Parksite Group

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 1, 2009

354 N.L.R.B. 801 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

354 NLRB No. 90
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
The Parksite Group and International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Local Union No. 671. Case 34–
CA–11961
September 30, 2009
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER
The primary issue in this case is whether the Respon-
dent, The Parksite Group (Parksite), discriminatorily
refused to hire 10 former employees of its predecessor,
with the object of avoiding an obligation to bargain with
the Union as a successor employer.1
The National Labor Relations Board2 has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's findings3 and
conclusions, and to adopt his recommended Order.

1 On November 26, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Raymond P.
Green issued the attached decision. Parksite filed exceptions and a
supporting brief, the General Counsel filed a brief in response, and
Parksite filed a reply. The General Counsel also filed limited excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and Parksite filed a brief in response.
On January 16, 2009, after the judge issued his decision, the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut issued an injunction
under Sec. 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, preserving the
status quo with respect to hiring and terms of employment in the bar-
gaining unit at issue. Hoffman v. Parksite Group, 596 F. Supp. 2d 416
(D. Conn. 2009).
2 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act. See Snell Island SNF LLC v. NLRB, 568 F.3d
410 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed __ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Sep-
tember 11, 2009) (No. 09–328); New Process Steel v. NLRB, 564 F.3d
840 (7th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed 77 U.S.L.W. 3670 (U.S. May
22, 2009) (No. 08–1457); Northeastern Land Services v. NLRB, 560
F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed 78 U.S.L.W. 3098 (U.S.
August 18, 2009) (No. 09–213). But see Laurel Baye Healthcare of
Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469 (D.C. Cir. 2009), petition for
cert. filed sub nom. NLRB v. Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier,
Inc., _U.S.L.W._ (U.S. September 29, 2009) (No. 09–377).
3 Many of Parksite’s exceptions are based on disagreement with the
judge's credibility findings. The Board's established policy is not to
overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the
clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they
are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950),
enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing the findings. We also deny the
Respondent's request for oral argument, as the record, exceptions, ar-
guments, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of
the parties.
We agree with the judge that Parksite acted with anti-
union animus in refusing to hire the alleged discrimina-
tees, and that Parksite would not have made the same
hiring decisions absent their affiliation with the Union.4
Parksite accordingly violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
We also agree with the judge that Parksite did not unlaw-
fully interrogate employees Jeff Ogren or Ivan Vasquez
about the Union during their respective hiring inter-
views.5 We write to explain the basis for our finding of a
refusal for hire violation.
I. BACKGROUND
Parksite, a wholesaler/deliverer of building materials
headquartered in Illinois, operates eight facilities in the
eastern United States, including at South Windsor, Con-
necticut, the terminal at issue. For most of its history,
Parksite has employed its own drivers and warehouse
employees at these terminals. In 2005, however, Parksite
outsourced these on-site functions to Ryder Integrated
Logistics (Ryder), which hired most of Parksite’s em-
ployees at that time.
Although Ryder operated the eight terminals on Park-
site’s behalf and employed its own staff at these termi-
nals through 2007, Parksite maintained its own local
managers at four of the facilities, including South Win-
dsor. The General Counsel’s and Parksite’s witnesses
agree that there was ongoing tension between Ryder’s
local management at South Windsor and Jeremy La-
Russo, Parksite’s South Windsor manager, and that this
tension adversely affected the operation. Parksite’s and
Ryder’s witnesses also confirmed that the negative inter-

4 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s findings that: (1) Parksite
hired a representative complement of the terminal’s workforce on Janu-
ary 1 and 2, 2008; (2) a majority of the employees Parksite hired at that
time were former members of the unit, (3) the unit continued to operate
essentially unchanged, (4) Parksite was consequently obligated as a
matter of law to recognize and bargain with the Union; (5) Parksite
unilaterally and unlawfully changed the unit’s terms and conditions of
employment; and (6) the remedial order should include restoration of
the unit’s presuccessorship terms of employment for the period preced-
ing the date on which the parties would have negotiated a new agree-
ment or reached impasse. Parksite excepts only with respect to the
judge’s finding that it engaged in discriminatory hiring, and the appro-
priate remedy for that misconduct.
The General Counsel, in his limited exceptions, seeks compound in-
terest computed on a quarterly basis for remedial monetary awards. We
are not prepared at this time to deviate from our current practice of
assessing simple interest. See, e.g., Mays Printing, 354 NLRB No. 23,
slip op. at 2 fn. 4 (2009).
5 The judge found that Ogren’s cursory testimony that Don Alamo,
Parksite’s interviewer, raised the subject of the union with him was not
sufficiently credible to establish that a violation occurred. With respect
to Vasquez’s interview, it was Vasquez who first mentioned the Union,
and Alamo responded by asking how Vasquez thought that bringing in
the Union would solve the problem of the “fighting” between Ryder’s
and Parksite’s local management. In this setting, Alamo’s question did
not have a reasonable tendency to coerce within the meaning of Sec. 7.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
action between LaRusso and Ryder resulted in the fre-
quent turnover of Ryder’s South Windsor management
personnel, further disrupting performance.
In March 2006, the Union began an organizing cam-
paign for the Ryder drivers and warehouse workers at the
South Windsor facility. Upon learning from Ryder that
the Union had filed an election petition, Parksite’s corpo-
rate management expressed to Ryder its strong opposi-
tion to the prospective unionization of the terminal. Ry-
der’s group director for operations updated Parksite’s
management on developments in the union campaign by
teleconference on a regular basis. In addition, James
Coulter, Parksite’s logistics manager (who was later to
make all of the hiring decisions at issue here), had ongo-
ing telephone conversations with LaRusso about Ryder’s
employees and other terminal issues at South Windsor.
A Board election, held on June 8, 2006, resulted in a
13–13 tie. Based on the Union’s objections, the result
was set aside, and a second election was held on April 5,
2007.6 As before, Parksite’s corporate management ob-
tained periodic updates from Ryder on the progress of
the campaign before the second election, and Coulter
continued to receive updates directly from LaRusso.
This time the Union won by a vote of 19–4, and the Un-
ion was certified as the employees’ collective-bargaining
representative. On September 24, following 4 months of
negotiations—on which Ryder also kept Parksite in-
formed—Ryder and the Union signed a collective-
bargaining agreement.
At least five of the alleged discriminates—Doug
Davis, Benny Ingenito, Brian Barber, Ivan Vasquez, and
Evernard “Robbie” Roberts—played public and promi-
nent roles on behalf of the Union during the two election
campaigns, the Board representation proceedings, and/or
the subsequent bargaining with Ryder. Davis, Vasquez,
and Roberts became, respectively, the Union’s driver
steward, warehouse steward, and alternate steward. All
of the discriminatees, as Ryder employees, had publicly
demonstrated their union support by wearing union
clothing or pins, or by placing union decals on their ve-
hicles. Parksite concedes that LaRusso was aware of
their union activities.
In the meantime, over the period 2005–2007, Park-
site’s management had reviewed Ryder’s performance
and, on September 26, 2007, it decided that it would be
more cost effective to bring the operation of its eight
eastern facilities back in-house. Parksite’s management
witnesses testified, without contradiction, that at that
point in time the delivery error rate at South Windsor

6 All subsequent dates are in 2007 unless otherwise indicated.
was to some extent higher than at the other terminals.7 In
addition, shortly before Parksite made its decision to
resume direct management of the terminals, Ryder’s cor-
porate management informed Coulter that Ryder could
not properly operate the South Windsor facility because
of the “high level of frustration” between Ryder’s local
management and LaRusso.8
On November 1, Parksite informed the Union of its in-
tention to terminate Ryder’s management contract and
re-staff the terminal operations in-house, effective Janu-
ary 1, 2008. On November 3, at a terminal meeting, Ry-
der’s South Windsor employees were told to submit ap-
plications for hiring at Parksite. Parksite also accepted
applications at all eight facilities from non-Ryder appli-
cants and placed recruiting advertisements in the local
media to attract such applicants. Only at South Windsor,
however, did Parksite’s ads offer a $1000 signing bonus
to all successful non-Ryder applicants. No such offers
were made to the Ryder applicants at that terminal, or to
any applicants at the other terminals.9
Parksite’s hiring process required all Ryder applicants,
and those non-Ryder applicants who passed an initial
telephone screen, to have a one-on-one interview. To
conduct these interviews, Parksite contracted with out-
side professionals, including Don Alamo, who did the
interviews at South Windsor. He prepared a summary in
which he rated the candidates in six different categories
and gave each candidate a cumulative score. Alamo also
took interview notes which he typed up and turned over
to Parksite.
Coulter made all of Parksite’s final hiring decisions at
South Windsor, although he was not present at any of
Alamo’s interviews. Coulter confirmed at trial that he
had no knowledge about any of the non-Ryder applicants
at South Windsor apart from what he learned from
Alamo’s written evaluation materials, except for three
applicants with whom he had worked before he joined
Parksite in 2005. Coulter never discussed Alamo’s in-
terviews or recommendations with Alamo.
With respect to evaluating the Ryder applicants at
South Windsor, Coulter admittedly relied primarily on
LaRusso, Parksite’s South Windsor manager. Coulter
testified at trial that LaRusso advised him not to hire 9 of

7 Steve Schmidt, Parksite’s vice president of logistics and Coulter’s
superior, conceded at trial that these delivery errors could have resulted
from management or administrative mistakes, as well as from mistakes
by drivers or warehousemen.
8 As the judge observed, the evidence indicates that LaRusso “tended
to interfere perhaps too much in the way that Ryder wanted to manage
deliveries and this generated conflict which flowed down to the em-
ployees.”
9 Parksite “rescinded” the bonus offer at some point after advertising
it; no bonus payments were actually made.
PARKSITE GROUP 3
the 10 alleged discriminatees, in each case—according to
Coulter—for reasons of poor work performance and/or
negative personality. In his testimony, Coulter specified
these reasons for each individual.10 However, LaRusso,
who was still employed by Parksite at the time of the
hearing,11 was not called as a witness to confirm Coul-
ter’s testimony or the reasons he had given Coulter in
making his recommendations.
On December 11, 2007, Parksite extended its initial
job offers at all eight terminals. At South Windsor, Park-
site offered jobs to 15 of the 16 non-Ryder applicants,
but only to 14 of the 26 Ryder employees.
Of the 11 non-Ryder applicants who accepted Park-
site’s job offers at South Windsor, each received a lower
score in Alamo’s interview than two or more of the al-
leged discriminatees. Coulter also made offers to at least
six non-Ryder applicants whom Alamo specifically rec-
ommended against hiring.
Moreover, of the 14 Ryder applicants who received of-
fers and were hired at South Windsor, 3 had expressed
antiunion views during their interviews with Alamo, and
2 others had served as company observers at the first and
second Board elections, respectively. At least two others
had earlier refused to sign union cards. By contrast, as
stated above, all 10 alleged discriminatees who were not
extended offers at South Windsor were active union sup-
porters.
As the judge also observed, Parksite made offers to a
much larger proportion of non-Ryder applicants at South
Windsor than it did at any of its other terminals. In fact,
at each of the other seven terminals, significantly more
Ryder applicants were offered jobs than non-Ryder ap-
plicants. Moreover, at six of the other seven terminals no
non-Ryder applicant received a job offer, and only one
received an offer at the seventh. Correspondingly, at six
of the other seven terminals, at least three out of four of
the Ryder applicants were offered employment and
hired.12
At South Windsor, only 11 of the non-Ryder appli-
cants and all 14 of the Ryder employees who received
offers accepted them. Because so many non-Ryder ap-
plicants turned down Parksite’s employment offers, a

10 Coulter had earlier stated in his pretrial affidavit that he could not
recall why he had not hired seven of the alleged discriminatees. He
testified that he had not talked to LaRusso to refresh his memory before
giving his pretrial affidavit, but that he had done so before the trial.
11 LaRusso was passed over for designation as terminal manager
when Parksite resumed direct operation of the facility, due to his nega-
tive interaction with other management staff.
12 At the seventh terminal, Tampa, a lower proportion of Ryder ap-
plicants was hired than elsewhere (except at South Windsor), but solely
because the total complement at that terminal was significantly re-
duced.
majority of those hired, 14 out of 25,13 turned out to be
former Ryder employees.
By letters dated December 19, 2007, and January 18,
2008, the Union requested recognition and bargaining
with Parksite. By letter dated January 22, 2008, the Re-
spondent refused to recognize the Union, claiming that it
was still interviewing and hiring drivers and warehouse-
men at South Windsor, and that a majority of the unit’s
employees at that time were not from Ryder.14
The Ryder employees hired at South Windsor received
the same wage rates as before, but the terms of their
health and retirement benefits were changed from their
union contract plans to Parksite’s corporate-wide plans.
They also received lower starting wage rates.
II. THE JUDGE’S FINDINGS
The judge found that Parksite acted with the intention
of hiring a unit with less than a majority of former Ryder
employees at South Windsor, thereby avoiding an obliga-
tion to recognize the Union, and freeing it to make uni-
lateral changes in the unit’s terms of employment. He
also found that Parksite knew of the protected activities
of the alleged discriminatees. This finding was based in
part on Parksite’s having undisputedly received ongoing
reports from Ryder concerning the two Board elections
and its subsequent contract negotiations. The finding of
knowledge was also based on Coulter’s having admit-
tedly relied on LaRusso—who as local manager had been
“constantly at the facility”—for updates on the union
activity at South Windsor since 2006, and for hiring rec-
ommendations with respect to the Ryder applicants in
December 2007. The judge further found that LaRusso’s
knowledge of the discriminatees’ individual union activi-
ties was also imputable to Coulter based on Coulter’s
position as LaRusso’s superior.
The judge discredited Coulter’s stated reasons for not
hiring the discriminatees and his denial of knowledge of
their union activities. In this connection, in addition to
other evidence, he drew an adverse inference from Park-

13 These employees started work at South Windsor on January 1 and
2, 2008, when Parksite formally took over management of the terminal.
The judge’s finding that 25 employees started work at that time is con-
sistent with Parksite’s internal records, and there is no dispute that 14
of those employees came from the Ryder unit. Accordingly, Parksite
hired 11 outside applicants, not 10 as implied by the judge. The error is
inconsequential.
14 Parksite’s letter, written by its counsel, stated: “Currently, [Park-
site] has 18 employees at that location [South Windsor]. Twelve are
former Ryder employees and members of [the Union] and fifteen are
not.” In fact, Parksite’s records confirm that on the date Parksite’s
letter was sent, there were 13 former Ryder employees and 10 non-
Ryder employees at South Windsor—i.e., former Ryder employees
were still a majority.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
site’s failure to call LaRusso to confirm Coulter’s testi-
mony on these critical issues.
III. ANALYSIS
While a successor employer is not obligated to hire the
predecessor’s employees, it may not discriminate against
those employees on the basis of antiunion animus. How-
ard Johnson Co. v. Detroit Executive Board, Hotel &
Restaurant Employees, 417 U.S. 249, 262 fn. 8 (1974).
In a refusal-to-hire case involving a successorship, the
applicable legal standards are prescribed in Wright Line
251 NLRB 1083 (1980), as approved in NLRB v. Trans-
portation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983). See
Planned Building Services, 347 NLRB 670, 673–674
(2006). Wright Line requires the General Counsel to
make an initial showing sufficient to support an inference
that protected or union activity was a motivating factor in
the decision to take an adverse action against employ-
ees.15
In a successorship context, however, the General
Counsel is not necessarily required to show that the em-
ployer knew of the alleged discriminatees’ individual
union activities and was motivated by animus against
those particular activities. Lemay Caring Center, 280
NLRB 60, 69 (1986), affd. mem. sub nom. Dasal Caring
Centers v. NLRB, 815 F.2d 711 (8th Cir. 1987) . It is
sufficient if the General Counsel shows that the succes-
sor was motivated by an intent to avoid its obligation to
bargain with the predecessor’s union16 and refused to
hire applicants whom it knew were members of the for-
mer bargaining unit with that purpose.17 Factors relevant

15 The elements commonly required to support the General Coun-
sel’s initial showing are union or protected concerted activity by the
employee, employer knowledge of that activity, and union animus on
the part of the employer. See, e.g., Consolidated Bus Transit. Inc., 350
NLRB 1064, 1065 (2007); Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center,
352 NLRB 112 (2008). Member Schaumber notes that the Board and
the circuit courts of appeal have variously described the evidentiary
elements of the General Counsel's initial burden of proof under Wright
Line, sometimes adding as an independent fourth element the necessity
for there to be a causal nexus between the union animus and the ad-
verse employment action. See, e.g., American Gardens Management
Co., 338 NLRB 644, 645 (2002) As stated in Shearer's Foods, 340
NLRB 1093, 1094 fn. 4 (2003), because Wright Line is a causation
standard, Member Schaumber agrees with this addition to the formula-
tion.
16 A successor is obligated to recognize the union that represented its
predecessor’s employees where the operation continues substantially
unchanged and a majority of the new employees are former members of
the represented unit. Those issues are undisputed here. See fn. 4, su-
pra. Burns Intern. Security Services v. NLRB, 406 U.S. 272, 278–281
(1972).
17 E.g., U.S. Marine Corp. v. NLRB, 944 F.2d 1305, 1315–1316 (7th
Cir. 1991), cert. denied 503 U.S. 936 (1992); Planned Building Ser-
vices, supra, 347 NLRB at 673; Daufuskie Island Club & Resort, 328
NLRB 415, 421–422 (1999), enfd. 221 F.3d 196 (D.C. Cir.
2000) (table); New Breed Leasing Corp., 317 NLRB 1011, 1011 fn.3,
to this showing include “substantial evidence of union
animus; lack of a convincing rationale for refusal to hire
the predecessor's employees; inconsistent hiring practices
or overt acts or conduct evidencing a discriminatory mo-
tive; and evidence supporting a reasonable inference that
the new owner conducted its staffing in a manner pre-
cluding the predecessor's employees from being hired as
a majority of the new owner's overall work force to avoid
the Board's successorship doctrine.” Planned Building
Services, 347 NLRB at 673, quoting U. S. Marine Corp.,
293 NLRB 669, 670 (1989), enfd. en banc 944 F.2d 1305
(7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied 503 U.S. 936 (1992).
If the General Counsel makes such a showing, the bur-
den passes to the successor to show that it would not
have hired the alleged discriminatees even if they had not
been former unit members. Planned Building Services,
supra at 674.
We agree with the judge that the General Counsel
made a sufficient showing to support an inference that
Parksite acted with the intent of hiring fewer former Ry-
der employees than would constitute a majority of the
new unit, in order to avoid an obligation to recognize and
bargain with the Union. There is no dispute that, if all of
the applicants who received Parksite’s job offers had
accepted, the terminal would have re-opened with 15
non-Ryder employees and 14 former Ryder employees—
a non-Ryder majority that would have enabled Parksite
to avoid a bargaining obligation. There is also no dispute
that Parksite knew that the 10 alleged discriminatees
were former Ryder employees at South Windsor.18

1023 (1995), enfd. 111 F.3d 1460 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied 522 U.S.
948 (1997).
18 Although the General Counsel was not obligated to prove that
Coulter had knowledge of the discriminatees’ individual union activi-
ties, in Chairman Liebman’s view the judge was correct in imputing
LaRusso’s knowledge of those activities to Coulter. A supervisor’s
knowledge of protected activity can be imputed to upper management
where the employer does not establish a credible evidentiary basis for
rejecting such imputation. E.g., State Plaza Hotel, 347 NLRB 755, 756
(2006); Albertson’s, Inc., 344 NLRB 1172, 1185 (2005); Holsum De
Puerto Rico, Inc., 344 NLRB 694, 714 fn.36 (2005), enfd. 456 F.3d 265
(1st Cir. 2006); Midnight Rose Hotel & Casino, 343 NLRB 1003, 1005
(2004), affd. 198 Fed. Appx. 752 (10th Cir. 2006).
In the cases cited by Parksite on this issue, either knowledge was
found without the need for imputing it, or there was a credible eviden-
tiary basis for not imputing knowledge to upper management. See
Poly-America, Inc. v. NLRB, 260 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2001) (sufficient
evidence of communication to attribute knowledge in this case); Vulcan
Basement Waterproofing v. NLRB, 219 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2000) (be-
cause employer’s supervisors had all signed union cards, and judge’s
refusal to credit supervisor’s denial that he informed management of
two employees’ union activity was based only on his own speculation
that supervisor disliked them for their abusive misconduct, knowledge
could not be imputed); Jim Walter Resources v. NLRB, 177 F.3d 961
(11th Cir. 1999) (because Board specifically found that hiring officials
did not know of applicant’s union background, and outside sources
PARKSITE GROUP 5
Moreover, Parksite demonstrated its animus when it re-
fused to bargain at the Union’s request even though the
new unit complement had a majority of former Ryder
employees, thereby violating Section 8(a)(5).
The conclusion that Parksite sought to avoid hiring a
unit with a majority of former Ryder employees is fur-
ther supported by (1) the judge’s discrediting of Coul-
ter’s proffered reasons, discussed infra, for his individual
hiring decisions;19 (2) the $1000 signing bonus that Park-
site conspicuously advertised only for non-Ryder appli-
cants at South Windsor; (3) Coulter’s hiring of 11 non-
Ryder applicants—including at least 6 whom Alamo
considered unemployable—who each received lower
scores from Alamo than at least 2 or more of the dis-
criminatees; (4) Parksite’s strong preference for Ryder
veterans at all of its other seven terminals; and (5) Park-
site’s demonstrably false assertion to the Union that it
had not yet hired a representative complement for the
terminal. Planned Building Services, supra at 673. 20
We also agree with the judge that Parksite failed to
carry its rebuttal burden of showing that it would have
made the same hiring decisions even if the discriminatees
had not been former unit members. First, the judge dis-
credited Coulter’s testimony that he declined to hire 9 of
the 10 discriminatees for lawful reasons purportedly
conveyed to him by LaRusso.21 In this connection, we
conclude that the judge did not abuse his discretion in
drawing an adverse inference from LaRusso’s failure to
testify. The fact that LaRusso could also have been sub-
poenaed by the General Counsel, as Parksite suggests, is

characterized him only as having a “negative attitude,” imputation of
knowledge not justified).
Member Schaumber finds that because in this successorship avoid-
ance case, unlike Windsor Convalescent Center of North Long Beach,
351 NLRB 975, 986 fn. 48 (2007), in which the General Counsel is
required to establish only the Respondent’s knowledge of the discrimi-
natees’ Union representation at the predecessor employer, it is unneces-
sary to rely on the judge’s finding that LaRusso’s knowledge of the
discriminatees’ individual union activities should be imputed to Coul-
ter.
19 Where an employer's proffered nondiscriminatory explanation is
found to be false, unlawful motivation may be inferred even in the
absence of direct evidence. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. NLRB, 362
F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966); Smucker Co., 341 NLRB 35, 40 (2004),
enfd. 130 Fed.Appx. 596 (3rd Cir. 2005); Fluor Daniel, Inc., 304
NLRB 970 (1991).
20 Parksite’s statement in its counsel’s letter of refusal to the Union
that there were “18 employees at that location” but that “[t]welve are
former Ryder employees and members of [the Union] and fifteen are
not,” was both false and arithmetically impossible.
21 As the judge observed, the tenth alleged discriminatee, Andrew
Burleigh, one of the three Ryder employees who initially contacted the
Union, had admittedly been removed from servicing one customer as
the result of an altercation. However, Jeff Ogren, another Ryder appli-
cant who had not been an active union supporter, was hired by Coulter
even though he had been disciplined several times for similar incidents.
not determinative because the General Counsel was not
obligated to rely on LaRusso’s testimony to prove his
case. On the other hand, Coulter admittedly relied on
LaRusso for evaluations of all the former Ryder appli-
cants, and he even confirmed that he had improved his
memory about the discriminatees’ qualifications by talk-
ing to LaRusso before the trial. Moreover, the lawful-
ness of Parksite’s actions depended entirely on Coulter’s
motivation for his hiring decisions. It was Parksite’s
choice to withhold LaRusso’s critically important testi-
mony. Thus, under the circumstances presented, we find
no abuse of discretion in the judge’s application of the
adverse inference rule.
In addition, while Coulter testified that the discrimina-
tees were not hired as a group because of the higher-
than-average error rate at South Windsor, the judge dis-
credited Coulter in this respect as well. There is substan-
tial evidence in the record—including admissions by
Parksite—that the problems at the terminal resulted in
large part from the ongoing conflict between Ryder’s
management and LaRusso, rather than from unit em-
ployee performance.22
For all of these reasons, we find that Parksite failed to
rebut the General Counsel’s showing that Parksite’s re-
fusal to hire the discriminatees was unlawfully moti-
vated. Accordingly, we find that Parksite violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) by refusing to hire the discriminatees.23
With respect to the remedy, Parksite, citing FES, 331
NLRB 9 (2000), supplemented 333 NLRB 66 (2001),
enfd. 301 F.3d 83 (3d Cir. 2002), contends that, at worst,
it unlawfully refused to consider the discriminatees
rather than refused to hire them. On this ground, Parksite
contends that the remedy should include only eligibility
to apply for prospective hiring when openings occur at
the terminal, not instatement and backpay. However, the
judge found, and we agree, that Parksite failed to show
that it would not have hired any of the ten rejected Ryder
employees for legitimate reasons separate and apart from
its unlawful motivation to avoid a bargaining obligation.
Hence, the violation we remedy is the unlawful refusal to
hire the discriminatees, and the appropriate remedy in
such circumstances includes reinstatement and backpay.
See Planned Building Services, supra at 672 fn. 9, and
674–676.

22 See fn. 19.
23 Parksite emphasizes that it recognized and continued to bargain
with the union that represented employees at its New Jersey facility.
This, however, does not negate the evidence that it acted with unlawful
animus with respect to its hiring at a terminal in another state.
In finding that Parksite’s refusal to hire the discriminatees was moti-
vated by an intent to avoid a bargaining obligation with the Union, we
find it unnecessary to rely on Parksite’s May 2006 letter opposing the
Union sent to employees at the South Windsor terminal.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, The Parksite Group, South
Windsor, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the recom-
mended Order.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 30, 2009
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jennifer Dease, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Linda M. Doyle, Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RAYMOND P. GREEN, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this
case in Hartford, Connecticut, on August 19–22 and on Sep-
tember 15, 2008. The charge and amended charge were filed
on January 28 and March 19, 2008. The complaint was issued
on May 30, 2008, and alleges as follows:
1. That since on or about November 1, 2007, the Respon-
dent, The Parksite Group, has refused to hire certain individuals
employed by Ryder Integrated Logistics Inc., in order to pre-
vent it from becoming a “successor” employer. These were
Brian Barber, Michael Beaulieu, Andrew Burleigh, Doug
Davis, Benny Ingenito, Joseph Moyles, Evernard “Robbie”
Roberts, Estaquio “Jay” Rodriguez, Jack Teske, and Ivan
Vasquez.
2. That in or about December 2007 the Respondent by Don
Alamo interrogated employees about their union membership
and activities.
3. That on or about January 1, 2008, the Respondent as-
sumed the warehouse and distribution functions that had previ-
ously been performed by the employees of Ryder who were
represented by Local 671.
4. That by virtue of the Respondent’s discriminatory refusal
to hire former Ryder employees, and because the complement
of employees at the facility, in the absence of discrimination,
would have consisted of a majority of those employees, the
Respondent is a successor employer having an obligation to
recognize and bargain with Local 671.
5. That since on or about January 1, 2008, the Respondent
has failed and refused to bargain with Local 671.
6. That since January 1, 2008, the Respondent has unilater-
ally and without prior notice to the Union, established the rates
of pay, benefits, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment for the employees in the bargaining unit.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed, I
make the following
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer en-
gaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. It also is conceded and I find that
the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
a. The successorship issue
The basic case defining successorship is Fall River Dyeing &
Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987). In that case, the
Supreme Court held that a purchasing employer is required to
recognize and bargain with a union representing the predeces-
sor’s employees when there is a "substantial continuity" of
operations after the transaction and if a majority of the new
employer’s work force, in an appropriate unit, consists of the
predecessor's employees when the new employer has reached a
"substantial and representative complement."
Successorship will not be found in the event that the new
employer substantially changes the nature of the business and
thereby disrupts the continuity of the enterprise. CitiSteel USA
Inc., v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 350 (D.C. Cir. 1995). In School Bus
Services, Inc., 312 NLRB 1 (1993), the Board held that with
respect to continuity, the questions are (1) whether the business
of both employers was essentially the same; (2) whether the
employees of the new company are doing the same jobs in the
same working conditions, under the same supervisors; and (3)
whether the new entity has the same production process, pro-
duces the same products, and basically has the same customers.
On the issue of continuity, see also Sierra Realty Corp. 317
NLRB 832, 836 (1995); Systems Management, 292 NLRB
1075 (1989) enf’d in part 901 F.2d 279 (3d Cir. 1990); Steward
Granite Enterprises, 255 NLRB 569, 573 (1991); and Spruce-
Up Corp., 209 NLRB 194 (1974).
The Respondent is engaged in the wholesaling of building
materials. It is based in Batavia, Illinois, and currently operates
eight facilities in the Eastern part of the United States. At these
facilities, the Company employs a sales force, clerical employ-
ees, warehousemen, and drivers. The facility involved in this
case is located at South Windsor Connecticut and is one of the
larger of these facilities.
The management structure of the Company is as follows.
The CEO is George Patee. The president is Richard C. Heitz-
man. Dick Hill is the Employer’s director of human resources.
Steve Schmidt is the vice president of logistics. James Coulter
is the director of logistics and he works for Schmidt. Each
facility has a sales manager and an operations manager. The
Company also employees regional sales managers and the per-
son in charge of the area in which South Windsor is located is
Kevin Crotty.
For most of its history, the Respondent has directly em-
ployed warehouse employees and drivers. However, in 2005 it
decided to outsource these functions. To that end, it contracted
PARKSITE GROUP 7
this work to Ryder Integrated Logistics and that company took
over most of the employees who had previously been employed
by Parksite, including the employees at a facility in New Jer-
sey, where the employees were unionized. With respect to the
New Jersey facility, it is noted that Parksite had taken over that
facility from another company having a contractual relationship
with a Teamster union and that it recognized that union when it
hired a majority of the predecessor’s employees at the facility.
When Ryder took over the New Jersey operation, it also recog-
nized the Teamsters.1
In March 2006, Local 671 began an organizing campaign at
the South Windsor facility. Employee Doug Davis testified
that he was the person who contacted the Union and other evi-
dence shows that he was the most active union supporter
among the Ryder employees.
On April 27, 2006, Local 671 filed a petition for an election.
On May 5, 2006, the parties executed a Stipulated Election
Agreement whereby an election was held on June 8, 2006.
(Doug Davis was the Union’s observer at this election). In that
election, there were 13 votes cast for the Union and 13 votes
cast against union representation. As a consequence of objec-
tions filed by the Union, there was a hearing and some of the
employees testified for the Union in that proceeding including
Davis, Bernardino Ingenito, and Brian Barber. On August 11,
2006, a report on objections was issued sustaining some of the
Union’s objections. The Regional Director issued a direction of
a second election on February 28, 2007, and another election
was held on April 5, 2007. (At this election, Ivan Vasquez, a
warehouse employee, was the Union’s observer). This time the
union won by a vote of 19 to 4. The Union was certified on
April 13, 2007, and on September 24, 2007, a collective-
bargaining agreement was signed by Ryder.
The General Counsel points to a letter written by Parksite’s
president Heitzman on May 30, 2006, that demonstrates its
active involvement in the first election. She further posits that
this letter demonstrates an antiunion preference by Parksite and
a willingness to take adverse actions in the event that Local 671
was elected. This letter, which was distributed by Ryder to the
employees, stated:
I understand that the Ryder associates in our South Windsor,
CT location are evaluating representation by a union. I want
to notify you that I am greatly troubled by that prospect.
. . .
I firmly believe that a union environment is incompatible with
our operating culture and our competitive advantage. Intro-
ducing a third party will undoubtedly result in less direct
communication, less operating flexibility, less teamwork and
much less focus on the customer. That result is unacceptable
to me, but more importantly, it will be unacceptable to our
customers.
. . .
I want you to know that if the Ryder associates choose union
representation, we will need to take steps to ensure that we do

1 This transaction demonstrates that Parksite had prior experience in
dealing with unions and in dealing with “successorship” situations.
not lose the competitive advantage we have worked so hard to
gain over the years. We will explore all alternatives.
The Respondent’s witnesses testified that this letter was so-
licited by Ryder and essentially drafted by Ryder so that it
could be used as a campaign tool in the first election. The
General Counsel called Ryder officials who disputed this asser-
tion. In either case, whether solicited or not by Ryder, the fact
is that the letter that was signed by Heitzman speaks for itself
and its sentiments were either made or adopted by him. Either
this is what he believed at the time that the letter was composed
or he was willing to adopt someone else’s views for the purpose
of defeating the Union in the election.
After the second election was held and the Union was certi-
fied on April 13, 2007, Ryder employees Doug Davis and Ivan
Vasquez participated in the bargaining as members of the Un-
ion’s negotiating committee. They also were selected as the
union shop stewards. Evanard “Robbie” Roberts was elected to
be the alternative shop steward.
It is noted that during the negotiations, Ryder kept Parksite
informed of developments. There is, however, no evidence that
Parksite sought to influence Ryder in relation to the negotia-
tions.
Parksite hired James Coulter in 2005 as its logistics manager.
He testified that some time after he started, he came to the con-
clusion that contracting out the work to Ryder was not very
effective, particularly as the relationship between Parksite and
Ryder was based on a cost plus contract and there was little
inducement for Ryder to more efficiently run these operations.
He testified that he brought his opinions to other management
and recommended that Parksite bring the warehouse and driv-
ing functions at every facility, back in-house.
According to Coulter’s pretrial affidavit, it was in August
2007 that the Company “began engaging in a business case
analysis about whether or not to continue to contract with Ry-
der for the distribution function of our business or whether to
bring that function back in house.” He states that on September
26, 2007, the decision was made to bring back all of the driving
and warehousing functions at all eight facilities.
To state the obvious, Coulter’s pretrial affidavit indicates
that Parksite began the formal process of studying the ramifica-
tions of bringing back the delivery and warehousing functions
at the same time that negotiations were occurring between Ry-
der and Local 671. It also shows that Parksite made its decision
2 days after a collective-bargaining agreement was reached.
This is not to say that there were no legitimate business rea-
sons for terminating the contract with Ryder. The decision
affected all eight of the Company’s facilities and not just South
Windsor. The Respondent’s witnesses testified that it was their
belief that bringing the work in-house could reduce the number
of managers and therefore reduce costs.
The decision to bring back the work involved more than 200
employees. And in relation to the change, the Respondent de-
cided to have both Ryder employees and outside people apply
for these jobs. That is, it was decided that the former Ryder
employees would have to compete with outside applicants.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
On November 1, 2007, the Union was notified by Ryder that
its contract with Parksite would be terminated as of January 1,
2008.
On November 3, 2007, Ryder representatives told the em-
ployees at South Windsor that Parksite was cancelling the con-
tract and would be taking over the distribution functions at all
of its facilities. The employees were told that interviews would
be held at the South Windsor facility between December 3
through 6 and that offers would be made by December 10,
2007. Handouts were given to the employees and General
Counsel Exhibit 7 is a document that was prepared by Parksite
in the form of questions and answers. It states:
Q. If I am a union employee in New Brunswick or South
Windsor, what will be my status with Parksite as of January 1,
2008?
A. As with other employees in the warehouses, the yard and
drivers we will be seeking to hire as many of Ryder/Kencos’
current employees as possible. Parksite will assume almost
all the union contract with Ryder/Kenco. As with all associ-
ates, we will hire employees based on an interview; the pass-
ing of a drug test; a background check; for drivers, a Motor
Vehicle Report; and the signing of a commitment to our own-
ership behaviors in the work place. Parksite will explore pay-
ing for the Union’s Health and Welfare Benefit Plan versus
enrollment In the Parksite Plan. We will enroll new associ-
ates in the Parksite 401k. The Medial Plan and the 401K will
no longer be available from Ryder/Kenco. Other components
of the Union contract will be honored as they stand today.
Q. If I work for Ryder/Kenco, will I be doing the same job
that I am doing today?
A. The same work needs to be accomplished to complete
warehousing, loading and delivery of inventory to customers.
However, this work will be done under Parksite direction and
supervision. This means you will be doing similar work.
However, some tasks may be combined, managed with dif-
ferent systems or altered to increase efficiency and response
to customer needs.
Q. Will I have benefits with Parksite?
A. In his trips to each location, Dick Hill will meet with af-
fected staff and present the details of the Parksite benefits plan
to associates. The benefits package of Ryder/Kenco is sub-
stantially comparable to Parksite’s benefits offering. For un-
ion associates in New Brunswick and South Windsor, we will
explore the cost of the Union medical plan. Parksite will ei-
ther contribute to the cost of the union plan or enroll new as-
sociates in Parksite’s plan. In addition, in line with the current
contract, associates will be offered the Parksite 401K retire-
ment plan.
As noted above, Parksite decided to open the hiring process
at all facilities to both the former Ryder employees who had
worked at each facility and to outside applicants. To this end,
newspapers ads were placed. Also, an online advertiser, Career
Builders was used. The General Counsel points to the fact that
in some ads for the South Windsor facility, a $1000 signing
bonus was offered only to successful non-Ryder applicants.
She persuasively asserts that this demonstrates Parksite’s inten-
tion to induce more non-Ryder applicants to seek and accept
employment at the South Windsor facility.2
The hiring process at all of the facilities involved an initial
screening of non-Ryder applicants by Susan Davey who re-
viewed resumes and had phone interviews with those people. If
an applicant passed through her, a second interview was set up
with two interviewers who were hired for this purpose, one of
whom was Don Alamo.
According to the testimony of Richard Hill, the director of
human resources, there were about 2000 applications received
from non-Ryder employees of which only 46 received inter-
views after the initial screening process. A large percentage of
the outside applicants were interviewed for the South Windsor
facility.
Mr. Alamo conducted interviews at the South Windsor facil-
ity. This consisted of interviews with the former Ryder em-
ployees who worked at South Windsor and also with outside
applicants who applied for that location. He testified that he
utilized a form containing a list of questions that had been pre-
pared by Parksite, albeit he did not ask all of the questions on
the form. Alamo also testified that he prepared a summary by
which he rated the interviewees in six different categories. Each
category was rated from 1-6 with 1 being the best score. Also,
a total cumulative score was given with the lower the better.
The evidence shows that during some of the interviews, there
was discussion about the Union between Alamo and some of
the Ryder employees.
Ivan Vasquez, a warehouse leadman, testified that towards
the end of the interview Alamo asked why everybody has such
a problem with management. Vasquez states that he responded
that there was a lack of communication between Parksite and
Ryder and that this had caused problems with the employees,
which was why the employees “entered” the Union. Vasquez
testified that when Alamo then asked why the employees
brought in the Union, he repeated that Parksite and Ryder were
always fighting and that the employees needed someone else to
protect them. Vasquez was one of the Ryder employees who
was not offered a job by Parksite.
Jeff Ogren, a driver, testified that during his interview, he
was asked if he was a member of the Union and that he re-
sponded that “we all were.” He was offered a job and started
working for Parksite on January 1, 2008.
Alamo testified that there were several employees who
brought up the Union, but that these comments were volun-
teered by them and not made in response to any questions asked
by him and apart from the testimony of Jeff Ogren, there was
no other person who testified that Alamo initiated the question-
ing of employees about the Union. Therefore, in the absence of
any other corroboration, I am going to dismiss the interrogation
allegation of the complaint.
In the course of the interviewing process, Alamo made notes
which he then typed up and turned over to the Company.

2 It is unclear as to whether any of the non-Ryder job applicants at
South Windsor actually received the signing bonus.
PARKSITE GROUP 9
Alamo’s notes regarding his interview with Erich Buelig,
who was hired by Parksite and started working on January 1,
2008, contains the following:
Erich made a point of voluntarily saying he was not a union
supporter and went out his way to downgrade the union effort
and said he walked out of one of the meetings. He said there
were and are several drivers who are big complainers and
were probably looking to bring in the union. BUT, he be-
lieves that PPW should have listened to the complaints to
head off the problem—he doesn’t think they did!
He believes that PPW should start off having a written Mis-
sion Statement and making sure everyone knows what they
stand for and solve the “attitudinal” problem which exists.
Erich is well spoken, intelligent and appears to be firmly in
support of PPW management if he is to be believed (and he
honestly seems to be forthcoming).
Alamo’s notes regarding John Saya, who was hired and
started working on January 1, 2008, stated:
John is well spoken and obviously knowledgeable about his
job after 25 yrs. He said he was “shocked” and felt “let
down” when he heard about the initial outsourcing. Now he
believes it will be very positive to have Ryder gone even
though he believes that Ryder does a good job with what it
was handed. He said he want to make sure this doesn’t hap-
pen again. He was very negative about the need for unioniza-
tion. He also said he very, very much wants to keep his job
because he likes the Parksite people, the location and his cus-
tomers—and will do anything to keep his job.
Alamo’s notes regarding Scott Rossi, who was hired and
started working on January 1, 2008, states:
Very personable: excellent knowledge and attitude about most
co-workers and company, but not that happy about Ryder.
Voluntarily said he stayed “under the radar with the whole un-
ion thing.”
At South Windsor there were 42 people who were inter-
viewed for driver and warehouse positions. Of these, 26 were
former Ryder employees and 16 were non-Ryder applicants.
On December 11, 2007, the Company made its initial job of-
fers. The evidence shows that at South Windsor, 15 out of the
16 non-Ryder applicants were offered jobs and that 14 out of
the 26 Ryder applicants were offered jobs. Of the total jobs
offered, five of the non-Ryder applicants did not accept the
jobs. Of the people who started work on January 1 or 2, 2008,
there were 25 employees who were hired, of whom 14 were
former Ryder employees.
By letter dated December 11, 2007, the former Ryder em-
ployees who were offered employment at South Windsor were
notified by Parksite that their wage rates would remain the
same (as set forth in the Ryder/Local 671 contract), but that
health insurance and 401(k) plans would be Parksite company
wide plans and not union contract plans. The remaining people
were hired at starting rates that for the most part were lower.
The Company points out that at its New Brunswick, New
Jersey facility, it recognized the Union that represented those
employees because a majority of those hired were former Ryder
employees who were represented by a union.
There is no question but that the operation at South Windsor,
as it existed under Ryder, was carried on by Parksite with sub-
stantially no change. The functions of the unit were to ware-
house the same types of building materials and to deliver those
materials to the same customers. This was carried out in the
same warehouse facility and was done with the same categories
of workers. Indeed, Parksite rented the same trucks that Ryder
had used for this process when it had performed these func-
tions. The facts also show that Parksite hired three of the for-
mer Ryder managers to do the same jobs that they had done
when they were employed by Ryder. (Charles Oliver, William
Richards, and Gary Scaramella).
It is my conclusion that the work force that began working
for Parksite at South Windsor on January 1 and 2, 2008, was a
representative complement of employees. When the first elec-
tion was held in June 2006, there were approximately 26 driv-
ers and warehousemen. One year later (and after some decline
in business due to the beginning of the downturn in the housing
market), there were 23 drivers and warehousemen who voted in
the second election held on April 7, 2007. For the year 2007,
the average number of drivers and warehousemen employed at
South Windsor was 27. For the period of time between Janu-
ary 1 through July 2008 (just before the hearing in this case
began), the Company’s records indicate that the average com-
plement of South Windsor unit employees was 26.
After making the job offers and by January 2, 2008, there
were 25 drivers and warehousemen who were hired to work at
the South Windsor facility. And although there were some
people who left and were replaced during that first month, the
number in the unit by the end of January 2008 was 26.
By letters dated December 19, 2007, and January 18, 2008,
the Union requested recognition and bargaining. By letter
dated January 22, 2008, the Respondent declined to recognize
the Union, claiming that it was continuing to interview and hire
drivers and warehousemen for South Windsor.3
Whether or not the evidence will ultimately show that Park-
site made an effort to jury rig the hiring procedure to produce a
different result, the outcome of the hiring process here was that
the former Ryder employees made up a majority of Parksite’s
work force as of January 2, 2008, which is the effective date
that it commenced operations. Because it is my conclusion that
the work force as of January 2, 2008, constituted a substantial
and representative complement of the new employer’s work
force, I conclude that Parksite is a successor at its South Win-
dsor facility with respect to the drivers and warehousemen. I
therefore conclude that Parksite had an obligation to recognize
and bargain with the Union and that by failing to do so, it vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
b. The alleged refusal to hire
The General Counsel contends that the 10 individuals listed
as discriminatees in the complaint were not hired because of

3 The General Counsel points out that as of January 22, there were
23 bargaining unit employees on the payroll of whom, 13 were former
Ryder employees.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
their “open and notorious” union activities. Alternatively, she
alleges that Parksite set up its hiring process at South Windsor
so that there would be a probability that a majority of those
hired would not be former Ryder employees
The Respondent denies that it refused to hire any individuals
because of their union activities and denies that it engaged in a
“plot” designed to result in the hiring of a minority of Ryder
employees. It contends that the person responsible for making
the hiring decision (Coulter), did not even know who among
the former Ryder employees were either union members or
what their union activities were.
As a general rule where it is alleged that an employer has il-
legally refused to hire employees because of their union mem-
bership or activities, the legal test is the same as the one applied
when it is alleged that an employee or employees have been
illegally discharged or laid off. Planned Building Services, Inc.,
347 NLRB 670 (2006). This test was enunciated in Wright
Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.
1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), and was approved in
NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393
(1983). Thus, when the General Counsel makes a prima facie
showing that is sufficient to support an inference that protected
or union activity was a motivating factor in the decision to dis-
charge or take other adverse action against employees, the bur-
den shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that it would have
taken the same action in the absence of the protected activity.
In this case the General Counsel has two alternative but
overlapping theories in support of the 8(a)(3) claim.
In the first, the General Counsel contends that the 10 former
Ryder employees who were denied employment were rejected
because of their specific union membership or activities. In this
regard, Parksite management was, at the very least, aware of
which employees participated in collective bargaining between
Ryder and the Union and who were elected to be the Union’s
shop stewards. (Davis, Vasquez, and Roberts).
The Respondent claims that Coulter was the only person who
made the hiring decisions and that he personally had no knowl-
edge of which employees were active union supporters. The
first of these claims is demonstrably not correct. And the sec-
ond is dubious at best. While it may be that Coulter made the
final hiring decisions, he admittedly relied on the recommenda-
tions of Jeffrey LaRusso. As a practical matter, LaRusso there-
fore had as much or more to say, at least as to the former Ryder
employees, regarding who would be hired.
It was conceded by the Respondent that Jeffrey LaRusso
knew the identities of the union stewards. Moreover, as La-
Russo and Parksite’s sales manager were constantly at the facil-
ity with the former Ryder employees, they had to have noticed
that the chosen (for nonhire), wore union clothing and pins and
displayed union decals on their vehicles. Further, as the evi-
dence shows that Coulter relied on LaRusso’s recommenda-
tions as to which former Ryder employees to hire or not hire,
and as such recommendations could easily have been based on
LaRusso’s “knowledge” of the employees’ union activities, his
knowledge and intent is transferrable to Coulter. And in this
regard, it is significant to me that the Respondent chose not to
present the testimony of LaRusso who could have testified
about his conversations with Coulter and why he made the
recommendations that he did.
Under the second theory, if I agree that the Respondent re-
fused to hire former Ryder employees as a means to avoid a
“successor” bargaining obligation, then it really makes no dif-
ference as to whether Coulter or anyone else in the Respon-
dent’s management had knowledge as to the union activities of
each employee. All that the General Counsel would have to
show is (a) that the Respondent knew that a union represented
the former Ryder employees at South Windsor; (b) that Park-
site’s management knew what the law was; and (c) that Park-
site’s intent was to hire a work force in which the former Ryder
employees would not constitute a majority. For that scenario to
work, the way to accomplish that result would be to make sure
that only a minority of the new work force consisted of the
predecessor’s employees and to arrange the hiring process so
that one did not get caught.4
The Respondent contends that although it used a uniform hir-
ing procedure for all eight of its facilities, the outcome at South
Windsor was different because of the circumstances at this
location were different. It contends that the South Windsor
operation was significantly worse in terms of delivery mistakes,
a condition mainly attributable to the warehouse operation as
opposed to the drivers. In this regard, the evidence does show
that South Windsor, for a period of time before the transition,
had a higher error rate than any of the other facilities. This was
in fact acknowledged by employees who testified for the Gen-
eral Counsel. On the other hand, the evidence indicates that a
good deal of this problem resulted from the high turnover rate
of Ryder management at this facility and the continuing dispu-
tations between Ryder’s managers and Parksite’s local man-
ager, Jeffrey LaRusso. In this regard, the evidence suggests
that LaRusso tended to interfere perhaps too much in the way
that Ryder wanted to manage deliveries and this generated con-
flict which flowed down to the employees.5 (This conflict was
mentioned by some of the Ryder employees at the interviews
that were conducted by Alamo).
So, what evidence has the General Counsel presented to sup-
port her theory that the hiring process was rigged in an effort
(that was inadvertently unsuccessful), to avoid an obligation to
bargain?
As described above, Parksite’s president, Richard C. Heitz-
man, interjected himself into the first election, urging the Ryder
employees to vote against unionization and hinting that if they
did so, Parksite might have to “explore all alternatives.” To me
this is a not too subtle statement that if the employees were to
vote for Local 671, then Parksite might have to replace their
employer and that they therefore could lose their jobs.6 The

4 As shown by the original recognition of the New Jersey facility, it
seems to me that Parksite’s human resource people were knowledge-
able about the law regarding “successorship.”
5 I note that LaRusso was rejected by Parksite to be the operations
manager at South Windsor when the warehouse operation was brought
back under its control.
6 Under current law and pursuant to Local No. 447 Plumbers (Mal-
bath), 172 NLRB 128 (1968), a company cannot be held to violate Sec.
8(a)(3) when the employees of a subcontracting employer lose their
jobs because the contract is canceled, even if the contract is canceled
PARKSITE GROUP 11
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that this letter, even if
representing Heitzman’s true position, was sent more than a
year before the decision to bring the work in-house and well
before any decisions were made as to which employees would
be hired or not hired.
From April 2006, Ryder sent monthly memoranda to Park-
site. Each report has space for “Accomplishments,” “Major
Projects,” “Opportunities” and “Concerns.” The report encom-
passing South Windsor for April 1, 2006, states that one of
Ryder’s major projects was “Union avoidance.” The report for
May 2006 lists a major project as; “Union avoidance-
Education.” The report dated June 2006 lists a major project as;
“Healing wounds from Union campaign.” The reports for July,
August, and September 2006 list a major project as; “Healing
wounds from Union campaign. Improving morale.” While
these reports were generated by Ryder and not written by Park-
site, it is reasonable to assume that the items listed in the re-
ports were matters of interest to Parksite. And the comments
that union avoidance was a major project for Ryder in April and
May 2006 is consistent with the letter signed by Heiztman that
was distributed to Ryder’s employees. Also, the later reports
concerning the necessity for “healing wounds from the Union
campaign,” clearly must have indicated to Parksite’s manage-
ment that the Union’s campaign had affected employee morale.
In seeking non-Ryder applicants, Parksite advertised that a
signing bonus of $1000 would be paid to any non-Ryder appli-
cant who was hired. Such a bonus was not offered at any of the
other seven locations and it is my opinion that the advertised
bonus was offered as an inducement to enlarge the pool of pos-
sible applicants for the South Windsor facility.
Alamo, as part of his interviewing process, notified the Re-
spondent’s human resources department, that three of the for-
mer Ryder employees were opposed to the Union. (Erich
Buelig, John Saya, and Scott Rossi). All three were offered
employment.
Let’s look at some more numbers.

for anti-union considerations. See also Computer Associates Intl.., 324
NLRB 285 (1997). Curiously, Malbath did not involve an allegation of
either Sec. 8(a)(1) or (3) of the Act. Instead it involved a situation
where a union that had engaged in secondary boycott activity was
charged with violations of Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) & (2) of the Act. It was
alleged that by seeking to have one employer cease doing business with
another, the Union was causing or attempting to cause an employer to
discharge and discriminate against nonunion employees. A majority of
the Board, with chairman McCullogh dissenting, rejected this argu-
ment, holding that a general contractor and its subcontractors at a con-
struction site are not joint employers and that an attempt to cause one to
cease doing business with another is not the same as causing an em-
ployer to discriminate against employees. This is distinguishable from
the situation where employer A, while retaining its contractual rela-
tionship with employer B, has been found to have violated 8(a)(3) with
respect to employees not its own, when it urged or caused employer B
to discharge specific individuals who were engaged in union activity.
Holly Manor Nursing Home, 235 NLRB 426, 428 fn. 4 (1978), Central
Transport, Inc, 244 NLRB 656, 658–659 (1979), and Georgia-Pacific
Corp., 221 NLRB 982, 986 (1975).
At Apex, North Carolina, 15 Ryder employees were inter-
viewed and 12 were offered jobs. There also were 6 non-Ryder
applicants who were interviewed and one was offered a job.
At Louisville, Ohio, there were 15 Ryder employees who
were interviewed and 13 who were hired. There were no non-
Ryder applicants who were interviewed and none were hired.
At Baltimore, Maryland, there were 20 Ryder employees
who were interviewed and all were offered jobs. There were 11
non-Ryder applicants who were interviewed and none received
offers of employment.
At West Chicago/Bensenville, there were 22 Ryder employ-
ees who were interviewed and 21 were offered jobs. There was
one non-Ryder applicant interviewed and he was not offered a
job.
At North Brunswick, New Jersey, which was and remains a
unionized facility, there were 24 Ryder employees who were
interviewed, of which 18 were offered jobs. There were no
non-Ryder applicants interviewed or offered jobs. As noted
above, Parksite recognized the Union at this location.
At Tampa, Florida, there were 42 Ryder employees who
were interviewed and 27 were offered jobs. At this location
there were 12 non-Ryder applicants who were interviewed but
none were offered employment. (It seems that because of a
severe downturn in housing construction, this necessitated a
significant downsizing of this facility).
At Syracuse, New York, there were 21 Ryder employees
who were interviewed and 17 were offered jobs. No non-Ryder
applicants were interviewed or offered employment.
At South Windsor, all 26 of the Ryder employees were inter-
viewed and 14 were offered jobs. Of the 12 who were not of-
fered jobs, 10 were union supporters including the two shop
stewards, Davis and Vasquez, plus the alternative shop steward,
Roberts. The other seven had publicly demonstrated their un-
ion support by wearing union clothing or pins, or by utilizing
union decals on their vehicles.
Of the 14 former Ryder employees who were offered jobs at
South Windsor, the odds are that most voted for the Union at
the April 5 election because the vote was 19 to 4. But included
in the group that were hired were three individuals who ex-
pressed antiunion opinions during the interviewing process.
Also hired were Richard Barrows who was a company observer
at the first election and Jon Ruggles who was a company ob-
server at the second election. A coincidence: Perhaps.
At South Windsor there were 16 non-Ryder people who were
interviewed by Alamo. Of this group, 15 were offered jobs.
(One more than the number of former Ryder employees who
were offered jobs). Within the non-Ryder group, there were
numerous applicants who were hired but who scored below
some of the former Ryder employees who were not offered
jobs.
Even worse, there were individuals within the non-Ryder
pool who were hired either against Alamo’s recommendations
or despite his very lukewarm recommendations. For example,
Alamo made the following notation in the interview form for
Shelton Eason; “I would not consider Shelton for hire unless
you really needed to consider a replacement.” Alamo made this
note for Earl Brown; “I would not recommend Earl.” As to
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
Chaz Harris, Alamo wrote; “Chaz was a decent person and had
some job stability but I wouldn’t consider him a top tier candi-
date. . . .” Regarding Cedric Avery, Alamo had this to say; “Not
very communicative. I would not consider.” As to Cedric
Lanier, Alamo wrote; “Cedric says he’s dependable, easy to
train and reliable. He was a very nice guy, but I would not
consider hiring.” Regarding Robert Zigmond, Alamo wrote;
“Robert would not stop talking! I honestly couldn’t get a word
in edgewise. Nevertheless, he is definitely not a fit at PPW.”7
In my opinion, the evidence in this case demonstrates that
Parksite set up a hiring process that as applied to the South
Windsor facility, was intended to produce the result that the
Respondent could avoid an obligation to bargain with the Un-
ion by making sure that it did not hire a majority of the prede-
cessor’s employees and therefore not being construed as a
“successor” as that term is used in labor law. The details of that
procedure have been highlighted above, and but for the fact that
five of the non-Ryder applicants rejected job offers, the Re-
spondent would have wound up on January 2, 2008, with a
work force consisting of 14 former Ryder employees and 15
non-Ryder employees. This is a result that would be good
enough to avoid majority representation by the predecessor’s
employees and perhaps good enough to persuade any outside
reviewing body that the hiring process was neutral and non-
discriminatory.
The Respondent has not convinced me that it would have re-
fused to hire any of the 10 rejected Ryder employees for legiti-
mate reasons separate and apart from its motivation to make
sure that the Ryder employees would not constitute a majority
of the new work force.
For example, Coulter testified that based on LaRusso’s rec-
ommendation, he did not offer a job to Davis (a shop steward)
because Davis was “abrasive” to his co-workers and did not go
above the minimum in terms of work. He testified that
Vasquez (the other shop steward), was not hired because La-
Russo described him as “insubordinate and disrespectful.”
Apart from the fact that these types of phrases have often been
applied to people who actively support unions, the Respondent
did not call LaRusso to testify in this proceeding and therefore
we cannot say what LaRusso’s opinions were based upon.
In fact most of the former Ryder employees who were not
offered jobs were allegedly rejected by Coulter based solely on
LaRusso’s opinions of them. Thus, Coulter testified that La-
Russo told him that Ingento was not a hard worker and was
lazy. That LaRusso said that Testke had a bad attitude and was
not productive. That LaRusso opined that Moyles and Barber
had absentee problems. That LaRusso told him that Beulieu

7 In his pretrial statement, Coulter stated; “Once Alamo finished his
interview process and provided the results to Parksite, I made the final
hiring decisions to fill all distribution function positions at our distribu-
tion centers, including deciding who to hire as our drivers and ware-
housemen at each location. . . . I relied on Alamo’s results, any per-
sonal knowledge I had of each applicant, and on input from local Park-
site personnel on their experience and opinion of the applicants that
were former Ryder employees. . . . I also reviewed the “Interview
questions” and answers as recorded by Alamo of all external candi-
dates, as I had no previous knowledge or information on those candi-
dates.’”
was careless and had, on one occasion, tossed a lap top com-
puter in the air. (There is no suggestion that it fell).
And yet LaRusso never testified in this proceeding and there-
fore did not confirm that these opinions were true and accurate.
As to Burleigh and Rodriquez, Coulter testified that he inde-
pendently was aware that these two individuals had problems
with some customers who did not want them to come to their
facilities. Burleigh admitted that in 2007, he did get into an
altercation with a customer and was banned from that site.
Rodriguez conceded that a customer had complained about him
and banned him from its premises. But this was in 2000, quite a
long time ago.
Notwithstanding the above, Jeff Ogren, a former Ryder
truckdriver who was offered employment by the Respondent,
credibly testified that during his employment at Ryder he re-
ceived disciplines for accidents and attendance problems. He
also testified that he too received complaints from customers.
Based on all of the above, I conclude, contrary to the not-
credited assertions of James Coulter, that the principle motiva-
tion in not hiring the former Ryder employees was to evade
unionization and not because of the employees’ alleged short-
comings. I therefore conclude that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by refusing to hire these indi-
viduals.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Parksite Group is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No.
671, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. The appropriate unit consists of all full-time and regular
part-time drivers, warehouse employees, and lead men em-
ployed at the South Windsor facility, excluding office clerical
employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
4. By discriminatorily refusing to hire employees who had
previously been employed by Ryder Integrated Logistics at
Parksite’s South Windsor, Connecticut facility, the Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the collective-bargaining representative of its employees em-
ployed in the aforesaid unit, the Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
6. By unilaterally changing wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment of the employees in the above-
described unit without first giving notice to and bargaining with
the Union, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Parksite has engaged in various unfair la-
bor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
PARKSITE GROUP 13
Inasmuch as I have determined that Parksite illegally refused
to offer jobs to former Ryder employees who worked at the
South Windsor facility, I shall recommend that the Respondent
offer them instatement to their former jobs, or if those jobs are
no longer available, to substantially equivalent positions of
employment and make them whole, with interest, for any loss
of earnings they suffered as a result of the discrimination
against them. The fact that the Respondent has hired other
employees to do these jobs shall not be construed as meaning
that the discriminated employees’ job are no longer available.
The Respondent can of course employ anyone it chooses, but it
must nevertheless make job offers to the 10 former Ryder em-
ployees who were discriminated against.
I shall also recommend that Parksite be ordered to recognize
and bargain with Local 671.
Further, as I conclude that the Respondent was obligated,
under such cases as Daufuskie Club, Inc. d/b/a Daufuskie Club
and Resort, 328 NLRB 415 (1999), U.S. Marine Corp., 293
NLRB 669, 670 (1989), NLRB v. Advanced Stretchforming
International Inc., 165 LRRM 2870 and NLRB v. Staten Island
Hotel Limited Partnership, 101 F.3d 858, 862 (2nd Cir. 1999),
to bargain before changing the previously extant terms and
conditions of employment, I shall recommend that the Respon-
dent restore, to the extent possible, the wage rates and other
terms and conditions of employment that were enjoyed by the
predecessor’s employees. See also Planned Building Services,
Inc., 347 NLRB 670, 673 (2006).8 To the extent that employ-
ees have suffered any losses as a result of these unilateral
changes, I shall recommend that the Respondent make them
whole, with interest, for such losses.
The General Counsel argues that the Board should order that
interest be paid on a compound basis instead of on the basis of
simple interest. To date, this change in the interest rate has not
been adopted by the Board. Carpenters Local 687, Michigan
Regional Council (Convention & Show Services, Inc.); 352
NLRB 1016 (2007). As the General Counsel is contending that
the Board should change its existing policy on interest, I shall
defer that matter to the Board and make no recommendation.

8 When Parksite took over the operation, the employees who were
formerly employed by Ryder and were hired by Parksite, were paid at
the same wage rates that they were paid under the Ryder/Local 671
contract. The non-Ryder employees were paid at a lower rate, but
under the aforesaid collective-bargaining agreement, new hires were
paid at lower rates and I therefore cannot determine in this preceding
that the wages given to the new employees constituted a change. Under
the Ryder/Local 671 contract, the employees were entitled to partici-
pate in Ryder’s 401(k) plan and Ryder’s health care plan. When Park-
site took over, the employees were covered by Parksite’s 401(k) plan
and Parksite’s health plan. From an economic point of view, the record
does not show whether the benefits of either company’s plans were
better for the employees than the other company’s plans. This can be
reviewed in the compliance stage of this proceeding. For example, it is
hypothetically possible that under Ryder’s plan a medical procedure
might have been covered or reimbursed at a different level than the
same procedure under Parksite’s medical plan. If an employee who
incurred a medical expense after being employed by Parksite would
have received a greater benefit under the Ryder plan than under the
Parksite plan, then he should be compensated for the difference.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended9
ORDER
The Respondent, Parksite Group Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging activity and support for International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 671 by refusing to hire or in
any other manner discriminating against employees with re-
spect to their hours, wages, or other terms and conditions of
employment in order to avoid having to recognize and bargain
with Local 671.
(b) Refusing to recognize and bargain with Local 671 as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its drivers and
warehousemen employed at the Respondent’s facilities in South
Windsor, Connecticut.
(c) Unilaterally changing the wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment of the employees in the above
described unit without first giving notice to and bargaining with
Local 671.
(d) 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize and, on request, bargain collectively with Lo-
cal 671 as the exclusive representative of its full-time and regu-
lar part-time drivers and warehousemen employed at its South
Windsor, Connecticut facility with respect to wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and if an agreement
is reached, embody such agreement in a signed document.
(b) Make whole, in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of this decision, the unit employees for losses caused by
Parksite’s failure to apply the terms and conditions of employ-
ment that existed prior to its commencing operations at the
South Windsor facility until such time as the parties have
reached an agreement or until a valid impasse in bargaining has
occurred.10
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Brian
Barber, Michael Beaulieu, Andrew Burleigh, Doug Davis,
Benny Ingenito, Joseph Moyles, Evernard “Robbie” Roberts,
Estaquio “Jay” Rodriguez, Jack Teske, and Ivan Vasquez in-

9 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 pur-
poses.
10 In Planned Building Services, 347 NLRB 670 (2006), the Board
concluded that it would permit the Respondent, in a compliance pro-
ceeding, to present evidence establishing that it would not have agreed
to the monetary provisions of the predecessor employer’s collective-
bargaining agreement and to establish either the date on which it would
have bargained to agreement and the terms of the agreement that would
have been negotiated, or the date on which it would have bargained to
good-faith impasse and implemented its own monetary proposals.
While I am not sure how this speculative inquiry would be reasonably
adjudicated or what kind of objective evidence would be taken, this is
the law and is recommended as part of this Remedy.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
statement to their former jobs, or if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed
and make them whole with interest, for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this deci-
sion.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful actions against the em-
ployees named above and within 3 days thereafter, notify them
in writing, that this has been done and that the refusals to hire,
will not be used against them in any way.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional 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 re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cilities in South Windsor, Connecticut, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”11 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 34, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of these pro-
ceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the
facility involved in these proceedings, or sold the business or
the facilities involved herein, the Respondent shall duplicate
and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current
employees and former employees employed by the Respon-
dents at any time since January 1, 2008.
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., November 26, 2008.
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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO

11 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties
WE WILL NOT discourage activity and support for Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 671 by refusing to hire
or in any other manner discriminating against employees with
respect to their hours, wages, or other terms and conditions of
employment in order to avoid having to recognize and bargain
with Local 671.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with Local 671
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its driv-
ers and warehousemen employed at its facilities in South Win-
dsor, Connecticut.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the
above described unit without first giving notice to and bargain-
ing with Local 671.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain collectively with
Local 671 as the exclusive representative of its full-time and
regular part-time drivers and warehousemen employed at its
South Windsor, Connecticut facility with respect to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and if an
agreement is reached, embody such agreement in a signed
document.
WE WILL make whole the bargaining unit employees for any
losses caused by Parksite’s failure to apply the terms and condi-
tions of employment that existed prior to its commencing op-
erations at the South Windsor facility until such time as the
parties have reached an agreement or until a valid impasse in
bargaining has occurred
WE WILL offer Brian Barber, Michael Beaulieu, Andrew Bur-
leigh, Doug Davis, Benny Ingenito, Joseph Moyles, Evernard
“Robbie” Roberts, Estaquio “Jay” Rodriguez, Jack Teske, and
Ivan Vasquez instatement to their former jobs, or if those jobs
no longer exists, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed and make them whole, with interest for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the unlawful
actions against the employees named above and notify them in
writing, that this has been done and that the refusals to hire,
will not be used against them in any way.
PARKSITE GROUP, INC.