This National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision concerns a motion for default judgment filed by the Acting General Counsel against Jofaz Transportation, Inc. and Y & M Transit, Inc. (collectively, the Respondent). The charge was filed by Dina Deriso, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint, which was issued on May 1, 2025.

The Acting General Counsel moved for a default judgment on May 28, 2025. An order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause was issued on August 5, 2025. The Respondent did not respond to this notice.

The Board, in its decision, applied Section 102.20 of its Rules and Regulations, which states that allegations in a complaint are deemed admitted if no answer is filed within 14 days, absent a showing of good cause. The complaint itself warned that failure to answer by a specific date could result in the allegations being deemed true. Since the Respondent failed to file an answer and offered no justification, the Board granted the motion for default judgment.

The Board found that Jofaz Transportation, Inc. and Y & M Transit, Inc. constitute a single employer based on their common ownership, management, labor policy, facilities, operations, and public representation. They engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, with services valued over $250,000 and goods valued over $5,000 purchased from out-of-state. The Amalgamated Transit Workers, Local 854, was recognized as a labor organization.

The alleged unfair labor practices, deemed admitted due to the default, included: * Interrogation of employees by General Manager Anthony Fazzia regarding their union and protected concerted activities on August 29, 2024. * Protected concerted activities by employees Vivian McDaniel and Dina Deriso on the same date, involving complaints about bus routes and other terms of employment. * The discharge of McDaniel and Deriso on August 29, 2024. * The Respondent's failure to reinstate or offer reinstatement to McDaniel and Deriso since that date. * The conclusion that the discharges and refusal to reinstate were motivated by the employees' protected activities and intended to discourage such activities.

Based on these admitted allegations, the Board concluded that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating them. Furthermore, the Respondent discriminated against McDaniel and Deriso regarding their hire and tenure, discouraging union membership, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.

The Board ordered the Respondent to cease and desist from these unlawful practices. Affirmatively, the Respondent was ordered to offer Vivian McDaniel and Dina Deriso full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority. The Respondent was also ordered to make McDaniel and Deriso whole for lost earnings and benefits, including other direct and foreseeable pecuniary harms. Backpay calculations were to be made in accordance with established Board precedent, with interest compounded daily. The Respondent was also required to compensate the employees for any adverse tax consequences of a lump-sum backpay award and to file reports and W-2 forms allocating the backpay. Additionally, the Respondent must remove any reference to the unlawful actions from its files and notify the employees in writing. The Respondent is also required to post a notice to employees and provide certification of compliance.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision is not explicitly presented in this excerpt. The matter was transferred to the Board after the ALJ's order.

Significant Cases Cited

This summary was generated using Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite. It could contain errors.