NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 21, 2015

02-CA-120698 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 21, 2015)

JD(NY)-14-15
New York, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Case No. 02–CA–120698
and
UNION OF CLERICAL,
ADMINISTRATIVE and TECHNICAL
STAFF (UCATS) AT NYU, LOCAL 3882,
NYSUT, AFT, AFL–CIO
Rhonda Gottlieb, Esq.
for the General Counsel.
Michael J. Volpe and Sandi F. Dubin, Esqs.
for the Respondent.
Yvonne Brown, Esq.
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Lauren Esposito, Administrative Law Judge. Based upon a charge in Case No. 2–CA–
120698 filed on January 15, 2014, by Union of Clerical, Administrative, and Technical Staff
(UCATS) at NYU, Local 3882, NYSUT, AFT, AFL–CIO (the Union), a complaint and notice of
hearing issued on April 30, 2014. The complaint alleges that New York University (Respondent)
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to bargain with the Union regarding the
effects of its decision to implement changes in the job duties of bargaining unit employees in
Access Services at Respondent’s Bobst library, including requiring those employees to train and
perform work in areas other than those in which the employees had been exclusively assigned.
The Respondent filed an answer denying the complaint’s material allegations.1 The trial in this
case was held on December 16, 2014, and February 2–3, 2015, in New York, New York.

1 The complaint issued on April 30, 2014, included an allegation that Respondent had also
violated its bargaining obligation by failing to provide relevant information to the Union. After the
Union requested permission to withdraw the portion of the charge supporting that allegation, the
Regional Director ordered that this allegation of the complaint be dismissed. See Tr. 43–44.
JD(NY)-14-15
2
After the conclusion of the trial, the parties filed briefs, which I have read and
considered. Based on those briefs, and the entire record in the case, including the testimony of
the witnesses and my observation of their demeanor, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT5
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a not-for-profit education corporation, with an office and place of business
located in New York, New York. I find, as Respondent admits, that it is an employer within the 10
meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. I also find, as Respondent admits, that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
15
A. The Facts
1. Background
The Respondent employs about 1500 clerical, administrative and technical employees. 20
Tr. 80. These employees are classified by code based on the nature of their work, with clerical
and administrative employees categorized as “Code 106” and technical employees categorized
as “Code 104.” Code 104 and 106 employees are represented by the Union, and their terms
and conditions of employment are subject to a collective-bargaining agreement effective from
November 1, 2011 through October 31, 2017. The recognition clause describes the bargaining25
unit as follows:
All full-time and regular part-time office clerical employees in Code 106, and all
full-time and regular part-time laboratory/technical employees in Code 104,
including those employees receiving tuition remission, and all ‘special’ 30
employees who have been employed for at least twelve (12) consecutive weeks
and have worked an average of twenty hours or more per week. G.C. Ex. 2,
Article 1.
The collective bargaining agreement contains the following Management Rights Clause: 35
The operation and management of the University and the supervision and
direction of employees are and shall continue to be solely and exclusively the
functions and prerogatives of the University. All of the rights, functions and
prerogatives of management which are not expressly and specifically restricted 40
or modified by one or more explicit provisions of this Agreement are reserved
and retained exclusively by the University and shall not be deemed or construed
to have been modified, diminished or impaired by any past practice or course of
conduct or otherwise than by express provision of this Agreement. Without in
any manner limiting or affecting the generality of the foregoing, the right and 45
power to select and hire all employees, to suspend, discipline, demote or
discharge them for cause, to promote them to supervisory or other positions, to
assign, transfer, supervise and direct all working forces, to maintain discipline
and efficiency among them, to determine the facilities, methods, means,
equipment, procedures and personnel required to conduct activities, to 50
promulgate rules and regulations and to exercise the other customary functions
JD(NY)-14-15
3
of the University for the carrying on of its business and operations, are
recognized as vested exclusively in the University. G.C. Ex. 2, Article 39.
Article 9 of the collective-bargaining agreement provides that each employee shall have
a written job description. According to article 9, the job description “is intended to illustrate the 5
kinds of tasks and levels of work difficulty required of the position and does not necessarily
include all the related specific duties and related responsibilities of the position. It does not limit
the assignment of related duties not mentioned.” Article 9 also states that “[a] job description
may be changed to meet the operating requirements of the unit, or to reflect changes which
have occurred, such as the elimination or addition of specific duties.” It further states that 10
“[n]either the Union nor any employee may grieve or arbitrate with respect to the content or
description of any job.”
This case involves a department of about 30 bargaining unit employees who work in
Respondent’s Bobst library. Tr. 134, 192. They are identified as Access, Delivery, and 15
Resource Sharing Services (ADRSS) employees. Within the ADRSS department, there are 6
subordinate units or departments: Course Reserves, Circulation, Stacks, Library Privileges, Off-
Site Processing and Resources Sharing, and Delivery Services. The job titles and descriptions
of the employees reflect their departmental duties: Course Reserves Assistant, Circulation
Assistant, Library Privileges Assistant, Resources Sharing Assistant, and Delivery Services 20
Assistant. Each unit or department has its own supervisor, and the ADRSS department is
headed by Kristina Rose. GC Exhs. 3, 5.
2. Respondent changes ADRSS job descriptions and duties
25
On July 26, 2013, Respondent, by Barbara Cardeli-Arroyo, its Assistant Vice President
for Employee Relations, sent an email to the Union concerning a new generalist job description
for ADRSS employees. This email described the present organization of the department and
stated that during the past “couple years,” Respondent had created opportunities for cross-
training employees to work in other units on a voluntary basis. The email stated that about half 30
of the ADRSS employees had participated in was called the “staff sharing” program, and many
had indicated in an informal meeting that they were satisfied with the experience. The email
also stated that two new employees had recently been hired in new “blended” positions, which
required the employee to work in two or three different units or departments, instead of only
one. With this background, Respondent announced that it was revising all job descriptions for 35
the ADRSS employees, resulting in one comprehensive job description titled “Access, Delivery
and Resource Sharing Services Assistant.” The employees would henceforth be expected to
work in two units, instead of one, on a regular basis, although most of their time would be spent
in their current work unit. Respondent also announced that training for the employees under the
new system would be provided, including so-called “shadow” training, where a newly assigned40
employee works side by side with an experienced employee in their second assigned
department. New schedules would be coordinated between the originating and assigned unit
supervisors. The email stated that the new job description would be introduced in an all-staff
meeting in early September 2013. GC Exh. 3.
45
Union Representative Linda Wambaugh immediately responded to Cardeli-Arroyo’s
email with an email of her own. She stated that the changes set forth in Cardeli-Arroyo’s email
constituted a unilateral change in working conditions, and requested bargaining over the matter.
GC Exh. 3. In addition, on July 31, 2013, Wambaugh made a detailed information request
concerning the changes and their impact. For example, she asked for information about the 50
frequency of the proposed job sharing, scheduling and training matters, as well as the
JD(NY)-14-15
4
consequences for employees if their work performance did not meet expectations. GC Exh. 4,
Tr. 52–60. Respondent provided a good deal of that information. GC Exhs. 5, 6.
On September 9, 2013, representatives of Respondent and the Union met regarding the
changes in job duties for the ADRSS department employees. Present for Respondent were 5
Attorney Sandi Durbin, Assistant Vice-President of Human Relations Cardeli-Arroyo, and
Human Resources Officials Enrique Yanez, Jackie Crow, and Nicholas Saul Minott. Present for
the Union were Wambaugh, Vice-President Christopher Crowe, and Shop Steward Jasmine
Smith. The union representatives questioned management regarding the impact of the
changes, including whether staffing would be reduced and how employees would be assigned 10
to different departments. The union representatives also asked about employee evaluations,
separate supervision, and the treatment of requests for leave or time off. Respondent’s officials
provided only general answers, and most of the questions were referred to ADRSS Department
Head Kristina Rose, who did not attend the meeting. Tr. 63–64, 152–153.
15
On September and October 2013, Wambaugh sent other information requests to the
Respondent; she testified that the requested information was necessary to determine the impact
of the changes. The Respondent provided information in response to these requests, although
it appears that the Union was not altogether satisfied. GC Exh. 7,8, 9, 10; Tr. 65–69. However,
Respondent provided sufficient information that the Union withdrew the refusal to provide 20
information component of the charge, and the Complaint’s allegations that Respondent
unlawfully failed to provide the Union with relevant information about the changes in job duties
were subsequently dismissed.
3. Implementation of the changes 25
On November 26, 2013, Department Head Rose spoke to assembled ADRSS
employees and gave them a power point presentation about the changes that were being
implemented. The new duties were described in the following job description, titled Access
Delivery & Resource Sharing Assistant:30
Provide customer service & support across public service desks and ADRSS
units in accordance with library polices (sic) and workflows. ADRSS Assistants
will be assigned to work in other units on a regular basis to meet workflow
demands. Duties include but not limited to: facilitating user services, circulating 35
library materials, processing fees and payments, processing user requests and
determining user privileges. Respond to user and visitor inquiries in-person, over
the telephone, and via a variety of online environments. Assign and train part-
time staff to assist with routines (sic) operations of ADRSS units.
40
The presentation emphasized that hours and days of work, home department, attendance
policies, and grade of work would not change. GC Exh. 11.
Rose explained that the employees would be assigned to work in a secondary unit from
8 to 14 hours per week, and that their secondary assignments had been determined based on 45
prior staff-sharing experiences and performance goals. She said that the training plan consisted
of a 3-week cycle. During the first week, the employee would undergo training with the new unit
supervisor for 15 hours, and during the second week the employee would “shadow” an
employee from the new unit. During these first 2 weeks training might require the employee to
modify his or her schedule. The third week of training would involve the employee’s working 50
regularly in the new unit. GC Exh. 11.
JD(NY)-14-15
5
In response to questions from employees, Rose indicated that the employees were
expected to perform at the same level as the recently hired blended employees, who had
worked in several different units from the inception of their employment. She also said there
would be no increase in compensation for the employees’ undertaking their additional duties in 5
the new units. Tr. 160–161. At the conclusion of the meeting, the employees were informed of
their secondary unit assignments and met with their secondary supervisors. Training in the new
duties in accordance with Respondent’s directive began in January 2014. Tr. 161–162.
4. The formal request and refusal to bargain and initial Board proceedings10
On November 27, 2013, the Union, by Wambaugh, formally demanded bargaining over
the change in job duties. GC Exh. 9. Respondent, by its attorney Dubin, responded on
December 13, 2013, that it was not required to bargain regarding the issue, because the Union
had waived its rights in this respect given the broad management rights and job description 15
clauses contained in the collective-bargaining agreement. GC Exh. 10.
The original charge in this case was filed by the Union on January 15, 2014. It alleged
that Respondent had unilaterally changed terms and conditions of employment by requiring
employees to cross-train and rotate work assignments without bargaining “concerning such 20
requirement or its effects.” As indicated above, the complaint only alleges an unlawful refusal to
bargain regarding the effects of such changes, not the decision itself. The Union appealed the
Regional Director’s failure to issue a broader complaint, including the decision to make the
changes, to the General Counsel’s Office of Appeals in Washington, D.C. On June 17, 2014,
the Office of Appeals denied the appeal, stating that, by agreeing to the management rights 25
clause in the collective-bargaining agreement, the Union had waived its right to bargain over the
decision to make changes in the job duties of the employees involved. Thus, the Office of
Appeals concluded that “further proceedings not included in the complaint are unwarranted.” R.
Exh. 1.
30
5. The impact of the changes on ADRSS employees
The changes in job duties did not result in changes in the affected employees’ pay or
benefits. Nor did they alter the employee’s primary supervisor, who approved requests for time
off and schedule changes. And the record does not show that there have been any layoffs of 35
ADRSS employees.2 However, it is clear that the employees were assigned regularly to
additional duties which they had not previously performed, as Respondent readily admits.
Posthearing Brief for Respondent at 12. This created problems not only during the 3-week
training period beginning in January 2014, but also thereafter.3
40
Employee Jasmin Smith, who also served as the Union’s steward, testified about the
impact of the changes on her and on other ADRSS employees. Smith’s primary assignment

2 The Charging Party, however, points out that there is some question as to how seniority for
layoffs applies given the changes in job duties, as the agreement apparently defines seniority
for layoffs in terms of length of service within a particular job title within an administrative unit.
Posthearing Brief for Charging Party at 18; GC Exh. 2, article 15.
3 Although Respondent points to testimony that not all employees consistently worked in
secondary departments, it is clear that their job descriptions and duties contain that
requirement, and it appears that all employees were trained to work in departments other than
their own. Posthearing Brief for Respondent at 14.
JD(NY)-14-15
6
was in the circulation department, where she spent the majority of her workday at her desk and
on a computer, answered phone inquiries, and handled credit cards, cash and checks. Tr. 163.
Her secondary assignment was in the stacks department, where she did very little work on a
computer, but assisted people with locating books, and did the manual work of lifting, sorting,
shifting and shelving. Tr. 162. She also testified that she observed and trained employees 5
whose secondary job was in the circulation department, but whose primary job left them ill-
prepared for the circulation department work. For example, a stacks department employee who
was not particularly proficient at computer work also had a medical condition that made it
difficult for him to remain alert for the demands of the work in the circulation department. Tr.
166. Other employees had difficulty using the computer and handling money. One employee 10
was so busy that he was unable to take his lunchbreak. Tr. 168–171. Documentary evidence
confirms that employees complained among themselves about training issues connected with
the job changes. See GC Exh. 34.
Documentary evidence also illustrates other effects of the changes and the 15
Respondent’s unilateral efforts to ameliorate them. On December 4, 2013, in an email to
employees, Department Head Kristina Rose answered questions about whether employees had
to share desks and computers with secondary employees assigned to their unit by stating, “we
may need you to be a bit flexible.” She informed employees in another response that they were
responsible for communicating to secondary supervisors any schedule changes that had been 20
cleared by primary supervisors. G Exh. 28. Also, in December 2013, circulation department
supervisors called for a meeting of employees to respond to their questions about their new
roles and assignments. GC Exh. 20. And, on January 7, 2014, Rose emailed employees
thanking them for their flexibility with schedule adjustments and their feedback. She stated that,
“[y]our duties in your current department will be adjusted to accommodate your working in 25
another unit.” GC Exh. 23. Furthermore, the record establishes that employees complained
directly to supervisors and to Rose about their inability to complete their secondary work, and
questioned whether their secondary assignment would have a negative impact on their
evaluations or meeting their performance goals. GC Exhs. 22, 24, 32.
30
In July 2014, Respondent conducted performance reviews, which included comments
about the work of employees in their secondary units. R. Exh. 4; CP Exh. 2. One employee was
told that his progress at his “work share” assignment was “very slow regarding computer related
training.” The performance review noted that he was “struggling to learn the technology that is
now a requirement of his job,” and he was reminded that he was “required to do all aspects of 35
his job description.” CP Exh. 2. Thus, it is clear that the change in job duties had an impact on
the evaluation process.
B. Discussion and Analysis
40
An employer is required to bargain with its employees’ exclusive collective-bargaining
representative when making a material and substantial change in wages, hours, or any other
term of employment that is a mandatory subject of bargaining under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
This obligation includes a duty to bargain about the “effects” on employees of a management
decision that is not itself subject to the bargaining obligation. See Allison Corp., 330 NLRB 45
1363, 1365 (2000); Good Samaritan Hospital, 335 NLRB 901, 902 (2001); see also Heartland
Health Care Center, 359 NLRB No. 155 at p. 6 (2013), reaffirmed 362 NLRB No. 3 (2015). As
the Board has noted, in most such situations there are alternatives involving the effects of the
employer’s underlying decision that the employer and union can explore to avoid or reduce the
impact of the change without calling into question the decision itself. Good Samaritan Hospital,50
335 NLRB at 903–904; see also Fresno Bee, 339 NLRB 1214 (2003).
JD(NY)-14-15
7
The Respondent concedes that it refused to bargain over both the decision and the
effects of the changes in job duties at issue here, but contends that the Union waived its right to
bargain over those matters via the management rights and job descriptions clauses contained in
the collective-bargaining agreement. However, it is settled law that the Board will find a waiver 5
of the statutory right to bargain in the collective-bargaining agreement only if the contract
language is specific regarding the right to bargain over the particular subject, and evinces a
“clear and unmistakable waiver” Allison Corp., 330 NLRB at 1365; see also Provena St. Joseph
Medical Center, 350 NLRB 808 (2007). Where a management rights clause explicitly waives
the right to bargain over a decision to change working conditions, but not its effects, the Board 10
has found the contract’s silence regarding the waiver of effects bargaining to be significant.
Allison Corp., 330 NLRB at 1366; see also Heartland Health Care Center, 359 NLRB No. 155 at
p. 6.
The Respondent also defends its refusal to bargain on the ground that the effects of any 15
changes in this case were de minimis. However, it is clear that a change “affecting just one
employee” can result in a violation of Section 8(a)(5). Columbia College Chicago, 360 NLRB
No. 122 at p. 2 (2014), citing Kentucky Fried Chicken, 341 NLRB 69, 84 (2004) (rejecting claim
that reduction in maximum courses taught by part-time faculty from three to two was
insubstantial given loss of $100 cancellation fee and impact on part-time faculty schedules); see 20
also Fresno Bee, 339 NLRB at 1215 (citations omitted) (changes in shift times, extension of
lunch periods, and increases in breaktimes of only 5 minutes “material and substantial”).
Applying the above principles, I find that the Respondent has not shown that the Union
clearly and unmistakably waived its right to bargain over the effects of the changes in job duties25
it implemented in this case. I also find that the effects of the changes were not de minimis, but
rather, they were substantial and material. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to bargain with the Union over the effects of the
changes it implemented in the job duties of the bargaining unit employees.
30
Regardless of whether the contract provisions discussed above establish that the Union
waived its right to bargain over the decision to make the changes in job duties that Respondent
effected here, they do not show a clear and unmistakable waiver by the Union of the right to
bargain over the effects of any such decision. First of all, nothing in either the management
rights clause or the job description clause relinquishes the Union’s right to bargain over the 35
effects of any changes in job duties. Nor do those clauses address training or evaluations,
which, in this case, caused serious concerns on the part of employees. The record evinces a
litany of employee complaints and concerns regarding not only training, but also how the
employees would handle their new duties and how their performance of those other duties
would affect their evaluations. The evidence establishes that the latter concern was justified, as 40
at least one employee received negative comments regarding his secondary assignment in his
2014 performance evaluation. These complaints and concerns were separate and apart from
Respondent’s decision to alter the job duties of the bargaining unit employees in and of itself.
In addition, the record establishes that Respondent’s supervisors and managers solicited 45
feedback from ADRSS employees and addressed employee complaints by calling meetings,
answering questions and making unilateral adjustments regarding issues that clearly involved
the effects of the decision to change their job duties. Respondent concedes that it “solicited
feedback from employees and adjusted training schedules and duties based on this feedback.”
It also concedes that it “addressed specific concerns raised by individual employees, when it 50
was made aware of those concerns, including concerns that employees would be negatively
JD(NY)-14-15
8
evaluated during the learning curve for their new departments.” Posthearing Brief for
Respondent at 13–14. Those issues involving the effects of Respondent’s decision were
bargainable issues that easily could—and should—have included the employees’ bargaining
representative, which could have explored the alternatives that Respondent chose to explore
unilaterally with the employees. Indeed, it was here that employees had the greatest need for 5
union representation.4
Respondent makes much of the fact that the General Counsel’s Office of Appeals
agreed that the Union waived its right to bargain regarding the change in job duties, given the
management rights clause in the contract. But that determination was limited to the decision 10
rather than the effects of the changes in job duties. The Office of Appeals made clear that the
remainder of the complaint, which dealt with the effects of the changes in job duties, could go
forward. In any event, a determination by the Office of Appeals, an arm of the Board’s public
prosecutor, would not bind the Board in its judicial capacity to make an on-the-record decision
as to whether the waiver applied to the effects of a decision to make changes in working 15
conditions.
Respondent also relies heavily on the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision in Enloe
Medical Center v. NLRB, 433 F.3d 834 (D.C. Cir. 2005), refusing to enforce the Board’s
decision at 343 NLRB 470 (2004). In that case, the court rejected the Board’s view, under the 20
Good Samaritan case cited above, that effects bargaining is required notwithstanding a waiver
of decisional bargaining on a particular subject. Enloe Medical Center, 433 F.3d at 839.
However, the Board has since reaffirmed its commitment to the clear and unmistakable waiver
standard in this regard, following a long-standing policy of refusing to acquiesce in decisions of
the Courts of Appeals that are contrary to Board law. See Heartland Health Care Center, 359 25
NLRB No.155 at p. 1, fn. 1, and at p. 6; see also D.L. Baker, Inc., 351 NLRB 515, 529, fn. 42
(2007); Pathmark Stores, Inc., 342 NLRB 378, fn. 1 (2004). As an Administrative Law Judge, I
am thus required to “apply established Board precedent which the Supreme Court has not
reversed.” Pathmark Stores, Inc., 342 NLRB at 378, fn. 1; see also Gas Spring Co., 296 NLRB
84, 97–98 (1989), enfd. 908 F.2d 966 (4th Cir. 1990).30
Respondent further contends, somewhat obliquely, that it is relieved from any obligation
to bargain over the effects of its decision to change the ADRSS employees’ job duties because
the Union never specifically requested effects bargaining as opposed to decisional bargaining
regarding the issue. Posthearing Brief for Respondent at 17–18. But that contention is without 35
merit. The Union made no such distinction when it demanded bargaining, and its bargaining
requests certainly encompassed both the decision and the effects. As early as the September 9
meeting with Respondents’ representatives, union representatives questioned how the changes
would affect evaluations, requests for leave and time off and supervision. Tr. 63–64. In
addition, many of the Union’s information requests were addressed to the impact of the changes40
in job duties rather than to the decision itself. Moreover, in the charge filed with the Board that
initiated these proceedings, the Union was quite specific in alleging that Respondent unlawfully
refused to bargain over both the decision to change the job duties of bargaining unit employees

4 Contrary to Respondent’s contention, the contract provision stating that the Union may not
file a grievance or arbitrate with respect to job descriptions does not establish a waiver of its
right to bargain the effects of a job description’s change. Posthearing Brief for Respondent at
23. It is settled that such a provision does not constitute a clear and unmistakable waiver. See
Bonnell/Tredegar Industries, 313 NLRB 789, 791 (1994), enfd. 46 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 1995)
(exclusion of issue from grievance and arbitration procedure does not constitute a waiver of the
bargaining obligation).
JD(NY)-14-15
9
and the decision’s effects. Thus, under the circumstances, it is clear that the Union’s request for
bargaining over the job changes included bargaining regarding the effects of the decision as
well as the decision itself. See Rochester Gas & Electric Corp., 355 NLRB 507 (2010), enfd.
sub nom. Electrical Workers Local 36 v. NLRB, 706 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134
S.Ct. 2898 (2014); see also Heartland Health Care Center, 359 NLRB No. 155 at p. 6.5
Nor were the effects of the changes in job duties de minimis, as Respondent contends.
The changes meant that employees were required to receive training in new duties and to work
in unfamiliar jobs for at least part of their work week, under different supervisors. Their
performance in their new duties would be assessed in their evaluations. And, as shown above,10
there were numerous adjustments that had to be addressed by Respondent and the employees.
At one point Department Head Rose asked the employees to be “flexible” in making those
adjustments. The fact that Respondent took the time and effort to address these issues
confirms that the effects of the job changes were not insignificant. In these circumstances, it is
clear that the effects of the job changes were sufficiently substantial and material to require 15
bargaining.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent New York University is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning 20
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Union of Clerical, Administrative, and Technical Staff (UCATS) at NYU, Local 3882, NYSUT,
AFT, AFL–CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
25
3. By refusing and failing to bargain with the Union over the effects of its decision to
change the job duties and descriptions of ADRSS employees, the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
4. The above violation is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of 30
Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice, I shall order it to 35
cease and desist from such conduct and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Although the Charging Party requests an order restoring the status quo ante, I find that
such an order is not possible given that Respondent acted lawfully in making the changes in the 40
job duties and job descriptions of the ADRSS employees. See Columbia College Chicago, 360
NLRB No. 122 at p. 3, fn. 11. As a result, I shall issue an order requiring that Respondent
rescind all adverse effects of the changes visited upon the bargaining unit employees, including
removing any adverse comments regarding employee work performance related to the changes
which appear in employee work performance evaluations.45
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the entire record herein, I issue
the following recommended5

5 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.
JD(NY)-14-15
10
ORDER
The Respondent, New York University, its officers, agents, successors and assigns,
shall5
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing and failing to bargain with the Union regarding the effects of its decision to change the
job duties and job descriptions of ADRSS employees in the bargaining unit represented by the 10
Union.
(b) 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.
15
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request, bargain in good faith with the Union over the effects of changes in
the job duties and descriptions of ADRSS employees.
20
(b) Rescind all adverse consequences that were visited upon employees as a result
of its refusal and failure to bargain over the effects of its decision to change the job duties and
descriptions of ADRSS employees, including the removal of any adverse comments related to
such refusal and failure in the job evaluations of affected employees.
25
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post, at its facility in New York, New
York, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, 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 30
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be
distributed electronically, such as email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with 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 35
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 employed by the Respondent at any time since January 15, 2014.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a 40
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.

102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be waived for all
purposes.
6 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(NY)-14-15
11
Dated, Washington, D.C., April 21, 2015.
5
__________________________
Lauren Esposito
Administrative Law Judge
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 the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by 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 benefits and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT refuse and fail to bargain with the Union over the effects of our decision to
change the job duties and descriptions of ADRSS employees in the bargaining unit represented
by the Union.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain in good faith with the Union over the effects of changes in
the job duties and descriptions of ADRSS employees.
WE WILL rescind all adverse consequences that were visited upon employees as a result of
our refusal and failure to bargain over the effects of its decision to change the job duties and
descriptions of ADRSS employees, including the removal of any adverse comments related to
such refusal and failure in the job evaluations of affected employees.
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
(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.
26 Federal Plaza, Suite 3614
New York, NY 10278-0104
Hours: 8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.
212-264-0346
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/02-CA-120698 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National
Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., 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, 212-264-0300.