Hyundai Motor Manufacturing, Alabama LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 6, 2017

15-CA-173419 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 6, 2017)

JD–16–17
Montgomery, AL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING
ALABAMA, LLC
and Case 15-CA-173419
RICHARD P. ROUCO,
An Individual
Andrew T. Miragliotta, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Marcel L. Debruge and Michael L. Lucas, Esqs. (Burr and Furman, LLP,
Birmingham, Alabama), for the Respondent.
Richard P. Rouco, Esq. (Quinn, Conn, Weaver, Davies & Rouco, LLP,
Birmingham, Alabama,) for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Arthur J. Amchan, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Montgomery,
Alabama on January 23 and 24, 2017. Richard P. Rouco, an attorney, filed the initial and
amended charges on April 7, April 21, and May 25, 2016. In those documents he alleged that
Respondent had terminated Nathan Howard, Justin Cleckler1 and Nathan Yarbrough on January
11, 2016 because they engaged in protected concerted activity and/or union activity.
The General Counsel issued the complaint on July 29, 2016. In it he alleged Respondent
terminated Howard, Cleckler and Yarbrough in violation of Section 8(a)(1) because it believed
that the three engaged in protected concerted activity and because it mistakenly believed they
had assisted a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). The General Counsel
also alleges that Respondent, by Group Leader Terrence “Toby” Brooks, violated Section 8(a)(1)
by threatening employees with termination for talking about unions. Further it alleges that Team
Relations Specialist Gregory Gomez illegally interrogated employees about the protected
concerted activities of themselves and others.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following

1 Cleckler’s first name is Joseph, but he goes by Justin.
JD–16–17
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a corporation, manufactures automobiles at a very large factory located just 5
south of Montgomery, Alabama. It annually sells and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000
from this facility to points outside of Alabama. It also annually purchases and receives goods at
the Montgomery plant which are valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside of
Alabama. Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.10
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Respondent’s discharge of Howard, Cleckler and Yarbrough
15
Nathan Howard, Justin Cleckler and Nathan Yarbrough were maintenance employees in
the paint shop at the Montgomery plant. Much of the painting work is performed by robots
which are serviced by the maintenance employees. Respondent has 4 maintenance crews in the
paint shop which work different schedules. Howard, Cleckler, Yarbrough, Levado Lawson and
Robert Steele were the 5 members of the D shift crew. They normally worked Friday, Saturday, 20
Sunday and Monday from 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.2
Production of automobiles at the Montgomery facility stops for maintenance work twice
a year. One of these shutdowns normally occurs in the Christmas to New Year timeframe. In
late November 2015, Soladine Harris, the Paint Shop Maintenance Manager, posted a work 25
schedule for the shutdown period. He posted a revised schedule in early December which
indicated that Tuesday, December 22, and Wednesday December 23 would be production days
and that the shutdown would start on Thursday, December 24. According to this schedule, the D
shift crew was to be working from 6:00 a.m. to 2 p.m. from December 22 through Saturday
January 2, 2016.330
On December 6 & 7, 2015, Toby Brooks, a Group Leader on the day shift,4 had each D
crew member sign a form acknowledging that they would be working day shift hours during this
period. On Sunday, December 20, Brooks informed all the D shift members that they were to
clock in at 6:30 a.m. instead of 6:00 and clock out at 3:00 p.m. instead of at 2:00 p.m. on 35
Tuesday December 22. He told this to each of the crew members individually.
Several responded that the printed schedule still indicated they were to work from 6:00
a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Changes to the posted schedule are normally made by Soladine Harris, not
Brooks. Brooks did not inform Harris, who is his manager, that he was telling the D shift to 40
work a different schedule. None of the three alleged discriminatees made any effort to clarify
their conflicting schedules with Harris or anybody else, prior to Wednesday, December 23.

2 Howard had a slightly different schedule, 0400 to 2:30 p.m.
3 It appears that not every D shift employee was scheduled to work every day during this period.
4 Brooks is a statutory supervisor.
JD–16–17
3
On December 22, all 5 of the D crew members clocked in at 6:00, which was consistent
with the printed schedule, not Brooks’ oral instructions. Sometime afterward, Howard,
Yarbrough and Cleckler discussed the fact that the written schedule had not been changed, Tr.
168.5 At 2:00 p.m., Cleckler, Howard and Yarbrough clocked out and left the plant, also
consistent with their printed schedule, but inconsistent with Brooks’ orders. At about 2:30 Steele 5
and Lawson, the other members of the D shift crew, came to Brooks and asked where the rest of
the crew had gone. Brooks told Steele and Lawson that they must work until 3:00. They did so.
The next morning, Brooks asked Cleckler why the 3 left work early.6 Cleckler responded
that the employees did not leave early; they had worked in accordance with their printed 10
schedule. He then went to the office of Gregory Gomez, a team relations representative, who
was assigned to the paint shop.7 Cleckler raised the inconsistency between the printed schedule
and Brooks’ orders. Asking checking with Brooks, Gomez contacted his superiors in team
relations. Barry Jackson, an assistant manager, who is Gomez’s immediate superior, instructed
him to write up a series of questions and interview Cleckler, Howard and Yarbrough separately. 15
Gomez also interviewed Toby Brooks who was present when Gomez interviewed the three
alleged discriminatees on December 23.
Brooks told Gomez that, “the team members didn’t like that Tuesday was 6:30-3:00 pm
and told me that wasn’t what was on the sheet on the board and I explained to them that the 20
schedule on the board reflected the shutdown schedule and they would start working 6:00 am -2
pm on Wednesday, when the shutdown officially started,” GC. Exh. 5(a).
Gomez asked Howard, Yarbrough and Cleckler 7 identical questions, G.C. Exh. 5(a); R.
Exh. 7 and wrote down the answers given by the three alleged discriminatees. They each signed 25
a sheet with the answers recorded by Gomez. Gomez asked when Brooks discussed the written

5 Although Nathan Howard told Gregory Gomez that he did not talk to Cleckler and Yarbrough
beforehand, Gomez’s question and Howard’s answer are ambiguous. His answer indicates that there was
no discussion between Howard, on the one hand, and Cleckler and/or Yarbrough immediately before
clocking out. I conclude that Howard’s testimony is not inconsistent with Yarbrough’s testimony, which
I credit. Moreover, to the extent there is a conflict between the testimony of Yarbrough and Howard,
Yarbrough’s testimony is inherently more probable, Coeburn Garment Co., 276 NLRB 1481, n. 1 (1985).
In this regard, Respondent’s brief at page 19, paragraph 31, is inaccurate in characterizing Nathan
Yarbrough’s testimony at Tr. 168, lines 13-23.
Yarbrough was asked what time he reported on December 22. Then he was asked if he saw other D shift
employees when he clocked in. Next he was asked, “On that day, did you discuss with any coworkers
what time you would be clocking out?
A. Sometime during the day, me, Justin, and Nathan talked about the written schedule on the board
not being changed, still saying 6:00 to 2:00 p.m.
Yarbrough’s testimony is consistent with what he told Gomez on December 23, 2015.
6 Yarbrough and Cleckler testified that Brooks’ inquiry was couched in the plural, i.e., why did “we”
leave early. Howard testified that Brooks asked why he left early.
7 Team Relations is part of Respondent’s Human Resources operation.
JD–16–17
4
schedule versus his guidance. Cleckler answered that Brooks told him about the December 22
schedule on Sunday, December 20. Further he told Gomez, “ I argued about the written schedule
verses Toby’s guidance. Nothing was said after that discussion.” G.C. 5(a), p. 3.
When asked if, “you and Nathan Howard and Nathan Yarbrough discussed leaving at 5
1400 before you left” Exh. R-7, Cleckler gave the non-responsive answer that he had pointed out
to Brooks that the schedule said 6:00 to 2:00.
Yarbrough’s response to the identical question concerning communication with Howard
and Cleckler before clocking out, was, “Yes, we decided to follow the written guidance.” 10
Howard’s answer was, “I did not talk to them beforehand. I just clocked out.”
On December 28, 2015, Gomez submitted his typed report to assistant manager Barry
Jackson. Cleckler and Yarbrough continued to work doing their normal duties until January 11,
2016. Howard worked until January 4, when he went on medical leave for shoulder surgery.15
On January 11, 2016, Respondent gave each of the 3 employees an identical termination
letter stating that pursuant to Respondent’s policies and handbook, each one had voluntarily
resigned their employment by leaving at 2:00 p.m. on December 22, 2015, G.C. Exhs. 7, 9 and
10.20
On January 14, Cleckler sent an email to Respondent in the nature of an appeal of his
discharge, R. Exh. 11. He received no response, Tr. 130.
Neither Gomez, nor Brooks nor Soladine Harris played any role in the decision to 25
terminate Cleckler, Howard and Yarbrough. This decision was made by an employee review
committee composed of higher level managers. There is no evidence in this record regarding the
deliberations of that committee and no evidence that the committee considered anything other
than the report prepared by Gomez and Barry Jackson’s summary of that report. The committee
clearly treated the 3 as a group. There is no indication that any consideration was given to the 30
disciplinary records of the 3; Cleckler (no prior discipline); Yarbrough (1 prior counseling for
clocking in early) and Howard (11 minor disciplines and 1 major discipline).
Analysis
35
There is no evidence that any of the alleged discriminatees engaged in any union activity
or that any of Respondent’s managers suspected that any of them did so. However, some of
Respondent’s managers were aware of union efforts to organize the plant as early as
Thanksgiving 2015. Since Toby Brooks was aware of union activity by then, Tr. 334, I
conclude other managers were aware of this as well.40
In light of the lack of union activity on the part of Howard, Cleckler and Yarbrough, the
issue in this case is whether they engaged in protected concerted activity by walking off the job
at 2:00 p.m. on December 22, 2015, and/or whether Respondent believed they did so.
45
As a preliminary matter, I reject Respondent’s contention that the 3 voluntarily resigned.
They had no intention of abandoning their jobs as evidenced by the fact that they reported for
JD–16–17
5
work on time on December 23 and worked their assigned hours and performed their assigned
duties until January 11, 2016 in the case of Cleckler and Yarbrough and until January 4, in the
case of Howard. The 3 didn’t resign, regardless of what Respondent’s handbook says, (G.C.
Exh. 3, page 00035), Respondent fired them.8 Indeed, Respondent’s rules would lead one to the
conclusion that any protected strike constitutes a voluntary resignation.5
Section 8(a)(1) provides that it is an unfair labor practice to interfere with, restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7. Discharging an employee
because they engaged activity protected by Section 7 is a violation of Section 8(a)(1).
10
Section 7 provides that, "employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection ... (Emphasis added)"
15
In Myers Industries (Myers 1), 268 NLRB 493 (1984), and in Myers Industries (Myers
11) 281 NLRB 882 (1986), the Board held that "concerted activities" protected by Section 7 are
those "engaged in with or on the authority of other employees, and not solely by and on behalf of
the employee himself." However, the activities of a single employee in enlisting the support of
fellow employees in mutual aid and protection is as much concerted activity as is ordinary group 20
activity.
Additionally, the Board held in Amelio's, 301 NLRB 182 (1991) that in order to present a
prima facie case that an employer has discharged an employee in violation of Section 8(a)(1), the
General Counsel must establish that the employer knew of the concerted nature of the activity.25
I find that the walkout by Howard, Cleckler and Yarbrough meets all the criteria of
protected concerted activity. They walked out of the plant at the same time for the same reason,
the oral change in their working hours for December 22.9 The change in their hours is a
working condition subject to Section 7, and indeed is specifically mentioned in Section 9(a) in 30
setting forth the authority of a collective bargaining representative. Brooks, a supervisor and
agent of Respondent, knew beforehand that the D shift crew was unhappy with the change and
understood why they left early regardless of the fact that it was not articulated to him on
December 22. They were not required to make a specific demand beforehand that their work
hours conform to Respondent’s printed schedule in order for their walkout to be protected, 35

8 Cleckler’s unanswered email to Respondent after his termination, R. Exh.-11, is further evidence that
the discriminatees did not intend to resign. It also establishes that Respondent’s Open Door Policy, G.C.
Exh. 3, p. HMMA 00046-47, is in no way the equivalent of a collectively bargained grievance procedure.
Thus, the fact that the 3 discriminatees did not avail themselves of the Open Door Policy, does not,
contrary to Respondent’s assertion at page 35 of its brief, weigh against finding their walkout to be
protected.
9 The Board in Electromec Design and Development Co., 168 NLRB 763, 771 (1967), cited by
Respondent at page 25 of its brief, adopted the following conclusion of the Judge, “That the walkout was
the result of concerted action is not seriously disputed. The very fact that the men all gathered at the time
clock at exactly 11:22 a.m. and waited until exactly 11:24 a.m. to punch out exactly 5 hours from the
beginning of the shift was enough, without more, to establish the fact that the action was concerted.”
JD–16–17
6
Washington Aluminum v. NLRB, 370 U.S. 9, 14-15 (1962); Polytech Incorporated, 195 NLRB
695 (1972).
Polytech, supra, was decided on very similar facts to the instant case. 5 unrepresented
employees walked off the job at the same time in contradiction of the direct orders of their 5
employer. These employees expressed their unwillingness to work overtime to the employer
individually, not in a group setting.
Mike Yurosek & Sons, Inc., 310 NLRB 831 (1993); 306 NLRB 1037 (1992) was also
decided on similar facts. The employees in that case punched out at the same time in 10
contravention of their supervisor’s orders to work an extra hour compared to a prior schedule.
As noted previously, the Board in Myers Industries, set forth the test for concerted
activities in the disjunctive; “engaged in with or on the authority of other employees.” Thus,
even if the 3 employees walked off the job together without prior communication, their conduct 15
was concerted. Also, it is important to note that Respondent treated the walkout as a group
action, not as three individual acts, G.C. Exh. 5, Mike Yurosek & Sons, Inc., supra.
Moreover, as stated before, I find that on December 22, the three did discuss the fact that
the written schedule had not been changed. Also, I infer that Respondent suspected there was 20
some degree of collusion before the walkout, rather than believing that the 3 independently
decided to walk off the job at the same time. If that were not the case, Gomez would not have
asked each one if they had talked to others before punching out.
I give no weight to the answers given by the alleged discriminatees to questions posed by 25
Respondent’s counsel as to whether they were protesting anything or going on strike.
Employees’ subjective characterization of their actions is not determinative in the Board’s
objective analysis of whether the employee has engaged in protected concerted activity, Mike
Yurosek & Sons, Inc., 310 NLRB 831, 832 (1993). It is absolutely clear that the employees in
this case left because they were unhappy with the oral change to their schedule and that 30
Respondent knew that. Viewed objectively, their actions were a work protest and a strike. In
conclusion, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) in terminating Howard, Cleckler and
Yarbrough on January 11, 2016.
Alleged Threat by Toby Brooks (complaint paragraph 6)35
Nathan Howard testified that on December 23, he argued with Toby Brooks as to whether
he clocked out earlier than he was supposed to. Howard then testified that he said that, “if we
had a union up in here this kind of stuff would be over with by now,” Tr. 218, 244. According to
Howard, Brooks replied, “I told you don’t say the word union in this plant. It will get you fired.”40
Brooks denied that this exchange ever took place, Tr. 315-16. I credit Brooks and dismiss this
complaint allegation. Howard’s bringing up a union in this context strikes me as very contrived
since their dispute concerned whether Brooks, rather than Soladine Harris, had authority to
change the written work schedule. Whether Respondent was unionized does not appear to me to
have any relationship to what Howard and Brooks were discussing.45
JD–16–17
7
Alleged Illegal Interrogation by Gomez (complaint paragraph 7)
Gregory Gomez interviewed Howard, Yarbrough and Cleckler on December 23 and asked each
one of them 7 identical questions, including whether they talked to each other before walking off the job
at 2:00 p.m. Whether an interview/interrogation violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act depends upon whether 5
it reasonably tends to restrain or interfere with employees’ exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the
Act, Spartan Plastics, 269 NLRB 546 (1984).10 The Board also regularly applies the “Bourne” factors in
determining whether questioning is coercive. These factors are 1) the background (i.e., hostility and
discrimination; 2) Nature of the information sought, e.g., seeking a basis for disciplinary action; 3) Place
of the Questioner in the company hierarchy; 4) Place and Method of Interrogation and 5) the Truthfulness 10
of the replies.
While I find that Respondent had a legitimate interest in finding out the circumstances
under which Howard, Yarbrough and Cleckler left work at 2:00 p.m., there was no legitimate
reason for Gomez to ask whether they had consulted each other, a question which delved into 15
protected conduct. Moreover, the circumstances of the inquiry were likely to be intimidating in
that the discriminatees could well have viewed the interview by Gomez in his office, in the
presence of Brooks, as laying the groundwork for disciplinary action—which it was in fact.
Indeed, the subject of Gomez’s report to his superiors, “Alleged Insubordination and Leaving
Without Authorization,” establishes that Gomez’s interviews were seeking a basis for 20
disciplinary action, Exh. G.C. – 5(a). The fact that Gomez researched the disciplinary records of
the 3 is further evidence of this fact.
Moreover, Howard may well have thought that an affirmative answer to the question
about discussions amongst the 3 would get him and/or Cleckler and Yarbrough into trouble. 25
This is relevant not only to the question of whether the questioning was coercive but also my
conclusion that Howard’s answer is not a basis for discrediting Yarbrough’s testimony to the
contrary. Cleckler’s evasiveness in answering the question is also evidence of its coercive
nature.
30
In sum I find the inquiry into the discussions between the discriminatees was coercive
and that Respondent, by Gomez, violated Section 8(a)(1) in making that inquiry, E.B. Malone,
Corp., 273 NLRB 78, 81 (1984).11
Conclusions of Law35
1. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in discharging Justin Cleckler, Nathan
Yarbrough and Nathan Howard.

10 This rule is also enunciated in Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984) rejecting a per se rule
regarding questioning employees about their union sympathies, particularly when they openly support
unionization.

11 At page 46 of its brief, Respondent states that the charge does not contain any details about alleged
interrogations and that Respondent can only guess that the G.C. is referring to the conversations of
Gomez and Brooks with the discriminatees. The second amended charge, filed on May 25, 2016, alleges
that on December 23, 2015, Respondent, through Gregory Gomez, interrogated employees about their
protected concerted activities. The complaint repeats this allegation in paragraph 7.
JD–16–17
8
2. Respondent, by “Toby” Brooks, did not violate the Act or threaten Nathan Howard as
alleged.
3. Respondent, by Gregory Gomez, violated the Act by unlawfully interrogating Justin
Cleckler, Nathan Yarbrough and Nathan Howard.5
Remedy
The Respondent, having discriminatorily discharged employees, must offer them
reinstatement and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits. Backpay shall be 10
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), compounded daily as prescribed in
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010). Respondent shall compensate these
employees for their search-for-work and interim employment expenses regardless of whether
those expenses exceed their interim earnings, computed as described above.15
Respondent shall file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay
to the appropriate calendar quarters. Respondent shall also compensate the discriminatees for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering
periods longer than 1 year, Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 44 (2012). 20
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended12
ORDER25
The Respondent, Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, Montgomery, Alabama,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from: 30
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for engaging in
protected concerted activity.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their communications regarding protected
subjects.35
(c) 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 effectuate the policies of the Act.40
(a)Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Justin Cleckler, Nathan Howard
and Nathan Yarbrough full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer

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.
JD–16–17
9
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Justin Cleckler, Nathan Howard and Nathan Yarbrough whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the 5
manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(c) Compensate Justin Cleckler, Nathan Howard and Nathan Yarbrough for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and file a report with the
Social Security Administration allocating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar 10
quarters.
(d) Compensate these employees for their search-for-work and interim employment expenses
regardless of whether those expenses exceed their interim earnings.
15
(e) Within 14 days from the date of the Board's Order, remove from its files any reference to
the unlawful discharges and within 3 days thereafter notify Justin Cleckler, Nathan
Howard and Nathan Yarbrough in writing that this has been done and that the discharge
will not be used against her in any way.
20
(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 in
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this 25
Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Montgomery, Alabama facility
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix".13 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being signed by the Respondent's 30
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, the notices shall
be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its 35
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. 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 current employees and former 40
employees employed by the Respondent at any time since January 11, 2016.

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."
JD–16–17
10
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director 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.
5
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 6, 2017
Arthur J. Amchan10
Administrative Law Judge
(gz.),A.tr
JD–16–17
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 activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any of you for engaging in
protected concerted activity, including protesting or complaining about your wages, hours and/or
other terms and conditions of your employment.
WE WILL NOT question you about communications with other employees about protected
subjects.
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 Justin Cleckler, Nathan Yarbrough
and Nathan Howard full reinstatement 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.
WE WILL make Justin Cleckler, Nathan Yarbrough and Nathan Howard whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits resulting from their discharges, less any net interim earnings, plus
interest compounded daily.
WE WILL compensate Justin Cleckler, Nathan Yarbrough and Nathan Howard for the adverse
tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and WE WILL file a report
with the Social Security Administration allocating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar
quarters.
JD–16–17
WE WILL compensate Justin Cleckler, Nathan Yarbrough and Nathan Howard for their search-
for-work and interim employment expenses regardless of whether those expenses exceed their
interim earnings.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files any reference to
the unlawful discharge of Justin Cleckler, Nathan Yarbrough and Nathan Howard and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that this has been done and that the
discharge will not be used against them in any way.
HYUNDAI MOTOR MANUFACTURING
ALABAMA, LLC
(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.
600 South Maestri Place, 7th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70130-3408
(504) 589-6361, Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/17-CA-173149 or 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, (504) 589-6389.