Lamb Weston, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Nov 28, 2018

15-CA-207924 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

JD-75-18
Delhi, LA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
LAMB WESTON, INC.
and Case No. 15-CA-2079241
AMANDA DEXTER,
An Individual
Andrew Miragliotta, Esq. for the General Counsel
Steven R. Cupp and Knox MacMillian, Esqs., (Fisher & Phillips, LLP)
Gulfport, Mississippi, for the Respondent
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Arthur J. Amchan, Administrative Law Judge. With the consent of all parties, this case
was tried by video conferencing in New Orleans, Louisiana and Washington, D.C., on September
14, 2018. Amanda Dexter filed the charge giving rise to this matter on October 13, 2017. The
General Counsel issued the complaint on February 28, 2018.
This case only involves employer policies, work rules and employee handbook
provisions. None of these rules explicitly restrict activity protected by Section 7; none were
adopted in response to protected activity and none, so far as this record shows, have been applied
to restrict such activity. Thus this case is governed by the Board’s recent decision in The Boeing
Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017). In Boeing, the Board delineated 3 categories of “rules.”
Category 1 rules are those which are lawful because they either (1) do not prohibit or interfere
with employee Section 7 rights when reasonably interpreted, or (2) the employer’s justification
for the rule outweighs the potential adverse impact on protected rights. Category 2 rules are

1 This case was originally captioned Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. At the hearing it was amended to
reflect the correct legal identity of Ms. Dexter’s employer. Also, Ms. Dexter’s unfair labor practice
charge was consolidated with charges and objections filed by the United Food and Commercial Workers
Local Union 455. The lead docket of the consolidated complaint was 15-CA-195894, which related to a
charge filed by the UFCW. All docketed matters between the Union and Respondent were settled prior to
hearing. Only the charge filed by Amanda Dexter, 15-CA-207924, was litigated. On October 10, 2018,
the General Counsel withdrew portions of the complaint in 15-CA-207924.
JD-75-18
2
those which warrant individualized scrutiny as to whether they prohibit or interfere with section
7 rights and whether legitimate justifications outweigh any adverse impact on these employee
rights. Category 3 rules are those which are unlawful because the justification for their
maintenance does not outweigh their adverse impact on employee Section 7 rights. A rule which
is not unlawful to maintain, may be unlawful as applied. However, application of Respondent’s 5
rules is generally not an issue in this case.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witness, and after
considering the briefs and reply briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the
following10
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
15
Respondent, a corporation, produces sweet potato fries at a facility in Delhi, Louisiana,
where it annually sells and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside of
Louisiana.2 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 and that the United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, Local 455, which represents or represented some of Respondent’s employees, is 20
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The rules, Respondent’s justification and their legality or illegality under the Boeing standard.25
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent is violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
maintaining the rules set forth below. Respondent has proffered a justification for these rules
through the testimony of Senior Human Resources Director Dan Downard.
30
General Conduct Rules in Section 8.4 of the Employee Handbook, list examples of
behavior that will not be tolerated: (Jt. Exh. 2):
Rule 11: Fighting, horseplay, words or conduct, which are likely to provoke or cause
bodily injury or property damage or otherwise interfere with Company operations. 35
I do not think Rule 11 would reasonably be read to prohibit an appeal to other
employees, for example, to engage in a strike. Thus, I find this rule to be lawful as a category 1
rule in that when reasonably interpreted in context it does not prohibit or interfere with
employee’s Section 7 rights. I conclude that a reasonable interpretation of the rule is that it is 40
directed only to violence or words reasonably likely to incite violence.

2 Until November 2016, Respondent was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Con-Agra. That month it
became an independent stand-alone company. Many of the rules herein were promulgated while the
company was a Con-Agra subsidiary. At most of its facilities, Respondent produces french fries from
white potatoes; the Delhi plant specializes in producing sweet potato fries.
JD-75-18
3
Rule 35: Refusing to courteously cooperate in any Company investigation, including
discussing the investigation or interview with other employees unless specifically authorized to
do so.
Dan Downard testified that Respondent maintains this rule to prevent its investigations 5
from being tainted by employees talking to each other while the investigation is ongoing.
Nevertheless, I find that Respondent violated the Act in mandating employee cooperation
in all company investigations and at any stage of the investigation and in requiring employees to
maintain confidentiality. The fact that Respondent can “waive” confidentiality does not save the 10
rule. I conclude Respondent’s justification for the rule does not outweigh its effect on employee
section 7 rights due to its overbreath. Thus, in Boeing parlance, it is a category 3 rule.
In Beverly Health & Rehab Services, 332 NLRB 347, 348-49, 356 (2000) the Board
found a similar rule illegal in that it was inconsistent with the long-standing Board precedent in 15
Johnny’s Poultry, 146 NLRB 770, 774-76 (1965). Rule 35 would reasonably be read to apply to
a company investigation of unfair labor charges. An employer may only question employees
about the circumstances regarding a NLRB charge if the questioning is done on a voluntarily
basis and the employee has been assured that his cooperation is voluntary.
20
Additionally, in Cook Paint Varnish Co., 246 NLRB 646 (1979) the Board found that an
employer cannot require an employee to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation when the
investigatory process has been completed and discipline has been imposed. An employee
cannot, for example, be compelled to help the employer to build a case against another employee
in preparation for an arbitration proceeding.25
Rule 35 is a category 3 rule under Boeing and thus illegal.
This rule also is a category 3 rule and violates the Act in mandating confidentiality as to
what was discussed in an investigation.30
In Caesar’s Palace, 336 NLRB 271, 272 (2001) the Board held that the employer did not
violate Section 8(a)(1) by instructing employees not to discuss an ongoing drug investigation. It
observed that employees have a Section 7 right to discuss discipline or disciplinary
investigations. However, it found that Caesar’s established a substantial and legitimate business 35
justification which outweighed its infringement on employees’ rights. The Board in footnote 5
made it clear that it is the Respondent’s burden to establish a legitimate and substantial business
justification.
In Hyundai America Shipping Agency, Inc. 357 NLRB 860 (2011), enfd. in pertinent part, 40
805 F.3d 309, 314 (D.C. Cir. 2015), the Board found the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by
promulgating, maintaining and enforcing an oral rule prohibiting employees from discussing
with other persons any matters under investigation by its human resources department. This rule
was a blanket prohibition, applying to all matters regardless of the circumstances. The
employer’s rule in Boeing Co., 362 NLRB No. 195 (2015), was similarly broad.345

3 Also see, Banner Estrella Medical Center, 362 NLRB No. 137 (2015).
JD-75-18
4
In Caesar’s Palace, an employer witness testified that the company never explained the
purpose of the confidentiality instruction to the employees during the investigation, 336 NLRB at
273. The Board appears to have inferred from the circumstances of the investigation that the
employer had a legitimate and substantial justification for its confidentiality instructions. I 5
believe this could be inferred in many investigations in which the dangers of evidence being
destroyed or fabricated, and witness intimidation, are obvious. In this vein I would note the
Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, in requiring a judge to order the sequestration of
witnesses upon the request of any party, is a tacit recognition of this danger.
10
However, Respondent’s rule is overly broad and thus illegal. I do not believe the Boeing
decision (365 NLRB No. 154) overrules Hyundai America Shipping Agency. While Respondent
probably could demand confidentiality in some investigations, Hyundai makes a blanket
confidentiality rule illegal. While Respondent can “waive” confidentiality, confidentiality is the
default option and the rule provides no guidance as to terms under which Respondent will 15
authorize discussion of a company investigation. The rule infringes on employee section 7 rights
and Respondent has not put forth a justification for a blanket rule that outweighs these rights.
The rule would prohibit an employee from talking to other employees after he or she has been
disciplined to prepare a defense (e.g. for an arbitration or a ULP hearing in which discipline is
alleged to be discriminatory) and thus violates the criteria set forth in the Board’s decision in 20
Cook Paint Varnish.
Rule 36: Engaging in any activity or performing any act that reflects adversely upon the
Company or is detrimental to its reputation or interests.
25
This rule is certainly is broad enough to include such section 7 activities as picketing,
leafleting and organizing any concerted protest of employee working conditions. It could be
read by unsophisticated employees to apply to any appeal to the public that is critical of
conditions at Respondent’s facility. For example, Respondent, in another context, mentions that
it uses anhydrous ammonia. If employees were to raise concerns as to how this toxic chemical is 30
handled in the plant that would be detrimental to Respondent’s reputation in the community.4
However, under the pre-Boeing standard, the Board found that very similar rules would
not be reasonably read as encompassing Section 7 activity. In Albertson’s 351 NLRB 254, 258-
59, the Board held that a rule prohibiting off-the –job conduct which has a negative effect on the 35
company’s reputation…” did not violate the Act. In Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 826-
27 (1998) the employer maintained a rule prohibiting improper conduct off the hotel’s premises
or during non-working hours…which affect the hotel’s reputation or good will in the community.
The Board also found that this rule did not violate the Act. I find these cases dispositive and
therefore find that Respondent’s rule 36 is a category 1 rule and does not violate the Act.40

4 https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/us/huge-blast-at-texas-fertilizer-plant.html. Anhydrous
Ammonia was used at a facility that exploded in West, Texas in 2013, killing 15 and injuring many more.
JD-75-18
5
Employee handbook Section 9, 9.1 Problem Resolution Procedure
Respondent’s problem resolution procedure provides as follows: An employee having a question
or issue concerning any matter relating to wages, hours or working conditions (including 5
termination of employment or any other discipline, any aspect of the job, an employee’s
relationship with the Company or a coworker, etc.) or the interpretation of any of the provisions
of this Handbook or any of the Company’s policies or rules, should follow these procedures:
STEP 1: Since your Team Leader is often in the best position to help, your first step generally is 10
to discuss the problem with your immediate supervisor. You must discuss the problem with your
Teams Leader within seven (7) calendar days of the occurrence of the complaint or problem (or
when you should have known of its occurrence). The Team Leader will answer the question or
complaint within seven (7) calendar days.
15
STEP 2: If you are not satisfied with the response at Step 1, the next step is to take the matter to
our Human Resources Manager. All we ask is that you do so in writing, on appropriate form,
within seven (7) calendar days of receiving you Team Leader’s answer because we strongly
believe that it is best to get questions, concerns and problems resolved as quickly as possible.
The Human Resources Manager will give you a written response within seven (7) calendar days.20
Respondent submits that nothing in this provision requires an employee to go to
management with a problem before discussing it with other employees or persons outside the
company. Indeed, the preamble to the procedure states “we strongly encourage employees with
questions and issues to use this procedure.” Thus, a reasonable reading of this procedure would 25
be that one who chooses to take a problem to management start with their immediate supervisor,
rather than, for example, immediately escalating the situation to higher-level management or
human resources.
Respondent’s procedure is distinguishable from that in Kinder-Care, Learning Center, 30
299 NLRB 1171, 1172 (1990) relied upon by the General Counsel. In Kinder-Care, while the
rule did not prohibit appeals to persons other than management on its face, the verbiage
suggested that appeals outside of the company would be subject to disciplinary action. That is
not the case here. I find that Respondent’s Problem Resolution Policy is a category 1 rule and
does not violate the Act.35
Section 13: General Information
Section 13.2 Off-Duty Employees
40
The company’s rules provide as follows: Off-duty employees are welcome to return to
our property for bona fide business reasons or in other unusual or emergency situations. Off-
duty employees are also only allowed in operating areas of the plant with the permission of the
Plant Manager or delegate.
45
JD-75-18
6
Respondent justifies this rule by arguing that off-duty employees do in fact come onto
their property regularly, for example, to wait for a spouse who also works at the Delhi plant.
Secondly, it submits that in non-work areas inside the plant, for example, in break rooms, an off-
duty employee could be exposed to hazardous chemicals without Respondent even being aware
of their presence. Respondent’s rule does not distinguish between company property and 5
operating areas. It also is vague as to what it considers a bona fide business reason.
Respondent rule violates the Act. It is inconsistent with long-standing Board precedent,
Tri-County Medical Center, 222 NLRB 1089 (1976) in that it is not limited to the interior of the
plant and other working areas. A rule denying off-duty employees access to parking lots, gates 10
and other outside nonworking areas is invalid unless justified by specific business reasons.
Respondent’s justification for the scope of this rule does not outweigh the impact of the rule on
Section 7 rights. Parking lots are often the most convenient place to engage in section 7 activity,
for example at shift changes. In Eastex v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556 at 574 (1978), the Supreme Court
quoted the following passage from Gale Products, 142 NLRB 1249 (1963):15
[the plant] is the one place where [employees] clearly share common interests and where
they traditionally seek to persuade fellow workers in matters affecting their union
organizational life and other matters related to their status as employees.
20
Moreover, the rule is invalid because in practice it does not prohibit access to non-work
exterior areas of its property for all purposes. By allowing, for example, off-duty employees to
wait for their spouse in the parking lot, Respondent belies the neutrality and justification of the
rule, St. John’s Health Center, 357 NLRB 2078, 2080-83 (2011).
25
This is a category 3 rule and violates the Act.
Section 13.3 Solicitations
Respondent’s rules provides: Employees who are working should not be disturbed, interrupted 30
or disrupted by solicitations or the distribution of literature. For that reason these rules apply:
*Non-employees may not solicit employees or distribute literature on our property at any time.
*An employee who wishes to solicit or distribute literature to other employee by or on behalf of 35
any individual, organization, club or society may do so only during times when he or she is not
supposed to be working (e.g. break periods and meal times) and may not solicit or distribute
literature to employees who are or should be working.
*The distribution of literature in work areas is prohibited at all times, but such materials may be 40
distributed elsewhere, such as in established break rooms of lunchrooms.
*Certain types of material – including obscene, profane or inflammatory items and political
advertisements or solicitations – will not be permitted.
45
JD-75-18
7
Respondent justifies the last bullet point as necessary to prohibit the creation of a hostile
work environment. Downard specifically cited the need to prohibit sexually themed material so
as not to offend Respondent’s female employees. He stated that Respondent prohibits political
material to avoid divisiveness in the workplace. Respondent, some of whose employees were
represented by the UFCW, has allowed the distribution of union literature in non-work areas.5
The General Counsel submits this rule is illegal because it may apply to union materials.
I find the rule illegal, however, for another reason. “Political” issues often have a direct impact
on the wages, hours and working conditions of employees. An obvious example is the recent
ballot referendum in Missouri about whether it would become a “right to work” state. Since the 10
electorate voted that Missouri would not become a “right-to-work” state,5 employees who might
not otherwise have to pay the collective bargaining expenses of a union, continued to be
obligated to do so. Had Missouri become a “right-to-work” state, other employees may have had
to increase the dues payments to their union.
15
In fact the United States Supreme Court found an employer’s unwillingness to allow the
distribution of political materials to violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in Eastex v. NLRB, 437
U.S. 556 (1978). In Eastex, Paperworkers Local 801 was prohibited from distributing a
newsletter to production employees. The newsletter contained four sections. The first and fourth
sections urged support or the Union. The second section urged employees to write their state 20
representative to oppose the incorporation of the State of Texas’ “right-to-work” law into the
State Constitution. The third section criticized the President’s veto of minimum wage legislation
and urged employees to vote, elect the Union’s friends and defeat its enemies. The Court held
that both the second and third sections of the newsletter were protected as activities for “mutual
aid or protection” pursuant to Section 7.625
This is a category 3 rule and violates the Act. Respondent’s interest in avoiding
divisiveness does not outweigh employees’ Section 7 right to discuss political issues at work
(depending on whether or not they are allowed to discuss other non-work issues) and distribute
political material (on non-work time, in non-work areas) that may have a direct impact on their 30
wages, hours and working conditions.

5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/08/missouri-voters-defeat-gop-backed-right-
work-law-victory-unions-associated-press-projects/?utm_term=.d3d1d47282bc
6 The Court stated that some concerted activity may be so attenuated in relation to employees’
interests that it may not fall within Section 7.
JD-75-18
8
Employee Agreement, Jt. Exh. 3
On November 18, 2013, Charging Party Amanda Dexter signed an Employee Agreement
that contained the following provisions:5
Information Regarding the Employee Agreement
The Need to Safeguard Confidential and Propriety Information.
In addition, various laws make it important for employees to safeguard the confidentiality 10
of other Company employees. Such employee information includes, payroll, benefits,
retirement plans, pension plans, employee salaries, terminations, disciplinary actions,
appraisals and health and medical information.
The Agreement section: number 2: For the purposes of this Agreement, the term 15
“Confidential Information” means information disclosed to me or known by me as a
consequence of my employment and which relates to Company’s or any of its affiliates
trade secrets, customer lists, product information, financial information and other
proprietary information that may or may not be patentable. The term Confidential
Information shall also refer to Company’s or any of its Affiliates’ human resource 20
information, including but not limited to information concerning payroll, health and
welfare benefit plans, defined benefit plans, defined contribution plans, company stock
purchase plans, incentive plans, deferred compensation plans, employee salaries and
other compensation, employee hirings and terminations, employee disciplinary actions,
employee appraisals, employee health and medical information, including claims 25
information, and all other information pertaining to Company’s or its Affiliate’s
employees. The term Confidential Information does not include information generally
known to the public or which, through no fault of my own, becomes available to the
public at the time of such disclosure.
30
Respondent states this Agreement was intended only for employees with access to
the personal information of other employees, not rank and file production or maintenance
workers who do not have such access. Dan Downard stated that the Charging Party,
Amanda Dexter and other rank and file employees were mistakenly given the Agreement
to sign during a mass hiring in 2010 and are not subject to the provisions of the 35
Agreement set forth above. Downard stated the Agreement does not prohibit employees
from sharing their wage information and that employee wage scales are posted at
Respondent’s facility.
There is nothing illegal about the agreement on its face and as applied to the 40
employees who have access to the personal information of other employees. The rule on
its face is a Boeing category 1 rule as applied to employees with access to the personal
information of other employees. However, employees who did not have access to such
information were required to sign the agreement. For those employees, it is a category 3
rule.45
JD-75-18
9
An employee being required to sign this agreement would reasonably conclude
that there is a reason that he or she is being required to do so. Since such an employee
would have no access to many of the types of information covered by the agreement, they
would reasonably conclude that there are certain types of information to which they have
access that they may not divulge. Such an employee would reasonably infer that when 5
the agreement speaks of “payroll,” it means their wages, since there is no other category
of information mentioned in the agreement to which they would have access.
Since Respondent submits that the agreement was presented to certain employees,
including Ms. Dexter, in error, it obviously has no justifiable business reason to apply the 10
agreement to her and similarly situated employees. The remedy here, however, is not for
Respondent to rescind the agreement, but instead to remove it from the personnel files of
these employees and inform them in writing that the agreement does not apply to them
and has been removed from their personnel files, Customer Creation Center, LLC, 360
NLRB No. 91 (2014).15
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate 20
the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended7
25
ORDER
The Respondent, Lamb Weston, Inc., Delhi, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
30
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Promulgating and maintaining overly broad rules as follows:
1. Prohibiting employees from refusing to courteously cooperate in any Company 35
investigation, including discussing the investigation or interview with other
employees unless specifically authorized to do so.
2. Prohibiting off-duty employees from returning to its property for other than bona fide
reasons or in other unusual or emergency situations.40

7 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-75-18
10
3. Prohibiting solicitations or the distribution of literature that include political
advertisements or solicitations.
4. Maintaining its employee agreement in the files of employees other than in the files 5
of employees who have access to the personal information of other employees.
5. In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
10
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the overly broad rules set forth above and notify employees in writing that
this has been done and that these rules are no longer in force.
15
(b) Remove its employee agreement from the files of employees who do not have access
to the personal information of other employees and notify them in writing that it has
done so and the agreement is no longer in force with respect to them.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Delhi, Louisiana facility copies 20
of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 15, 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, 25
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 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 30
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 employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since October 13, 2017.

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 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-75-18
11
(d) 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. November 28, 2018
10
Arthur J. Amchan
Administrative Law Judge
.(,/,,,,, 8 a„,o,ce,„__
JD-75-18
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 prohibit employees from refusing to courteously cooperate in any
Company investigation, including discussing the investigation or interview with other employees
unless specifically authorized to do so.
WE WILL NOT prohibit off-duty employees from returning to our property for other
than bona fide reasons or in other unusual or emergency situations.
WE WILL NOT prohibit solicitations or the distribution of literature that includes
political advertisements or solicitations.
WE WILL NOT maintain our employee agreement in the files of employees other than
employees who have access to the personal information of other employees.
WE WILL NOT In any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind the overly broad rules set forth above and notify employees in writing
that this has been done and that these rules are no longer in force.
JD-75-18
WE WILL remove our employee agreement from the files of employees who do not have
access to the personal information of other employees and we will notify these employees in
writing that we have done so and that the agreement is no longer in force with respect to them.
LAMB WESTON, INC.
(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 70130-3413
(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/15-CA-207924 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.