800 River Road Operating Company, LLC d/b/a CareOne at New Milford

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 20, 2018

22-CA-204545 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 20, 2018)

JD(NY)-17-18
Newark, NJ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES

800 RIVER ROAD OPERATING COMPANY, LLC
d/b/a CARE ONE AT NEW MILFORD

and

1199 SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE
WORKERS EAST

Cases 22-CA-204545

Sharon Chau, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Stephen C. Mitchell, Esq., Seth Kaufman, and Brian Gershengorn (Fisher & Phillips, LLP),
for the Respondent.
William S. Massey, Esq. and Jessica E. Harris, Esq. (Gladstein, Reif & Meginniss, LLP),
for the Charging Party Union.

DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Benjamin W. Green, Administrative Law Judge. A trial was conducted in this matter on
July 10, 2018 in Newark, New Jersey. The complaint, as amended at trial, alleges that the
Respondent unilaterally, without notifying and offering to bargain with the Union, (1) reduced the
work hours of 20 unit employees and (2) discharged one and suspended three unit employees.
The Respondent has denied these allegations. Additional complaint allegations were resolved
by the parties and/or withdrawn by the General Counsel prior to trial. As discussed at length
below, I find merit to the allegations which were litigated.

Post-hearing briefs were filed by the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Union.

On the entire record, I make the following findings, conclusions of law, and
recommendations.

JURISDICTION

The Respondent is a New Jersey Limited Liability Company with an office and place of
business in New Milford, New Jersey and has been engaged in the business of providing long-
term and post-hospital rehabilitation care. During the twelve-month period before the complaint
issued, the respondent derived gross revenues in excess of $100,000. During the same time
period, the Respondent purchased and received at its New Milford, New Jersey facility goods
and supplies valued in excess of $5,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of New
Jersey.

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, and the Union has been a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Based on the foregoing, I find that this dispute
affects commerce and that the Board has jurisdiction of this case, pursuant to Section 10(a) of

JD(NY)-17-18
the Act.
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural History

Pursuant to a representation petition filed January 23, 2012 and a stipulated election 5
agreement approved on February 7, 2012, an election was conducted on March 9, 2012 in case
22-RC-073078 among the following unit of employees:

All full time and regular part time nonprofessional employees including licensed
practical nurses, certified nursing aides, dietary aides, housekeepers, laundry 10
aides, porters, recreation aides, restorative aides, rehabilitation techs, central
supply clerks, unit secretaries, receptionists and building maintenance workers
employed by the [Respondent] at its New Milford, New Jersey facility, but
excluding all office clerical employees, cooks, registered nurses, dieticians,
physical therapists, physical therapy assistants, occupational therapists, 15
occupational therapy assistants, speech therapists, social workers, staffing
coordinators/schedulers, payroll/benefits coordinators, MDS specialists, MDS data
clerks, account payable clerks, account receivable clerks, all other professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
20
A majority of the unit employees voted in favor of representation.

The Respondent filed objections to the election, but those objections were overruled by
the Board in decisions dated July 2, 2012 and January 9, 2013. In its January 9, 2013 decision,
the Board certified the Union as the bargaining representative of unit employees. 800 River 25
Road Operating Co., 359 NLRB 522 (2013). The Respondent tested this certification by refusing
to bargain. Upon additional developments, including the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v.
Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014), on November 26, 2014, the Board conducted a de novo
review of the Respondent’s election objections, rejected those objections, and issued a new
Certification of Representative. On June 15, 2015, the Board found that the Respondent violated 30
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union. On
January 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
enforced the Board’s order. On March 21, 2017, the same Court of Appeals issued a formal
mandate in accordance with its judgment of January 24, 2017.
35
Change in Hours

The General Counsel contends that the following employees had their hours reduced
during the payroll period ending on the dates listed below (third column):
40
Name Title Hours Change in
Payroll Period Ending
Abraham, Mariamma Recreation Assistant 2/1/2014
Boby, Rosilin Recreation Assistant 2/1/2014
Jiminez, Sara Recreation Assistant 2/1/2014
Timms, Donna Recreation Assistant 2/1/2014
Tom, Shiril Recreation Assistant 2/1/2014
Bustos, Benjamin Dietary Aide 7/19/2014
2

JD(NY)-17-18
Coronado, Evelyn Dietary Aide 7/19/2014
Farr, Elaine Dietary Aide 7/19/2014
Fontanez, Enrique Dietary Aide 7/19/2014
Ricarze, Vicente Dietary Aide 7/19/2014
Tolentino, Allan Dietary Aide 7/19/2014
Varhese, George Dietary Aide 7/19/2014
Bazile, Desinette Housekeeper 7/19/2014
Benoit, Julienne Housekeeper 7/19/2014
Murray, Paulette Housekeeper 7/19/2014
Abouzeid, Charles Laundry Aide 7/19/2014
Ramkhalawan, Jean Laundry Aide 7/19/2014
Irabon, Edgardo Porter 7/19/2014
Hegarty, Andrew Maintenance Worker 9/16/2014
Sormani, Dawn-Marie Receptionist 3/28/2015

The Respondent introduced into evidence a wage and benefit summary which indicates
that it was “revised 5/1/2019.” The wage and benefit summary includes a provision on paid
leave which states, in part, as follows:
5
3) VACATION/HOLIDAY /SICK TIME

General Provisions/Eligibility and Waiting Periods:

1. Employees actively employed on a full -time basis (regularly work 37.5 hours 10
or more per week) are eligible for vacation, holiday pay, and sick time. Employees
actively employed on a part-time basis (regularly work 24 to less than 37.5 hours
per week) are eligible for pro-rated vacation, holiday pay, and sick time.

. . . 15

4. Depending on your position and work schedule, hourly and salaried employees
generally work either 7.5 hour /day up to 37.5 hours /week or they may work 8 hours /day
up to 40 hours /week.
20
. . .

Vacation Provisions:

6. Employees may use their accrued vacation hours in a minimum of 30-minute 25
increments. To schedule vacation, employees must give their supervisor a
written request at least four weeks in advance, or Center practice, whichever
is greater. Approval of vacation requests is based on the needs of the Center
and made in the discretion of the Supervisor. Consideration of vacation
requests is given on a first come, first served basis. When vacation requests 30
are received at the same time, tenure with the Center will also be considered.

. . .

13. Vacation hours may be taken based upon an employee's regularly scheduled work 35
day up to a maximum of twelve (12) hours. For example, an employee who is
3

JD(NY)-17-18
regularly scheduled to work a seven and one -half (7 5) hour day may take seven and
one -half (7.5) hours of vacation time.

Sick Time Provisions:
5
. . .

10. Employees may use their accrued sick time hours in a minimum of 30-minute
increments.
10
11. Sick time hours may be used based upon an employee's regularly scheduled work
day up to a maximum of twelve (12) hours. For example, an employee who is
regularly scheduled to work a seven and one -half (7.5) hour day may use seven and
one -half (7.5) sick time hours.
15
. . .

Holiday Provisions:

. . . 20

3. Eligible -time and part-time hourly and salaried employees will receive holiday pay
based on the average number of hours paid in each pay period in the most recent
three (3) full calendar months up to a maximum of seven and one-half (7.5) hours for
each holiday (8 hours of pay for employees who work an 8 hour daily schedule). 25

Attached to this decision as Appendix B are tables reflecting the hours of each employee
in question by payroll period and week, including regular time, overtime, retro hours, sick leave
used, vacation leave used, and holiday hours.
30
The parties stipulated that the Respondent did not give the Union notice and an
opportunity to bargain in advance of any alleged reduction of hours.

The General Counsel relies exclusively on documents (particularly payroll records) and
stipulations to establish a unilateral change in hours.1 The payroll records introduced by the 35
General Counsel indicate that employees largely accumulated (including time worked and leave)
40 hours per week before the payroll period in which their hours were allegedly reduced and
37.50 hours per week during and after the payroll period in which their hours were allegedly
reduced. However, this pattern was not entirely consistent. Thus, it was not uncommon for
employees to accumulate 39 to 39.75 hours per week before the alleged change and it was not 40
uncommon for employees to accumulate up to 38.75 hours after the alleged change. It was far
more rare for an employee to accumulate less than 39 hours in a week before the alleged
change or more than 38.75 hour after the alleged change.2
1 The General Counsel did not call any witnesses at trial. The Respondent contends that the General
Counsel “cherry picked” payroll records (immediately before and after the alleged change) which were
favorable to its case. The Respondent’s counsel indicated at trial an intention to introduce the “full” payroll
records for a larger time period. However, the Respondent only introduced additional payroll records
(beyond the General Counsel’s submission) for one employee (Hegarty).
2 These instances are highlighted in Appendix B.
4

JD(NY)-17-18

Payroll leave deductions were also cited as a basis for evaluating a change in employee
work weeks from 40 hours to 37.5 hours. Thus, for example, paystubs of Coronado, Farr,
Tolentino and Hegarty reflect the use of sick and vacation time in 8-hour increments
(corresponding to a 40-hour work week) before the alleged change in hours and increments of 5
7.5 hours (corresponding to a 37.5-hour work week) during or after the alleged changed.3 More
broadly, a review of the payroll records of all the employees in question reflect that sick/vacation
was largely taken in 8-hour increments before the alleged change and 7.5-hour increments were
largely taken after the alleged change. However, the payroll records are not entirely consistent in
this regard either. 10

Maureen Montegari was called by the Respondent and the only witness to testify at trial.
Montegari is employed by Care One Management LLC (Care One). She was a Care One
Regional Director of Human Resources from 2010 to 2012, when she was promoted to Vice
President of Human Resources (her current position). She has had responsibilities for the 15
Respondent’s facility in Milford, New Jersey in both positions.

Montegari testified that, since at least 2009 (when the wage and benefit summary was
revised), full time employees have regularly been scheduled to work 37.5 hours per week, but
may work additional hours if they pick up an extra shift (for example, if someone calls in sick). 20
According to Montegari, the shortest shifts are the four-hour shifts worked by certain part time
employees. Montegari testified that a facility administrator may sometimes hire full time
employees (particularly rehab techs and rehabilitation assistants) to work 40-hour weeks as an
“exception” in light of the needs of the facility. However, Montegari is not involved in these
decisions. 25

With regard to particular employees at issue in this case, Montegari testified that Sormani
was transferred from unit secretary to receptionist and speculated that the facility administrator
changed Sormani’s hours from 40 hours to 37.5 hours as a result. However, Montegari admitted
that she “was not part of [Sormani’s] transfer to a new position.” Montegari also identified a 30
master schedule for the period December 2015 to April 2017 which shows that Hegarty was
largely scheduled to work 40-hour weeks throughout this time period.4 However, Montegari
testified that “the schedule does not capture whether or not the hours were worked[,][i]t captures
what they were scheduled to work.”
35
Suspensions and Discharge

The Respondent took the following adverse employment actions against the employees
named below:
40

3 I consider increments of 8 and 7.5 hours to include multiples of those numbers, respectively. Thus,
16 or 24 hours of leave reflects 8-hour increments while 15 and 22.5 hours of leave reflects 7.5-hour
increments. The payroll records also contain certain limited increments of leave that were not 8 hours or
7.5 hours (i.e., during the June 7, 2014 payroll period, Fontanez took 9 hours of sick leave the first week
and Coronado took 10.5 hours of sick leave the second week).
4 According to Montegari, the schedule was produced for this period of time because the Respondent
began using computerized scheduling software Smartlinx Solutions LLC in December 2015. Before then,
much of the schedules were handwritten and are no longer available.
5

JD(NY)-17-18
Employee Adverse Employment Action Date of Action
Jasmine Gordon Suspended October 10, 2016
Shantai Bills Discharged January 4, 2017
Linda Rhoads Suspended February 1, 2017
Jesus Mendez Suspended March 23, 2017

The parties stipulated that the Respondent administered these suspensions and the
discharge without notifying and offering to bargain with the Union before doing so. The parties
also stipulated that the Union never demanded bargaining regarding these particular adverse
employment actions. 5

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Section 8(a)(1) Allegations
10
Reduction of Hours

The General Counsel contends, and I agree, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act by reducing the hours of 20 unit employees.5 The Board recently addressed
“what constitutes a ‘change’ requiring notice to the union and the opportunity for bargaining prior 15
to implementation.” Raytheon Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161 (Dec. 15, 2017). In
Raytheon, the Board found “that the [employer’s] modifications in unit employee healthcare
benefits in 2013 were a continuation of its past practice of making similar changes at the same
time every year from 2001 through 2012.”6 Id. Since ongoing healthcare benefit modifications
did “not materially vary in kind or degree from the changes made in prior years,” they did not 20
constitute a “change” and could be made unilaterally.

Here, the employees in question largely accrued 40 hours per week before and 37.5
hours per week during or after the payroll period identified by the General Counsel as the period
when the change occurred. However, the employees did not always work exactly 40 or 37.5 25
hour per week. Accordingly, a question arises whether there was a material change in
employees’ hours or the mere continuation of minor deviations in hours insufficient to establish a
“change.”

Preliminarily, I note that the changes in hours cannot be attributed to employees working 30
overtime since Montegari testified that employees only worked overtime hours when they picked
up additional shifts. Montegari identified the shortest shifts as four hours and the weekly
differences in hours at issue here are less than four hours. Therefore, the differences in hours
were not the result of employees working additional overtime shifts.
35
5 “The Board has long held that an employer ‘acts at its peril in making changes in terms and
conditions of employment during the period that objections to an election are pending’ because if the union
is ultimately certified, the employer will have violated Section 8(a)(5) by making those changes.” The Ardit
Co., 364 NLRB No. 130 (Oct. 27, 2016) quoting Mike O'Connor Chevrolet, 209 NLRB 701, 703 (1974), enf.
denied on other grounds 512 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1975). Here, the Respondent does not contend it was
entitled to act unilaterally because the final certification did not issue until November 26, 2014.
6 Raytheon addressed the significance of changes made during the term of a collective bargaining
agreement pursuant to a management rights clause, but that is not an issue here.
6

JD(NY)-17-18
Further, I place no significance on Montegari’s testimony or the wage and benefit
summary to the extent they indicate that employees were generally scheduled to work 37.5
hours per week.7 The undisputed evidence demonstrates that some employees worked 40-hour
weeks and Montegari was not involved in specific scheduling decisions which were made by
administrators at the facility level. The best evidence is payroll records reflecting the hours 5
employees actually accumulated each week. See Electronic Data Systems International
Corporation, 278 NLRB 125 (1986). The Respondent had the opportunity to present additional
payroll records to the extent those introduced by the General Counsel may have been isolated or
somehow taken of context, and largely failed to do so.
10
In this case, the alleged reductions in hours did reflect a material variation in kind and
degree as to constitute a “change” which required bargaining. Employees who generally
accrued 40 hours per week and rarely if ever accrued less than 39 hours per week experienced
a reduction in hours to 37.5-hour weeks and rarely if ever accrued more than 38.75 hours per
week after the change.8 Thus, unlike in Raytheon, the Respondent did not effect changes at the 15
same time and in the same manner as it had in the past.

The Respondent contends that the General Counsel did not establish a prima facie case
because it “cherry picked” payroll records and did not call any witnesses at trial. However, in my
opinion, the General Counsel did establish a prima facie case (and nothing more). The General 20
Counsel introduced sufficient evidence to indicate that, on its face, a change occurred which was
different than prior changes. As noted above, the Respondent failed to rebut the General
Counsel’s evidence or the pattern it demonstrated.

Turning to individual employees specifically addressed by the Respondent in its brief, I do 25
not rely on Montegari’s testimony that Sormani’s hours were reduced because she (Sormani)
changed positions. Montegari admitted that she “was not part of [Sormani’s] transfer to a new
position.” Such testimony without personal knowledge of relevant events and the dates thereof
is not helpful.9
30
However, Sormani’s hours were more sporadic before the alleged reduction in hours
(payroll period ending March 28, 2015) than other employees and this requires a closer look.
Five out of 10 weeks prior to the payroll period ending March 28, 2015, Sormani accrued less
than 39 hours of pay (as reflected in Appendix B and below):
35
Payroll Ending Week 1 - Hours Week 2 - Hours
1/17/2015 40 + 5.75 OT 34.75
7 Likewise, I do not find the master schedules relevant to the extent it shows that Hegarty was
scheduled to work 40-hour weeks beginning December 2015. These schedules do not address the payroll
periods at the time of the alleged change and do not reflect the hours that Hegarty actually worked.
8 An employer does not violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act when it unilaterally implements a change that
is not “material, substantial and significant.” Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Fayetteville, Inc., 330 NLRB 990,
902 (2000). However, the Board has held that a change in hours, even on a limited basis, will be
considered significant. Id. See also Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., 346 NLRB 1319,
1355 (2006).
9 The Respondent asserted in its brief that a change in the department code on Sormani’s payroll
registers for the pay period ending May 9, 2015 reflects a change in her position. However, the record
evidence does not indicate what the change in code actually means and, regardless, the change in code
occurred after the alleged change in hours (three payroll periods earlier).
7

JD(NY)-17-18
1/31/2015 24 + 16 sick 40 vacation
2/14/2015 40 + 0.25 OT 37.5
2/28/2015 37.75 + 7.5 holiday 30.25 + 8 vacation
3/14/2015 40 + 1.5 OT 38
3/28/2015 37.75 36.50 + 1.33 vacation
4/11/2015 37.5 37.5
4/25/2015 38 37.75
5/9/2015 37.75 37.5
5/23/2015 37.75 38.25
6/6/2015 30 + 7.5 holiday 37.5

Nevertheless, Sormani accumulated 40 hours five out of 10 weeks prior to the payroll
period during which the alleged change occurred and did not accrue more than 38.25 hours after
the alleged change occurred. Montegari did not actually deny that Sormani’s schedule was
switched from a 40-hour week to a 37.5-hour week (although, as noted above, she did not evince 5
any personal knowledge of the same). While, in Sormani’s case, there is some overlap in the
range of hours before and after the alleged unlawful change, I find the evidence sufficient to
establish that she experienced a material variation in her hours.10

Turning to Hegarty, the one employee for whom the Respondent produced additional 10
payroll records, the additional records did show more discrepancies before and after his alleged
change in his hours. Thus, if holiday pay is excluded, records for the payroll periods from
January 5, 2013 to August 2, 2014 (before the alleged change in hours during the payroll period
ending August 16, 2014) showed that Hegarty accumulated less than 39 hours in 15 weeks.
However, this is still a relatively small percentage (18%) in the context of 42 payroll periods 15
covering 84 weeks. Far more often, Hegarty accumulated 40 hours per week during this time
period. Accordingly, the expanded payroll records prior to the alleged change do not, in my
opinion, defeat the General Counsel’s case that a change in hours occurred.

The more significant evidence from the Respondent’s submission is Hegarty’s 20
accumulation of over 40 hours during the first week of the payroll period ending September 27,
2014 and the first weeks of the payroll periods ending October 25 and November 8, 2014.
Hegarty also worked 39.75 hours the week ending December 6, 2014. Thus, unlike the other
employees, Hegarty went back to working certain 40-hour weeks fairly quickly after the alleged
change. On the other hand, from the payroll period ending August 16, 2014 (when the change 25
allegedly occurred) to the end of the year, Hegarty accumulated less than 39 hours 18 of 22
weeks. By contrast, Hegarty accrued at least 40 hours 18 of 22 weeks immediately prior to the
payroll period ending August 16, 2014. While the allege change is most ambiguous with regard
to Hegarty, I find the evidence sufficient to establish that a change of his hours did occur.
30
Hegarty’s payroll records further show that, beginning the payroll period ending February
28, 2015, his hours returned, more regularly, to 40-hour weeks.11 While this suggests that
10 Although not specifically addressed by the Respondent, I find that Abraham and Ricarze
experienced a change in hours upon the same rational. Like Sormani, Abraham and Ricarze accumulated
less than 39 hours in weeks prior to the alleged change in hours. However, more often, they accumulated
at least 39 hours in advance of the alleged change and did not accumulate 39 hours after the alleged
change.
11 The Respondent produced Hegarty’s payroll records for the period 2013 to 2016. Appendix B only
includes the hours from 2013 to 2015. However, Hegarty continued to accrue 40-hour weeks in 2016.
8

JD(NY)-17-18
Hegarty’s 40-hour week may have been reinstated in 2015, it does not change my finding that a
unilateral change occurred in the first place. The Respondent argues in its brief that, to the extent
the General Counsel established any violation, it must be limited to the pay registers the General
Counsel entered into evidence. I do not limit my finding in this regard and any backpay
associated with the changes in hours can be fleshed out and determined, if necessary, during a 5
compliance proceeding. However, to the extent it is shown in such a proceeding that unilateral
changes were ultimately reversed, the Respondent’s liability would be limited on that basis.

Based on the foregoing, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act by unilaterally reducing the hours of employees without notifying the Union and offering to 10
bargain.

Unilateral Suspensions and Discharge

The General Counsel contends that the Respondent unilaterally suspended three 15
employees and discharged another employee without notifying and offering to bargain with the
Union. I agree.

The Board has held that “discretionary discipline is a mandatory subject of bargaining and
that employers may not unilaterally impose serious discipline . . . . “ Total Security Management 20
Illinois 1, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 106 (2016) Serious discipline includes suspension and discharge
as those actions “have an inevitable and immediate impact on employees’ tenure, status, or
earnings.” Id. “It is well established that where the manner of the respondent's presentation of
a change in terms and conditions of employment to the union precludes a meaningful opportunity
for the union to bargain, the change is a fait accompli and a failure by the union 25
to request bargaining will not constitute a waiver. United States Postal Service, 366 NLRB No.
168 (Aug. 23, 2018) citing Aggregate Industries, 359 NLRB 1419, 1422 (2013) and Pontiac
Osteopathic Hospital, 336 NLRB 1021, 1023 (2001). Here, the facts are not in dispute and the
Respondent simply asserts that extant precedent should be overruled.
30
The adverse employment actions taken against the four employees in question were
“serious” as the Board defines it and the Respondent admits that it did not give the Union notice
and an opportunity to bargain. Further, the Union’s subsequent failure to request bargaining
over discipline which already issued does not constitute a waiver or a defense. Since I am
bound by extant Board precedent, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by 35
disciplining employees as alleged in the complaint.

Conclusions of Law

1. The Respondent, 800 River Road Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Care One at Milford, is 40
an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), 2(6), and (7) of the Act.

2. The Respondent engaged in the following unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act:
45
a. Unilaterally reduced the hours of Charles Abouzeid, Mariamma Abraham,
Desinette Bazile, Julienne Benoit, Rosilin Boby, Benjamin Bustos, Evelyn Coronado, Elaine Farr,
Enrique Fontanez, Andrew Hegarty, Edgardo Irabon, Sara Jiminez, Paulette Murray, Jean
Ramkhalawan, Vicente Ricarze, Dawn-Marie Sormani, Donna Timms, Allan Tolentino, Shiril Tom
and George Varhese without notifying and offering to bargain with the Union, 1199 SEIU United 50
Healthcare Workers East.
9

JD(NY)-17-18

b. Unilaterally administered adverse employment actions as follows to the
employees listed below without notifying and offering to bargain with the Union:

Employee Adverse Employment Action Date of Action
Jasmine Gordon Suspended October 10, 2016
Shantai Bills Discharge January 4, 2017
Linda Rhoads Suspended February 1, 2017
Jesus Mendez Suspended March 23, 2017
5
3. The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent affect Commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

Remedy
10
Having found that the Respondents has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that they must be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.

The Respondent having refused to notify and offer to bargain with the Union regarding a 15
reduction in the hours of certain employees and certain adverse employment actions, I will order
Respondent to rescind those unilateral changes. With the exception of Shantai Bills, who was
discharged, the Respondent shall make whole any employee whose hours were reduced or who
were suspended for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of its unlawful
actions as prescribed in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), plus interest as 20
computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). See Community Health
Services, Inc., 361 NLRB 333 (2014) aff’g 356 NLRB 744 (2011) and 342 NLRB 398 (2004) after
remand.

The Respondent, having unlawfully discharged Bills, must offer her reinstatement to her 25
former job or if her job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to
her seniority or any other rights or privileges enjoyed. The Respondent shall make Bills whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of her unilateral discharge. The
make whole remedy shall be computed in accordance with F.W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), 30
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). In
accordance with King Scoopers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 (2016), the Respondent shall
compensate Bills for his search-for-work and interim employment expenses regardless of
whether those expenses exceed his interim earnings. Search-for-work and interim employment
expenses shall be calculated separately from taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate 35
prescribed in New Horizons, supra, and compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River
Medical Center, supra. In accordance with Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361
NLRB 101 (2014), the Respondent shall compensate Hess for the adverse tax consequences, if
any, of receiving a lump sum backpay award, and, in accordance with AdvoServ of New Jersey,
Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016), the Respondent shall, within 21 days of the date the amount of 40
backpay is fixed either by agreement or Board order, file with the Regional Director for Region 22
a report allocating Bills’ backpay to the appropriate calendar year. The Regional Director will
then assume responsibility for transmission of the report to the Social Security Administration at
the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner.
10

JD(NY)-17-18

The Respondent will be required to remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
suspension/discharge of Bills, Jasmine Gordon, Linda Rhoads and Jesus Mendez and notify
them in writing that their unlawful suspension or discharge will not be used against them in any
way. 5

The Respondent shall be ordered to post the notice attached hereto as “Appendix A.”

On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended12 10

Order

The Respondent, 800 River Road Operating Company, LLC d/b/a Care One at New
Milford, New Milford, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 15

1. Cease and desist from

(a) Unilaterally, without notifying and offering to bargain with the Union, 1199 SEIU
United Healthcare Workers East, changing the terms and conditions of employment of 20
employees, including the reduction of employees’ hours, discharge of employees, and/or
suspension of employees.

(b) In any like or related manner interfering, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 25

2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.

(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Shantai Bills reinstatement to her
former position or, if her position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without 30
prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.

(b) Make Bills, Jasmine Gordon, Linda Rhoads and Jesus Mendez whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the unilateral adverse employment actions
taken against them in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision. 35

(c) Make Charles Abouzeid, Mariamma Abraham, Desinette Bazile, Julienne Benoit,
Rosilin Boby, Benjamin Bustos, Evelyn Coronado, Elaine Farr, Enrique Fontanez, Andrew
Hegarty, Edgardo Irabon, Sara Jiminez, Paulette Murray, Jean Ramkhalawan, Vicente Ricarze,
Dawn-Marie Sormani, Donna Timms, Allan Tolentino, Shiril Tom and George Varhese whole for 40
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the unilateral reduction of their
hours in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.

(d) Compensate Bills for search-for-work and interim employment expenses regardless of
whether those expenses exceed her interim earnings. 45
12 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 purposes.

11

JD(NY)-17-18

(e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful discharge and suspension of Bills, Gordon, Rhoads and Mendez, and within three days
thereafter, notify them in writing that this has been done and that the discharge and suspensions
will not be used against them in any way. 5

(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional 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 records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored 10
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.

(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Milford, New Jersey facility
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix A.”13 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by 15
the Regional Director for Region 22, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as
by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the 20
Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material. If the Respondent has gone out of business or closed, or are otherwise
prevented from posting the notice at the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and 25
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since February 1, 2014.

(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region
22 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. 30

Dated: Washington, D.C. November 20, 2018

Benjamin W. Green 35
Administrative Law Judge
13 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 National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”

12

APPENDIX A
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 UNDER SECTON 7 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT 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 activities.

WE WILL NOT unilaterally, without notifying and offering to bargain with the Union, 1199 SEIU
United Healthcare Workers East, change your terms and conditions of employment, including
the reduction of your hours, termination of your employment, and/or suspension of your
employment.

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, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Shanti Bills full reinstatement to her
former job or, if her job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.

WE WILL make Bills whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from her
unilateral discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest compounded daily.

WE WILL make Jasmine Gordon, Linda Rhoads and Jesus Mendez whole for any loss of
earnings or other benefits resulting from their unilateral suspensions plus interest compounded
daily.

WE WILL make Charles Abouzeid, Mariamma Abraham, Desinette Bazile, Julienne Benoit,
Rosilin Boby, Benjamin Bustos, Evelyn Coronado, Elaine Farr, Enrique Fontanez, Andrew
Hegarty, Edgardo Irabon, Sara Jiminez, Paulette Murray, Jean Ramkhalawan, Vicente Ricarze,
Dawn-Marie Sormani, Donna Timms, Allan Tolentino, Shiril Tom and George Varhese whole for
any loss of earnings or other benefits resulting from the unilateral reduction of their hours plus
interest compounded daily.

WE WILL compensate all the employees named above for the adverse tax consequences, if any,
of receiving a lump-sum backpay award and WE WILL file with the Regional Director for Region
22 within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board
order, a report allocating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar years.

WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files any reference to the
unlawful discharge of Bills and unlawful suspensions of Gordon, Rhoads and Mendez, and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that this has been done and that their
discharge or suspension will not be used against them in any way.

800 River Road Operating Company, LLC
d/b/a Care One at New Milford
(Employer)

Dated By
(Representative) (Title)

The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how
to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website:
www.nlrb.gov.

20 Washington Place
5th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: 973-645-2100

The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-204545 by
using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive
Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by
calling (202) 273–1940.

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE
OFFICER, (973) 645-2100.

APPENDIX B
The payroll periods of each alleged hour reduction are highlighted.
Weeks before the alleged change when employees accumulated less than 39 hours (excluding holidays) are highlighted.
Weeks after the allged change when employees accumulated 39 hours (excluding holidays) or more are highlighted.
Charles Abouzeid: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular OT Vacation Sick Holiday
May 10, 2014 40 40
May 24, 2014 40 40
June 7, 2014 40 8 40
June 21, 2014 40.25 40
July 5, 2014 40 40 6.25 8
July 19, 2014 40 37.5
August 2, 2014 30 7.5 37.5
August 16, 2014 37.5 30 7.5
August 30, 2014 37.5 22.5 15
September 13, 2014 37.25 8 37.75
September 27, 2014 37.5 37.5
Mariamma Abraham: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending February 1, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
October 26, 2013 40 40
November 9, 2013 38.5 40
November 23, 2013 40 4 8
December 7, 2013 24 7.5 40
December 21, 2013 40 38.75
January 4, 2014 36 7.07 31.75 7
January 18, 2014 40 40
February 1, 2014 35.5 37.5
February 15, 2014 21.25 15 37.25
March 1, 2014 37.5 7.27 37.5
March 15, 2014 37.5 30 7.5
Desinette Bazile: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
May 10, 2014 0 40 39.25
May 24, 2014 40 39.5
June 7, 2014 40 7.83 40
June 21, 2014 40 40
July 5, 2014 40 40 8
July 19, 2014 32 7.5 30 7.5
August 2, 2014 37.5 37.5 7.5
August 16,2 014 22.5
August 30, 2014 7.5 37.25
September 13, 2014 37 7.17 37.5
September 27, 2014 37.5 36.75
Julienne Benoit: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19 , 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
May 10, 2014 39.5 40
May 24, 2014 32 40
June 7, 2014 40 8 40
June 21, 2014 40 40
July 5, 2014 40 40 7.98
July 19, 2014 40 37.5
August 2, 2014 37.25 0 37.5
August 16,2 014 7.5 30 0 22.5 15
August 30, 2014 30 7.5 37.5
September 13, 2014 37 8 36.75
September 27, 2014 29.75 7.5 36.75
Rosilin Boby: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending February 1, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
November 9, 2013 40 40
November 23, 2013 40 40
December 7, 2013 40 7.5 40
December 21, 2013 40 40
January 4, 2014 24 16 7.5 40 7.5
January 18, 2014 40 40 7.5
February 1, 2014 38 37.5
February 15, 2014 29.75 7.5 37.5
March 1, 2014 37.5 7.5 37.5
March 15, 2014 37.5 37.5
March 29, 2014 37.5 37.5
Benjamin Bustos: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
May 10, 2014 40 40
May 24, 2014 31.75 8 40
June 7, 2014 40 8 40
June 21, 2014 31.5 8 39.75
July 5, 2014 40 40
July 19, 2014 40 31.25 8
August 2, 2014 34.25 38.5
August 16,2 014 38.75 38
August 30, 2014 38 0 22.5
September 13, 2014 30 8 37.5
September 27, 2014 37.5 37.5
October 11, 2014 37.5 37.5
Evelyn Coronado: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
May 10, 2014 32 8 32 8
May 24, 2014 40 32 8
June 7, 2014 40 28.5 10.5
June 21, 2014 40 40
July 5, 2014 24 16 32 8 8
July 19, 2014 40 37.5
August 2, 2014 36 7.5 22.5 15
August 16,2 014 37.5 30 7.5
August 30, 2014 37.5 37.5
September 13, 2014 37.5 8 22.5 15
September 27, 2014 37.5 37.75
October 11, 2014 37.5 22 15
Elaine Farr: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
May 10, 2014 32 8 40
May 24, 2014 40 32 8
June 7, 2014 39.75 8 40
June 21, 2014 24 16 40
July 5, 2014 32 8 40 8
July 19, 2014 40 30 7.5
August 2, 2014 7.5 30 30 7.5
August 16,2 014 37.5 38.25
August 30, 2014 38 37.5 22.5
September 13, 2014 30.5 7.5 8 38
September 27, 2014 37.5 38
Enrique Fontanez: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
May 10, 2014 39.5 40
May 24, 2014 40 40
June 7, 2014 31 9 8 40
June 21, 2014 39.5 39.5
July 5, 2014 40 40 8
July 19, 2014 31.75 7.5 37
August 2, 2014 7.5 30 0 37.5
August 16,2 014 30 7.5 37.5
August 30, 2014 37.5 37.5
September 13, 2014 37.75 8 30 7.5
September 27, 2014 30 7.5 22.5 15
Andrew Hagerty: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending Augsut 16, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular OT Retro Vacation Sick Holiday Regular OT Vacation Sick Holiday
January 5, 2013 29.25 8
January 19, 2013 39 3 40
February 2, 2013 32 40
February 16, 2013 40 20.75 40 1
March 2, 2013 40 1 40
March 16, 2013 40 11.75 40 2.75
March 30, 2013 22.25 39.25
April 13, 2013 37.25 40 14
April 27, 2013 34.25 40
May 11, 2013 40 5.5 13.5 8 8
May 26, 2013 40 3.5 40 3
June 8, 2013 40 3 5.08 40 3
June 22, 2013 35 8 40 6
July 6, 2013 40 40 8
July 20, 2013 27 13 37.5 3
August 3, 2013 40 1.5 40
August 17, 2013 40 40 1.25
August 31, 2013 32.5 8 41
September 14, 2013 33 8 8 40 0.75
September 28, 2013 40 40 1.5
October 12, 2013 32 8 40
October 26, 2013 40 40 2.5
November 9, 2013 40 0.75 40
November 23, 2013 32 1 8 40
December 7, 2013 32 8 32 8
December 21, 2013 32 8 40 3.25
January 4, 2014 32 8 36.75 8 8
January 18, 2014 24 16 32 8
February 1, 2014 20 37
February 15, 2014 40 4.25 37.25
March 1, 2014 41 8 40
March 15, 2014 40 40
March 29, 2014 37 40
Andrew Hagerty: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending Augsut 16, 2014 (continued)
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular OT Retro Vacation Sick Holiday Regular OT Vacation Sick Holiday
April 12, 2014 40 39
April 26, 2014 40 40
May 10, 2014 40.25 40
May 24, 2014 40 0.75 32
June 7, 2014 29.75 8 5.08 40
June 21, 2014 40 32.25 8
July 5, 2014 40 40 3.5 5.08
July 19, 2014 40 40
August 2, 2014 40 40 1.5
August 16, 2014 7.5 15 7.5 37.75
August 30, 2014 38 37.5
September 13, 2014 23.25 15 7.5 18.25 15
September 27, 2014 40 1.75 5 38
October 11, 2014 37.5 37.5
October 25, 2014 40 1.25 37.5
November 8, 2014 40 0.5 30 7.5
November 22, 2014 37.5 30 7.5
November 22, 2014 36.5 38.5
December 6, 2014 38.75 39.75
December 20, 2014 27 7.5 37.75
January 3, 2014 15 7.5 15 7.5
January 17, 2015 15.25 22.5
January 31, 2015 17 15.5
February 14, 2015 15.5 38.75
February 28, 2015 40 5.75 5.47 37.75
March 14, 2015 26 8 8 40 3.25
March 28, 2015 40 4.25 40 1.5
April 11, 2015 40 0.5 40
April 25, 2015 16 16 40 22.75
May 9, 2015 24 33.25 15
May 23, 2015 40 5.5 40 1.75
June 6, 2015 40 3 40 1.5
June 20, 2015 40 4.25 40 2
Andrew Hagerty: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending Augsut 16, 2014 (continued)
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular OT Retro Vacation Sick Holiday Regular OT Vacation Sick Holiday
July 4, 2015 40 2.75 40 1.75
July 18, 2015 40 1.75 16 22.5
August 1, 2015 15.75 22.5 24.25
August 15, 2015 24.25 24
August 29, 2015 25 24
September 12, 2015 16 32 7.4
September 26, 2015 27.25 40
October 10, 2015 40 0.75 40
October 24, 2015 40 0.5 32.5
November 7, 2015 40 0.5 40 0.25
November 21, 2015 40 40 2.75
December 5, 2015 39.25 6.73 33.5
December 19, 2015 40 32.25
Edgardo Irabon: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular OT Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
May 10, 2014 39.5 40
May 24, 2014 40 40
June 7, 2014 39.75 8 40
June 21, 2014 40 32.25 8
July 5, 2014 40 0.25 40 0.25
July 19, 2014 40 37.5
August 2, 2014 37.75 7.5 0 37.5
August 16, 2014 0 30 38.5
August 30, 2014 38.5 38.5
September 13, 2014 38.25 7.95 38.25
September 27, 2014 38.25 38.75
Sara Jiminez: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
November 23, 2013 40 40
December 7, 2013 40 6.7 40
December 21, 2013 40 40
January 4, 2014 39.5 8 39.5 8
January 18, 2014 40 16 24
February 1, 2014 38 37.5
March 1, 2014 37.5 8 37.5
March 15, 2014 37.5 37.5
March 29, 2014 37.5 37.5
April 12, 2014 37.5 37.25
Paulette Murray: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
April 12, 2014 40 40
April 26, 2014 32 8 40
May 10, 2014 32 8 40
May 24, 2014 32 40
June 7, 2014 40 8 32
June 21, 2014 32 8 8 32 8
July 5, 2014 40 40 8
July 19, 2014 40 37.5
August 2, 2014 37.5 37.5
August 16,2 014 30 30 7.5
August 30, 2014 30 7.5 30 8
September 13, 2014 37.5 7.92 22.5 15
September 27, 2014 0 37.5 0 37.5
Jean Ramkhalawan: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular OT Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
May 10, 2014 40 40
May 24, 2014 39.5 40
June 7, 2014 39.75 7.03 40
June 21, 2014 40 32 8
July 5, 2014 40 1.5 40 7.03
July 19, 2014 40 0.25 37.5
August 2, 2014 30 7.5 7.5 30
August 16,2 014 37.5 37.5
August 30, 2014 37.25 30
September 13, 2014 37.5 8 30 8
September 27, 2014 37.5 7.5 37.5
Vicente Ricarze: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
May 10, 2014 39.5 37.5
May 24, 2014 31 8 39.25
June 7, 2014 39.25 7.98 23 16
June 21, 2014 31.75 8 36
July 5, 2014 39.25 38 7.92
July 19, 2014 39.5 25.75 7.5
August 2, 2014 37.5 36.75
August 16,2 014 37.5 0 37.5
August 30, 2014 22.25 15 37.5
September 13, 2014 37.25 7.82 37.5
September 27, 2014 37.5 25.5 8
October 11, 2014 37 37.5
October 25, 2014 37.5 36.75
Dawn-Marie Sormani: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending March 28, 2015
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular OT Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
January 17, 2015 40 5.75 34.75
January 31, 2015 24 16 0 40
February 14, 2015 40 0.25 37.5
February 28, 2015 37.75 7.5 30.25 8
March 14, 2015 40 1.5 38
March 28, 2015 37.75 36.5 1.33
April 11, 2015 37.5 37.5
April 25, 2015 38 37.75
May 9, 2015 37.75 37.5
May 23, 2015 37.75 38.25
June 6, 2015 30 7.5 37.5
Donna Timms: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending February 1, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
November 9, 2013 40 40
November 23, 2013 0 40 0 40
December 7, 2013 40 8 40
December 21, 2013 40 38 2
January 4, 2014 40 0.5 8 40 8
January 18, 2014 40 30 8
February 1, 2014 38 37.5
February 15, 2014 37.5 30 7.5
March 1, 2014 37.5 8 37.5
March 15, 2014 34.5 3 37.5
March 29, 2014 37.5 37.5
Allan Tolentino: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
April 12, 2014 39.75 38.25
April 26, 2014 39.25 32 8
May 10, 2014 39.5 39.75
May 24, 2014 38.25 32.5 8
June 7, 2014 31.5 8 15.75
June 21, 2014 39.5 40
July 5, 2014 31.25 8 39.5 7.5
July 19, 2014 39.25 29.5 7.5
August 2, 2014 37.5 37.5
August 16,2 014 37 37.25
August 30, 2014 29.75 7.5 39
September 13, 2014 37.75 7.43 38.75
September 27, 2014 38.75 29.75 7.5
Shiril Tom: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending February 1, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
November 9, 2013 40 40
November 23, 2013 40 40
December 7, 2013 40 7.5 39.75
December 21, 2013 40 40
January 4, 2014 40 7.5 39.75 7.5
January 18, 2014 40 40
February 1, 2014 38 37.5
February 15, 2014 37.5 30 8
March 1, 2014 37.5 7.5 37.5
March 15, 2014 37.5 37.5
March 29, 2014 23 23
George Varghese: Alleged Reduction in Hours During Payroll Period Ending July 19, 2014
Week 1 Week 2
Payroll Period Ending Regular Vacation Sick Holiday Regular Vacation Sick Holiday
April 12, 2014 40 40
April 26, 2014 32 8 24 8 8
May 10, 2014 40 40
May 24, 2014 40 40
June 7, 2014 32 8 8 40
June 21, 2014 40 40
July 5, 2014 40 27.5 8 8
July 19, 2014 32 7.5 38
August 2, 2014 37.5 37.5
August 16,2 014 37.5 0 37.5
August 30, 2014 37.5 30 7.5
September 13, 2014 37.5 7.98 37.5
September 27, 2014 37.5 25.5 8