Insulation Maintenance & Contracting, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 11, 2011

357 NLRB No. 50 (N.L.R.B. 2011)

357 NLRB No. 50
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Insulation Maintenance & Contracting, LLC and Las
Vegas Insulators Local 135 Affiliated with In-
ternational Association of Heat and Frost Insu-
lators & Allied Workers, AFL–CIO. Cases 28–
CA–23198, 28–CA–23272, and 28–CA–23316
August 11, 2011
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BECKER, PEARCE, AND HAYES
The Acting General Counsel seeks default judgment in
this case pursuant to the terms of an informal settlement
agreement. Upon a charge and amended charges filed by
Las Vegas Insulators Local 135, affiliated with Interna-
tional Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Al-
lied Workers, AFL–CIO (the Union), the Acting General
Counsel issued the amended second consolidated com-
plaint on February 15, 2011, against Insulation Mainte-
nance and Contracting, LLC, the Respondent, alleging
that it had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The Respondent filed an answer.
Subsequently, the Respondent and the Union entered
into an informal settlement agreement, which was ap-
proved by the Acting Regional Director for Region 28 on
March 3, 2011. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement, the Respondent agreed, among other things,
to (1) post a notice to employees; (2) pay to employees
Chad Evans, Hugo Ramirez-Gusto, Carlos Pineda,
Edwin Flamenco, Rafael Izquierdo, Jorge Poblete-Lopez,
and Miguel Moline-Mier a specified amount of backpay
by April 1, 2011; and (3) expunge from its files any ref-
erence to the discriminatees’ discharges and notify them
in writing that it had taken that action and that the ex-
punged material would not be used against them in any
way.1 The agreement also contained the following provi-
sion:
The Charged Party agrees that in case of non-
compliance with any of the terms of this Settlement
Agreement by the Charged Party, and after 14 days no-
tice from the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board of such non-compliance without rem-
edy by the Charged Party, the Regional Director will
reissue the complaint previously issued on February 15,
2011 in the instant case(s). Thereafter, the General
Counsel may file a motion for summary judgment with
the Board on the allegations of the complaint. The

1 The Notice to Employees included in the settlement agreement
states that the employees waived reinstatement.
Charged Party understands and agrees that the allega-
tions of the aforementioned complaint will be deemed
admitted and its Answer to such complaint will be con-
sidered withdrawn. The only issue that may be raised
before the Board is whether the Charged Party de-
faulted on the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The
Board may then, without necessity of trial or any other
proceeding, find all allegations of the complaint to be
true and make findings of fact and conclusions of law
consistent with those allegations adverse to the
Charged Party, 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 rem-
edy such violations. The parties further agree that the
U.S. Court of Appeals Judgment may be entered en-
forcing the Board order ex parte.
On March 9, 2011, the compliance officer for Region
28 mailed to the Respondent and the Respondent’s coun-
sel copies of the Notices to Employees provided for by
the terms of the settlement agreement, a letter detailing
the Respondent’s obligations under the agreement, and a
Certification of Posting form, to be signed by an official
of the Respondent and returned to Region 28.
The Respondent failed to respond and failed to comply
with the terms of the settlement agreement. By email
dated April 12, 2011, the compliance officer notified the
Respondent’s counsel that the Respondent was in non-
compliance. The email stated that under the terms of the
settlement agreement, if the Respondent did not comply
within 14 days, the Regional Director would reissue the
complaint and the Acting General Counsel may file a
motion for summary judgment. The Respondent failed
to respond and failed to comply with the settlement
agreement.2
Accordingly, on May 17, 2011, the Regional Director
reissued the consolidated complaint and the Acting Gen-
eral Counsel filed a Motion for Default Judgment with
the Board.3 On May 19, 2011, the Board issued an order
transferring the proceeding to the Board and Notice to
Show Cause why the motion should not be granted.4 The
Respondent filed no response. The allegations in the
motion are therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.

2 On May 6 and 19, 2011, respectively, the Respondent’s counsel
advised the Regional Director and the Board that he was withdrawing
as counsel for the Respondent, effective May 6, 2011.
3 On May 18, 2011, the Charging Party filed a document indicating
that it joins the positions taken in the motion for default judgment.
4 On June 2, 2011, the Acting General Counsel filed a statement in
support of his motion.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
According to the uncontroverted allegations in the mo-
tion for default judgment, the Respondent has failed to
comply with the terms of the settlement agreement by
failing to post a Notice to Employees, to remit the
agreed-upon backpay amount to Chad Evans, David
Hernandez, Hugo Ramirez-Gusto, Carlos Pineda, Edwin
Flamenco, Rafael Izquierdo, Jorge Poblete-Lopez, and
Miguel Moline-Mier, and to expunge material from its
files regarding their discharges, and notify them in writ-
ing that it has done so. Consequently, pursuant to the
noncompliance provisions of the settlement agreement
set forth above, we find that all of the allegations in the
reissued consolidated complaint are true.5 Accordingly,
we grant the Acting General Counsel’s Motion for De-
fault Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times the Respondent, a Nevada limited
liability company, with an office and place of business in
Las Vegas, Nevada (the facility), has been engaged in
the installation of mechanical insulation on plumbing and
steam pipes in commercial buildings.
During the 12-month period ending September 23,
2010, the Respondent, in conducting its business opera-
tions described above, purchased and received at its facil-
ity goods valued in excess of $50,000, directly from
other enterprises, including Smalley and Company, lo-
cated within the State of Nevada, each of which other
enterprises had received these goods directly from points
outside the State of Nevada.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act, and that Las Vegas Insulators Local 135,
affiliated with International Association of Heat and
Frost Insulators and Allied Workers, AFL–CIO, the Un-
ion, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
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 within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act:

5 See U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLRB 667 (1994).
Tracy Bullock - Owner
Jamie Zerafa - Controller and Gener-
al Manager
Michael Adams - Estimator
German Diaz - Superintenden
Percida (Persy) Diaz - Manager
Lazaro Nunez - Foreman
Edgar Videa - Foreman
1. (a) On about March 24, 2010, the Respondent, by
Lazaro Nunez, at a McDonald’s restaurant located on
Sahara Avenue and Arville Street, Las Vegas, Nevada
(the McDonald’s restaurant), threatened its employees
with denial of work opportunities and discharge if they
communicated with or supported the Union.
(b) In about late March 2010, the Respondent, by Nu-
nez, at the McDonald’s restaurant, orally promulgated an
overly broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its em-
ployees from speaking with the Union and threatened its
employees with discharge if they violated that rule.
(c) In about mid-April 2010, the Respondent, by Nu-
nez, at the Respondent’s jobsite at the Veterans Admini-
stration Hospital on Lamb Boulevard and Interstate 215,
Las Vegas, Nevada (the VA jobsite), threatened its em-
ployees with discharge and other unspecified reprisals if
they supported the Union, and orally promulgated an
overly broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its em-
ployees from associating with the Union.
(d) On about May 17, 2010, the Respondent, by Per-
sida Diaz (P. Diaz), at the VA jobsite, threatened its em-
ployees with discharge if they contacted the Union, and
orally promulgated an overly broad and discriminatory
rule prohibiting its employees from associating with the
Union.
(e) On about May 28, 2010, the Respondent, by Edgar
Videa, at the Respondent’s jobsite at Windmill Lane and
Rainbow Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada (the Windmill
and Rainbow jobsite), interrogated its employees about
their union sympathies and affiliation.
(f) In about May, June, and July 2010, the Respon-
dent, by Nunez, at the McDonald’s restaurant, promul-
gated an overly broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting
its employees from associating with the Union, threat-
ened its employees by inviting them to quit if they asso-
ciated with the Union, and disparaged the Union in order
to discourage employees from supporting or assisting the
Union by telling its employees that the Union would not
assist them if they did not speak English.
INSULATION MAINTENANCE & CONTRACTING, LLC 3
(g) On about June 3, 2010, the Respondent, by Nunez,
at the Windmill and Rainbow jobsite, interrogated its
employees about their union sympathies and affiliation.
(h) In about June 2010, the Respondent, by German
Diaz (G. Diaz), at a Shell gas station at Decatur Boule-
vard and Sahara Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada (the Shell
station), interrogated its employees about their union
sympathies and support; promulgated an overly broad
and discriminatory rule requiring its employees to con-
tact the police if they were approached by the Union;
threatened its employees by telling them it would be fu-
tile for them to support the Union; disparaged the Union
in order to discourage employees from supporting or
assisting the Union by telling its employees that the Un-
ion was good for nothing and that it would be unable to
improve the terms and conditions of the Respondent’s
employees’ terms and conditions of employment; and
created the impression among its employees that their
union and concerted activities were under surveillance by
the Respondent.
(i) On about June 19, 2010, the Respondent, by Nu-
nez, at the McDonald’s restaurant, orally promulgated an
overly broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its em-
ployees from associating with the Union, and threatened
its employees with discharge if they violated that rule.
(j) In about early July 2010, the Respondent, by G.
Diaz, by telephone, threatened its employees with dis-
charge if they supported the Union by accepting the Un-
ion’s offer of a union T-shirt, and engaged in surveil-
lance of its employees engaged in union and concerted
activities.
(k) In about early July 2010, the Respondent, by Nu-
nez, at the Respondent’s jobsite at Pecos Avenue and
Interstate 215, Henderson, Nevada, orally promulgated
the following overly broad and discriminatory rules:
(i) prohibiting its employees from having any contact
with the Union; and
(ii) requiring its employees to contact the Respondent
if the Union were present on any jobsite.
(l) On about July 11, 2010, the Respondent, by Nunez,
at the Respondent’s facility, orally promulgated an
overly broad and discriminatory rule prohibiting its em-
ployees from associating with the Union; threatened its
employees by inviting them to quit if they engaged in
union or other concerted activities; and disparaged the
Union in order to discourage employees from supporting
or assisting the Union by telling its employees that the
Union would not assist them because they do not speak
English or are not citizens of the United States.
(m) In about July 2010, the Respondent, by Nunez, at
the McDonald’s restaurant, threatened its employees by
equating union visits with trespass, and threatened its
employees with unspecified reprisals if they allowed the
Union to visit them at their homes.
(n) In about July 2010, the Respondent, by G. Diaz, at
the Shell station, interrogated its employees about their
union sympathies and support, and threatened its em-
ployees with unspecified reprisals if they associated with
the Union.
(o) In about July or August 2010, the Respondent, by
Nunez, at the Respondent’s jobsite at Valley High
School at Eastern and Sahara Avenues, Las Vegas, Ne-
vada, orally promulgated an overly broad and discrimina-
tory rule prohibiting its employees from accepting litera-
ture from the Union, and threatened its employees with
discharge if they violated that rule.
(p) On about August 21, 2010, the Respondent, by
Nunez, at the McDonald’s restaurant, threatened its em-
ployees with loss of work opportunities because they
supported the Union, and disparaged and threatened its
employees by telling them they had betrayed him be-
cause they associated with the Union.
(q) On about August 28, 2010, the Respondent, by G.
Diaz, by telephone, threatened its employees with loss of
work opportunities because they supported the Union
and engaged in concerted activities, and disparaged and
threatened its employees by telling them they were trai-
tors because they supported the Union and engaged in
concerted activities.
(r) In about August 2010, the Respondent, by Nunez,
at the McDonald’s restaurant, threatened its employees
with loss of job opportunities if they supported the Un-
ion; promised its employees job opportunities to dissuade
them from supporting the Union; and created the impres-
sion among its employees that their union and concerted
activities were under surveillance by the Respondent.
(s) In about early October 2010, the Respondent, by
G. Diaz, at the VA jobsite, threatened its employees with
discharge if they engaged in union or other concerted
activities; threatened its employees by telling them it was
futile for them to support the Union or to engage in con-
certed activities; threatened its employees by telling them
the Union could not protect them; and interrogated its
employees about their union and other concerted activi-
ties.
(t) In about early October 2010, the Respondent, by P.
Diaz, by telephone, created the impression among its
employees that their union and concerted activities were
under surveillance by the Respondent, and threatened its
employees by telling them they were discharged because
they engaged in union and other concerted activities.
(u) In about the second or third week of October 2010,
the Respondent, by G. Diaz, at the VA jobsite, threatened
its employees with loss of job opportunities if they sup-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
ported the Union, and disparaged and threatened its em-
ployees by telling them they were not loyal if they sup-
ported the Union.
(v) On about October 22, 2010, the Respondent, by G.
Diaz, by telephone, threatened its employees with dis-
charge and other loss of employment opportunities be-
cause they engaged in union and other concerted activi-
ties.
(w) In about early November 2010, the Respondent,
by Nunez, at the McDonald’s restaurant, threatened its
employees by telling them they would lose pay and other
employment opportunities because they engaged in union
and other concerted activities.
(x) On about November 15, 2010, the Respondent, by
Nunez, at Nunez’s residence, threatened its employees by
telling them immigration authorities would take action
against them because they engaged in union or other
concerted activities.
(y) On about November 22, 2010, the Respondent, by
Nunez, by telephone, threatened its employees by telling
them that their compensation status had been changed
because they engaged in union or other concerted activi-
ties; threatened its employees by telling them immigra-
tion authorities would take action against them because
they engaged in union or other concerted activities;
threatened its employees by telling them that their wages
were being withheld because they engaged in union or
other concerted activities; threatened its employees with
unspecified reprisals because they engaged in union and
other concerted activities; disparaged and threatened its
employees by calling them gay and traitors because of
their union and other concerted activities; and threatened
its employees with loss of job opportunities because of
their union and other concerted activities.
(z) On about November 22, 2010, the Respondent, by
G. Diaz, at the Rebel gas station located at Washington
Avenue and Decatur Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada,
threatened its employees by telling them it was futile for
them to support the Union, and threatened its employees
with unspecified reprisals because they engaged in union
or other concerted activities.
2. (a) On about June 29, 2010, the Respondent dis-
charged its employees David Hernandez and Chad Ev-
ans.
(b) On about August 3, 2010, the Respondent dis-
charged its employee Hugo Ramirez-Gusto.
(c) On about August 27, 2010, the Respondent dis-
charged its employee Carlos Pineda.
(d) On about August 28, 2010, the Respondent dis-
charged its employee Edwin Flamenco.
(e) In about early November 2010, the Respondent
discharged its employee Rafael Izquierdo.
(f) On about November 22, 2010, the Respondent dis-
charged its employees Jorge Poblete-Lopez and Miguel
Moline-Mier.
The Respondent engaged in the conduct described in
paragraph 2 above because the named employees of the
Respondent assisted the Union and engaged in concerted
activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in
these activities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described in paragraph 1 above, the
Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By the conduct described in paragraph 2 above, the
Respondent has been discriminating in regard to the hire
or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its
employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.
3. The Respondent’s unfair labor practices described
above 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, as requested by counsel
for the Acting General Counsel. Specifically, the Re-
spondent shall comply with the terms of the settlement
agreement approved by the Acting Regional Director for
Region 28 on March 3, 2011, by posting a Notice to Em-
ployees, making discriminates Evans, Hernandez, Rami-
rez-Justo, Pineda, Flamenco, Izquierdo, Poblete-Lopez,
and Moline-Mier whole by the payment of backpay pro-
vided for in the settlement agreement, and expunging
from its files any reference to their discharges and in-
forming them in writing that it has taken that action and
that the expunged material will not be used against them
in any way. The backpay due under the settlement
agreement shall be paid with interest at the rate pre-
scribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Ken-
tucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
In limiting our affirmative remedies to those enumer-
ated above, we are mindful that the Acting General
Counsel is empowered under the default provision of the
settlement agreement to seek “full remedy for the viola-
tions found as is customary to remedy such violations,”
including reinstatement and backpay beyond that speci-
INSULATION MAINTENANCE & CONTRACTING, LLC 5
fied in the agreement.6 However, in his Motion for De-
fault Judgment, the Acting General Counsel has not
sought such additional remedies and we will not, sua
sponte, include them within this remedy.7
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Insulation Maintenance & Contracting,
LLC, Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees because of their support of or activity on be-
half of Las Vegas Insulators Local 135, affiliated with
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators &
Allied Workers, AFL–CIO, or any other union.
(b) Threatening employees with denial of work oppor-
tunities, loss of pay, change in compensation status, dis-
charge, immigration action, and other unspecified repri-
sals if they communicate with, have contact with, or sup-
port the Union.
(c) Threatening employees by telling them they were
discharged because they engaged in union and other con-
certed activities.
(d) Threatening employees by telling them that the
Union could not protect them and that it would be futile
for them to support the Union or engage in concerted
activities.
(e) Threatening employees by inviting them to quit if
they associate with the Union, by equating union visits
with trespass,
(f) Disparaging and threatening employees by telling
employees they were gay and traitors because they sup-
ported the Union and engaged in concerted activities, by
telling employees they were not loyal if they supported
the Union, and by telling employees that they had be-
trayed the Respondent by supporting the Union.
(g) Promulgating overly broad and discriminatory
rules prohibiting employees from associating with the
Union; requiring employees to contact the police if they
are approached by the Union; requiring employees to
contact the Respondent if the Union is present on the
jobsite; and prohibiting employees from accepting union

6 As set forth above, the settlement agreement provided that, in case
of noncompliance, the Board could “issue an order providing full rem-
edy for the violations found as is customary to remedy such violations.”
7 The Acting General Counsel specifically requested, in his state-
ment in support of the motion for default judgment, that the Board
“issue a Decision and Order requiring Respondent to comply with the
terms of the [settlement] Agreement, including by posting a Notice to
Employees, making the eight named discriminatees whole by the pay-
ment of the backpay amounts specified in the Agreement, with interest,
and taking the action provided for in the Agreement.”
literature in order to discourage employees from support-
ing the Union.
(h) Interrogating employees about their union sympa-
thies and affiliation and other concerted activities.
(i) Disparaging the Union in order to discourage em-
ployees from supporting or assisting the Union by telling
employees that the Union would not assist them if they
did not speak English or if they were not United States
citizens, and by telling employees that the Union was
good for nothing and would be unable to improve their
terms and conditions of employment.
(j) Creating the impression among its employees that
their union and concerted activities were under surveil-
lance by the Respondent.
(k) Engaging in surveillance of employees engaged in
union and concerted activities.
(l) Promising employees job opportunities to dissuade
them from supporting the Union.
(m) 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) Make whole the employees named below for any
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
the unlawful actions against them, by payment to each of
them of the backpay amount shown with interest, in ac-
cordance with the terms of the settlement agreement ap-
proved by the Acting Regional Director on March 3,
2011:
David Hernandez $0.
Chad Evans $0.
Hugo Ramirez-Justo $5,833.
Carlos Pineda $5.833.
Jorge Poblete-Lopez $5,833.
Rafael Izquierdo $5,833.
Miguel Molina-Mier $5,833.
Edwin Flamenco $5,833.
(b) Remove from its files all references to the dis-
charges of Hernandez, Evans, Ramirez-Justo, Pineda,
Poblete-Lopez, Izquierdo, Molina-Mier, and Flamenco,
and notify them in writing that this has been done and
that the unlawful discharges will not be used against
them in any way.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Las Vegas, Nevada, copies of the attached
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
notice marked “Appendix.”8 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 28,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted.9 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 Respondent custom-
arily communicates with its employees by such means.10
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. If 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 em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respon-
dent at any time since March 24, 2010.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 11, 2011
Craig Becker, Member
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
Brian E. Hayes, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

8 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.”
9 Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Region may
provide Notices in more than one language as deemed appropriate by
the Regional Director.
10 For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in J. Picini Floor-
ing, 356 NLRB No. 9 (2010), Member Hayes would not require elec-
tronic distribution of the notice.
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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with these
rights. More particularly:
WE WILL NOT threaten to deny you work opportunities
and loss of pay; threaten to fire you; threaten you with
immigration action; or threaten you with unspecified
reprisals because of your support for and activities on
behalf of Las Vegas Insulators Local 135, affiliated with
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators
and Allied Workers, AFL–CIO (the Union).
WE WILL NOT prohibit you from speaking with or as-
sociating with the Union or accepting union T-shirts or
literature and threaten to fire you because you do so.
WE WILL NOT ask you questions about your union af-
filiation or support.
WE WILL NOT forbid you from getting involved with
the Union and invite you to quit because you do so.
WE WILL NOT tell you that you should not allow union
representatives to contact you at your home, tell you that
you should contact the police should the Union approach
you at home or tell you that a union visit at home is tres-
pass.
WE WILL NOT tell you that it is a waste of your time to
support the Union.
WE WILL NOT watch your union or concerted activities
or lead you to believe that we are watching your union or
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT require that you contact us if union rep-
resentatives are present on any jobsite.
WE WILL NOT tell you that the Union will not assist
you because you do not speak English.
WE WILL NOT tell you that you will be fired because
you had contact with the Union’s lawyers or because you
signed any documents with them seeking wages due you.
INSULATION MAINTENANCE & CONTRACTING, LLC 7
WE WILL NOT call you names or denigrate you because
of your support for the Union.
WE WILL NOT fire you because of your union support
or because you had contact with the Union’s lawyers or
because you signed any documents with them seeking
wages due you.
WE WILL NOT in any similar fashion frustrate you in
the exercise of your rights described above.
WE WILL make whole David Hernandez, Chad Evans,
Hugo Ramirez-Justo, Rafael Izquierdo, Jorge Poblete-
Lopez, Carlos Pineda, Miguel Molina-Mier, and Edwin
Flamenco, who have waived reinstatement, for any loss
of wages and benefits as a result of their discharge.
WE WILL within 14 days remove from our files, any
and all records and the basis for the discharge of the
above mentioned employees and WE WILL notify them in
writing that we have taken this action and that the mate-
rial removed will not be used as a basis or referred to in
any inquiry from an employer, employment agency, un-
employment insurance office, or reference seeker or oth-
erwise used against them.
INSULATION MAINTENANCE & CONTRACTING,
LLC