Rogan Brothers Sanitation, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 9, 2011

357 N.L.R.B. 1655 (N.L.R.B. 2011)

ROGAN BROS. SANITATION, INC.
357 NLRB No. 137
1655
Rogan Brothers Sanitation, Inc. and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 813. Case 02–
CA–040028
December 9, 2011
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS BECKER
AND HAYES
The Acting General Counsel seeks summary judgment
in this case pursuant to the terms of a settlement agree-
ment. On July 21 and November 23, 2010, respectively,
the Union filed a charge and an amended charge alleging
that the Respondent, Rogan Brothers Sanitation, Inc.,
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Subsequent-
ly, the Union and the Respondent’s general manager,
Michael Vetrano, purporting to act on behalf of the Re-
spondent, executed an informal settlement agreement,
which was approved by the Acting Regional Director for
Region 2 on January 28, 2011. The settlement agree-
ment required the Respondent to, among other things, (1)
make whole employees Joseph Smith, Anthony Mercado,
and Daniel Mattei for losses suffered as a result of their
alleged unlawful discharges by paying them $15,616,
$20,800, and $21,533, plus interest, respectively; (2)
expunge the personnel files of Smith, Mercado, and
Mattei of any reference to their discharges; and (3) post a
notice to employees. The agreement also contained the
following provision:

Noncompliance with Settlement Agreement—In the
event of noncompliance with any of the terms of the
Agreement, the Charged Party/Respondent shall be
given written notice that it has seven (7) days to cure its
default(s). If it fails to cure the default(s), the Charged
Party/Respondent agrees that the Regional Director
may issue a complaint based upon the allegations of the
charge(s) in the instant case(s) which were found to
have merit. Thereafter, the General Counsel may file a
Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board on the
allegations of the just issued complaint concerning the
violations of the Act alleged therein. The Charged Par-
ty/Respondent understands and agrees that the allega-
tions of the aforementioned complaint may be deemed
to be true by the Board, that it will not contest the valid-
ity of any such allegations, and the Board may enter
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an Order on
the allegations of the aforementioned complaint, in-
cluding a full and complete traditional remedy for all
violations of the Act, and any appropriate special rem-
edies sought. On receipt of said Motion for Summary
Judgment, the Board shall issue an Order requiring the
Charged Party/Respondent to show cause why said
Motion of the General Counsel should not be granted.
The only issues that may be raised in response to the
Board’s Order to Show Cause are whether the Charged
Party/Respondent defaulted upon the terms of this Set-
tlement Agreement and/or if it received notice to cure
said default. The Board may then, without necessity of
trial or any other proceedings, find all allegations of the
complaint to be true and make findings of fact and con-
clusions of law consistent with those allegations ad-
verse to the Charged Party/Respondent, on all issues
raised by the pleadings. The Board may then issue an
Order providing a full remedy for the violations found
as is customary to remedy such violations, including,
but not limited to the remedial provisions of the Settle-
ment Agreement.

On February 1, 2011, the Region mailed to the Re-
spondent’s president, James Rogan (J. Rogan), a letter
detailing the Respondent’s obligations under the settle-
ment agreement and requesting compliance by February
18, 2011.1 The Region enclosed copies of the settlement
agreement, a notice to employees, and a certification of
posting form, to be signed by an official of the Respond-
ent and returned to Region 2. On February 18, the Re-
spondent’s comptroller, Howard Kassman, via telephone,
requested that the Region resend the letter and enclo-
sures. By letter and email dated February 18, the Region
resent the letter and enclosures to J. Rogan and again
requested compliance, with a new deadline of February
25. By letter dated February 28, Kassman requested that
the settlement agreement be withdrawn and the case be
allowed to proceed to a hearing. By letter to J. Rogan
dated March 9, the Region notified the Respondent that it
was in default of the terms of the settlement agreement.
The letter stated that if the Respondent did not cure its
default within 7 days the Acting Regional Director would
revoke the settlement agreement, issue a complaint, and
move for summary judgment, as set forth in the default
provision of the settlement agreement. Kassman, by let-
ter dated March 14, informed the Region that the Re-
spondent had complied with the notice posting and ex-
punction provisions of the settlement agreement, but im-
plied that it did not intend to pay the alleged discrimi-
natees the amounts owed to them under the make-whole
provision of the agreement, due to its position that the
agreement was “prejudicial” to its interests. The Re-
spondent again requested that the case be allowed to pro-
ceed to a hearing. In response, the Region, by letter to
Kassman dated March 15, advised the Respondent that it
must immediately comply with all of the provisions of

1 All dates are in 2011, unless otherwise indicated.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1656
the settlement agreement in order to avoid triggering the
default procedures.
On March 23, the Acting Regional Director issued an
order revoking approval of informal settlement agree-
ment and issuance of complaint. The Respondent filed
an answer on April 5, admitting in part and denying in
part the allegations of the complaint and asserting af-
firmative defenses. On May 13, the Acting General
Counsel filed a Motion to Transfer Case to the Board,
Motion to Strike Portions of Respondent’s Answer, and
Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 20, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceeding to the Board
and a Notice to Show Cause why the motions should not
be granted. The Respondent filed a response, with sup-
porting affidavits, and the Acting General Counsel filed a
reply.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
In its response to the Notice to Show Cause, the Re-
spondent contends that the settlement agreement is unen-
forceable because General Manager Michael Vetrano,
who signed the agreement on behalf of the Respondent,
did not have actual or apparent authority to bind the Re-
spondent; Vetrano was coerced into signing the settle-
ment agreement by the Board’s agents; the alleged un-
lawful discharges should be deferred to the grievance and
arbitration mechanism in the parties’ collective-
bargaining agreement; and discriminatee Smith has
waived his claims against the Respondent and his right to
receive backpay.
We find that the Respondent has failed to raise any is-
sue warranting a hearing. Even assuming Vetrano did
not possess the requisite authority to enter into the set-
tlement agreement, the Respondent subsequently ratified
it, and thus became bound by its terms. Ratification is
“the affirmance by a person of a prior act that did not
bind him but which was done or professedly done on his
account, whereby the act, as to some or all persons, is
given effect as if originally authorized by him.” Service
Employees Local 87 (West Bay Maintenance), 291
NLRB 82, 83 (1988). Affirmance of an unauthorized
transaction can be inferred from a failure to repudiate it.
Id. In the Respondent’s February 28 and March 14 let-
ters to the Region, the Respondent acknowledged that the
parties had reached an agreement to settle the charge
allegations. In its March 14 letter, the Respondent also
notified the Region that it had complied with the notice
posting and expunction provisions of the settlement
agreement. Although the Respondent refused to comply
with the financial terms of the agreement, its refusal was
based, not on Vetrano’s alleged lack of authority, but on
its opinion that the agreement that had been struck was
prejudicial. While the Respondent now asserts that
Vetrano did not have independent authority to enter into
the agreement, it did not raise that defense until nearly 2
months after the Acting Regional Director approved the
settlement agreement and after the complaint in the in-
stant case had issued.
We also find that the Respondent has not raised a ma-
terial issue concerning whether Vetrano was coerced into
signing the settlement agreement. The Respondent’s
argument is based on a Board agent’s alleged statement
to Vetrano that if he did not sign the settlement agree-
ment, the Board would issue a complaint and find that
the Respondent violated the law. The Acting General
Counsel maintains that this was not a threat, but rather a
“statement . . . of the Region’s lawful process.” We
agree that the first half of the Board agent’s alleged
statement—that a complaint would issue absent settle-
ment—was merely a statement of fact concerning the
Board’s processes. See the NLRB Casehandling Manu-
al, Part One, Unfair Labor Practice Proceedings, Section
10126.2 (“when . . . it is clear that settlement at this stage
will not be achieved, complaint should issue immediate-
ly.”). The second half of the statement—that the Board
would find that the Respondent violated the law—
although not a statement of fact, was not coercive. The
Board agent was simply informing Vetrano of the possi-
ble consequences of refusing to settle. Parties often use
their respective estimations of the likely outcome of liti-
gation as a basis to negotiate a settlement agreement, and
we find that the Board agent’s statement was not coer-
cive in this context.
As to the Respondent’s contention that the dispute
should be deferred to the grievance and arbitration pro-
cedures in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement,
we find that the Respondent voluntarily agreed to have
the parties’ dispute resolved through the informal Board
settlement agreement and, in doing so, it necessarily
waived its right to have the matter resolved in any other
forum, including arbitration.
Finally, we find that Smith’s alleged release and waiv-
er does not preclude summary judgment. After the par-
ties entered into the settlement agreement, Smith signed
an affidavit stating, in pertinent part, that he “waives any
and all back pay that is allegedly owed or due according
to the National Labor Relations Board in its arbitrary
decision that I requested not to be part of.” The Re-
spondent claims that Smith’s affidavit constitutes a set-
tlement agreement, which effectively overrides the in-
formal Board settlement agreement. On its face, Smith’s
affidavit is not a settlement agreement; rather, as argued
by the Acting General Counsel, it is “a naked waiver of
rights with no consideration.” It was executed after the
Respondent had already agreed to pay Smith $15,616 in
ROGAN BROS. SANITATION 1657
backpay and after the Respondent had reinstated Smith.
Further, it does not appear that Smith received any con-
sideration in exchange for executing the waiver. In these
circumstances, we find that the public interest in the vin-
dication of statutory rights would not be effectuated by
acceptance of the purported “settlement agreement.”
In sum, we find that no material issues of fact exist in
this proceeding that warrant a hearing. Accordingly, we
grant the Acting General Counsel’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.2 Consequently, pursuant to the default provi-
sion of the settlement agreement set forth above, we find
that all of the allegations in the complaint are true.3
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a domestic cor-
poration, with an office and principal place of business at
1014 Saw Mill River Road, Yonkers, New York (the
Yonkers facility), has been engaged in the business of
waste removal and disposal including at private homes
and residences.
Annually, the Respondent, in conducting its operations
described above, derives gross revenues in excess of
$500,000.
Annually, the Respondent, in conducting its operations
described above, purchased and received at its facility in
the State of New York goods valued in excess of $5000
from suppliers of fuel and automotive parts and materials
located within the State of New York, each of which
other enterprises has received these goods directly from
points outside the State of New York.

2 We also grant the Acting General Counsel’s motion to strike pars.
1–14, 24–30, 32–37, 41, and 48 from the Respondent’s answer. These
paragraphs contest the validity of, or assert affirmative defenses to, the
8(a)(1) and (3) unfair labor practice allegations in pars. 1–10 of the
complaint. As indicated above, under the default provision of the set-
tlement agreement, the Respondent waived its right to file an answer
contesting the validity of the unfair labor practice allegations of the
complaint and it is limited to contesting the complaint allegations con-
cerning its alleged failure to comply with the terms of the settlement
agreement.
3 See U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLRB 667 (1994).
In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent denies, without elabo-
ration, the material allegations in pars. 11–15 of the complaint, which
concern its alleged failure to comply with the terms of the settlement
agreement. The Respondent’s denials appear to be based on its argu-
ments challenging the validity of the settlement agreement. The Re-
spondent does not contend that it has complied with the financial terms
of the settlement agreement, nor does it contend that the Acting General
Counsel failed to provide the 7-day notice to cure required under the
agreement. Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has not raised a
genuine issue of material fact with respect to the allegations in pars.
11–15 of the complaint.
We find that at all material times, the Respondent has
been an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. At all material times, the following individuals held
the positions set forth opposite their respective names
and have been supervisors of the Respondent within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the
Respondent, acting in its behalf:

James Rogan Owner
Brett Rogan Supervisor

2. At material times Howard Kassman has held the
position of the Respondent’s comptroller and has been an
agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act.
3. On about the dates set forth opposite their names,
the Respondent discharged the employees named below:

Joseph Smith July 20, 2010
Anthony Mercado July 20, 2010
Daniel Mattei July 21, 2010

4. From about July 20 until about November 11, 2010,
the Respondent failed and refused to reinstate Joseph
Smith to his former position of employment.
5. From about the dates of their discharges set forth
above opposite their names, the Respondent has failed
and refused to reinstate Mercado and Mattei to their for-
mer positions of employment.
6. The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above because Smith, Mercado, and Mattei joined the
Union and engaged in concerted activities, and to dis-
courage employees from engaging in these activities.
7. The Respondent, by James Rogan, at the Yonkers
facility, on or about June 20, 2010, instructed employees
not to join the Union and, on or about October 12, 2010,
impliedly threatened an employee with unspecified re-
prisals by suggesting that joining the Union was an act of
disloyalty to the Respondent, and informed an employee
that he would never be rehired because the employee
engaged in union activity.
8. The Respondent, by Brett Rogan, at the Respond-
ent’s Yonkers facility, threatened to use physical vio-
lence against an employee because that employee joined
the Union.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 3
through 6, the Respondent has been discriminating in
regard to the hire or tenure or terms or conditions of em-
ployment of its employees, thereby discouraging mem-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1658
bership in a labor organization in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 7 and
8, the Respondent has been interfering with, restraining,
and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The Respondent’s unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) by terminating employees Joseph Smith, Antho-
ny Mercado, and Daniel Mattei, we shall order the Re-
spondent to make these employees whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
Respondent’s unlawful actions against them.
In this regard, the Respondent agreed in the settlement
agreement to pay backpay to Smith, Mercado, and Mattei
in the amounts of $15,616, $20,800, and $21,533, plus
interest, respectively. In his Motion for Summary Judg-
ment, the Acting General Counsel states that the Re-
spondent reinstated Smith before the settlement agree-
ment was executed. Accordingly, his backpay period is
closed and he will be made whole by payment to him of
the amount set forth in the settlement agreement. Ac-
cordingly, we shall order the Respondent to immediately
remit $15,616 to the Region for payment to Smith, with
interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
As to Mercado and Mattei, however, the Acting Gen-
eral Counsel states that their backpay period remains
open, and he requests that the Respondent be required to
make them whole for any loss of earnings and other ben-
efits, computed from the date of discharge to the date of
a proper offer of reinstatement, with interest. As set
forth above, the settlement agreement provided that, in
the event of noncompliance, the Board could “issue an
Order providing full remedy for the violations found as is
customary to remedy such violations, including but not
limited to provisions of this Settlement Agreement.”
Pursuant to this language, we find that it is appropriate to
provide the “customary” remedies of reinstatement, full
backpay, expunction of the Respondent’s personnel rec-
ords, and notice posting. The backpay due Mercado and
Mattei shall be computed in accordance with F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at
the rate prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded,
supra, compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River
Medical Center, supra.4
We shall also order the Respondent, if it has not al-
ready done so, to offer Mercado and Mattei full rein-
statement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prej-
udice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed.
Further, the Respondent shall be required to remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful layoffs and/or
discharges of Smith, Mercado, and Mattei, and to notify
them in writing that this has been done and that the un-
lawful layoffs and/or discharges will not be used against
them in any way.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Rogan Brothers Sanitation, Inc., Yonkers,
New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Instructing employees not to join the Union.
(b) Impliedly threatening employees with unspecified
reprisals by suggesting that joining the Union is an act of
disloyalty to the Respondent.
(c) Informing employees that they will never be re-
hired because they engaged in union or other protected
concerted activities.
(d) Threatening an employee with physical harm be-
cause the employee joined the Union.

4 In its response to the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent con-
tends that Mercado and Mattei are exempt from the overtime payment
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and therefore “any calcu-
lation for backpay based upon overtime hours . . . is not an appropriate
remedy.” Mercado’s and Mattei’s backpay will be calculated at the
compliance stage, and any issue concerning whether they are entitled to
overtime payments as a component of backpay would be more appro-
priately dealt with at that time.
In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent contends, without
elaboration, that it is required to comply with Federal immigration
laws. We leave to compliance questions concerning the effect, if any,
of the discriminatees’ immigration status on the reinstatement and
make-whole remedies. See, e.g., Tuv Taam Corp., 340 NLRB 756, 760
(2003) (“Questions concerning the employee’s status and its effect on
the remedy are left for determination at the compliance stage of a
case.”).
In the complaint, the Acting General Counsel seeks an order requir-
ing reimbursement of amounts equal to the difference in taxes owed
upon receipt of a lump-sum payment and taxes that would have been
owed had there been no discrimination. Because the relief sought
would involve a change in Board law, we believe that the appropriate-
ness of this proposed remedy should be resolved after a full briefing by
the affected parties, and there has been no such briefing in this case.
Accordingly, we decline to order this relief at this time. See, e.g., Ishi-
kawa Gasket America, Inc., 337 NLRB 175, 176 (2001), enfd. 354 F.3d
534 (6th Cir. 2004), and cases cited therein.
ROGAN BROS. SANITATION 1659
(e) Terminating and refusing to rehire, or otherwise
discriminating against, any employee for engaging in
protected concerted activities or assisting the Internation-
al Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 813, or any other
labor organization, or to discourage employees from en-
gaging in these activities.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, 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
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Remit to Region 2 the amount of $15,616 owed to
Joseph Smith, plus interest, as set forth in the remedy
section of this decision.
(b) Make employees Anthony Mercado and Daniel
Mattei whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the Respondent’s unlawful actions
against them, with interest, as set forth in the remedy
section of this decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, if it has
not already done so, offer Anthony Mercado and Daniel
Mattei full reinstatement 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.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful terminations
and/or layoffs of Joseph Smith, Anthony Mercado, and
Daniel Mattei and, within 3 days thereafter, notify the
employees in writing that this has been done and that the
unlawful terminations will not be used against them in
any way.
(e) Preserve, and within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Acting Regional Director may al-
low for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place
designated by the Board or its agents all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of compensation
due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Yonkers, New York, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Acting Regional Director for Re-
gion 2, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent

5 If 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 Na-
tional 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.”
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted.6 In addition to physical posting
of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronical-
ly, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during
the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since June 20, 2010.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Acting Regional Director a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Re-
gion attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken
to comply.

MEMBER HAYES, dissenting.
I would deny the Acting General Counsel’s Motion to
Strike Portions of Respondent’s Answer and Motion for
Summary Judgment. The pleadings and supporting ma-
terials establish that there is a genuine issue of material
fact concerning whether General Manager Michael
Vetrano possessed actual or apparent authority to enter
into the settlement agreement on behalf of the Respond-
ent.1 Further, and contrary to the majority, I would not
find that the Respondent ratified the settlement agree-
ment by failing to raise Vetrano’s lack of authority in its
February 28 and March 14, 2011 letters to the Region.
The Respondent’s February 28 and March 14 letters re-
quested that the settlement agreement be withdrawn,
made clear that it would not comply with the backpay
provision of the agreement and demanded that the case
be allowed to proceed to a hearing. It is illogical, in my
view, to find that the Respondent ratified the settlement
agreement while it was, at the same time, expressly re-
pudiating the agreement and demanding that the case be

6 Pursuant to the default provision of the settlement agreement, the
Respondent may be required to post notices in more than one language
as deemed appropriate by the Acting Regional Director.
1 In its answer to the complaint, the Respondent denied that Vetrano
was authorized to enter into the settlement agreement. Further, in op-
position to the Acting General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judg-
ment, the Respondent submitted affidavits signed by Vetrano and the
Respondent’s president and owner, James Rogan, attesting to Vetrano’s
lack of authority. Moreover, the uncontested facts alleged by the Act-
ing General Counsel are insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish
that Vetrano possessed actual or apparent authority to enter into the
settlement agreement.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1660
allowed to proceed to a hearing. The majority has not
cited any cases in which the Board or the courts have
found ratification in circumstances analogous to these.
In sum, I believe that the Respondent has raised a genu-
ine issue of material fact, and therefore, a hearing is war-
ranted.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your
behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit
and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.

WE WILL NOT instruct you not to join a union.
WE WILL NOT impliedly threaten you with unspecified
reprisals by informing you that joining a union is an act
of disloyalty.
WE WILL NOT threaten you that we will not rehire you
if you engage in protected concerted activities or join a
union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with physical harm for en-
gaging in protected concerted activities or supporting the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 813 or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against you for engaging in protected concerted activities
or supporting the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Local 813 or any other labor organization, or to discour-
age you from engaging in these activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL remit to Region 2 the amount of $15,616
owed to Joseph Smith in accordance with the January 28,
2011 settlement agreement, with interest.
WE WILL make employees Anthony Mercado and Dan-
iel Mattei whole for any loss of earnings and other bene-
fits suffered as a result of our unlawful actions against
them, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Anthony Mercado and Daniel Mattei full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or priv-
ileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful terminations of Joseph Smith, Anthony Mercado, and
Daniel Mattei, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter,
notify them in writing that this has been done and that
the unlawful terminations and/or layoffs will not be used
against them in any way.
ROGAN BROTHERS SANITATION, INC.