Metro Transportation Services Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 534 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Metro Transportation Services Company, Inc.; Texas
Western Transportation Company; and Jim Bea-
vers, Individually, d/b/a Jim Beavers Company
and International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local 745, AFL-CIO. Cases 16-CA-
5775 and 16-CA-5851
June 17, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
Upon a charge filed on October 1 and November
25, 1974, by International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Local 745, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and
duly served on Metro Transportation Services
Company, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Metro;
Texas Western Transportation Company, hereinafter
referred to as Texas Western; and Jim Beavers,
d/b/a Jim Beavers Company, herein referred to as
Beavers, all collectively called the Respondent, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 16,
issued an order consolidating the cases and consoli-
dated complaint and notice of hearing on December
31, 1974. The consolidated complaint alleges that
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and
notice of hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge were duly served on the parties to this
proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that Respondent, a
single integrated enterprise, constituting a single
employer, interrogated and questioned its employees
concerning union activities, told an employee that
another employee, Ricky Jones, had been discharged
because he tried to start a union, and discharged said
Ricky Jones and failed and refused to reinstate him
because of his union or concerted activities. The
complaint further alleges that Respondent refused
and continues to refuse to bargain with the Union
which is the exclusive bargaining representative of
Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit in
that Respondent unilaterally closed, without notifi-
cation to or consultation with the Union, its Metro
operation while continuing to operate as Texas
Western, thereby terminating its Metro employees,
and unilaterally refused to abide by the dues-check-
off provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement
218 NLRB No. 76
with the Union. Respondent did not file an answer to
the complaint.
On February 10, 1975, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a motion for
summary judgment based upon Respondent's failure
to file an answer. Subsequently, on February 21,
1975, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a notice to show cause
why the General Counsel's motion for summary
judgment should not be granted. Respondent failed
to file a response to notice to show cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as emended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, provides as follows:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer thereto.
The respondent shall specifically admit, deny, or
explain each of the facts alleged in the complaint,
unless the respondent is without knowledge, in
which case the respondent shall so state, such
statement operating as a denial. All allegations in
the complaint, if no answer is filed, or any
allegation in the complaint not specifically denied
or explained in an answer filed, unless the
respondent shall state in the answer that he is
without knowledge, shall be deemed to be
admitted to be true and shall be so found by the
Board, unless good cause to the contrary is
shown.
The complaint duly served on the Respondent
specifically states that unless an answer to the
complaint is filed by the Respondent within 10 days
of service thereof "all the allegations of the Consoli-
dated Complaint shall be deemed to be admitted by
it to be true and may be so found by the Board." As
indicated above, no response to the notice to show
cause has been filed by the Respondent. The
uncontroverted allegations of the motion for summa-
ry judgment allege not only that the Respondent had
been duly served with the consolidated complaint by
registered mail, but also that as of February 3, 1975,
the date of the motion herein, no answer had been
filed.
No good cause to the contrary having been shown,
in accordance with the rule set forth above, the
allegations of the consolidated complaint are deemed
to be admitted and are found to be true. We shall,
METRO TRANSPORTATION SERVICES CO. 535
accordingly, grant the motion for summary judg-
ment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Metro Transportation Services Company, Inc.;
Texas Western Transportation Company; and Jim
Beavers, individually doing business as Jim Beavers
Company, either as sole proprietor or as owner of
Metro Transportation Services Company, Inc., and
Texas Western Company, at all times material herein
have been a single integrated enterprise, constituting
a single employer with common ownership, officers,
and operators engaged in the business of local pickup
and delivery of various articles of commerce with
principal offices and place of business in Dallas,
Texas. In the course of its operations , Respondent
annually receives $50,000 from services performed
for employers in commerce , exclusive of those
employers in commerce by virtue of indirect inflow
or outflow.
We fmd, on the basis of the foregoing, that
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein , an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local
745, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Independent 8(a)(1) Violations
Respondent, on or about June 13 and 14, 1974,
interrogated its employees about union sympathies
and activities and told an employee that Ricky Jones,
another employee, had been discharged because of
his union activities in trying to start a union.
Accordingly, we fmd that Respondent by the
aforesaid conduct has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them under Section 7 of the Act and by
such conduct did engage in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
B. The 8(a)(3) Violations
On or about June 14, 1974, Respondent discrimina-
torily discharged its employee, Ricky Jones, and
thereafter failed and refused and continues to fail
and refuse to reinstate him to his former position, or
to a substantially equivalent position, because he
engaged in union or concerted activities.
Accordingly, we fmd that Respondent by the
aforesaid conduct has discriminated in regard to the
terms and conditions of employment of Ricky Jones
and by such conduct has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
C. The 8(a)(5) Violations
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargain-
ing purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All drivers, helpers, warehousemen, forklift oper-
ators and checkers employed at Respondent's
Dallas, Texas operation, excluding all other
employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
2. The Union's representative status
At all times since September 1, 1974, the Union has
been the representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining of the employees of Respondent in the
unit described above with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment.
3. Respondent's refusal to bargain
Commencing on or about November 1, 1974, and
continuing at all times thereafter to date, the
Respondent has refused, and continues to refuse, to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the
exclusive representative for collective bargaining of
all employees in said unit by, without notification to
and consultation with the Union, closing its Metro
operation, terminating its Metro employees, and
refusing to abide by the dues-checkoff provisions of
the collective-bargaining agreement with the Union.
Respondent's Texas Western operation was contin-
ued.
The complaint does not allege that the closing was
discriminatory and we therefore treat the closing of
Metro as a partially economic closing. However,
Respondent closed its Metro operation thereby
terminating its Metro employees without bargaining
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about the decision or its effects upon the unit
employees.' We also fmd that Respondent is a single
integrated enterprise and shut down only a part of its
Dallas local pickup and delivery business and
continued the same business as was performed at
Metro in its Texas Western operation.
Accordingly, we fmd that Respondent was re-
quired to bargain in good faith concerning the
decision to close Metro and about the effects on the
unit employees of that decision. We further fmd that
Respondent's refusal to abide by the dues-checkoff
provision of the collective-bargaining agreement is a
refusal to bargain about a subject which could not be
changed unilaterally. By the aforesaid conduct
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic, and commerce, among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, we shall order that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
We have found that Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and we
shall order it to cease and desist therefrom.
We have found that Respondent discriminatorily
discharged Ricky Jones and failed and refused to
reinstate him. Accordingly, we shall order that Ricky
Jones be offered reinstatement to his former position
or, if it no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, and that Respondent make him
whole for any loss of earnings he suffered because of
the discrimination against him. Backpay shall be
based upon the earnings he normally would have
received from the date of his discharge or termina-
tion to the date of reinstatement or offer of
1 In Royal Typewriter Company, A Division of Luton Business Systems,
Inc., A Subsidiary of Litton Industries, Inc., 209 NLRB 1006 (1974), we
reaffirmed our holding in Ozark Incorporated and/or Hutco Equipment
Company and/or Mobilefreeze Company, Inc., 161 NLRB 561 (1966), that an
reinstatement, less any net interim earnings, and
shall be computed on the basis set forth in F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
With respect to Respondent's violations of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act, we have found that it unilaterally,
without notification to or consultation with the
Union, closed its Metro local' pickup and delivery
operation and terminated its Metro employees
without bargaining with the Union about its decision
to close or the effects thereof on the unit employees
and refused to abide by the dues-checkoff provision
of the collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union. We have also found' that Respondent
continued to operate its local pickup and delivery
business in Dallas, Texas, despite its closing of the
Metro operation. The record does not show whether
the Metro closing constituted a` giving up of a portion
of Respondent's business or a consolidation of the
Metro business with other of Respondent's opera-
tions; however, a resolution of this question would
not, in any event, affect the remedy we deem
appropriate here.
We are confronted with the closing of Metro and
the consequent loss of employment by its employees
arising from Respondent's failure to bargain over
that decision and its effects, at a time when a
measure of balanced bargaining power existed.
Meaningful bargaining can only be assured if some
economic strength is restored to the Union and a
bargaining order alone cannot serve as an adequate
remedy for the unfair labor practices Respondent has
committed. Therefore, we deem it necessary, in order
to effectuate the purposes of the Act, to order the
following remedy to adapt to the situation that calls
for redress with a view toward restoring the situation
as nearly as possible to that which would have
obtained but for Respondent's conduct:
1. We shall order Respondent to bargain, upon
request, with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit with respect to the decision to close Metro and
the possible resumption thereof. If Respondent
agrees to resume its Metro operation, it shall offer all
those in the appropriate unit reinstatement to their
former jpbs or, if those no longer exist, to substantial-
ly equivalent positions, and shall embody any
understanding in a signed agreement.2
2. If Respondent fails to agree to resume the
Metro operation, Respondent shall be required to
bargain, upon request, with the Union with respect to
the effects on the unit employees of the decision to
employer oper4tmg two or more plants was obligated to bargain , inter alia,
with respect to the decision to close one of those plants.
2 See Royal Typewriter Company, supra; and cases cited in fn. 15.
METRO TRANSPORTATION SERVICES CO. 537
close Metro, and shall establish a preferential hiring
list of all employees in the appropriate unit following
a nondiscriminatory system, such as seniority.
Respondent shall offer the terminated Metro em-
ployees reinstatement to positions at any of its
Dallas, Texas, operations which become available,
by the discharge, if necessary, of any persons
employed since November 1, 1974, the date the
Metro operation was closed. Respondent and the
Union shall reduce to writing any agreement reached
as a result of such bargaining.3
3. Further, we shall order Respondent to make
whole the employees in the appropriate unit by the
payment of backpay from the date of their termina-
tion to the date it commences 4 to bargain in good
faith with the Union or until the employees are
offered reinstatement, whichever occurs first, less net
earnings during such period and computed on the
basis set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716 (1962). We have also found that
Respondent did not abide by the dues-checkoff
provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement
with the Union and we shall order it to abide by the
dues-checkoff provision of the collective-bargaining
agreement.
We have found that the unfair labor practices
committed by the Respondent go to the very heart of
the Act and we shall order it to cease and desist
therefrom in any other manner . In addition to our
usual posting requirements, we shall order Respon-
dent to mail copies of the notice to the terminated
employees of Metro.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Metro Transportation Services Company,, Inc.;
Texas Western Transportation Company; and Jim
Beavers, Individually, d/b/a Jim Beavers Company,
is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Local 745, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
.t. By interrogating an employee concerning
union sympathies and activities, and by telling an
employee that another employee was discharged
because of his union activities, Respondent has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, and thereby did engage in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminatorily discharging and failing and
refusing to reinstate or offer to reinstate its employee
Ricky Jones, Respondent has discriminated against
him in regard to the terms and conditions of his
employment and by such conduct has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. All drivers, helpers, warehousemen, forklift
operators and checkers employed at Respondent's
Dallas, Texas, operation, excluding all other employ-
ees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in
the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
6. Since September 1, 1974, the above-named
labor organization has been and now is the repre-
sentative of all employees in the aforesaid appropri-
ate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
7. By unilaterally closing its Metro operation and
terminating its Metro employees without bargaining
with the Union about the decision or effects thereof,
Respondent has refused to bargain and has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
8. By unilaterally refusing to abide by the terms
of the dues-cheokoff` provisions of the collective-
bargaining agreement, Respondent has refused to
bargain and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act.
9. By the aforesaid refusals to bargain, Respon-
dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and
is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
10. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent,
Metro Transportation Services Company, Inc.;
Texas Western Transportation Company; and Jim
Beavers, Individually, d/b/a Jim Beavers Company,
Dallas, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
Royal Typewriter Company, supra.
94 Member Fanning would continue the backpay obligation until such
time as Respondent has complied with its obligation to bargain.
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating or questioning its employees
concerning sympathies for or activities on behalf of
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 745,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
(b) Telling its employees that an employee has
been discharged because of his union activities.
(c) Discouraging membership in International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local 745, AFL-CIO,
or any other labor organization, by discriminatorily
discharging or terminating employees, or by other-
wise discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of
employees or any term or condition of their employ-
ment.
(d) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, the decision and effects of
discontinuance of any of its operations, dues-check-
off provisions, and any other terms and conditions of
employment with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Local 745, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All drivers, helpers, warehousemen, forklift oper-
ators and checkers employed at Respondent's
Dallas, Texas operation, excluding all other
employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(e) Failing and refusing to abide by the dues-
checkoff provisions of the collective-bargaining
agreement with the Union.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit with respect to its decision to close
Metro and possible resumption thereof and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement and offer reinstatement to
the terminated employees of Metro. If Respondent
fails to resume its Metro operation, in accord with
the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy,"
it shall bargain with the Union concerning the effects
of the decision to close, establish a preferential hiring
list of all employees in the appropriate unit following
5 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 Pursuant to a
a nondiscriminatory system, bargain about its mode
of operation, and offer to the terminated Metro
employees in the appropriate unit reinstatement to
positions for which they are qualified at any of its
Dallas, Texas, operations, discharging, if necessary,
persons employed since November 1, 1974. Any
understanding reached shall be embodied in a signed
agreement.
(b) Abide by the dues-checkoff provision of the
collective-bargaining agreement with the Union at
any of its operations where the agreement is in effect.
(c) Make whole employees of Metro in the
appropriate unit by the payment of backpay from the
date of their termination on November 1, 1974, to
the date Respondent bargains in good faith with the
Union or until such employees are offered reinstate-
ment by Respondent, whichever occurs first.
(d) Offer to reinstate Ricky Jones to his former
position or, if it no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges and make him whole
for any loss of earnings he suffered because of the
discrimination against him in the manner set forth in
the portion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(e) Post at its Dallas, Texas, facilities copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix," 5 and mail
copies thereof to all employees of Metro employed at
the time of Metro's closing. Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
16, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediate-
ly upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for
60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places-where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(f) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 16, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
IT is FURTHER ORDERED that the Board hereby
reserves to itself the right to modify the backpay and
reinstatement provisions of this Decision and Order,
if made necessary by a change of conditions in the
future, and to make such supplements thereto as may
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board"
METRO TRANSPORTATION SERVICES CO.
hereafter become necessary in order to define or
clarify their application to a specific set of circum-
stances not now apparent.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate or question our
employees concerning sympathies for or activities
on behalf of, the International Brotherhood of
'Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, Local 745, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that an
employee has been discharged because of his
union activities.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in the
above-named Union, or any other labor organiza-
tion, by discriminatorily discharging or terminat-
ing employees, or by otherwise discriminating in
regard to the hire or tenure of employees or any
term or condition of their, employment.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, the
decision and effects of discontinuance of any of
our operations, dues-checkoff provisions, and any
other terms and conditions of employment with
the above-named Union as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of 'our employees in the
bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to abide by the
dues-checkoff provisions of the collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section
7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit described below, with respect to
our decision to close Metro and possible resump-
tion thereof and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment and offer reinstatement to the terminated
539
employees of Metro. If we fail to resume our
Metro, operation, in accord with the section of the
Board's Decision and Order entitled "The Reme-
dy," we shall bargain with the Union concerning
the effects of the decision to close, establish a
preferential hiring list of all employees in the
appropriate unit following a nondiscriminatory
system, bargain about its mode of operation, and
offer to the terminated Metro employees in the
appropriate unit reinstatement to positions for
which they are qualified at any of our Dallas,
Texas, operations, discharging, if necessary,
persons employed since November 1, 1974. Any
understanding reached shall be embodied in a
signed agreement.
WE WILL abide by the dues-checkoff provisions
of the collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union at any of our operations. where the
agreement is in effect.
WE WILL make whole employees of Metro in
the appropriate unit by the. payment of backpay
from the date of their termination on November
1, 1974, to the date we bargain in good faith with
the Union or until such employees are offered
reinstatement by us, whichever occurs first. The
bargaining unit is:
All drivers, helpers, warehousemen, fork-
lift operators and checkers employed at
Respondent's Dallas, Texas operation, ex-
cluding all other employees, guards, watch-
men, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL offer to reinstate Ricky Jones to his
former, position or, if it no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent position without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges
and make him whole for any loss of earnings he
suffered because of the discrimination against
him.
METRO TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES COMPANY, INC;
TEXAS WESTERN
TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY; AND JIM
BEAVERS, INDIVIDUALLY,
D/B/A JIM BEAVERS
COMPANY