Extract
Amber Delivery Service, Inc., 63 (1980)
AMBER DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.
Amber Delivery Service, Inc. and Teamsters, Local 25, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America. Cases I-CA-13203, I-CA-13219, 1CA-13225, and 1-CA-13730June 24, 1980 DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERSJENKINS AND TRUESDALEOn September 27, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Peter E. Donnelly issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel submitted a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.I. The complaint alleges that on August 9, 1977,2 Respondent instituted certain changes in its method of operation. The Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent was bound by its answer which admitted that all of the changes were made. He also found that these changes were implemented in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1), and ordered that they be rescinded. However, the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently failed to set forth the changes, and therefore they are set forth below as they appear in the complaint: (1) owner-operators were given rights to refuse loads and to terminate bilaterally their contracts with Amber, (2) owner-operators were given the right to report for work at their discretion, (3) owneroperators were given discretion as to route selection within a geographic territory, (4) owner-operators were no longer required to wear uniforms or to paint their vehicles in Respondent's colors, (5) owner-operators were no longer assisted by Respondent's employees in loading their vehicles, (6) owner-operators were no longer required or permitted to report their hours to Respondent in the I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law J:idge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Productr.s.Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings 2 Unless otherwise specified, all dates herein refer to 1977250 NLRB No. 16 same manner as other employees, and (7) owneroperators were no longer required to attend general safety meetings at Amber.2. For the reasons below, we agree with the Administrative Law Judge that the owner-operators in this case are Respondent's employees and not independent contractors.Respondent operates a service for the distribution of freight and for the pickup and delivery of small packages. In the fall of 1976, Respondent decided to require all its drivers to own their own vehicles, and, by July 1977, all of its drivers had converted to owner-operator status. Respondent obtained authority from both the Interstate Commerce Commission and th...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
