have listed that you have a total of two radio
calls, yet your Trip Sheets shows only one "R" listed in the Radio column for those days.
3. On your Trip Sheets for 03/04/11,03/05/11 & 03/06/11 your Trip Sheet fare totals do
not match the Trip Log report.2425
...
You’ve been counseled on 5/29/10, 36/11/10, 09/24/10, 11/19/10, 02/05/11 & 2/19/11,
regarding these issues. On 02/05/11 you were counseled regarding Trip Sheet
violations and it was noted that any other violations would result in termination.
30
Although not mentioned in Hailu’s PAF, Gerace testified that Hailu was fired for the additional
infractions of “lying” about the places and times he picked up passengers up.
4. Tesema
35
On April 8, Slack called Tesema into her office. She gave him a PAF and told him he
was terminated. In pertinent part, the PAF stated:
On 09/01/10 you were issued a final warning regarding filling out your trip sheet
accurately.2540

23 Drivers were entitled to a 1.15 hour lunch break, which was to be noted on a driver’s trip
Sheet. Gerace considered failure to log breaks to constitute trip sheet falsification.
24 Slack testified that but for reason three, Hailu would not have been fired.
25 The specific infractions were failing to record breaks and trips on the July 26, 2010 trip sheet,
which assertedly constituted falsification.
JD(SF)-51-11
14
Now again your trip sheet dated 04/03/11 shows that you failed to log a ride, at 10:10
p.m. to 10:45 p.m. your cab was parked at 2890 W Sahara Ave, Las Vegas, NV, and
there was nothing noted on your trip sheet.26 This is considered falsification and
therefore termination is warranted immediately.5
Also on 04/03/2011 your trip sheet shows that you had one Radio Call yet there is
nothing listed on your trip sheet indicating that ride.
Please be advised that you were issued a final warning and based on these new trip
sheet violations your position as a Cab Driver has been terminated effective
immediately. 10
Dante testified that Tesema’s failing to note his lunch break was falsification because he
did not justify his time, even though he was entitled to it. She acknowledged that drivers often
forget to mark their meal breaks. She said she would not expect drivers to log a ten-minute
break but would expect recordation of a 90-minute break.15
5. Kindeya
On April 8, Slack gave Kindeya a PAF and told him he was terminated. The PAF stated:
20
On 04/04/11 your cab was at the pumps at 11:23 p.m., this is against company policy
and procedures drivers must complete their assigned shift and are not allowed to gas-up
prior to an half an hour before your shift ends.
On 04/04/11 your trip sheet shows that you took a Radio Call, yet your trip sheet does
not indicate that ride.25
On 03/29/11 you were caught driving via the cabs DriveCam camera for not wearing
your seatbelt. This is in violation of company and state policy...
On 03/01/11 & 03/29/11 you failed to enter in the correct number of radio calls...On
03/28/11 you failed to enter in your telephone number on your trip sheet. You have been
counseled regarding filling out your trip sheets back on 06/04/10 & 06/11/10.30
Gerace testified that an underlying, though unarticulated, reason for discharge was that
Kindeya was “very combative [and] resisted advice.” Respondent provided no corroborative
documentation, including prior counseling or discipline, to support Gerace’s criticism.
35
6. Hambamo
On April 13, Hambamo was scheduled to attend the TA’s Driver Safety Program class,
as the prerequisite to renewing his TA permit. Hambamo failed to attend and complete the
course on April 13. He rescheduled to attend the course on April 20 but was denied admission 40
when he arrived late. Since the remaining classes on April 20 were full, Hambamo had to sign
up for an April 27 class.
When Hambamo reported to work on April 20, he explained the situation to Gerace, who
later gave him a PAF, stating: You are being suspended 1 shift because your T.A. permit has 45
been Revoked you are to report back to this office on 4/21/2011 at 2:00 PM.” Hambamo told
Gerace his TA permit had been suspended, not revoked. Gerace said Hambamo should not
worry about the wording of the PAF, that it was "only a statement," and Hambamo should sign
it.

26 That was the address of the restaurant where Tesema took a 25-minute meal break, a break
time well under Respondent’s limit, but which Tesema failed to note on his trip sheet.
JD(SF)-51-11
15
About an hour and a-half later, Slack telephoned Hambamo. Slack told Hambamo he
was no longer employed by Respondent and that he needed to come in to complete paperwork.
The following morning, April 21, Hambamo met with Slack in her office. Slack gave him a PAF, 5
reading in pertinent part:
Lucky Cab was notified by the [TA] on 4/20/11 that you have failed to attend a second
Driver’s Safety Program class. Failure to abide by company policy and procedure as
well as per NRS laws will result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. 10
Please be advised that your position as a Cab Driver has been terminated effective
today 14/21/11.
Hambamo attended the Driver Safety course on April 27, after which his permit was immediately
reinstated by the TA.15
Respondent introduced into evidence a PAF for one driver assertedly terminated in
October 2009 for failing to maintain a valid TA permit. The document consists of two pages.
The first page, dated October 22, 2009, states the reason for discharge as “failed probation.”
The second page is dated September 14, 2011, and states in pertinent part, “You are being 20
terminated because of your failure to keep a valid TA card.” When asked to explain the first
page/second page discrepancy in dates, Gerace testified, “You know, it’s a computer-generated
time. I couldn’t answer that without speculation. It’s got to be a computer error, that’s all I could
say. It’s very interesting that you brought that up because I don’t know how that could’ve been
there like that.” It is reasonable to infer that Respondent generated the second page of the PAF 25
shortly before commencement of trial to bolster Respondent’s case against Hambamo.
General Counsel presented evidence of three drivers, each of whom missed a second
scheduled TA class (Abraham Worke, Metekya Absu, and Demeke) but were not terminated.
Although Gerace said Absu was on leave of absence at the time he missed his second class, 30
which Respondent apparently considered as mitigation, Gerace could not explain Respondent’s
restraint as to the other two drivers.
7. Discipline Issued to Other Drivers
35
Respondent introduced evidence of discipline for a number of drivers, identified by their
initials, including the following:
AY--fired November 4, 2010: counseled and issued a final warning on July 13, 2010. On
October 28, 2010, cab parked, respectively, for 25, 97, 60, and 25 minutes without trip sheet 40
notation.
GC—fired February 5, 2010: trip sheet showed activity from 5:14 a.m. to 3:26 p.m., while
trip log showed activity from 10:39 a.m. to 3:26 p.m.
DC—fired January 28, 2010: failed probation; on January 26, 2010, discrepancies
between GPS and trip sheet information.45
CE—fired September 11, 2009: on September 10, 2009, large gaps of time unaccounted
for on the trip sheet.
AG—fired March 5, 2010: on February 14, February 21, and February 23, 2010,
incorrect fare amounts and cab parked for 60, 55, and 25 minutes, respectively, although trip
sheet showed loading and dropping off during those periods. 50
SM—suspended on September 1, 2010 and fired on September 2, 2010: On August 25,
2010, overall breaks totaled 1 hour 50 minutes; repeated counseling in the past regarding
JD(SF)-51-11
16
productivity, referred to a training class on August 12, 2010.
WS— fired December 1, 2010: on April 27, 2010, counseled and given final warning
regarding productivity and falsifying trip sheets; on November 24, 2010 GPS report showed cab
stopped for seven hours.5
PS—fired July 3, 2009: on April 10 and June 5, 2009 counseled and warned for,
respectively, failing to follow company policies and for incorrectly filling out trip sheets; on July 2,
2009, failed to fill out trip sheet correctly, failed to clock out properly, lunch breaks were over an
hour; performance for June was low.
DW—fired July 4, 2009: failure to clock out and to complete June 27, June 29, and 10
July 2 trip sheets accurately; low productivity.
MH—fired July 19, 2009: failure to complete accurately trip sheets on six different days
from July 8 to July 16, 2009; low productivity.27
General Counsel introduced evidence from the personnel files of 23 drivers who were 15
disciplined but not terminated for infractions identical to those committed by the six alleged
discriminatees including low productivity, and trip sheet and medallion violations. Gerace
testified that the discipline accorded these drivers was not comparable to that of the six alleged
discriminatees because the unterminated drivers’ circumstances fit within a “safety period”
maintained by Respondent, a justification produced late in the hearing.20
Gerace was called by General Counsel as a witness in the government’s case in chief,
but it was not until he testified during Respondent’s defense presentation that he claimed
Respondent had a "safety period" during which drivers were allowed to commit up to five
different trip sheet violations within a six month period of time before being terminated. Gerace 25
was vague as to details of the safety period and could not identify any document or oral
promulgation of any such policy.28 When confronted with personnel records of employees who
were not terminated despite having more than five trip sheet violations within a six month
period,29 Gerace testified that Respondent treated each category of trip sheet violation
separately in calculating the 5-time maximum. In later testimony regarding Respondent’s failure 30
to terminate an employ with multiple violations breaching the safety period policy, Gerace added
a further qualification that where the same violation may have occurred four or five days
running, Respondent lumped the separate violations into one for purposes of the safety period
policy. I find Gerace’s testimony in this regard to be so uncorroborated and inconsistent as to
35

27 At the hearing, General Counsel objected to receipt of these documents as being incomplete
as to, inter alia, employment tenure, and argues they should be afforded little weight. The
documents do not establish the length of employment of the discharged employees, and that
deficiency impacts the weight to be accorded the documents.
28 Gerace first testified the safety policy was contained in the employee handbook and that
Dante knew of it, although he was not sure how she knew. When Gerace could not find such a
policy in the handbook, he said it was an understood rule among managers.
29 Six drivers incurred six or more technical violations within six months but were not
terminated, i.e. TS failed to write his phone number on his trips sheets 16 times in a
thirty day span; AW failed to clock out at the end of his shift five times within eight
days; JG-O failed to clock out at the end of his shift six times within one
month; RB failed to clock out five times in seven days in November 2010, and
five times in 43 days between January 27 and March 11; NN failed to write his phone number on
his trip sheets 14 times in a 33 day span between October 14 and November 16, 2010, and was
not terminated.
JD(SF)-51-11
17
merit no weight whatsoever. Since I do not accept that the safety period policy ever existed, it is
unnecessary to detail facts demonstrating that the policy was inexplicably not applied to some of
the six alleged discriminatees so as to avert their discharges.
5
V. Discussion
A. Supervisory Status of Road Supervisors Likos, Worku, and Jacobs
The stated supervisory authority of road supervisors Likos, Worku, and Jacobs was to 10
discipline employees up to and including issuing written warnings and, through a reporting
procedure effectively recommend further administrative action, including termination. While no
evidence was adduced that the road supervisors directly issued discipline, as authorized by the
handbook, there is no evidence that they were, in fact, dispossessed of that authority. Failure to
exercise authority does not negate supervisory status because possession rather than exercise 15
of supervisory authority determines supervisory status. Westwood Health Care Center, 330
NLRB 935, 938 (2000).
Notwithstanding the road supervisors’ failure directly to discipline employees, it is clear
they were charged with responsibility to report the driver infractions they observed. The 20
evidence shows the road supervisors exercised significant discretion in determining whether to
report infractions30 and engaged in subjective editorializing about the infractions.31 Their
reports, laying as they did, foundations for future discipline against drivers, were a form of
discipline. See Oak Park Nursing Care Center, 351 NLRB 27 (2007).
25
Respondent argues that while management may take disciplinary action based on
information submitted in road supervisors’ daily reports, the reports contain no discipline
recommendations and are simply observations. It is true that purely reportorial functions are not
effective recommendations of discipline so as to confer supervisory authority. But the assigned
duty to report the infractions of other employees can be purely reportorial only if an employer 30
conducts its own investigation of the reported misconduct. See Los Angeles Water and Power
Employees’ Association, 340 NLRB 1232, 1234 (2003) (individual’s report of misconduct does
not constitute effective recommendation of discipline where management undertakes its own
investigation and decides what, if any, discipline to impose); Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 326
NLRB 1386 (1998) (authority to issue verbal or written warnings that do not affect employee 35
status or to recommend discipline do not evidence disciplinary authority); Millard Refrigerated
Services, Inc., 326 NLRB 1437, 1438 (1998) (employees did not effectively recommend
discipline when they submitted disciplinary forms to the plant superintendent who approved
them only after conducting an independent investigation; the employees exercised nothing more
than a reportorial function). Since Respondent regularly based discipline on the road 40
supervisors’ reports without conducting intervening, independent investigation, the reports
played a significant role in the disciplinary process and amounted to effective recommendation
of discipline. See Bon Harbor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, 348 NLRB 1062 (2006).
Accordingly, road supervisors Likos, Worku, and Jacobs were, at all times material hereto, 2(11)
supervisors.45

30 As when Worku, from his “goodness,” did not report a driver’s conduct.
31 As when Jacobs pronounced employee Scott to be argumentative and rude many times over.
JD(SF)-51-11
18
B. Independent Violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
1. Respondent’s Flyer and Dante’s March 15 Statements
5
The complaint alleges that through printed communication to its employees, Respondent
threatened employees with loss of benefits, including 60-day leaves of absence, convenience
leaves upon request, gas checks, clean upgraded cars, and Friday BBQs, and other unspecified
reprisals if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative, and further informed
employees it would be futile to select the Union as their bargaining representative.10
Respondent’s flyer, distributed to employees sometime after February 25, stated
adamantly that the Union would not deliver to the drivers benefits they then enjoyed: 60-day
leaves of absence, convenience leave upon request, gas bonus checks, open door to
management, clean upgraded cars, Friday bar-b-que, and job security. Respondent’s flyer 15
reiterated that employees should “beware” because the Union could not provide job security.
Respondent argues the flyer simply invited employees to contrast Respondent’s
enumerated benefits with those of unionized taxi companies, which was not threatening and
which was protected by Section 8(c). 20
The complaint also alleges that between March 15 through March 17, Dante threatened
employees with loss of benefits, including gas checks, 60-day leaves of absence, and the
convenience of requesting days off, and with less favorable shifts if they selected the Union as
their bargaining representative. I have found credible General Counsel’s witness accounts of 25
what Dante said in the March meetings with employees, and I find she told employees that if
they selected the Union, they would lose their 60-day leave of absence benefit, their gas bonus,
their method of scheduling shifts, their vacation policies, and their open door access to
management.
30
It is unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) for an employer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise” of their Section 7 rights. In deciding whether a statement is
threatening or coercive, the Board applies the objective standard of whether the remark would
reasonably tend to interfere with the free exercise of protected employee rights. If it would, it is
unlawful.32 35
Neither Respondent’s flyer nor Dante’s March statements made any attempt to clarify
statutory collective bargaining obligations or qualify the circumstances under which give and
take labor negotiations might result in benefit trade offs. An objective reading of Respondent’s
flyer as well as consideration of the credited accounts of Dante’s March statements show 40
Respondent threatened employees with the loss of benefits and job security upon selecting the
Union.

32 Flagstaff Medical Center, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 65, slip op 7-8 (2011); KenMor Electric
Company, Inc., 355 NLRB No. 173, Sl. Op. 4 (2010); Joseph Chevrolet, Inc., 343 NLRB 7, 9
(2004), enfd. 162 Fed. Appx. 541 (6th Cir. 2006). [Citations omitted]; Southdown Care Center
308 NLRB 225, 227 (1992); Joy Recovery Technology Corp., 320 NLRB 356, 365 (1995), enfd.
134 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. 1998); Miami Systems Corp., 320 NLRB 71, 71 fn. 4 (1995), affd. in
relevant part 111 F.3d 1284 (6th Cir. 1997).
JD(SF)-51-11
19
Since Respondent’s flyer and Dante’s statements were devoid of any indication that
Respondent intended to bargain in good faith with the Union, if selected, the statements that
union selection would “not” deliver established benefits or job security informed employees that
union representation would be an exercise in futility. Since Respondent’s statements, written 5
and oral, would reasonably tend to interfere with employees’ free exercise of protected rights,
the statements violate Section 8(a)(1).
2. Jacobs’ Interrogation and Threat
10
In determining whether interrogation is unlawful under Section 8(a)(1), the Board applies
a totality of the circumstances test. Westwood Healthcare Center, 330 NLRB 935 (2000);
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984). The Board said it would look at five factors to
determine whether the questioning of an employee constitutes an unlawful interrogation: (1) The
background, i.e., is there a history of employer hostility and discrimination? (2) The nature of the 15
information sought, e.g., did the interrogator appear to be seeking information on which to base
taking action against individual employees? (3) The identity of the questioner, i.e., how high was
he in the company hierarchy? (4) Place and method of interrogation, e.g., was employee called
from work to the boss's office? Was there an atmosphere of unnatural formality?
(5) Truthfulness of the reply.20
As detailed above, on April 15, Jacobs, seeing Hambamo in the bleacher area, asked
what the employees were trying to do with the Union. After Hambamo feigned puzzlement,
Jacobs pressed him, and elicited Hambamo’s unwillingness to discuss the issue with her at that
location. A short time later, Jacobs asked Hambamo if he was quite sure he didn’t want to 25
discuss the matter, saying that if he did not, she was going to hurt him because she wanted to
know what the employees were doing.
Putting Jacobs’ interrogation of Hambamo to the Rossmore test, although several of the
Rossmore factors are not met, it is clear the questioning would reasonably tend to coerce 30
Hambamo, causing him to feel restrained from exercising rights protected by Section 7. Thus,
although the setting was casual and Jacobs a low level supervisor, the interrogation occurred in
an atmosphere of unremedied threats, coercion and unlawful discharge of active union
proponents, as detailed below. Jacobs conducted the questioning near Respondent’s offices,
which location might reasonably be expected to disquiet Hambamo, who attempted to evade 35
her questions. Jacobs clearly sought information about the union organizational effort, saying, “I
want to know what you guys are doing.” The reasonable inference to be drawn from Jacobs’
unexplained curiosity was that she intended to take some action that would disadvantage union
supporters. In these circumstances, Jacobs’ interrogation and threat to “hurt” Hambamo,
notwithstanding her characterizing the threat as a joke, would reasonably tend to coerce and 40
restrain Hambamo in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
C. Terminations of Geberselasa, Demeke, Hailu, Tesema, Kindeya, and Hambamo
General Counsel contends that Respondent terminated Geberselasa, Demeke, Hailu, 45
Tesema, Kindeya, and Hambamo for engaging in union activities and that its claimed bases
were pretextual. Respondent argues that General Counsel has not shown the requisite
knowledge and animosity to establish a prima facie case, or, in the alternative, that Respondent
met its burden of proving that Geberselasa, Demeke, Hailu, Tesema, Kindeya, and Hambamo
would each have been terminated even in the absence of union activity.50
JD(SF)-51-11
20
In termination cases turning on employer motivation, the Board applies an analytical
framework that assigns the General Counsel the initial burden of showing that union activity was
a motivating or substantial factor in an adverse employment action. Wright Line, 251 NLRB
1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982). The 5
elements required to support such a showing are the employee’s union activity, employer
knowledge of the activity, and employer animus toward the activity. If the General Counsel
meets the initial burden, the burden of proof then shifts to the employer to show, as an
affirmative defense, that it would have taken the same action even in the absence of the
employee's protected activity. Wright Line, at 1089; Alton H. Piester, LLC, 353 NLRB 36910
(2008).
General Counsel has clearly met two prongs of its initial Wright Line burden. General
Counsel adduced credible evidence of the union activities of Geberselasa, Demeke, Hailu,
Tesema, Kindeya, and Hambamo, all of whom were members of the Union’s organizing 15
committee and fully engaged in soliciting union support among fellow drivers, some as early as
November 2010. By proving the independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) described above,
General Counsel has shown Respondent’s animus toward employees’ union activities. The
only Wright Line prong open to further discussion is the question of Respondent’s knowledge of
union activities. 20
Respondent was unquestionably aware of union organizing when it received the Union’s
letter on about February 25, announcing the organizational drive. There is no direct evidence
Respondent knew of the organizing effort before February 25 and no direct evidence
Respondent knew of the activities of specific employees. In determining whether employer 25
knowledge existed before February 25, the totality of circumstances may support an inference
of knowledge generally and specifically. Best Plumbing Supply, 310 NLRB 143, 144 (1993).
Such circumstances may include timing and abruptness of discharge, contemporaneous 8(a)(1)
conduct, absence of credible evidence to support the discharges, and pretextual reasons for
discharge. Id.; PanOston Co., 336 NLRB 305, 308 (1988).30
By the following circumstantial evidence, General Counsel has demonstrated that
Respondent knew generally of union organizational efforts by at least early February and knew
of, or suspected, the active involvement of Geberselasa, Demeke, Hailu, Tesema, Kindeya, and
Hambamo: (1) Beginning in November, Gebersalasa often talked about the Union to other 35
drivers in the bleacher area during the 30-35 minutes before her shift began. The bleacher area
was immediately in front of Respondent’s offices and regularly frequented by supervisors.33
(2) Beginning in December, Demeke often talked to drivers in the bleacher area about the Union
and on one occasion distributed authorization cards as Worku stood nearby.34 (3) Beginning in
February, Hailu and Tesema solicited employees to sign authorization cards in the bleacher 40
area; Hailu made his prounion sentiments known to Likos, and Worku and Gerace were also in
the bleacher area at times when Tesema distributed cards. (4) Kindeya distributed cards in

33 It is reasonable to infer that supervisors would be aware of frequent, long term organizing
efforts occurring so close to office and dispatch areas.
34 It is reasonable to infer that Worku would have seen Demeke’s distribution of cards, and
Worku’s knowledge is imputed to Respondent. See State Plaza, Inc., 347 NLRB 755, 756-757
(2006).
JD(SF)-51-11
21
areas other than the bleacher area; he told Dante on March 15 that he was "going to choose the
Union." 35 (5) Hambamo was the object of Jacobs’ April 15 interrogation and threat.36
(6) Authorization card solicitation, which began on February 8, was reported to Dante by various
employees. I have not credited Dante’s testimony that it was not reported until February 25. 5
Since the reporting related to questions about the cards’ purpose, it is reasonable to infer that it
began soon after card distribution commenced. (7) Gerace’s incredible and shifting
explanations of the bases for discharge of the six alleged discriminatees. (8) Respondent’s
generation of a spurious document to bolster its case against Hambamo; (9) Gerace’s
additional, post-discharge termination reasons for Gebersalasa and Kindeya, i.e., respectively, 10
because Geberselasa was “aggressive” and “combative,” and Kindeya was “very combative,”
when neither was counseled about such behavior, justifies an inference that the descriptions
were disguised references to Gebersalasa and Kindeya’s protected, concerted activity. See
Rock Valley Trucking Co., 350 NLRB 69 (2007). (10) Respondent’s unexplained April 21 shift in
Hambamo’s discipline from suspension to termination. (11) Termination of Tesema for, in part, 15
failing to log a 25 minute break, despite Dante’s acknowledgment of frequent driver failure to log
meal breaks
The same circumstantial evidence that created a reasonable inference of knowledge
substantiates Respondent’s discriminatory motivation. The evidence, detailed above, of 20
contrived defenses,37 timing,38 departure from past practice, brusque terminations of six long-
term employees39 without permitting explanation or justification, the unusually high number of
discharges in a relatively short period before the election reinforces General Counsel’s proof of
animus and discriminatory motivation. Consequently, General Counsel has met the initial
burden under Wright Line by showing the union activity of Geberselasa, Demeke, Hailu, 25
Tesema, Kindeya, and Hambamo, Respondent’s knowledge of it, and Respondent’s animus
toward it. General Counsel having presented probative evidence of protected activity,
employer knowledge, and employer animus, the burden shifts to Respondent to show, as an
affirmative defense, that it would have taken the same action against Geberselasa, Demeke,
Hailu, Tesema, Kindeya, and Hambamo even in the absence of their protected activities.30
Respondent has not met its burden; Respondent has not shown that the six alleged
discriminatees would have been fired regardless of their union activities. Respondent has
unsuccessfully attempted, by comparison of discipline records, to show that the six alleged
discriminatees were treated the same as similarly situated employees. The numerous factors 35
involved in individual disciplines documented herein make it difficult to formulate concrete
comparisons, a drawback compounded by the failure of Respondent’s termination documents to

35 Likos’ knowledge of Hailu’s prounion sentiments is imputed to Respondent as is Dante’s
knowledge of Kindeya’s decision to choose the Union.
36 It is reasonable to infer that Jacobs would not have interrogated Hambamo as she did unless
she knew he was actively involved in the organizational drive. Her knowledge is imputed to
Respondent.
37 Where an employer's proffered motivational explanation is false, the trier of fact may infer
unlawful motivation. Hahner, Foreman, & Harness, Inc., 343 NLRB 1423, 1429 (2004), citing
Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. (Iron King Branch) v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966);
Fluor Daniel, Inc., 304 NLRB 970 (1991).
38 Discharges on the heels of union activity and evidence of disparate treatment support a
finding of pretextual termination. La Gloria Oil and Gas Co., 337 NLRB 1120, 1124 (2002).
39 Gebersalasa and Tesema were employed over three years, Kindeya four years, Demeke and
Hailu over six years, and Hambamo nearly eight years.
JD(SF)-51-11
22
show length of employment. Since Respondent bears the burden of proving its affirmative
defense, the deficiency must weigh against Respondent. Viewed overall, when ranged against
the substantial evidence of animus, the comparative documents do not show Respondent has
consistently terminated employees who were in the same disciplinary posture as the six alleged 5
discriminatees. Accordingly, I find Respondent discharged Gebersalasa, Demeke, Hailu,
Tesema, Kindeya, and Hambamo because each engaged in union activities. Respondent
thereby violated Section 8(a)(3).
VI. Representation Case: Objections to the Election10
Findings of Fact and Discussion
The Union filed a petition for election on March 30. Following a stipulated election
agreement, an election by secret ballot was conducted by the Region on May 6 among
employees in the unit found appropriate for collective-bargaining.40 The Tally of Ballots served 15
on all the parties at the conclusion of the balloting showed the following:
Approximate number of eligible voters……………………………235
Number of Void Ballots…………………………………………… …1
Number of Votes casted for Petitioner……………………… ……9320
Number of Votes cast again participating labor organization(s).105
Number of Valid votes counted……………………………………198
Number of Challenged ballots………………………………… …..3
Number of Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots………..201
25
Thereafter, the Union filed five timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election
on May 12. Objections 1 and 2 parallel the complaint allegations, and I consider them together.
Objections 3-5 relate to alleged events occurring during the polling periods, and I consider them
together.
30
A. Legal Overview
The Board does not lightly set aside representation elections. Quest International, 338
NLRB 856 (2003); Safeway, Inc., 338 NLRB 525 (2002); NLRB v. Hood Furniture Mfg. Co., 941
F.2d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing NLRB v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co., 470 F.2d 1329, 1333 35
(5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied 412 U.S. 928 (1973)). “There is a strong presumption that ballots
cast under specific NLRB procedural safeguards reflect the true desires of the employees.”
NLRB v. Hood Furniture Mfg. Co., supra, 941 F.2d at 328, and the burden of proving a Board-
supervised election should be set aside is a “heavy one.” Kux Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 890 F.2d 804,
808 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting Harlan #4 Coal Co. v. NLRB, 490 F.2d 117, 120 (6th Cir.), cert. 40
denied 416 U.S. 986 (1974). The objecting party must show that objectionable conduct affected
employees in the voting unit. Avante at Boca Raton, Inc., 323 NLRB 555, 560 (1997) (overruling
employer's objection where no evidence unit employees knew of alleged coercive incident).
As the objecting party, the Union has the burden of proving interference with the 45
election. See Jensen Pre-Cast, 290 NLRB 547 (1988). The test, applied objectively, is whether

40 All full-time and regular part-time taxicab drivers employed by the Employer at its facility
located at 4195 West Diablo Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada; excluding all other employees,
including mechanics, dispatchers, limousine drivers, confidential and office clerical employees,
guards, managers and supervisors as defined in the Act.
JD(SF)-51-11
23
an employer's conduct has the tendency to interfere with the employees' freedom of choice. See
Taylor Wharton Division, 336 NLRB 157, 158 (2001); Baja's Place, 268 NLRB 868 (1984).
B. Objections 1 and 25
1. The Employer illegally fired six (6) employees...for their participation in
protected Union activity.41
2. The Employer during meetings with employees threatened the loss of
several benefits if the employees voted for the Union.10
The evidence relating to Objections 1 and 2 has been set forth above in the unfair labor
practice case. As to Objection 1, I have found that during the critical period,42 Respondent
unlawfully discharged union activists, Tesema, Kindeya, and Hambamo, in violation of Section
8(a)(3). Such unlawful conduct "a fortiori, interferes with the results of an election." See 15
Arkema, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 103, slip op. 5 (2011), citing Dal-Tex Optical Co., 137 NLRB 1782,
1786-1787 (1962).
Objection 2 relates to Dante’s March 15-17 statements made in employee
meetings. While unlawful under Section 8(a)(1), as noted above, and reasonably 20
having the effect of discouraging employees from voting for the Union, the
statements occurred outside the critical period. Accordingly, I recommend that
Objection 1 be sustained and Objection 2 be overruled.
Objections 3, 4, and 525
3. During the voting period and in the polling area an employee engaged
in electioneering favorable to the Employer.
4. During the voting period and in the polling area the Employer’s
observer used her computer for a lengthy amount of time, during 30
which she had access to information as to who had voted and had not
voted at the time. The computer was not in view of the Union’s
observer.
5. During the voting period the Employer engaged in electioneering by
having numerous painted antiunion slogans on the windows of a 35
building directly next to the polling area.
As to Objection 3, during the polling, two voters, the only ones then present, had a brief
oral exchange. After receiving his ballot, the first voter asked the second what he should do,
and the second voter said, "Vote no.” The first voter entered the voting booth and upon 40
emerging, placed his ballot in the ballot box, whereafter the Union’s observer belatedly
attempted to challenge the ballot. Insofar as the second voter’s advice to “vote no” could be
considered electioneering, it was both minimal and noncoercive and could, in any event, have
affected only one voter. In light of Respondent’s 12-vote victory, the voters’ exchange could not

41 At the hearing, the Union withdrew that portion of Objection 1 that alleged
Respondent had suspended one (1) employee.
42 The critical period during which conduct allegedly affecting the results of a representation
election must be examined "commences at the filing of the representation petition and extends
through the election." E.L.C. Electric, Inc., 344 NLRB 1200, 1201 fn. 6 (2005). Here, the
critical period is March 30 through May 6.
JD(SF)-51-11
24
materially have affected the results of the election. Accordingly, I recommend Objection 3 be
overruled.
Objection 4 addresses Respondent observer’s use of a portable computer during polling 5
periods. During a preelection conference, the Board agent, after ascertaining the use to which
the observer’s computer would be put and that it did not have internet access, told the observer
she could perform the work of inputting schedules during polling periods when voters were not
present. Respondent’s observer complied with the Board agent’s instructions, and the Board
agent periodically checked her computer use.43 There is no evidence the observer's computer 10
use impacted the integrity of the election process. See Cedars-Sinai Medical Center,342 NLRB
596, 609 (2005). Accordingly, I recommend Objection 4 be overruled.
As to Objection 5, the voting polls were located in a trailer at the facility adjacent to the
building housing Respondent’s administrative offices. In route to the polls most voters passed15
the administrative offices, the windows of which sported "Vote No; No Union" messages. The
entrance door to the polling area faced a solid brick wall, the east side of the administrative
offices. From the polling area no written campaign materials could be viewed
In considering objections of impermissible electioneering, the Board determines whether 20
the conduct, under the circumstances, warrants an inference that it interfered with the free
choice of the voters by assessing the following factors: whether the conduct occurred within or
near the polling place, whether the conduct occurred within a designated “no electioneering”
area, the extent and nature of the alleged electioneering, whether it was conducted by a party to
the election or by employees, and whether it is contrary to the instructions of the Board agent. 25
Boston Insulated Wire & Cable Co., 259 NLRB 1118, 1119 (1982).
Under the circumstances of this case, the evidence is insufficient to warrant an inference
that the existence of Vote-No posters interfered with the exercise of the employees' free choice.
There is no evidence the posters could be seen by employees waiting in line to vote; they were 30
not displayed in any no-electioneering area, and their placement did not violate any instructions
by the Board agent. The evidence provides no basis for inferring that the campaign signs,
without more, rose to the level of impermissible electioneering. Accordingly, I recommend
Objection 5 be overruled.
35
VII. CONCLUSIONS AS TO THE UNION’S OBJECTIONS
Inasmuch as I have recommended that Objection 1 be sustained, I recommend the
election held on May 6, 2011 in Case No. 28-RC-6766 be set aside and that the representation
proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director of Region 28 for the purpose of conducting a 40
second election.
Further, in accordance with Lufkin Rule Co., 147 NLRB 241 (1964) and Fieldcrest
Cannon, Inc., 327 NLRB 109 FN 3 (1998), I recommend the following notice be issued in the
Notice of Second Election in Case No. 28-RC-6766:45

43 I credit the account of Respondent’s observer whose testimony was clear, detailed, and
specific.
JD(SF)-51-11
25
NOTICE TO ALL VOTERS
The election conducted on May 6, 2011 was set aside because the National Labor Relations
Board found that certain conduct of the Employer interfered with the employees' exercise of a 5
free and reasoned choice among employees in the following unit:
All full-time and regular part-time taxicab drivers employed by the Employer at its facility
located at 4195 West Diablo Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada; excluding all other employees,
including mechanics, dispatchers, limousine drivers, confidential and office clerical 10
employees, guards, managers and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Therefore, a new election will be held in accordance with the terms of this notice of
election. All eligible voters should understand that the National labor Relations Act, as
amended, gives them the right to cast their ballots as they see fit and protects them in the 15
exercise of this right, free from interference by any of the parties.44
VIII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce 20
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with loss of
benefits and other reprisals, by informing employees it would be futile to select the Union as
their bargaining representative, by interrogating employees, and by threatening to “hurt” 25
employees.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by terminating employees Almethay
Gebersalasa, Elias Demeke, Endale Hailu, Melaku Tesema, Assefa Kindeya, and Mesfin
Hambamo because they engaged in union or other concerted, protected activities and to
discourage employees from engaging in these activities.30
5. The unfair labor practices set forth above affect commerce within the meaning of Sections
8(a)(3) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. By the conduct described in Objection 1, which conduct occurred during the critical election
period, Respondent has interfered with the holding of a fair election; the conduct warrants
setting aside the election in Case No. 28-RC-006766 that was conducted on May 6, 2011. 35
REMEDY
Having found Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find it must be
ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the 40
policies of the Act.
Respondent having unlawfully terminated employees Almethay Gebersalasa, Elias
Demeke, Endale Hailu, Melaku Tesema, Assefa Kindeya, and Mesfin Hambamo, it must offer
them reinstatement and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits. Backpay 45
shall be computed on a quarterly basis from the dates of their discharges to the date of proper
offer of reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90

44 Under the provisions of Sec. 102.69 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, exceptions to this
Report may be filed with the Board in Washington, DC within 14 days from the date of issuance
of this Report and recommendations. Exceptions must be received by the Board in Washington
by [date].
JD(SF)-51-11
26
NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8
(2010), enf. denied on other grounds sub. nom., Jackson Hospital Corp. v. NLRB, 647 F.3d
1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Respondent will be ordered to make appropriate emendations to the5
personnel files of Almethay Gebersalasa, Elias Demeke, Endale Hailu, Melaku Tesema, Assefa
Kindeya, and Mesfin Hambamo. Respondent will be ordered to post appropriate notices.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended4510
ORDER
Respondent, Lucky Cab Company., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
15
1. Cease and desist from Engaging in the following conduct:
(a) Threatening employees with loss of benefits and other reprisals, informing
employees it would be futile to select the Union as their bargaining representative,
interrogating employees, and threatening to “hurt” employees20
(b) Terminating any employee for engaging in union activities and/or to discourage
employees from engaging in union activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
25
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Almethay Gebersalasa, Elias
Demeke, Endale Hailu, Melaku Tesema, Assefa Kindeya, and Mesfin Hambamo full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially 30
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Almethay Gebersalasa, Elias Demeke, Endale Hailu, Melaku Tesema, Assefa
Kindeya, and Mesfin Hambamo whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the 35
remedy section of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful terminations of Almethay Gebersalasa, Elias Demeke, Endale Hailu, Melaku
Tesema, Assefa Kindeya, and Mesfin Hambamo and within 3 days thereafter notify
them in writing that this has been done and that the terminations will not be used 40
against them in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated
by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an 45
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.

45 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations,
the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the
Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
JD(SF)-51-11
27
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Las Vegas, Nevada
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”46 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director after being signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt and 5
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be
distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, 10
and/or other electronic means, if Respondent customarily communicates with its
employees by such means. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy
of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by 15
Respondent at any time since February 24, 2011.
(f) 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 Respondent has taken to comply.
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the
Act not specifically found.
Dated: Washington, D.C. December 28, 2011
25
Lana H. Parke
Administrative Law Judge

46 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.”
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these rights. More particularly,
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of benefits and/or other reprisals.
WE WILL NOT inform employees it would be useless to select Industrial, Technical and
Professional Employees, Local 4873, affiliated with Office and Professional Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO (the Union) or any other union as their bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to hurt employees.
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee for supporting the Union or to discourage employees
from engaging in union or other protected, concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights stated above.
WE WILL offer Almethay Gebersalasa, Elias Demeke, Endale Hailu, Melaku Tesema, Assefa
Kindeya, and Mesfin Hambamo full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or to any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Almethay Gebersalasa, Elias Demeke, Endale Hailu, Melaku Tesema, Assefa
Kindeya, and Mesfin Hambamo whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of our unlawful discharges.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the unlawful discharges of Almethay
Gebersalasa, Elias Demeke, Endale Hailu, Melaku Tesema, Assefa Kindeya, and Mesfin
Hambamo and notify them in writing that this has been done and that the discharges will not be
used against them in any way.
LUCKY CAB COMPANY
(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
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website:
www.nlrb.gov.
2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800, Phoenix, AZ 85004-3099
(602) 640-2160, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 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, (602) 640-2146.