Novelis Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jan 30, 2015

03-CA-121293 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 30, 2015)

JD–05–15
Oswego, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NOVELIS CORPORATION
and Cases 03–CA–121293
03–CA–121579
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER 03–CA–122766
MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL 03–CA–123346
AND SERVICE WORKERS, INTERNATIONAL 03–CA–123526
UNION, AFL-CIO 03–CA–127024
03–CA–126738
03–CA–120447
NOVELIS CORPORATION, Case 03–RC–120447
and
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER
MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL
AND SERVICE WORKERS, INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL–CIO,
Petitioner
Nicole Roberts and Linda Leslie, Esqs., for the General Counsel.
Kurt A. Powell, Robert Dumbacher and Kurt Larkin, Esqs., (Hunton & Williams, LLP), of
Atlanta, Georgia, for the Respondent.
Kenneth L. Dobkin, Esq., of Atlanta, Georgia, for the Respondent.
Brad Manzolillo, Esq., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the Charging Party.
Brian J. LaClair, Esq. (Blitman & King, LLP), of Syracuse, New York, for the Charging Party.
Thomas G. Eron, Esq., (Bond Schoeneck & King), of Syracuse, New York, for the Interveners.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. These consolidated cases were tried in
Syracuse, New York, over the course of 17 days between July 16 and October 21, 2014.1 The
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers, International Union, AFL–CIO (the Union) alleges that the Novelis Corporation (the
Company) committed numerous unfair labor practices prior to the 2014 labor representation
election at the Company’s Oswego, New York facility causing the Union to narrowly lose the

1 All dates are in 2014 unless otherwise indicated.
JD–05–15
2
election by 14 votes out of 570 cast. The Union objected to the results of the election, seeking
to have the election set aside and also filed unfair labor practice charges mirroring those
objections.
The General Counsel subsequently filed complaints alleging numerous violations by the 5
Company of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act)2 by: (1) restoring
Sunday premium pay and the bridge to overtime (unscheduled overtime pay); (2) removing union
literature; (3) discriminatorily prohibiting employees from wearing union stickers; (4) soliciting
employees’ grievances and promising to improve conditions; (5) coercively interrogating
employees about their union sympathies and the sympathies of others; (6) threatening employees 10
in small and large group meetings and individually with job loss, plant closure, reduction in
wages, and more onerous working conditions including mandatory overtime, loss of business and
loss of jobs if they selected the Union as their bargaining representative; (7) communicating to
employees that the Union lied to them about the charges that it filed with the National Labor
Relations Board (the Board) regarding Sunday premium pay and the overtime pay, and (8) 15
warning employees that, as a result of those charges, they would lose Sunday premium pay and
overtime benefits, and have repay them retroactively. The Union further alleges that such unfair
labor practices diminished the majority support it enjoyed from employees and, consequently,
caused it to lose the representation election.
20
In addition to the aforementioned allegations, the General Counsel contends that the
unlawful conduct continued after the election when it violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by demoting Everett Abare, a leading union organizer, because he posted postelection comments
on social media criticizing employees who voted against the Union. Based on the foregoing
preelection and postelection conduct, the General Counsel contends that the egregious nature of25
the violations warrants not only traditional remedies, but also the extraordinary remedy of a
bargaining order under Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969).3 In furtherance of the General
Counsel’s quest for such a remedy, on May 12, the Regional Director consolidated the above-
captioned representation case with the six unfair labor practice cases.
30
On the entire record,4 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Charging Party, the Company and
Interveners, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT35
I. JURISDICTION
The Company, a corporation, operates an aluminum facility in Oswego, New York,
where it annually purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points 40

2 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169.
3 At the outset of the hearing, I granted the General Counsel’s motion in limine prohibiting the
Company from introducing subjective evidence of the impact that the Union’s campaign conduct had on
employees. Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp., 322 NLRB 175 (1996).
4 The Company’s unopposed motion to correct the record and supplemental motion to correct the
record, dated December 3 and 4, 2014, respectively, are granted. In addition, I granted a protective order
with respect to the production of documents designated by the Company as confidential. (ALJ Exh. 1.)
JD–05–15
3
outside the State of New York. The Company 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 Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES5
A. The Company’s Operations
The Company is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Its management hierarchy begins
with Phil Martens, the president and chief executive officer. Marco Palmiero serves as senior 10
vice president. The Company employs over 800 employees at its Oswego plant,5 which
manufactures rolled aluminum products for the can and automotive industries; the plant
measures 1.6 million square feet and sits on approximately 500 acres.6
In addition to the Oswego facility, the Company operates facilities in Terre Haute,15
Indiana, Fairmont, West Virginia, and Kingston, Ontario. Unlike Oswego, each of those three
facilities has a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union.7
The top company employees at the Oswego plant are the plant manager, Chris Smith, and
the human resources manager, Peter Sheftic. The management structure beneath them consists of 20
several section or department managers, followed by leaders and associate leaders. They oversee
the hourly employee work force, which is further broken down into crews led by crew leaders.
Employee access into and exiting the facility at its two major points of entry is regulated
and recorded through code entry or electronic cards entered at turnstiles, vehicle barrier systems,25
and a staffed security station.8 The employees at issue in this case are defined in the following
unit as stipulated by the parties prior to the February 20–21 representation election:
Included: All full-time and regular part-time employees employed by the employer at its
Oswego, New York facility, including the classifications of Cold Mill Operator, 30
Finishing Operator, Recycling Operator, Remelt Operator, Crane Technician, Mechanical
Technician, Welding Technician, Remelt Operations Assistant, Hot Mill Operator,
Electrician Technician, Process Technician, Mobile Equipment Technician, Roll Shop
Technician, Production Process & Quality Technician, Production Process & Quality
Specialist, EHS Facilitator, Planner, Shipping, Receiving & Packing Specialist, Stores 35
Technician, Maintenance Technician, Machinist, Facility Technician, and Storeroom
Agent.
Excluded: Office clerical employees and guards, professional employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, and all other employees.940

5 The undisputed testimony of Human Resources Leader Andrew Quinn established that the
Company has hired approximately 50 new employees since the election. (Tr. 2874-2875.)
6 GC Exh. 201 at 4.
7 The Terre Haute and Fairmont agreements were received in evidence. (R. Exhs. 37, 40.)
8 Company security manager Daniel Delaney provided credible testimony as to the accuracy of the
system’s access records. (Tr. 2583–2592.)
9 GC Exh. 10.
JD–05–15
4
1. The Oswego plant’s expansion
In 2010, the Company began expanding the Oswego facility due to increased demand for
its products from customers in the automotive industry. In order to meet that demand, the 5
Company began construction in 2011 on two Continuous Annealed Solution Heat-Treat
production lines (CASH lines). The construction lasted into 2013 and additional employees were
hired to operate the new production lines. Around the same time as it began construction on the
CASH lines in 2011, the Company closed its plant in Saguenay, Quebec, and shifted its
production operations to the Oswego facility.1010
In December 2013, the Company undertook additional expansion and began construction
of a third CASH line just as the other two neared completion in order to meet additional product
demand from the automobile industry. Additionally, the Company started construction on a large
scrap metal recycling facility that would last until September 2014. Employees were made aware 15
of these Company investments in plant expansion, and the additional hiring that would result, by
Martens and Smith prior to and during the 2014 organizing campaign.11
2. Employee work schedules
20
Most employees are assigned to one of two schedules based on a 40-hour workweek. The
S-21 schedule consists of 7 straight shifts from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., followed by a day off,
then 7 straight night shifts from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m., followed by two days off, then 7 straight
night shifts from 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., followed by 4 days off. The J-12 schedule is more
intense, but essentially doubles the amount of time off. It is a 28-day rotation consisting of 12-25
hour shifts for 4 nights in a row, followed by 3 days off, then 3 straight day shifts, switching
from nights to days, followed by a day off. Employees then work 3 straight night shifts, followed
by 3 days off, then 4 straight day shifts, followed by 7 days off. 12
3.The Company’s wage and benefits practices30
With one exception, it has been the Company’s customary practice since 2005 to
announce changes to employee wages and benefits during annual meetings between October and
December.13 In addition, prior to January 1, any work performed during unscheduled worktime,
Sundays and holidays was considered overtime.1435

10 The Company’s operational changes and $450 million in expansion activities since 2010 are not
disputed. However, there was no testimony by any of the aforementioned high level company managers
explaining the reasons for closing the Quebec plant and moving that work to Oswego. (R. Exh. 47, 282–
312, 285; Tr. 277, 285, 2015, 2249–2250, 2260–2262, 2346–2349.)
11 Again, no high level managers testified and the only explanations for the Company’s $120 million
expansion of the CASH lines and $150 million construction of a scrap recycling facility were contained in
campaign fodder distributed by the Company in its attempts to sway employees prior to the February
representation election. (R. Exh. 47, 49, 252, 274; Tr. 1262-1264, 1373-1374, 1621-1623, 1668-1683,
1974-1977, 2000-2004, 2014-2015, 2021-2023, 2038-2040, 2078, 2081, 2112-2115, 2140-2142, 2192,
2235-2236, 2274, 2310-2312, 2346-2349, 2442-2444, 2460–2461, 2476-2478, 2486–2487, 2501-2502.)
12 It was not disputed that most employees preferred the J-12 schedule. (Tr. 836, 843-–845.)
13 The Company established this past practice through the cross-examination of former employee
JD–05–15
5
4. Company distribution and solicitation rules
Since March 1, 2013, the Company has promulgated and maintained the following rule
prohibiting “solicitation and distribution in working areas of its premises and during working 5
time (including company email or any other company distribution lists):”15
STANDARD
The Company maintains bulletin boards to communicate Company 10
information to employees and to post required notices. Any unauthorized
posting of notices, photographs or other printed or written materials on
bulletin boards or in other working areas and during working time is
prohibited.
15
Employees are prohibited from soliciting funds or signatures, conducting
membership drives, posting, distributing literature or gifts, offering to
sell or to purchase merchandise or services (except as approved for
Novelis business purposes) or engaging in any other solicitation,
distribution or similar activity on Company premises or via Company20
resources during working times and in working areas.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
All managers and supervisors are responsible for administering this 25
standard and for enforcing its provisions. It is the responsibility of each
employee to comply with this standard and consider it a condition of
employment.
Contrary to its written policy, however, the Company has permitted 30
employees to use facility bulletin boards, tables, and desks in the facility to post
fliers offering items for sale, services for hire, and promoting civic and charity
events.
5. The Company’s social media policy35
Since August 1, 2012, the Company has maintained a Social Media Standard.16 Pertinent
excerpts of the standard include:
40

Christopher Spencer. (Tr. 921–923.)
14 The Company’s premium pay practices prior to January 1 are not disputed. (Tr. 894–896.)
15 Since the solicitation at issue did not occur until 2014, I rely on the policy’s most recent revision on
March 1, 2013. (GC Exh. 2.)
16 Bold text is as indicated in original. (GC Exh. 26.)
JD–05–15
6
STATEMENT
The Company recognizes the benefits of participating in social media such as blogs,
social networks, videos, wikis, or other kinds of social media. This standard has been
developed to empower employees to participate in social media, and at the same time 5
represent our Company and our Company values. The Company adheres to its core
values in the online social media community, and expects the same commitment from all
Company representatives, including employees. The same rules that apply to our
messaging and communications in traditional media still apply in the online social media
space. Any deviation from these commitments may be subject to disciplinary action, up 10
to and including termination.
AUDIENCE
This standard applies to the extent permitted by applicable law to all employees of 15
Novelis Inc. and each business unit, department function or group thereof and, to the
extent permitted by applicable law, each of its subsidiaries and affiliates (“Company”),
unless otherwise covered by a collective bargaining agreement or otherwise subject to
possible participation rights of Works Council or other national employee
representatives.20
This standard is an extension of the Company’s standard related to Media Contact.
STANDARD
25
This standard on Social Media is intended to outline how Company values should be
demonstrated in the online social media space and to guide employee participation in this
area, both when participating personally, as well as when acting on behalf of the
Company.
30
The Company respects employees’ use of blogs and other social media tools. It is
important that all employees are aware of the implications of engaging in forms of social
media and online conversations that reference the Company and/or the employee’s
relationship with the Company. Employees should recognize when the Company might
be held responsible for or otherwise be impacted by their behavior.35
In social media, there often is no line between public and private, personal or
professional. The following social media guidelines are important to consider:
Personal Behavior in Online Social Media40
There is a material difference between speaking “on behalf of the Company” and
speaking “about” the Company. Only designated online spokespeople can speak “on
behalf of the Company.” The following set of principles refers to personal or unofficial
online activities if referring to Novelis.45
JD–05–15
7
1. Adhere to the Code of Conduct and other applicable standards. All Company
employees are subject to the Company’s Code of Conduct in every public setting,
and employees should adhere to all Company principles, standards and/or policies
in this regard including, as applicable, policies related to Internet and email use,
the Network Privacy Policy and the Media Contact Standard.5
2. You are responsible for your words and actions. Anything that an employee
posts online that potentially can tarnish the Company’s image ultimately will be
the employee’s responsibility. If an employee chooses to participate in the online
social media space, he/she must do so properly, exercising sound judgment and 10
common sense.
3. Be a “scout” for compliments and criticism. Even if an employee is not an
official online spokesperson for the Company, employees can be vital assets for
monitoring the social media landscape. Employees who identify positive or 15
negative remarks about the Company online that may be important are urged to
consider forwarding such to the corporate or regional communications
department.
4. Let authorized Company spokespeople respond to posts. Unless an employee 20
is authorized, employees are discouraged to involve themselves in speaking on
behalf of or about Novelis in any social media community that involves Novelis,
the aluminum industry or related topics. If an employee discovers negative or
disparaging posts about the Company or see third parties trying to spark negative
conversations, avoid the temptation to react. Pass the post(s) along to our official 25
spokespersons, who are trained to address such comments.
5. Be conscious when mixing business and personal lives. Online, personal and
business persons are likely to intersect. Customers, colleagues and supervisors
often have access to posted online content. Keep this in mind when publishing 30
information online that can be seen by more than friends and family, and know
that information originally intended just for friends and family can be forwarded.
Remember NEVER to disclose non-public information about the Company
(including confidential information), and be aware that taking public positions
online that are counter to the Company’s interest might cause conflict and may be 35
subject to disciplinary action.
Online Spokespeople
Just as with traditional media, the Company has an opportunity and a responsibility to 40
effectively manage its reputation online and to selectively engage and participate in
online conversations. Official Company spokespeople are authorized to do so. Employees
desiring to engage in online activity on behalf of the Company should do so with express
approval and with the assistance of regional or corporate communications.
45
JD–05–15
8
EXCEPTIONS and/or APPROVALS
Any requirement of this standard may be waived conditionally on a case-by-case basis in
exceptional circumstances with written approval from the Vice President of Corporate
Communications and Government Affairs.5
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Corporate Communications is responsible for administering this standard and for
enforcing its provisions. It is the responsibility of each employee to comply with this 10
standard and consider it a condition of employment.
6. The Company’s Disciplinary Policy
The Company’s has had a 4-step progressive disciplinary procedure relating to 15
unsatisfactory work performance in effect since February 22, 2006. The steps range from a
“casual and friendly reminder,” followed by a warning for recurrences within a 3-month period.
If the infraction happens again within the next 6 months, the employee should be sent home for
the rest of his shift. Finally, the employee faces suspension or termination for yet another
infraction within the next 6 months. The policy, in pertinent part, also provides guidance on how 20
to address unsatisfactory behavior:17
General
It is the belief of the Oswego Works that each individual should be given every possible 25
and reasonable chance to play a positive and satisfactory role in the Company’s
operation. It is also believed, however, that it is only possible for an individual to play
such a role if he has adequate self-respect.
By this, we do not mean that an individual will never lapse from good workmanship and 30
satisfactory behavior. We do mean, rather, that such lapses will rarely occur with a
person who has adequate-self respect and will stop promptly, without the need for
punishment, if the lapse(s) is brought to his attention in a friendly, positive manner,
which is not only fair, but consistent.
35
Repeated demonstrations, within relatively short intervals, that friendly and constructive
methods do not produce the desired results are taken as indications of a lack of self-
respect. When such a regrettable conclusion has been reached about an individual, we do
not wish to keep them in our employment and shall use orderly methods to terminate
their services.40
45

17 GC Exh. 27.
JD–05–15
9
Policy on Disciplinary Action
Therefore, in accord with the general policy regarding discipline, there shall be no
disciplinary demotions, suspensions or other forms of punishment – as a normal means of
disciplining employees.5
This is not to say that employees guilty of flagrant violations of good behavior standards
may not be terminated, sent home from work, or temporarily suspended.
B. The Company’s Announced Changes to Wages and Benefits10
In May 2013, the Company sent employees an email announcing proposed changes to
wages and benefits. Crew leaders criticized the proposed changes, however, and their
implementation was delayed indefinitely. The Company revisited the issue in November when it
announced that, effective January 1, work in excess of 40 hours would be considered overtime 15
and Sunday work would no longer apply toward overtime calculations. The Company also
announced changes to medical coverage benefits.18
On the same day as employees received the November email, approximately 50 to 60
employees from the Cold Mill section of the plant left their work areas and walked into the 20
cafeteria to demand answers. Human Resources Manager Sheftic and Jason Bro, the Cold Mill
operations leader, arrived shortly thereafter.19 Abare asked if it was true that certain benefits,
including Sunday premium pay and unscheduled overtime pay, were being eliminated.
Apparently not interested in discussing the issue, Sheftic asked if the gathering was an organized
meeting and who organized it. Abare responded that Sheftic could “call this a work stoppage or 25
you can call it whatever you may want to call it, a safety shutdown, a safety timeout, whatever it
might be that you feel comfortable calling this but there are a lot of employees out there that their
minds are not on the job.” He further explained that employees were concerned about losing
benefits. Bro and Sheftic confirmed that Sunday premium pay and unscheduled overtime pay
were being eliminated, but would contact company headquarters in Atlanta to get additional 30
information. Sheftic then asked “if anybody in the room was not willing to go back to work.”
That prompted the employees to return to work.20
The changes became a reality at the mandatory employee annual wage and benefit
meetings on December 16 when Sheftic and Smith formally announced the new pay scale, 35
effective January 1. It included a $1500 lump-sum bonus and a 5 percent-pay increase, coupled
with the elimination of Sunday premium pay and unscheduled overtime pay. Not surprisingly,
employees expressed concern about the changes, particularly with respect to the elimination of
Sunday premium and overtime pay. Sheftic again responded that the Company would consider
their concerns. In response to one employee’s suggestion that employees might look to affiliate 40

18 Although the May 2013 email was not entered into the record, these announced changes, as well as
their delay in implementation, are not disputed. (Tr. 513-519, 917-921.)
19 Sheftic was no longer employed by the Company at the time of the hearing. Bro, however, is still
employed by the Company, but in a “different role.” (Tr. 2878-2879.)
20 The November email was also not entered into the record, but Abare’s credible testimony about its
dissemination, employees’ converging on the plant floor and his interaction with Sheftic and Bro, was not
disputed. (Tr. 284–285, 288–293, 522, 527–528.)
JD–05–15
10
with a labor organization, however, Sheftic responded, “we certain[ly] hope that we don’t have
to have a union here at this point, that we will—we’re better off doing our own negotiating.”21
C. The Union’s Organizing Campaign
5
1. Union organizing meetings
After the meeting, Abare, a crew leader, discussed the Company’s announced wage
changes with coworkers and then contacted James Ridgeway, the Union local’s president, by
telephone. They arranged to meet the following day. On December 17, Abare and a coworker, 10
Brian Wyman, met with Ridgeway in a restaurant in nearby Mexico, New York. After agreeing
to seek labor representation for company employees, Abare and Spencer kicked off the
organizing campaign by signing union authorization cards. They agreed to lead the organizing
campaign and took additional cards to solicit and distribute to coworkers.22
15
Subsequently, Ridgeway and Jacobus Vaderbaan, a union representative, with the support
of Abare, Spencer, and others on the organizing committee, held six offsite meetings for
employees between December 27 and January 12. Each of these meetings lasted about an hour.
Ridgeway, Abare and others criticized the Company’s changes to employees’ terms and
conditions of employment, including wages and benefits, extolled the advantages of union 20
membership, and urged employees to sign union authorization cards. The organizing process was
explained to employees and questions were asked and answered. There was a significant
presence by antiunion employees, who voiced their opposition, and there were contentious
exchanges between the opposing factions.23
25
In addition to his active participation at organizing meetings, Abare played a prominent
role in other aspects of the organizing campaign. From December 17 until the election on
February 20, he and others on the organizing committee advocated for union representation,
solicited cards, distributed union pamphlets, flyers and stickers, and posted union meeting
notices on employee bulletin boards, break area tables, and in cafeterias and locker rooms.2430

21 The details of this meeting are based on the credible and unrefuted testimony of Abare, Spencer,
and Burton. (Tr. 257–266, 528–529, 532, 714–719, 895–897, 923–927.)
22 Ridgeway’s credibility as to which employees, in addition to Abare and Spencer, he spoke with at
the outset was undermined by his revised affidavit. There is, however, no dispute as to the birth of the
organizing campaign on December 16, when Abare discussed his wage concerns with coworkers after the
company meeting and then contacted Ridgeway. (Tr. 125–126, 256–257, 260–262, 294, 894, 530–534,
536, 1071.)
23 The widespread awareness among the employees who attended, whether they were in favor or
opposed to union representation, as to the leading roles of Ridgeway and Abare at these contentious
meetings, was not disputed. (Tr. 187–188, 732–733.) The Company elicited testimony on cross-
examination by Dennis Parker estimating that 30 to 35 antiunion employees were present at the meeting
he attended. (Tr. 774.)
24 It is undisputed that Abare and other members of the organizing committee were able to distribute
Union materials to other employees during the campaign. (Tr. 436–440, 590–594, 1598–1612, 1923,
1955–1956, 2312, 2315, 2317–2318; GC Exh. 29 at 2–4; R. Exh. 107–109, 111, 115, 120.)
JD–05–15
11
2. Solicitation of union authorization cards
Subsequently, Abare, Spencer, and the rest of an organizing committee of about 25
employees proceeded to obtain 351 signed union authorization cards from employees between
December 17 and January 5. These included 38 cards that the solicitor neglected to initial or sign 5
as a witness, but the employees’ signatures are comparable to signatures or other handwriting in
the Company’s personnel files for the following employees: Mark Barbagallo, Shawn Barlow,
Scott Bean, Martin Beeman, Mike Blum, Dustin Cook, Daniel Cotter, Jason Cotter, Stephen
Demong, Michael Deno, Joseph Drews, George Geroux, Scott Grimshaw, Christopher Hansel,
Kevin Hatter, Greg Hein, Kevin Holliday, Arnold King, James Kray, David Kuhl, Robert 10
Kunelius, Andrew Lazzaro, James Love, Rick McDermott, Jamie Moltrup, Brandon Natoli,
Kevin Parkhurst, Bernard Race, Brian Rookey, Andres Ruiz, Aaron Sheldon, Jon Spier, Nicholas
Spier, Rob Stancliffe, Joe Stock, Robert Syrell, Brian Vanella, Arthur Webb, Charles Yabonski,
David Zappala and, David Zukovsky.25
15
Card solicitation by union supporters took place outside the presence of company
managers and supervisors. In one instance during December, however, an employee, Dennis
Parker, told his supervisor, Bryan Gigon, the associate leader in the Remelt department, that
announced changes to wages and benefits had caused employees to consider union affiliation.
Parker shared the information during his performance review meeting after Gigon asked if 20
Parker had any concerns.26
The front of each card contained an emphatic statement at the outset as to its purpose,
including a critical portion in bold print:
25
YES! I WANT UNITED STEELWORKERS REPRESENTATION!
I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC
(also known in short as United Steelworkers or USW) 30
TO REPRESENT ME IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
Below the heading, the cards asked for the following personal information: name; phone;
home address; city; state; date; signature; employed by; department; job title; name of witness;

25 The cards were authenticated through the solicitors, signers or signature comparison. Thirty-nine
cards were offered for authentication solely by comparison. However, after reviewing them, I find that the
signatures and other handwriting on cards purportedly signed by the following five employees did not
appear similar to the handwriting on the company records: James Ashby, George Dale, Mark Haynes,
Mike Stiles, and William Sweeting. The signatures of four others—John Barbur, William Mitchell, Brian
Rookey, and Kevin Tice—did not appear sufficiently comparable to the signatures in the personnel
records but were very similar to other handwriting in those records (ALJ Exh. 2; GC Exh. 47–48, 69, 71-
72, 84, 111–113, 115–116, 118–122, 124–125, 127–130, 200.)
26 Aside from Parker’s testimony that he told his admitted Sec. 2(11) supervisor about potential union
activity sometime in December (Tr. 768–770.), there was no testimony or direct evidence that managers
or supervisors observed or otherwise knew about cards being solicited prior to January 9. (Tr. 222–237,
534–563, 658–660, 690–691, 781–783, 800–802, 811-–824, 845–855, 861–867, 877–883, 1225–1241,
1251–1254, 1282–1324, 1683–1685, 1742–1745, 1802–1806.)
JD–05–15
12
email address; and whether interested in joining the organizing committee. The back of each card
provided additional information as to its purpose:
This card will be used to secure union recognition and collective bargaining rights.
Initiation fees are waived for all current employees and no dues will be paid until your 5
first contract has been accepted.
You have the absolute democratic right, protected by Federal Law, to organize and join
the United Steelworkers.
By signing this card, you are taking an important step toward achieving a genuine voice
in workplace decisions that affect you and your family.2710
a. James Ridgeway
Ridgeway, along with Vanderbaan, instructed about 25 members of the organizing
committee on how to solicit authorization cards from employees. They were given a booklet 15
entitled, “35 Things That Your Employer Cannot Do,” as well as a “handbook/guidebook” for
answering questions that might be asked during the card solicitation process.28
Ridgeway signed 16 cards as a witness at the organizing meetings and other times.29 In
soliciting employees, he made assorted statements advising them to read the cards, as well as the 20
purpose of signing them. In explaining the purpose, he outlined the process of requesting union
representation through a signed authorization card, as well as a representation election that would
ensue if the Company declined voluntary recognition of the Union as labor representative.30

27 GC Exh. 3.
28 GC Exh. 29.
29 Ridgeway was impeached on other matters, was not certain as to the dates when the cards were
signed and, in the case of Mike Niver’s card, I credit the latter’s testimony that the card was witnessed by
a coworker, John Gray. However, the 16 signed authorization cards were separately authenticated through
comparison or witness testimony. (Tr. 126–129, 187–189, 1630–1639: GC Exh. 14.)
30 There was an overabundance of rehearsed testimony that tested the selective memories of witnesses
on both sides. However, the notion that Ridgeway, at these contentious meetings attended by informed
antiunion employees, told attendees that the only purpose of signing the card was to get more information
about the Union and the process, is ludicrous. Moreover, the testimony of company witnesses actually
confirmed Ridgeway’s discussion about the union representation process. Timothy Southworth signed a
card during a 2-hour long union meeting on January 2, but conceded that the meeting lasted 2 hours and
the process of union representation was discussed. (GC Exh. 69 at 7; Tr. 2960–2963.) David Bouchard
also signed a card at that meeting, but was not credible in asserting that he did not read it. Moreover, he
testified that Ridgeway stated that the cards were for informational purposes only, but conceded that
Ridgeway also expressed the Union’s desire to serve as their labor representative. (Tr. 1683–1685, 1704–
1707, 1709; GC Exh. 110.) Niver’s recollection was that John Gray told him that the Union sought to obtain
cards from 60% of the employees before a vote, but conceded being told that the Union was not going “to
show up because ten people wanted a union,” which obviously meant that the Union sought more than a
majority of employees who “wanted” it to represent them. (Tr. 1637–1638; GC Exh. 14.) Zack Welling
testified that he attended a union meeting in February where Ridgeway said that the card was to just get
more information. However, all of the cards had already been submitted to the Region about a month
earlier. (GC Exh. 8, Tr. 2786–2787, 2823.) Accordingly, the weight of the credible evidence supports the
credible testimony of the General Counsel’s witnesses—Raymond Watts, Brian Wyman, Crystal
Sheffield, Michelle Johnson, Gregory Griffin, Sheri Broadway and Mike Clark—that Ridgeway’s
JD–05–15
13
b. Abare
Abare and approximately 22 other employees distributed and collected signed union
authorization cards. After signing a card, he witnessed and initialed 24 other authorization 5
cards.31 He witnessed the signing of 57 cards; these included cards signed by openly prounion
witnesses Crystal Sheffield, Ann Smith, Michelle Johnson, Robert Sawyer, Leo Rookey, and
Ron Merz. In response to employees’ questions, Abare instructed them to sign a card if they
wanted representation from the Steel Workers and that in order to achieve that they had to gain
50 percent plus one. Regarding the representation election, he told some employees that 50 10
percent plus one card was needed to get an election for union representation. He also explained
that the card itself was for representation.32 Merz actually approached Abare for a card and
stated at the time that employees needed to bring in a Union to counteract changes being
implemented by the Company.33
15
Several other employees, including Jon Storms, Justin Pitchard, Michael Brassard and
Darrell Hunter reluctantly signed authorization cards witnessed by Abare. Before these
employees completed their cards, however, Abare engaged them in conversations where he
discussed the significance of each card as a request for representation and the merits of Union
representation. He also advised them to read the cards before filling them out.34 20

presentations included references to the authorization cards as requests for union representation. (Tr.
1102—1103, 1287, 1449, 1459, 3096, 3130-3131, 3159—3160, 3167—3168.)
31 The Company did not object to admission of 53 cards witnessed by Abare, including his own. (GC
Exh. 746-84, 87–111, 113–114, 116–128, 130, 200.) The card of Richard Lagoe was initialed by someone
else but received over objection because Abare was present when Lago signed the card. (Tr. 378—379;
GC Exh. 85.)
32 Abare was partially credible regarding his custom and practice in soliciting authorization cards and
his instructions to card solicitors. (Tr. 305–314, 316–329, 348–367, 372–385, 423–426,431–435, 536–
539, 542–563.) Furthermore, Crystal Sheffield, Ann Smith, Michelle Johnson, Robert Sawyer, Leo
Rookey and Stephen Wheeler credibly corroborated Abare’s testimony that his remarks to coworkers
included statements that the purpose of the cards were for Union representation, explained the election
process and advised them to read the cards before signing. (Tr. 706–707, 814, 869, 1107, 1225, 1238,
1252–1253, 1283, 1305, 1436–1437, 3097, 3119, 3122, 3146–3147; GC Exh. 38, 52, 117.) However, it
was evident that Abare did not say the same thing to every employee he solicited, since some were
already union supporters and/or approached him for a card, while others had questions and some had
none. He also conceded that some just read the back of the card. (Tr. 306–308, 542–562, 603–607, 638–
541.) In at least 6 instances, however, Abare signed as witness to 6 completed cards that were solicited by
others and delivered to him. (Tr. 802, 814–818, 2634–2635; GC Exh. 54–55, 127; R. Exh. 284–291.) He
was also mistaken about Scott Grimshaw signing a card in the facility on the date indicated. (Tr. 549-
550.) With respect to witnessing Darling’s card, the latter testified that Bob Kunelius, not Abare, asked
him to sign a card and that he (Kunelius) told him “it was for informational purposes only; and if we
would like to go to the meeting and hear what they had to say, they had to sign it.” Incredibly, however,
Darling testified that he did not read the card. (Tr. 1743–1746; GC Exh. 108.)
33 The testimony of Merz, called as a Company witness, was undermined by the credible rebuttal
testimony of Michelle Johnson and Ann Smith, as well as his inconsistencies that culminated in a
concession that he did not recall where he signed the card. (Tr. 2498–2499, 2507–2508, 3128, 3150.)
34 I do not credit the testimony of these witnesses since all, but Storms, conceded that Abare advised
them to read the cards and then proceeded to fill them out. (Tr. 1931–1932, 2184–2188, 2205–2208, 2229–
2232, 2239, 2498–2500, 2507–2508, 2734–2736; GC Exh. 76, 79, 96, 105.) In Storms case, I do not credit
JD–05–15
14
c. Christopher Spencer
Spencer, a leading member of the organizing committee, signed an authorization card and
collected 66 more cards prior to January 13, including 3 that were misdated. His initials, “CS” 5
were also written on most of the cards that he collected and he gave the completed cards to
Vanderbann, Ridgeway, or Bill Fears, a union organizer.35 Spencer obtained the cards in several
locations, both in and outside the facility. Employees whom he solicited and obtained signatures
from outside the facility included: Billy Carter, Cathy Czirr, Jamie Geroux, Nicholas Gray, Pat
McCarey, Charles Oleyourryk, Dave Patty, Jimm Priest, Greg Turner, Steven Watts, Joseph Bell, 10
William Brown, Doug Hall, Jeff Knopp, and Ellis Singleton, 36
In soliciting authorization cards, Spencer engaged coworkers in conversation about
having the Union represent them.37 His presentation usually included a request to read the card,
make sure the employee understood it and ask any questions one might have about the card. 15
Some employees, such as Gregory Griffin and Sheri Broadway, read the card, signed it and had
no questions.38 As a leader on the organizing committee, Spencer also instructed other card
solicitors, such as Lori Sawyer, to mention the significance of union representation when they
approached coworkers about signing a card.39
20
In several instances, employees whom he solicited declined to sign cards. Some of the
conversations lasted longer than others, but Spencer discussed the significance of the cards in
designating the Union as their labor representative, as well as their significance in entitling
employees to a representation election if the Company denied their request for recognition.40

his testimony that he failed to read a card that he completely filled out. (Tr. 1917–1919; GC Exh. 93.)
35 Spencer’s prior affidavit testimony that some signed in order “to stir the pot and send a message to
management” did not detract from his overall credibility. In addition, cards obtained from Speeding and
Bucher were mistakenly dated as January 2013, while Joe Griffin signed his card on December 26. (GC
Exh. 44 at 22; GC Exh. 49; Tr. 897–901, 916, 959–984, 1118, 1280.) I did not credit the brief testimony of
Company witness Brian Richardson, who signed a card but vaguely recalled that Spencer said the card
“was basically for information to stay in the loop of what was going on.” (Tr. 2954; GC Exh. 44.)
36 Spencer was not entirely credible, however, as to where he obtained some of the authorization
cards. (Tr. 959-984). The Company’s security records, which I find to have been reliable and mostly
accurate in depicting the history of employees entering and exiting the facility, revealed that 15 cards
were signed by these employees outside the facility, not inside the facility, on the dates indicated. (R. 284;
GC Exhs. 251–252, 254–262, 264–268, 270, 2638–2646.) Nevertheless, the cards were still independently
authenticated through signature comparison.
37 Mathew Blunt testified briefly during the General Counsel’s case that he was approached by
Spencer to sign the card and asked if he was interested in union representation. At that point in the case,
however, most of the General Counsel’s witnesses had not yet provided much detail about their
conversations with card solicitors. (Tr. 1060.)
38 Griffin had a general recollection of that conversation (“he basically said”), but I found him
credible based on his spontaneity and candor on cross-examination. (Tr. 3158.) Broadway testified
similarly and was credible, but had already made up her mind about the Union. (Tr. 3166–3167.)
39 Sawyer’s testimony about Spencer’s instructions was credible and unrefuted. (Tr. 1007.)
40 I did not credit the testimony of company witnesses that Spencer told them that the cards were only
for information, to attend union meetings or to get a yes or no vote. There was an overabundance of
information being disseminated and employees never needed to sign anything to attend meetings or be
JD–05–15
15
d. Melanie Burton
Burton signed an authorization card and witnessed the signing of 13 cards. She solicited
some of the employees and was approached by others. Seven of those employees—Robert Corey,5
Benjamin Clarke, Noah Personius, James Smith, David Van Dyke, Jimmy Walker and Andrew
Wallace—signed the cards outside of the facility. Burton asked each of them to read the card
before signing. She received questions as to what the union authorization card was and she
would explain. As part of this process, Burton witnessed employees’ sign the cards, they were
signed on the date stated on the card and she signed the cards as a witness.4110
e. Jacobus Vanderbaan
Vanderbaan participated in six organizing meetings on January 2, 9, 16, 17 and 26, and
February 16. He witnessed two employees, Elmer Coney and Chris Pashtif, sign cards. They were 15
among the employees who approached union officials at these meetings and asked to complete
authorization cards.42
f. Nicholas LaVere
20
LaVere, a casting department employee, was on the organizing committee and solicited
authorization cards. He solicited and witnessed 20 cards signed within the facility, including his
own. The cards were completed and signed on the dates indicated, except in the case of Mike
Chwalek, who signed his card in the middle of December 2013 (not 1979) and William Hayden,
who signed his card in January 2014 (not 2013). In accordance with instructions from Union 25
organizers, LaVere asked coworkers whether they supported the Union. If so and he/she desired
union representation, he gave them a card, told them to read the front and back, then fill it out
and sign it. If an employee was unsure about signing a card, he suggested that he/she attend a
union meeting.43

exposed to the information war that ensued. Lewis LaClair clearly had time to contemplate the
consequences of signing the card. He refused to sign at first, then signed a card and changed his mind
again and had it returned. (Tr. 1804–1805, 1816.). The testimony of Scott Baum (Tr.1826–1828), Brian
Thomas (Tr. 1993-–1996.), Scott Allen (Tr. 2859.) and Rodney Buskey (Tr. 2861.) as to what Spencer
told them were selectively brief. Stephen Duschen signed a card for someone else during a conversation
that lasted around 10 minutes and conceded reading it before signing it. (Tr. 2701–2703, 2705–2707; GC
Exh. 71 at 4.) Robert Reed was allegedly approached by Spencer and other unidentified persons after the
cards were filed along with the representation. (Tr. 2946–2953.)
41 Burton’s testimony was generally credible as to cards she witnessed (Tr. GC Exh. 31; Tr. 712-713,
747–748.) and was corroborated by Brandon Delaney, Arthur Ball, Nate Gingerich, Caleb Smith and
Justin Stevens. Each one also authenticated his card. (GC Exh. 33–35, 56, 67; Tr. 690, 1012–1013, 1068–
1069, 1359.) Company witness Mark Raymond testified that Burton asked him to sign a card, but he
could not recall what she said. (Tr. 2274–2275.) The Company attempted to impeach Burton with security
records indicating that several witnesses were not in the facility on the days that they signed cards.
However, Burton credibly explained that she obtained their cards outside of the facility. (Tr.734–747). In
the case of Jeremy Wallace’s card, there was no indication that he was in the facility on the date that he
signed the card, but his signature was authenticated through comparison. (GC Exh. 269, Tr. 3174–3175.)
42 Vanderbaan was credible and remained in the hearing room after testifying. (Tr. 196, 201, 208.)
43 LaVere credibly authenticated the cards and recalled what he told coworkers about the purpose of
JD–05–15
16
g. Thomas Rollin
Tom Rollin signed an authorization card and witnessed nine coworkers fill out and sign
cards. In accordance with instructions he received from Spencer, Rollin asked coworkers if they 5
wanted representation. If so, he would ask them to fill out the cards. If anyone asked a question
about the cards, he referred them to the bold print on the card, which asked, “Do you want
representation.” After employees filled out and gave him the cards, he gave them to Spencer.44
h. Mario Martinez10
Martinez signed a card and witnessed employees sign two other cards. In soliciting the
cards, Martinez told both employees to read the front and back of the card. Additionally, he told
them anybody could go to a union meeting, anybody can hear about the procedures, but if they
signed a card, the Union would represent them during collective bargaining.45
15
i. Raymond Watts
Watts signed a card and witnessed the signing of 16 others. All of those cards were signed
and dated properly, except for Ryan Buskey and Christopher Caroccio, who erroneously dated
them in 2013 instead of 2014. In soliciting cards, Watts was instructed by Ridgeway to make 20
sure everyone read the card fully before they signed it and that they understood it. In response to
questions about the meaning of the cards, Watts told employees to read the card. He also told
them it was part of the process in getting recognition. After obtaining the cards, Watts gave them
to Spencer.46
25
j. Shaun Burton
Burton witnessed seven cards being signed, including his own. In soliciting the cards, he
witnessed employees sign the cards, which were signed on the dates stated on the cards, except
for Andres Ruiz who signed his card at the same time as Jamie Moltrup on December 22, 2013.30
Burton told employees to read the front and back of the card. He also told employees that they

the authorization cards. (Tr. 213-219, 223, 226, 235, 237-–239; GC Exh. 11, 68.)
44 This finding is based on Rollin’s mostly credible testimony. (GC Exh. 58; Tr. 836–837, 845–847,
852–-853.) The Company’s security records indicated that George Axtell was not in the facility when he
signed his card on January 4. Nevertheless, Axtel testified that he dated and signed the card at work in
Rollin’s presence. Moreover, I do not credit brief testimony by Axtell, a Company witness, that Rollin
told him that the card was “just for information.” (R. Exh. 284 at 13; Tr. 2956–2957, 2959–2960.)
45 This finding is based on the credible testimony of Martinez. (GC Exh. 45; Tr. 1206–1207, 1210–
1213-1216, 1218-1219).
46 Watts provided mostly credible testimony as to what he told witnesses about the purpose of the
cards. (Tr. 1297–1299). While the Company’s security records contradict Watts’ testimony that he
obtained signatures from Mark Barbagallo and Kristen Moody in the plant, their signatures were
authenticated through comparison evidence. (R. Exh. 284; GC Exh. 47, 250, 263; Tr. 1237–1239, 1273–
1280, 1282–1287, 1297–1299, 1301–1324.) The mistake in the year by Buskey and Caroccio was a
common mistake made by many people at the beginning of a new year. (Tr.1275, 1289–-1293.)
JD–05–15
17
would get more information about the organizing campaign after signing a card. After obtaining
the cards, Burton gave them to Abare.47
k. Ann Fitzgerald
5
Fitzgerald solicited union cards based on Stephen Wheeler’s instructions to have
employees read the front and back of the card. She proceeded to sign a card and obtained the
signatures of nine coworkers. She witnessed the employees complete and sign the cards. All had
the correct dates, except for those completed by Guilleromo Quintuana and Kim Clary, who
signed their cards on January 2 and 9, respectively.48 Of the 10 persons whom she solicited, only 10
Fred Zych asked a question about the card and that was an inquiry as to who would see the card.
She did not answer the question.49
l. Michael Granger
15
Granger filled out and signed an authorization card. He also witnessed a card signed and
dated by Peter Losurdo.50
m. Brandon Delaney
20
Delaney signed an authorization card and witnessed the signing of nine others.51 Based on
instructions he received from Spencer and Melanie Burton, Delaney responded to questions
about the purpose of the card by suggesting that employees read the writing on back of the card.
In response to followup questions about the language, he also explained that the purpose of the
card was to seek union representation and to pursue a union election.5225

47 Burton was partially credible to the extent that he told coworkers to read the card, but failed to
impress with his lack of recollection as to whether he also told people that the purpose of the card was to
get information about the Union. (GC Exh. 48; Tr. 1222–1225, 1231-1232, 1234–1244.)
48 Fitzgerald credibly testified as to her practice in soliciting the cards and the locations where they
were signed. (GC Exh. 54; Tr. 805–807, 811–821.) Fitzgerald also testified that Wise signed his card
between January 6 and the 9, but asked for it back a few days later when she returned to work on or about
January 15. (Tr. 807-809, 827-828.) Wise confirmed that the card was returned and provided a vague
recollection that Fitzgerald told him that the purpose of the card was to get union representation to speak
to the employees. (Tr. 2470–2473).
49 Fitzgerald credibly testified on cross-examination that Fred Zych was the only witness to ask a
question and it concerned who would see his card (Tr. 821.). Zych, on the other hand, testified that
Fitzgerald, after asking him to fill out the card, explained that it would not count as a vote and would be
destroyed after being collected. He conceded, however, that he read the card and filled it out completely.
(Tr. 2031–2033; GC Exh. 54.) Company witness Richard Lagoe, who did not sign a card, vaguely
testified that Fitzgerald said the purpose of the card was to get a general idea as to how many people
would be interested in the Union. (Tr. 2847–2848.) The Company notes that the cards also contained
Abare’s initials on the back, but it appears that he initialed them upon collecting the cards from solicitors.
50 Granger’s testimony was credible and candid as to what he recalled. (GC Exh. 55; Tr. 797–802.)
51 Delaney credibly testified that Tony Alelunas, Bernie Finnegan and Maurice Kellison mistakenly
filled in 2013 instead of 2014. (GC Exh. 56; Tr. 1360–1362.)
52 Delaney credibly testified as to the location where the cards were signed and his instructions to
coworkers who asked questions about the card. (Tr. 1362–1376, 1378–1381, 1384.) Testimony to the
contrary by Theodore Reifke, on the other hand, was not credible. Reifke, who testified that Delaney said
JD–05–15
18
n. Michael Jadus
Jadus signed an authorization card and witnessed the signing of another card by coworker
James Watson.535
o. Charles Gurney
Gurney signed a card and witnessed the signing of four cards. Prior to soliciting cards,
Mike Deno explained to Gurney that they served a dual purpose of counting as a vote for the 10
Union and as a way to get more information. Depending on the particular conversation, Gurney
made similar comments about the purpose of the cards to coworkers whom he solicited,
including union representation and getting more information. In some instances, like his
conversation with Allen Cowan, the solicited employee was a union supporter who actually
reached out to Gurney to sign a card. In other instances, there were coworkers whom Gurney 15
solicited, but turned him down. In his conversation with one such employee, Gurney updated
Michael Malone about the status of the campaign and urged him to sign an authorization card
because the Union would provide employees with protection from the Company.54
p. Gregory Griffin20
Griffin testified that he witnessed four cards being signed, including his own. In
soliciting the cards, Griffin asked his coworkers if they wanted to be represented by the Union.
He gave the signed cards to Spencer.55
q. Ryan O’Gorman25
O’Gorman signed an authorization card and witnessed the signing of four more cards.56
r. Mike Clark
Clark signed an authorization card and witnessed the signing of five more cards in the roll 30
shop breakroom around the same time on December 28, 2013. In accordance with instructions he
received, Clark instructed the card signers to read the front and back of their cards, fill in the

the card was only to get more information, had a selective and extremely limited recollection of the
conversation. (Tr. 2863–2864, 2866–2867; GC Exh. 56.)
53 Jadus credibly testified as to signing of a card by Watson. (GC Exh. 57; Tr. 830–834.)
54 I did not credit Cowan’s selective corroborating testimony as to what Gurney told him about the
purpose of the card since Cowan was already a Union supporter who reached out to Gurney. (Tr. 660.)
However, Gurney’s credible testimony that he did not mention the informational purpose to the cards was
corroborated by Michael Malone, a Company witness. (Tr. GC Exh. 59; Tr. 858–861, 863–868.) Malone,
who declined Gurney’s solicitation, testified that Gurney told him that employees needed protection from
the Company, spoke with him about the negotiations and “stuff like that.” (Tr. 2134–2135). I did not,
however, credit the exceedingly brief and selective testimony by Zackary Welling that Gurney, as well as
Cowan and Delaney, told him that the purpose of the card was just to get information. (Tr. 2783–2785.)
55 I based this finding on Griffin’s credible testimony. (GC Exh. 60; Tr. 1121–1123, 1125–1128.)
56 O’Gorman appeared to have solicited union supporters. (GC Exh. 61, Tr. 616–618, 620–623.)
JD–05–15
19
information and sign them. He informed his colleagues that the purpose of signing a card was to
get union representation, as well as more information about the process.57
s. Joseph Seinoski
5
Seinoski signed an authorization card and authenticated four other cards on January 3.
Two of the card signers actually approached him for the cards. As to the other two employees,
Seinoski approached them and asked if they were interested in union representation. He handed
them the cards and they asked him several questions about the purpose of the cards. Seinoski
responded that the purpose of the cards was to obtain union representation.5810
t. Amy Watts
Watts signed an authorization card and solicited other employees. She managed to get
coworkers to complete and sign five more cards.5915
u. Brandon France
France signed an authorization card. He also witnessed Grant Wendt fill out and sign
another card.6020
v. Stephen Wheeler
Wheeler, a union supporter, instructed Ann Fitzgerald, another solicitor, to have
employees read the front and back of the authorizations cards. Wheeler also signed an 25
authorization card and witnessed the signing of two more cards around the same time on
December 27, 2013. One of those employees, John Gray, actually approached Wheeler about a
card. Another employee, Troy Hess, was present and Wheeler solicited him as well. Hess
accepted a card, filled it out and signed it. Wheeler gave the completed cards to Abare.61
30
w. Justin Stevens35
Stevens signed an authorization card and witnessed the signing of four more cards. In
soliciting the cards, he told coworkers that the purpose of the cards was to get information and

57 Clark provided credible testimony, conceding on cross-examination that he mentioned the dual
purposes of union representation and getting more information as a result of the cards. (GC Exh. 62; Tr.
1449–1450, 1445–1446, 1460, 1462–1463.) All five employees appeared to have signed the cards at the
same time. (Tr. 1446). I do not credit selective testimony to the contrary by Todd Scruton, who signed a
card and had a limited recollection about the conversation. (Tr. 2970–2971; GC Exh. 62.)
58 I credit Seinoski’s unrefuted testimony. (GC Exh. 63; Tr. 874–885.)
59 This finding is based on Watts’ credible and unrefuted testimony. (GC Exh. 64; Tr. 1130–1137.)
60 This finding is based on France’s credible testimony. (GC Exh. 65; Tr. 1138–1141.)
61 Wheeler’s credible testimony was consistent with Fitzgerald’s testimony as to their discussion
about the cards. (GC Exh. 66; Tr. 820, 1249–1253.)
JD–05–15
20
that the cards would be returned to them upon request. The employees then proceeded to read the
cards, filled in the requested information and signed them.62
x. Lori Sawyer
5
After being instructed by Spencer, Sawyer approached employees interested in union
representation about signing authorization cards. In addition to signing an authorization card,
Sawyer witnessed the signing of seven more cards.63
y. Brian Wyman10
Wyman signed an authorization card and witnessed the signing of 23 more cards. In
soliciting coworkers, he asked if they were interested in being represented by the Union and
offered the cards. In response to questions after coworkers read the cards, Wyman explained that,
by signing the cards, they were asking the Union to be their labor representative. He also 15
mentioned that the cards would be used to get a Union election.64
20
z. Chrystal Sheffield

62 Stevens conceded that he told coworkers that the cards were only for the purpose of getting more
information about the union. (GC Exh. 67; Tr. 1485–1487, 1498, 1502.) His testimony on this point was
consistent with that of two employees who declined his offer to sign cards, Anthony and Mark
Caltabiano, the latter who also mentioned Kathy Demarest as having made a similar pitch. (Tr. 2159–
2161, 2177, 2713–2714.) It was also consistent with the testimony of a card signer, Company witness
John Whitcomb, who he assured the card would be returned upon request. Whitcomb, however,
appeared calculating, provided inconsistent testimony—he said he read the card before stopping himself
and backtracked to say he did not —and testified incredibly that he did not read the card before signing it
for Pete Malone. (Tr. 1875–1878, 1890.)
63 Sawyer was generally credible regarding her practice in soliciting authorization cards. (GC Exh.
70; Tr. 1001-–1004, 1007–1010.) The security records indicate that her testimony about getting Daniel
Buskey to sign the card in the plant was incorrect. (Tr. 2646; R. Exh. 284–261.) However, there was no
credible testimony challenging her solicitation and authentication of the cards and the card signature was
separately authenticated through signature comparison. (GC Exh. 253.)
64 Wyman testified that he informed coworkers that signing a card meant that the employee supported
union representation. (GC Exh. 69; Tr. 1072–1089, 1098–1105, 1110.) However, his version was partially
undercut by Dennis Parker’s testimony that the cards would also be used to obtain an election. (Tr. 782–
783.) I do not, however, place much stock in the alleged inconsistencies brought out regarding Lazzaro’s
misdated card, signed on December 21, 2013, since the organizing campaign had not begun as of October
2013. (Tr. 125–126, 256–257, 294, 1076, 1110.) Moreover, I do not credit the very brief and selective
testimony of Company witnesses, Kevin Shortslef, who did not sign a card, and Robert Abel that Wyman
told them that the cards were merely for the purpose of getting information or hear what the Union had to
offer them. (Tr. 2850–2851, 2855–2857; GC Exh. 69 at 1.).
JD–05–15
21
Sheffield, a crew leader in the Cold Mill, signed an authorization card and approached
another employee, Antonio Vasquez, about signing a card. She told him to read the card and sign
it if he wanted union representation. Vasquez proceeded to fill out the card and signed it.65
aa. Bob Kunelius5
Kunelius solicited several coworkers to sign authorization cards. He approached John
Tesoriero and said that he heard that Tesoriero was interested in attending a union meeting.
Tesoriero asked if signing a card would gain him entrance into a union meeting. After Kunelius
assured Tesoriero several times that his name would be place on a list for the meetings, Tesoriero 10
proceeded to read, fill out and sign an authorization card. He did not, however, check off the box
indicating that he wanted to be a member of the organizing committee.66
Kunelius also approached Mark Sharkey and several coworkers on December 31 about
signing authorization cards. After some unrelated discussion, they asked him about the purpose 15
of the cards. Kunelius explained that they were for the purpose of getting the Union to meet with
them and needed about 60 to 70 percent of employees to sign them in order to reach that point.
He also added that the cards were “nonbinding.”67
bb. Mark Denny20
Jason Roy was solicited to sign an authorization card by Mark Denny, who approached him
about the benefits of union representation. Denny also told him, however, that the purpose of the
card was to get the Union to come in and provide employees with more information. Roy then
proceeded to fill out and sign an authorization card.6825
cc. Jim Craig
Wayne Webber was approached several times by union supporters, including Jim Craig,
about signing an authorization card. He declined to sign each time.6930
dd. Unidentified card solicitors

65 Sheffield’s detailed rebuttal testimony was more credible than Vasquez’ extremely brief
description of the encounter. Moreover, since Vasquez completed and signed a card, it is obvious that he
read it before completing its various sections. (Tr. 3083–3084, 3097–3098; GC Exh. 71.)
66 I credit that part of Tesoriero’s unrefuted testimony regarding his conversation with Kunelius and
the fact that he did not check the box to be on the organizing committee. However, I also find that he
clearly read the card in order to fill out the various sections. (Tr. 2455, 2457-2458).
67 Sharkey’s testimony was credible and unrefuted. However, I also find that, in completing and
signing the authorization card, he read the information on it. (Tr. 2724-2725, 2729; GC Exh. 71 at 12.)
68 Roy’s testimony was credible and undisputed. However, there is no evidence to suggest that he
failed to read the card while filling it out and before signing. (Tr. 2743–2746; GC Exh. 71.)
69 I do not credit Webber’s overly brief and selective testimony. He recalled only that Craig told him
about the informational purpose of the card, but could not recall any of the coworkers who were present at
the time. (Tr. 2976–2978.)
JD–05–15
22
Several other employees were approached to sign authorization cards by employees
whom they did not know, but still signed the cards. David Van Fleet and several coworkers were
approached by someone who was passing out authorization cards. The individual advocated for
the Union and the merits of labor representation and mentioned that employees could get more
information if they signed the cards.70 Johnathon Kemp was also approached by an unknown 5
employee. They discussed the purpose of the card, and he wrote the requested information on the
card and signed it.71 Gary Gabrielle was solicited to sign a union authorization card by an
unknown individual. He provided the information requested on the front of the card and signed
it.72 David Kuhl was also approached by an unknown individual and asked to sign an authorization
card, but declined.7310
3. Union demand for voluntary recognition
On January 9, Ridgeway submitted a demand for voluntary recognition to the Company
based on the Union having obtained a majority of signed cards from employees. His detailed 15
letter, however, referred to Smith’s awareness of the campaign and reflected an expectation that
the request would be declined. As such, the letter mainly addressed the representation election
process that would ensue as a result. The letter stated, in pertinent part:74
As you are aware, the United Steelworkers have been asked by a majority of your 20
employees to represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. We would [at] this
time respectfully request card-check recognition to prove we represent the majority. The
USW is hopeful that the organizing campaign at Novelis Corporation will be conducted
in a fair, professional and lawful manner. We are also hopeful that the management of
Novelis supports its employees’ legal right to self-organization, to form, to join, or assist 25
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection.
The National Labor Relations Board polices Union representation campaigns to make 30
sure they are free of unlawful threats or promises. The election rules are strict, as they
should be, to assure the employees a fair election. The Union is committed to the goal of
a fair election, one which enables the employees to make an informed decision as to their
legal representational rights. I am confident that you share in our concern that your
employees are guaranteed a fair election.35

70 Van Fleet’s testimony was credible and unrefuted, but it also indicates that he read the card and
filled it out completely before signing it. (Tr. 2328, 2338; GC Exh. 70 at 11.)
71 Kemp’s obviously rehearsed and incomprehensible testimony was not credible: “meaning was to
have a vote, have the plant not to become their vote.” In any event, there is no indication that he failed to
read the information on the card, which is not in the record. (Tr. 2678–2679; GC Exh. 71.)
72 I did not credit Gabrielle’s testimony that the solicitor stated that it was “for informational purposes
only,” since he denied reading a card, but still entered the detailed information requested before signing it.
(Tr. 2964–2968; GC Exh. 71 at 5.)
73 I did not credit Kuhl’s hearsay testimony about what he was told by an unidentified individual. (Tr.
2853–2854.)
74 GC Exh. 7.
JD–05–15
23
Several of your employees have raised concerned as to what their legal rights are relative
to their conduct during this organizing campaign. Of equal concern is what management
can and cannot do during the organizing campaign and what would be considered
unlawful conduct under the National Labor Relations Act. I have instructed the in-plant
organizing committee to disseminate the following information to the employees relative 5
to their later concerns.
The letter went on to list 27 forms of prohibited activities under the Act, asked that the
Company refrain from such activities and concluded with an assurance that organizing staff
would conduct themselves in a professional manner while providing information to the 10
employees.
The Company’s plant manager, Christopher Smith, acknowledged receipt of Ridgeway’s
letter, specifically placing its receipt “on the afternoon of January 9, 2014.”75 He went on to
decline the Union’s demand, stating in pertinent part:15
Novelis does not believe that a majority of our employees desire union representation and
we decline your request for recognition.
While your letter refers to a “fair election,” we note that you request Novelis to recognize 20
the union without giving our employees the opportunity to vote in the properly conducted
election. We do not believe your approach is appropriate for such an important decision.
If the union believes that a majority of our employees desire representation, the union
should file a properly supported petition for a secret ballot election to be conducted by
the National Labor Relations Board. We respect our employees and we respect their 25
rights to choose or decline union representation on a fully informed basis through a
properly conducted election. We would hope that the United Steelworkers will do so as
well.76
As a result of the Company’s refusal to recognize it, the Union immediately filed a 30
petition for a representation election and continued holding organizing meetings until the
election.77 During the organizing campaign leading up to the election, Abare and others on the
organizing committee handed out packets and posted information to coworkers about when
meetings were going to be held. He also hung up flyers and placed them on tables in different
parts of the facility.7835

75 Given the lack of company testimony as to when it actually received Ridgeway’s letter on January
9, I found it suspicious that Smith would pinpoint its receipt in the afternoon, and construe it as a further
attempt by the Company to establish a paper trail justifying its restoration of benefits earlier in the day.
76 Significantly, Smith did not dispute Ridgeway’s assertion that he (Smith) was “aware” of the
organizing campaign prior to receipt of the January 7 letter. (GC Exh. 9.)
77 GC Exh. 8.
78 Abare’s credibility regarding the posting of Union literature in the plant prior to January 9 was
undermined by the Company’s security records indicating that he was not in the facility on January 7. (Tr.
438, 2635–2636; R. Exh. 284–1.) Nevertheless, there was a substantial amount of credible and unrefuted
evidence that the Union flyers were posted on the dates and locations indicated in these findings. (GC
Exh. 29.)
JD–05–15
24
D. The Company’s Response to the Union Campaign
In response to the union organizing campaign, the Company issued several
announcements and held numerous small and large employee group meetings to provide
information and attempt to convince employees to vote against union representation at the 5
upcoming representation election. At these meetings, company managers and supervisors made
PowerPoint presentations and distributed handouts to employees relating to the representation
election and collective-bargaining process. The handouts explained employees’ legal rights
during the election process, the collective-bargaining process and the impact it might have on
their terms and condition in the event the Union was elected to represent them. A common 10
refrain was that bargaining is a “give and take” process which could result in more, the same or
less for employees. The Company also provided employees with comparisons of wages and
benefits from its unionized facilities, including the Fairmont and Terre Haute locations already
represented by the Union. Additionally, the Company launched an internet site containing
information about the representation election.7915
1. The Company restores Sunday premium pay
Prior to making any statements, however, the Company effectively started its opposition
campaign by unleashing a powerful volley in the form of a give-back to employees. Sometime 20
between 7:30 and 9 a.m. on January 9, the same day that the Company received the Union’s
demand for voluntary recognition, Smith and Sheftic made several significant announcements
during crew leader training. The announcements included one that the Company was restoring
Sunday premium pay and the use of holidays and vacation days for overtime. Smith also
distributed a flier at each of those meetings confirming implementation of the changes:25
A few short weeks ago we announced in our Business Update & Wage meetings:
● 5% wage increase
● $2,500 lump sum payouts
● J-12 schedule for CY 201430
Subsequently we confirmed:
● J-12 schedule for CASH
● Extension of former holiday pay and overtime pay practices until 1/6/2014
● Lump sum payouts can be redirected to HAS tax-free
35
We’ve never stopped listening and having dialogue. We value your input about the
impact of changes. Since the changes in May we have continued to listen and engage in

79 There is little dispute as to what the Company gave or told its employees during these
communications. (R. Exh. 37, 40, 70, 77, 243–244; Tr. 1640, 1642, 1746–1755, 1853–1861, 1864–1866,
1985, 2004, 2017–2019, 2035–2036, 2045, 2076, 2101, 2107–2108, 2112, 2137–2139, 2167–2170, 2221,
2276–2281, 2333, 2402–2405, 2440, 2427, 2438–2439, 2473, 2500, 2530, 2559–2561, 2703–2704, 2751,
2787, 2795, 2927, 2982–2983. Moreover, there was a deluge of subjective testimony by employees that
they never heard any statements that they considered to be threats by the Company during the campaign.
(Tr. 1650, 1832–1833, 1864-1865, 2005-2006, 2018-2019, 2037-2038, 2076, 2171-2172, 2280–2281,
2308, 2335-2336, 2428-2428, 2440–2441, 2461–2462, 2473–2474, 2491–2492, 2503–2504, 2531, 2562–
2563, 2577–2578, 2694–2695, 2704, 2727–2728, 2788.)
JD–05–15
25
dialogue, share information and answer your questions. During our December Business
Update & Wage meetings we committed to respond to your questions in mid-January.
We have represented your concerns and interests with our corporate partners in Atlanta
and as a result I am pleased to announce that we have agreed . . . 5
● No planned major impacts to employee compensation and benefits
● There will be a cadence and method of communication that provides
sufficient time for everyone to be personally informed, digest any impact
and plan accordingly10
● Vacation and Holiday WILL be considered “hours worked” and WILL be
included in the calculation of overtime (“bridge to overtime”)
● 1 ½ premium pay for Sunday will be restored80
Together, we have a lot to deliver in 2014 if we are to be successful – we need to 15
continue to stay safe, commission both CASH lines and build relationships with the new
customer base. I need you to continue to do your part, as you have in the past, to help to
ensure that we maintain our competitive advantage.
Thank you for your patience through this entire process.8120
The Company’s restoration of wages and benefits was also reflected in a manual distributed
to employees on January 23 entitled “My Employment At-a-Glance 2014.”82 The announcement
clearly had an impact on employees, with some requesting that their Union authorization cards
be returned to them.8325
2. The Company’s opening satement about the union campaign
On January 16, Smith formally presented the Company’s opposition to the union campaign
after informing employees about the presence of the Board-mandated postings about employees’ 30
legal rights and notice of election:
Please let me remind you that the Company’s, and my, position is and always has been that
we remain better off without a union or other third party here in Oswego. The law protects
your choice whether you decide to have a union represent you or not, the Company cannot 35

80 The Company’s assertion that Sunday premium pay was never actually taken away because
paychecks continued to reflect them into January is undermined by the very language in Smith’s letter—
that premium Sunday pay would be “restored.” (GC Exh. 16; Tr. 517, 718.)
81 There is no dispute as to the timing of the announcement and receipt of the Union’s demand for
recognition. However, there was a palpable absence of testimony by a Company manger about the
process and rationale that led the Company to reverse rits decision between December 20 and January 9.
(GC Exh. 7, 9; Tr. 129–130, 257-261, 714–719, 729–730, 894–897.) As such, I draw the plausible
inference that the decision to restore Sunday premium pay was not in response to employee concerns but,
rather, in response to concerns about a Union organizing campaign.
82 GC Exh. 17.
83 No evidence as to the total number of authorization cards requested and returned, but Robert Weiss
was an example of one of several employees who requested and got their cards back. (Tr. 808.)
JD–05–15
26
interfere with that right and there will be no repercussions. It is important that you also know
that you have the right not to have a union.84
Smith also encouraged employees to consider both sides and get involved by stating, “This is
your decision so, get the facts. Make sure you are getting both sides of the story by continuing to 5
ask questions. Most importantly, be involved.”
3. Interrogation, threats and enforcement of no-solicitation Rule
During the organizing campaign, the Company continued a past custom and practice of 10
permitting employees to post a variety of personal items on bulletin boards. Employees were also
permitted to wear stickers such as Company-issued safety stickers and nonwork related sports
and other types of stickers on their uniforms. The wearing of prounion and antiunion
paraphernalia, however, was addressed in a haphazard manner. At certain points during the
campaign, employees’ sentiments about the Union were reflected on stickers placed on hardhats, 15
uniforms, and equipment and machinery. The stickers contained slogans urging employees to
vote for or against the Union and were worn in the presence of supervisors. One sticker, which
was actively promoted by the Company, stated “one more year, one more chance.”85
At certain times after the Union requested recognition on January 9, Union supporters 20
began posting and distributing pro-union materials.86 As explained below, however, there were
instances in which supervisors removed or instructed employees to remove campaign-related
materials from work areas, break areas or bulletin boards.87
a. January 1225
On January 12, 2014, in the pulpit, Cold MillOperations Leader Jason Bro entered the
pulpit area in a control room that also serves as an employee break area. In utilizing the room, the
employees bring in items such as newspapers and magazines, and they post flyers for fund
raising benefits for little league baseball that involves chicken and spaghetti dinners. Two crew 30
members, Leo Rookey III and Chad Phelps, were present. Bro, looked at two pieces of literature,
one a comparison of benefits and the other union literature that listed things that were taken away

84 R. Exh. 49.
85 There were numerous references to the distribution of pro-union literature in employee break areas
during the organizing campaign. (Tr. 596—598, 1923, 1955—1958, 2118—2120, 2139, 2190, 2304, 2312,
2314—2319, 2474, 2490, 2504, 2531—2532, 2560—2561; R. Exh. 107, 111, 113—115, 123.)
86 Abare testified that he distributed and posted the pamphlet in the facility on January 7. (Tr. 437-
440; GC Exh. 29.) However, his credibility on this point was undermined by company security records
indicating that he was not in the facility between January 2 and 10. (R. Exh. 284.) Moreover, there is no
evidence that the Company knew prior to January 9 that he solicited cards at the facility. (Tr. 586.)
87 I credited the testimony of several Company witnesses that they were told on certain occasions to
remove antiunion stickers from their uniforms and hardhats. (GC Exh. 131; Tr. 2019–2020, 2025–2026,
2275). It is also undisputed that certain supervisors also prohibited employees from wearing or
distributing ant-union materials, or using Company resources for that purpose. (Tr. 2073–2075.) However,
given the lack of testimony by high level supervisors, coupled with evidence that Smith promoted use of
“one more year, one more chance” stickers, it is evident that the Company did not always enforce the
policy in an evenhanded manner. (Tr. 1012, 1019–1022, 1259, 1261; GC Exhs. 5 and 6, p. 22, LL. 12–14).
JD–05–15
27
from employees and included the words, “United we stand, divided we beg.” Bro explained that
the comparison literature was allowed to stay, but not the one for the Union. Bro asked Rookey
who placed the literature there. He then mentioned the names of two employees, but Rookey did
not know who they were. Bro then asked, “Did Everett [sic] bring this down?” Rookey replied
that the literature was there when he got to the pulpit and that he did not know who placed it 5
there. Bro then took the Union literature and left the pulpit.88
b. January 21
Bro’s efforts to sanitize his areas of prounion literature continued. 10
Sometime in mid-January, he removed a union meeting notice posted on the
public bulletin. On January 21, Bro removed a prounion flyer from the Cold Mill
bulletin board.89
On the same day, Remelt department operations leader Duane Gordon entered the cabana 15
office, which is used as an office and break room. The room usually contains newspapers,
magazines, and other personal items placed there by employees. Gordon told Mathew Blunt and
other employees that they could not have prounion fliers in there and removed prounion
literature from the window and countertop, and replaced it with a company antiunion publication
entitled, “Know the Facts.”9020
c. January 23
Around midday on January 23, Bro asked Melanie Burton to gather operators for a
meeting in the Cold Mill furnace office. The furnace operator and a crew leader work in the 25
furnace office, which contains a computer that is utilized by crew members to print their work
schedules. The space also includes an employee work and lunchbreak area containing a chair,
refrigerator, microwave, coffee machine, as well as newspapers, magazines, and personal flyers
placed there by crew members with the acquiescence of supervisors.91
30
The operators present included Burton, Justin Waters, Arthur Ball, Caleb Smith, Nate
Gingerich, and Randy Durvol. Bro initially removed a union fact sheet, explaining that no pro or
antiunion literature would be permitted on bulletin boards or clipboards, and handed out a
company pamphlet entitled, “My Employment At-a-Glance 2014.”92 Using a blackboard, he

88 Dean White testified credibly about a conversation in which Bro told him that the display of pro-
union literature was permitted in break areas. However, in a clear demonstration that actions really do
speak louder than words, I also credit the unrefuted testimony of Arthur Ball and Rookey regarding the
January 12 incident. (Tr. 1023, 1417–1424.)
89 Raymond Watts credibly testified as to the date he observed Bro remove the literature. (Tr. 1270–-
1271, 1323–1324, 1352–1359.) Leo Rookey was also credible on this point but could only recall that Bro
removed the meeting notice in mid-January. (Tr. 1480–1481.)
90 The Company did not dispute Blunt’s version, but got him to concede that the Company did not
remove any prounion literature from the cabana after January 21. (Tr. 1051–1059, 1117.)
91 The Company attempted, unsuccessfully, to undercut credible testimony by Caleb Smith, Burton,
and Ball as to the work or lunchbreak functions in the furnace office by establishing that the Cold Mill
also has a cafeteria and designated break space elsewhere. (Tr. 666, 677, 720, 726–728, 749, 1022–1024.)
92 This finding is based on Caleb Smith’s credible and unrefuted testimony. (Tr. 675; GC Exh. 17.) I
JD–05–15
28
proceeded to explain how employees were not losing money as a result of the Company’s
announced wage and benefits changes. When an employee disagreed with Bro’s analysis by
referring to his paystub, Bro responded that anyone who did not like working for the Company
could find a new job.93
5
At the January 23 meeting, Bro also directed employees wearing prounion stickers to
remove or cover them up beneath their uniforms. They reluctantly complied, but Burton noted
that employees at the 72-inch mill were wearing antiunion stickers or placed them on their
scooters. Bro replied that he was not aware of that but would look into it.94 In fact, the Company
has long permitted employees to wear nonwork related stickers.95 Bro then approached each 10
employee, except for Burton, and bombarded each one with an antiunion rant framed as a
question and answer: “You know what you need to do to keep the Union out of here. You need
to vote no.” Some employees remained silent while others repeated his statement. Durvol,
however, said he would vote in favor of the Union.96
15
At some point before the meeting concluded, Dan Taylor, a shipping supervisor, entered
and removed Union materials from the employees’ clipboards and others that had been placed on
the desk by Burton prior to the meeting.97
Bro and Taylor were not alone in ridding the plant of prounion literature on January 23. 20
On the same day, Christopher Spencer hung a Union meeting notice on the Remelt cafeteria
bulletin board. Shortly thereafter, Joseph Griffin was reading the flyer, when supervisor Thomas
Granbois removed it from the bulletin board.98

did not credit the uncorroborated hearsay testimony of Company witness, Robert Esweting that supervisor
Ernie Tresidder, who did not testify, informed him that ant-union flyers could only be placed in break
rooms on non-work time. (Tr. 2526–2527.)
93 The Company contends that this exchange simply revealed an open and interactive atmosphere.
(Tr. 668-669, 678–679, 1015–1016, 1040.)
94 The Company does not dispute this directive by Bro. (Tr. 670–671, 684–685, 750, 757, 1018,
1044.) Moreover, there is no evidence that Bro followed up on his representation that look into employees
wearing anti-Union stickers. To the contrary, Ball observed him in the 72-inch mill area while anti-Union
stickers were being worn there prior to the election. (Tr. 1022.)
95 Alan Cowan credibly testified that some employees wore anti-union stickers in the Cash 1 section
prior to the election and in the presence of at least one manager, Warren Smith. (Tr. 655–657.)
96 The findings as to what Bro told employees and their responses on January 21 are based on the
credible, mostly consistent and unrefuted testimony of Burton, Rookey, Ball, Smith and Robert Sawyer.
(Tr. 664-671, 674-680, 683–686, 694, 703–705, 720–728, 749–753, 1013–1018, 1020–1022, 1027–1028,
1030, 1040–1042.) Smith’s failure to mention Bro’s suggestion that he find work elsewhere in his Board
affidavit was considered, but outweighed by the testimony of the other witnesses. (Tr. 690–692.)
97 Evaluating Burton’s testimony in conjunction with Ball’s version, it appeared that she placed
Union materials in the furnace room prior to the Bro meeting, left before it concluded and returned to find
Taylor outside the furnace office holding her materials. (Tr. 726–728, 1017.) In any event, the Company
did not produce Taylor to dispute the fairly credible testimony provided by Burton and Ball on this point.
98 Griffin’s cross-examination and redirect examination clarified that he referred to supervisors
Granbois and Fred Smith on direct examination as the “maintenance boys” who were present when
Granbois removed the flyer. (Tr. 1401.) As confusing as his reference to the “maintenance boys” may
have been, his testimony was spontaneous and the context is clear. Moreover, the fact that Griffin’s
written statement of the incident was given to him by Spencer and based on information reported to
JD–05–15
29
d. January 28
On January 28, Craig Formoza, a CASH line operations leader, approached Allen Cowan,
an operator on the J-12 schedule.99 At the time, Cowan had been employed by the Company for 5
just over a year. Formoza said he wanted to discuss the Union, but Cowan said he did not feel
comfortable speaking about that subject. Cowan diverted the discussion to the weather, but
Formoza did not forget the point that he came to make. As the conversation was concluding,
Formoza returned to the issue of the Union election and warned of the impact that a Union
victory might have on J-12 shift employees: “Say the Union comes in . . . I could always go to 10
another schedule. And if things aren’t very busy we could lay off one of the shifts . . . Of course
it would be in order of seniority. . . Where are you in the order of seniority?”100
e. January 30
15
On January 30, Bro did a replay of his January 23 meeting with a different Cold Mill
crew. He initially met with Sawyer, Rookey and Phelps in the Stamco 2 pulpit area, which also
contains a break area. Jim Wheeler came in a few minutes later. Bro asked the group how they
would vote if they did not want a union and then proceeded to ask each one individually. Phelps
did not answer, but Rookey said, if we didn’t get a union in here we were going to take it in the 20
ass.” Bro did not respond and Rookey added, “if I want a Union in here how do I vote” . . . you
heard him boys, vote yes.” Bro responded, “vote yes, of course.” One employee answered, “if I
don’t want a union I’ll vote no and if I do want a union I’ll vote yes.”101
4. The Union files charges 25
On January 27, Brad Manzolillo, Esq., the Union’s counsel, filed charges in Case 3–CA–
121293 alleging the commission of at least 12 specific unfair labor practices occurring between
January 12 and 23. The charges included allegedly maintaining and enforcing overly broad
solicitation and distribution policies, engaging in and creating the impression of surveillance, and 30
engaging in interrogation, intimidating, coercing, polling and harassing employees during
captive audience meetings. The document concluded with the standard conclusion: “By the
above and other acts, the above-named employer has interfered with, restrained, and coerced
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.”102

Spencer by Griffin’s coworkers, did not detract from his credibility. Griffin told coworkers what he
observed and they passed it along to Spencer. Spencer documented the incident, met with Griffin, who
adopted the written statement as an accurate description of the incident. (Tr. 1405–1407, 1411–1416.)
99 Formoza was promoted to CASH department manufacturing manager three months later. (Tr.
2342–2344.)
100 I found Cowan spontaneous and credible on both direct and cross-examination. (Tr. 649-655.)
Formoza, on the other hand, provided inconsistent testimony and had a selective memory. He denied
asking Cowan how he felt about the Union or “understand what [an S-21 schedule] means.” (Tr. 2377–
2378.) On cross-examination, however, Formoza conceded speaking with Cowan about the Union on
“numerous” occasions. (Tr. 2412–2414.) Moreover, he attended meetings in which employees were
informed about S-21 schedules at the Terre Haute facility. (Tr. 2406–2410; R. Exh. 243.)
101 Rookey’s credible testimony was corroborated by Sawyer. (Tr. 702–706, 1422–1426.).
102 GC Exh. 1(c).
JD–05–15
30
On February 10, Board agent Patricia Petock sent a letter to Kenneth Dobkin, Esq., the
Company’s counsel, relating to Case 03–CA–121293, stating in pertinent part:103
I am writing this letter to advise you that it is now necessary for me to take evidence from 5
your client regarding the allegations raised in the investigation of the above-captioned
matter. As explained below, I am requesting to take affidavits on or before February 26,
2014, with regard to certain allegations in this case.
The letter went on to list 8 occasions in January when Company managers or supervisors 10
allegedly removed or prohibited the distribution or wearing of Union literature or buttons,
threatened reprisals if the Union prevailed, interrogated employees as to how they would vote at
the representation election, and the following allegation relating to the restoration of benefits:
Plant Manager Chris Smith and Human Resource Manager Peter Sheftic announced to 15
employees that it was restoring 1 ½ premium pay for Sunday and vacation and holiday
time would be considered “hours worked” in the calculation of overtime in response to
learning that there was an ongoing union organizing campaign.104
In a significant strategic maneuver after receiving the letter, company officials distributed 20
to employees a redacted version that omitted most of the text, except for the aforementioned
section referring to the restoration of Sunday premium pay. The impact of the Company’s action,
conveying the notion that the Union complained to the Board about the Company’s restoration of
Sunday premium pay, became evident almost immediately.105
25
At the Union’s last general meeting before the election on February 16, an employee told
Ridgeway that the Company showed employees a Board document relating to a grievance or
charge about the restoration of Sunday premium pay and bridge to overtime. Others followed
with questions as to why they did not know about such a charge being filed. Ridgeway denied
that the Union ever filed such a charge relating to the restoration of Sunday premium pay. 30
Spencer subsequently provided Ridgeway with a copy of the redacted Petock letter a few days
later.106
5. Quinn’s promises
35

103 The parties disagree over the significance of the term “allegations.” The General Counsel and
Charging Party contend that it cannot be equated with a charge; the Company asserts that the reference in
the charge’s conclusion to “and other acts” should be deemed to cover the restoration of premium Sunday
pay charge.
104 Subsequent to the admission of the letter into evidence, I sustained objections to the Company’s
questions about conversations with Petock, ruling that court statements of a NLRB Board agent are
inadmissible. (GC Exh. 40; Tr. 912, 929-33,1178-81; ALJ Exh. 3.)
105 While no one testified as to how they got a copy of the redacted letter prior to the February 18
Union meeting, it is obvious that they got it from Company supervisors or managers. (Tr. 145, 157-158,
160-162.)
106 The testimony by Ridgeway and Spencer that no such charge was filed is corroborated by the
charge itself. (Tr. 136-141, 144-147, 157-162, 165-167, 172, 178-179, 947-951; R. Exh. 65-66.)
JD–05–15
31
Around the same time as Company supervisors sought to chill protected activity by
threatening, interrogating and prohibiting the dissemination of prounion materials, Human
Resources Leader Andrew Quinn took a warmer approach.107 On February 15, Quinn ventured
into the Remelt control room and encountered Dennis Parker, Timothy Boyzuck and Gordon
Barkley. He initiated discussion by asking about employee morale and how the work was going. 5
Boyszuck explained that he was not pleased with the acrimony between management and
employees, the lack of communication, and the changes in benefits and overtime calculations.
After some discussion as to whether those areas of concern could be fixed, Quinn responded that
“he personally felt that things could be fixed” if the Company was “given another chance.”
Quinn then qualified his statement somewhat, saying that “it would never be as good as it was, 10
but it would be better than it is now” and added that “they couldn’t start making things better
until a ‘No’ vote was in.”108
6. Captive Audience Meetings Conducted By Company Managers
15
(a) The First Meeting
Just before the election, the Company held three mandatory employee meetings (captive
audience meetings) attended by all employees.109 The first meeting was held on February 17 at
5:30 p.m.110 At each meeting, Martens, senior vice president Marco Palmieri and Smith20
addressed employees. There were also numerous supervisors present. Each meeting lasted
between 45 minutes and an hour.111
As detailed below, Martens made statements during the three meetings stressing that it
was his personal decision and commitment to Oswego that led to the closing of the Saguenay 25
plant when Oswego lost the Ball Corporation account rather than laying-off employees at
Oswego and that if the Union was voted in, it would become a business decision and things
would change. At the first meeting, Martens and Palmieri implored employees to vote “No”

107 Quinn, as a leader in the Human Resources Department under that unit’s manager, Sheftic, was the
highest level management official to testify for the Company. (Tr. 2868-2872; 2925.)
108 Quinn maintained that it was not unusual for him to speak with employees on the shop floor. (Tr.
2925-2927.) However, he failed to refute the credible testimony of Parker and Boyzuck that it was
unusual for Quinn to engage them in their work area. The obvious purpose of his visit was to appease
these employees prior to the election. While I credit his rendition of the standard disclaimer that things
could improve, remain the same or get worse, it was evident from the credible testimony of Parker and
Boyzuck that he eventually expanded on those remarks to forecast a better future for employees if the
Union lost. Accordingly, I credit their testimony over the denial by Quinn, who was present when they
testified, that things may not be as good as they were, but would get better if the Union was voted down.
(Tr. 766-768, 780-782, 1504-1510, 2925.)
109 The parties agreed to receipt of the recordings and transcripts of the meetings. The transcripts were
mostly accurate, but were incorrect in several instances. Any corrections are reflected in the findings. (GC
Exh. 5-6, 19-20, 42-43.)
110 The General Counsel’s letter, dated November 11, 2014, identifying, without objection, the speakers
in GC Exh. 43, is received in evidence as GC Exh. 43(a).
111 The tone at these meetings was rather ominous, not positive, as the Company contends.
Explanations about the performance and financial success of the plant were peppered repeatedly with
cautionary remarks as to the duration of its standing with its automotive customers.
JD–05–15
32
and justified their advice with likely changes to employee wages, work schedules and overtime
if the Union prevailed:
You know, the decision you’re going to make is a very important one. And for me, for
many reasons, it’s a very personal one.5
A lot of you don’t understand what kind of decisions have been made to support the
Owego Plant over the past four years. And I want to take you through how we’ve
made commitments and how I’ve made decisions to secure your future, your family’s
future, the employment levels as this plant, and to keep it in its unique way an
integrated part of our company.10
You know, in 2010 I made a decision to locate the CASH lines here that we’re
standing in. And I made that decision after we evaluated many different options of
where we could put the facility. That investment was made to a large degree on the
backbone of the people here in the plant.
We felt we had a workforce that could adapt, and learn, and adjust to the demands of a 15
higher profitability line, a higher speed engagement with the customer, and ultimately
the growth aspects of the North American market place. That was a very, very
important decision, and it was one that now has led towards the leadership position
that we have in the automotive space going forward.
But on that, we also made a decision to all of you, and I personally made the 20
commitment to myself to sustain the employment levels here at Oswego and make
them grow.
About a year later, we had to make probably for me in my career one of the most
difficult decisions and that involved the loss of jobs for over 140 people. In this plant,
we lost the Ball business. That Ball business was about 100 kilotons a year. It was 25
reallocated to another automotive -- I mean rolling supplier.
If we had just taken that business out, we were looking at a layoff here in the plant of
about two to three hundred people. I made the decision not to lay people off here. I had
made a commitment to this plant, I had made a commitment to you, and I decided to
close Saguenay. When I closed Saguenay, 140 people lost their jobs. What we did30
though is we allocated that product into this plant. We kept the employment levels here
- - We kept the employment levels here at a sustained level. We added product into this
plant, and we closed the Saguenay facility.
What I saw out of all of you in that transition was a tremendous compassion for what we
were doing; an incredible effort to make that work seamlessly, and ultimately, I saw 35
great collaboration. But that was a very difficult decision for me to make, and I made
that based on the commitment I had made to you that you didn’t know about; that we
were going to maintain and grow the employment levels here at this plant.
After that, we made another large investment decision, now to expand even further in
the automotive space; we’re going to add a third heat treatment line here. We’re 40
spending $50 million on the infrastructure. We are growing the employment here by
well over 100 new jobs. And for all of you, when you think about your future, and you
think about what we’ve done together, we have secured your future, your family’s
future, and we’ve done that in a collaborate sense.112

112 GC Exh. 5 at 00:19-3:59; GC Exh. 6 at 2:6-4:19.
JD–05–15
33
. . . [O]ur North America leadership team remains confident in the plant management in
Oswego. For that given reason I would not invite the Union to speak on your behalf. I
would vote “NO.”113
Think about it. This year you get a 5 percent merit, a $2500 payout; the folks at the other
plants get less than 2 percent, and they have to pay the union fees. That’s a fact. . . 5
You have more flexibility in your scheduling. And Marco just commented that we’re not
going to make any changes there. We would certainly endorse the changes that could
come with a union, but we don’t want that for you.
There’s a lot of other constraints and restrictions that go along with that, but make no
mistake, if you vote "YES'' it becomes a business decision. The base line for the start is 10
not where you're at today. The base line for the start is at where the Warren or the
excuse me, the Fairmont or the Terre Haute agreements are, and they are much different,
and must less supportive of the lifestyles that you want.
I don't want you to vote ''YES." I don't think that's the right decision for all of you. I have
a personal interest in this company. I have a personal interest in the livelihoods of the 15
people here. And I know for a fact that the manners in which we work together to get
where we're at from a wage, from a shift flexibility, from a benefit package are what you
need. . . It’s not the best business decision for the company, for you, and for your
families. And I think you need to really look at that and step back and say the lifestyle,
the flexibility, the security of everything that we’ve brought here, the commitment I’ve 20
made to this plant; all of that put together is unique. There’s no other labor agreement in
the United States that’s as engaging as this one is. I can guarantee you that. . .114
The commitment I've made to you guys is unparalleled. I've maintained your jobs.
We've maintained wages above market. We've maintained shift patterns. We're
maintaining your pension. We're here to secure your future forever. Nobody else can do 25
that. I encourage you to vote "NO."115
One listening to Smith’s remarks at the three meetings would never have imagined that he
was the plant manager. He frequently alluded to his international business experience and past
dealings with Unions, and injected similar platitudes of personal commitment to the employees 30
instead of specific examples of how a labor relationship with the Union would result in changes
to wages and benefits:
“Let the chips fall where they may,” really? Do you really want to leave it to someone
else to define your future? To define your work relationships with each other? Look at 35
the people sat next to you. If a union comes in here we’re going to lose people. We’re
going to lose those people in the same row, the same shifts that you work with, the same
crews; they’re going to go elsewhere because their career is going to be stunted. They
won’t like the atmosphere and the rigor in which we have to abide by with the rule books,
the things we’ve taken for granted”.11640

113 GC Exh. 5 at 7:42-7:58; GC Exh. 6 at 6:22-7:1.
114 GC Exh. 5 at 8:52-10:54; GC Exh. 6 at 7:15-9:22.
115 GC Exh. 5 at 11:41-12:00; GC Exh. 6 at 9:17-22.
116 GC Exh. 5 at 34:44-35:20; GC Exh. 6 at 21:1-11.
JD–05–15
34
After echoing Martens’ remarks about the Company’s expansion plans, Smith also spoke
about the loss of business, specifically the contract with Ford, and consequently less job security,
if employees selected the Union. He linked the Company’s ability to remain competitive and to
meet the obligations of the contract with remaining nonunion, and referred to the organizing
campaign as a distraction from meeting its contractual obligations. He stated, in pertinent part:5
We stub our toe, we fail on delivery, we don’t sustain supply or the quality that we need,
then we’re back amongst the also rans. It’s ours to lose, guys. We got to make sure we
don’t fall into that category.
The other thing that I didn’t envision was having a potential third party to work with. A 10
third party that knows very little, if anything, about our business. A third party that
knows nothing about the supply of materials to the automotive industry. A third party
that doesn’t understand our strategy on a worldwide basis, and the role that Oswego’s
going to be playing in that to be successful for the company if we do it right for decades
to come. That’s a concern.15
Let’s be honest, the last point, that’s exactly where we sit today. We have a distracted
and divided workforce. That’s not something that we can afford to live with long-term
if we’re going to be successful as far as the automotive initiative is planned going
forward.117
And we’ve got to get past the vote. Simple as that. And I’m hoping that by the time you 20
leave here today, you’ll have enough information to be able to make an informed decision
based on fact. Not promises, fact.
The next 12 months are critical. We’ve got new facilities, we’ve got a
new product portfolio, we’ve got an extremely demanding customer as we all will
become to appreciate in that same period of time. That same customer will have options 25
as we go forward. The last thing we want to do is give them any reason to look
elsewhere outside of Novelis, or specifically Oswego, New York for any future
aluminum intensive programs that they bring to the table.
Bringing in a union is a distraction that will take us away from achieving our business
goals. You can’t tell me that the last three or four months everybody in this room has 30
been concentrating on their job 100 percent of the time. It comes with the territory when
you introduce the “union” word in the conversation. We cannot afford to have any
distractions as we go forward in the next 12 months and beyond. And I honestly believe
that without a union is the only way we’re going to realize that success.118
35
Martens concluded his remarks by holding up a letter and referred to it as a copy of
charges filed by the Union regarding the restoration of premium pay:
I want to talk for a minute about the USW. I’ve dealt with unions around the world, and I
think what you have to understand is, sometimes you have to understand that customer 40
that you want to dance with a little bit better. Apparently, last night in their discussions
with you they said that they filed no grievances. And today as I was coming up I said,
That’s strange because right here is a letter from the NRLB of filed grievances. That’s
who you’re dealing with. That’s not who I am. That’s not what this company, Novelis, is

117 GC Exh. 5 at 19:15-20:22; GC Exh. 6 at 14:21-15:13.
118 GC Exh. 5 at 32:21-33:52; GC Exh. 6 at 19:18–20:15.
JD–05–15
35
about. And it’s not the kind of commitment that I would say I’m going to do and then do
something different.119
After Martens’ asserted that the Union filed a “grievance” over the Company’s restoration
of premium pay, Smith raised the Union’s alleged legal response to the level of a “charge”:5
I want to refer to the last six months in support of the Union. “At least I have a voice,”
really? The unfair labor practice charge that Phil mentioned, how many of you actually
knew that that was actually being filed? Not many I would guess.
Did you also know that that charge was filed against the fact that we brought those 10
concessions to the table four weeks ago? So in other words, if we plead quality, those
concessions come off the table. Do you want to take a vote now? That’s fact. 120
So please, think about it. Make a decision. Make an informed decision. Vote. And vote
“NO.”121
15
(b) The Second Meeting
The second meeting was held with the morning shift on February 18 at 5:30 a.m. At the
second shift meeting, Martens stated, in pertinent part:122
20
I want to first tell you why I decided to come down here, because to a certain degree, as
we talked about this last week, I made a decision to come down and actually talk to you
about my personal commitment and the decisions that I’ve made to get this company and
this plant in the position it’s in, and there’s a lot of things that have gone on over the past
few years that you aren’t privy to that has absolutely secured employment levels here at 25
Oswego at a level that no other plant . . . has and a level of commitment that myself and
the top management team that really no other plant . . .
Let me take you back a few years. In 2010, we made a very strategic decision for this
plant, and it wasn’t one that was naturally decided on. It took a number of different
iterations, but I made the decision to convert this plant into the automotive center for 30
North America, and I did that because the can market was declining. I did that because of
a lot of other factors, but the primary factor that we focused on was the capability if the .
. . and we felt that it was second to none and it trumped all of the other issues that we had
to look at… but when we made that decision, I made the personal commitment to all of
you to maintain the employment levels here in . . . and we did that as we looked at the 35
community, we thought the resources here were great, we thought the people were
tremendously committed to the company, and we felt we had a unique competitive
advantage.
I want to tell you how deep that commitment has been for me personally. About a year
later, we lost a hundred AT of business that was resourced from Novelis to another 40

119 GC Exh. 5 at 10:56-11:40; GC Exh. 6 at 9:4-16; R. Exh. 66.
120 GC Exh. 5 at 33:56-34:39; GC Exh. 6 at 20:21-25.
121 GC Exh. 5 at 36:39-36:50; GC Exh. 6 at 22:4-5.
122 The parties stipulated to the admission of an audio recording and transcript of the meeting. (GC
Exh. 42-43; Tr. 913-915.) Also, by letter, dated November 7, 2014, designated and received as ALJ Exh.
43(a), the General Counsel provided the supplemental information regarding the page and line references
for the speakers reflected in GC Exh. 43.
JD–05–15
36
company and the Ball Corporation took that from us. That material is produced here.
When that material is resourced, we were faced - - I was faced with a decision to either
lay off two to 300 hundred people here in this plant, the . . . couldn’t support all of you or
to make another decision and support all of you and I made that decision.
I made the decision to close Saguenay and relocate all of that product material here to 5
support you….
The result of that was 140 jobs were lost in Saguenay we closed the plant, people had no
decision on that, and I did that because we had made and I had made a commitment to all
of you that we were going to grow this plant and we were going to keep the employment
levels steady, and, in fact as Chris will say a little bit later, we added 200 new jobs….12310
So when we talk about this decision that you’re going to make, I just want you to know
that over the last couple of years, although you may not have realized it, the level of
decision-making in my office to support this plant has been second to none, and the
decisions I have made that benefit of you to continue that have lost - - some of the people
have lost jobs because of that. So this is personal for me. I have made a tremendous 15
effort to support you and we will continue to do that to go forward. . .124
If I were you I would vote no hands down. I wouldn’t even think about it, and to
Marco’s point, you have to go vote. I don’t want to this to become a business decision. I
won’t want to go down that path. I know how to do that. What I want you to do is
preserve what you have. From a personal point of view, it’s extremely important for me 20
that you know how big decisions I’ve made to support all of you, and when the wage
issue came up, I said just give it to them, we need these people.125
At the second meeting, Martens also addressed changes to work schedules and wages that
would result from a Union victory:25
The compensation is at levels that no other plant in North America has. The level of
investment that I talked about is at no other plant . . . That was a business decision, that
was purely what this was about. If this was purely just about something where we were
trying to save money, we’d unionize. It’s cheaper. It’s more constructive in terms of what 30
we have to do. There’s a lot of things that go away and there’s a lot of things that come
into play. You get forced overtime. You get lower money, lower annual compensation.126
Just look at the start point that we would do. We’d pull out the … Fairmount and the
Terre Haute packages. You’re getting less than two percent . . . They don’t have the same 35
benefits structure as you do. They don’t have the same flexibility in the work schedules
that you do, but that’s when we would start.
It’s a lower overall cost for the company, and if I was looking at this purely from the
aspect of how can I save money and how can I run this business more lean, I’d say yeah,40
do that.127

123 GC Exh. 42 at 15:45-18:35; GC Exh. 43 at 3:4–5:18.
124 GC Exh. 42 at 19:35-20:04; GC Exh. 43 at 6:15-7:1.
125 GC Exh. 42 at 29:45-30:13; GC Exh. 43 at 14:4-14.
126 GC Exh. 42 at 26:33-27:24; GC Exh. 43 at 11:9-12:3.
127 GC Exh. 42 at 27:01-27:56, GC Exh. 43 at 11:20-12:16.
JD–05–15
37
At the second meeting, Smith supplemented Marten’s remarks regarding the changes that
would come to employees’ work schedules and wages:
A union’s not going to bring us that success, guys. Look who’s sitting here around you
at the moment. If the union was brought in here, I bet my 401(k) you won’t be looking at 5
the same faces a year from now. People are going to leave. People are going to get
frustrated. People are going to feel as though they’re restricted by a rule book. People are
going to get fed up at being treated in a group with no individual, one-on-one
relationships with the management, with the process, with the strategy to be represented
by someone who knows very little about our business. 10
Do we really want to put all that on the table and risk losing it? Just think about it.128
Smith also repeated his remarks about the potential loss of business if the Union
prevailed:
15
It’s about growth, $400 million, 200 new jobs. Now we’ve got to deliver. The contracts
are in place. It’s ours to lose. Just think about that. When else in your careers have you
ever had this given to you on a plate by way of being able to secure your job and know
what we can do in terms of contribution as far as the Novelis portfolio and contributing to
the bottom line. Think about that opportunity.12920
It’s not a God-given right that all our investments are going to keep coming here if we
don’t deliver. Simple as that. I didn’t anticipate the possibility of dealing through a third-
party. There’s no way we can be successful being represented by someone who has
limited to no knowledge of our business, has no understanding of the commitments that
we have from a contractual point of view with our customers. There’s no understanding 25
of strategically where Novelis is going as far as automotive is concerned worldwide.
How is that going to be anything other than a distraction from what we do on a day-to-
day basis?130
Once again, Martens concluded his presentation by holding up the February 10th Board 30
letter and referred to it as a copy of a letter containing Union charges:131
We work with unions all over the world. I’ve worked with them for over thirty years. I
can tell you what you have today in Oswego is completely unique and you should
preserve it, and I want to talk to you a little bit about who you’re dealing with because 35
there’s been a lot of noise back and forth and there always is in the (incomprehensible)
but the only thing that struck me is I guess some feedback was given to me that at the
USW meeting you had two or three days ago . . . they said that they filed no grievances
against Novelis.
If you go on the website, you can look this up, that the NLRB, those are grievances that 40
they have filed, the allegations that they have raised. Why would one company say that
and do something else? You go look for yourself. For me, that’s what your’re dealing

128 GC Exh. 42 at 59:30-1:00:19, GC Exh. 43 at 34:21-35:10.
129 GC Exh. 42 at 31:41-32:14; GC Exh. 43 at 15:22-16:5.
130 GC Exh.42 at 37:07-37:47; GC Exh. 43 at 20:7-20.
131 Spencer’s testimony as to what he observed at this meeting was corroborated by a videotape of the
event. (Tr. 901, 903-904; R. Exh. 66.)
JD–05–15
38
with. The truth of this at the end of the day is you have something here that we’ve
invested in that I’ve personally committed to make happen for all of you that will pave
the way for you and your families and this community in a way that has never been done
before and that’s what we want.132
5
In addition to Martens’ comments about the charges, Smith spoke about the adverse
repercussions that would befall employees as a result of the alleged charges:
Bringing in a union is a distraction that will take us away from achieving our business
goals . . . but I believe every word of that. Some of the things I’ve heard over the last six 10
months, at least I have a voice should I go for a union. The charges that Phil mentioned
earlier, give you a little bit of detail behind that. First of all, overnight there was a lot of
rumors spread about the fact that we actually filed those charges on ourselves so
that we could . . . That didn’t happen, guys. I promise you. What the charges actually
say in the unfair working practice was all around the concessions we put on the table in 15
January for the time and half and Sunday and the bridge to overtime. So here’s one
scenario. If we decided to say, yep, we’re guilty as charged, the result would be those
concessions would come off the table and they’d be retroactive to the 1st of January.
That’s the process. So when people say I’ve got a voice with the unions, did any of you
know that those charges have been filed and they could be the consequences if we’re 20
found guilty? I’ve got the document. There’s documents, copies all over the place. Speak
to Mike Anthony. Got plenty of them. Educate yourselves. Take that five minutes and
read that charge. So if having a voice is having a charge filed like that on your behalf
by the union, I don’t think that’s anybody’s idea of representation. Let the chips fall
where they may. Really? You really want to trust somebody else to be in charge of your 25
destiny with everything we just spoke about for the last half an hour.You’re willing to
put all that on the table and let someone represent you.133
Spencer, who was in attendance at the second meeting, confronted his supervisor,
Granbois, immediately after the meeting and insisted that Martens lied about alleged charges 30
filed by the Union over the restoration of Sunday premium pay and the bridge to overtime. He
asked Granbois for a copy of the letter. About two hours later, Quinn brought Spencer a copy of
the mostly redacted Board letter.134 Spencer then went to a computer with Quinn, accessed the
Board’s public website and showed him the charges filed by the Union. He explained to Quinn
that the Petock letter reflected statements, not charges, by witnesses and suggested that the 35
redactions were unlawful. Quinn provided him the next day with another copy of the original
Petock letter, but this time only the names were redacted. That letter and the original Petock
letter, were then posted in the Cold Mill prior to the election.135
(c) The Third Meeting40

132 GC Exh. 42 at 28:29-29:41; GC Exh. 43 at 13:4-14:3.
133 GC Exh. 42 at 55:00-57:07; GC Exh. 43 at 31:20-33:8.
134 R. Exh. 66.
135 Quinn did not refute Spencer’s credible testimony regarding their exchange. (Tr. 904-906, 909-
912; GC Exh. 41.)
JD–05–15
39
The remaining employees were addressed at a third meeting, which was held on February
18 at 5:30 p.m.136 At that meeting, Martens repeated his remarks about the potential of plant
closing, and the loss of work flexibility, pay and benefits if the Union prevailed:
That decision put us in a position; put me in a position where we had to balance out a 5
number of different, very difficult things, and if you read the letter that was posted last
night that I penned to communicate this to you, you’ll understand that we actually had
to close another plant, and that was the Saguenay Works facility, to ensure that we
retained and maintained employment levels here at this plant.
That level of decision-making rarely happens, and with the speed at which we did it, we 10
actually had to sit down with the Saguenay people and let over 140 people go to
maintain the employment levels here versus looking at two to 300 . . . here. We lost . . .
business, and through that decision, I said we made a commitment to this plant we have
to maintain the employment levels and we have to keep the base production . . .137
You are going to get five percent merit this year, you are going to get a $2500 payment.15
USW Novelis plants is at less than two percent. You’re going to get the shift pattern that
you wanted which is truly unique for an operation of this size, very, very unique. The
other plants don’t have that.
You have flexibility in terms of how you can actually schedule your work. You have
good crews that you work on. You don’t have strict rules and regulations. I can go . . . 20
but if you vote yes, I move from owning this as a personal decision and a personal
passion for this plant to one where it becomes a business decision for me and I look at it
as a start point for your discussions with the Fairmont and Terre Haute plants are the
lower wages. Pensions are funded at a lower level. They get lower benefits in terms of
compensation. They have stricter rules in terms of how you can do your job. Career 25
laddering is different.
I can go on and on, but as a business decision [it is a lower cost solution] if I look at
what this plant is about and I look at why we made the investments and I look at what
we want to accomplish here and what we want you and your families to thrive with over
the next decades, that’s the wrong decision. We’re willing to pay you more. We’re 30
willing to offer you the flexibility because we know you will do the work at a level that
is world-class, and that’s worth a hell of a lot. That’s very unique in any operating
system that you can find in this country . . . That flexibility is something you should
cherish.138
We have to do things better. That’s why we’re here. We have better wages. We have 35
better benefits. You have incredible working conditions, and you and your families have
a future that is more secure today than it ever has been at any time that this plant has
been in existence, and I personally have made the difficult decisions to make that a
reality. When you have a chance to vote, do yourself and your families a favor and vote
no.13940

136 GC Exh. 18.
137 GC Exh. 19 at 3:04-3:59, GC Exh. 20 at 3:1-21.
138 GC Exh. 19 at 12:50-14:40, GC Exh. 20 at 10:1-11:10.
139 GC Exh. 19 at 15:46-16:15; GC Exh. 20 at 12:10-20.
JD–05–15
40
At the third meeting Smith again followed up on Martens’ remarks regarding the potential
impact on employee schedules and wages.
I’ve worked in union environments for sixteen years before I came to Oswego. You look
around you now. You will not see the same faces here a year from now should the union 5
be voted in. People will leave. People will get frustrated by the rigors and the rules that
we have to follow. People will not be happy with the culture that we’ve gotten used to
and a lot of us cherish, and the reasons that we’ve been successful for the last forty-nine
years will be slowly eroded away.140
10
Smith also shared his thoughts on the likelihood that the Company would lose business if
the Union was involved in the business relationship:
I also didn’t anticipate the possibility of dealing through a third-party.141
Let’s be honest. What we have here today is a distracted and divided workforce. It is. 15
Let’s call a spade a spade, not something that I expected I would ever have to talk about
when I came back here twelve months ago. It’s disappointing. I understand why we are
where we are. I’m not standing here to give excuses. We’ve had enough communication
over the last two or three months to air the reasons why and the things that we should
have done differently, would do differently if we had the chance again, but the fact of the 20
matter is here today we have a distracted and divided workforce.
We can’t afford for that to continue. That is not going to breed the success that we need
if we’re going to make sure that those cash lines are not going to be the biggest white
elephant in [Alcan] Novelis history. Simple as that.142
So who’s to say when we hit this out of the ball park, make a success and give that 25
credibility to this operation, that there will be more investment? But we’ve got to deliver.
It’s not a God-given right that every time Novelis has the opportunity to invest in a cash
lane when to comes to Novelis [Oswego]. It isn’t.
We’ve been extremely fortunate. We’ve been given a great opportunity. There has been a
lot of faith put in this workforce and in this location. It’s up to us to lose. As simple as 30
that. It’s ours to lose.143
Martens’ and Smith’s comments at the third meeting also included a reference to the
alleged Union charges over the restoration of Sunday premium pay. Martens stated, in pertinent
part:35
United States Steelworkers do not know this plant. They do not know this industry.
Chris will cover that in a minute. But what they do know is they do know how to say one
thing in a forum and then turn around and press charges against this company.
There have been two grievances filed. This has raised a lot of noise when I brought this 40
to your attention yesterday, and the reason I bring it to your attention is, apparently,
when they had their [all hands] meeting, they said they would not file a grievance,

140 GC Exh. 19 at 39:44-40:06; GC Exh. 20 at 28:16-29:1.
141 GC Exh. 19 at 23:13-18; GC Exh. 20 at 18:8-9.
142 GC Exh. 19 at 24:58-25:10; GC Exh. 20 at 19:2-21.
143 GC Exh. 19 at 34:08-12; GC Exh. 20 at 24:8-20.
JD–05–15
41
allegiances or grievances. This is a public domain document. You can look it up. I’m
sure there’s been copies passed around.144
Smith followed up with similar remarks:
5
Some of the things that I’ve heard leading up to the vote which caused me heartburn, if
you will, at least I have a voice with the union. I think Phil’s already touched on how
well that voice is being heard . . .145
Spencer, who attended the second meeting, immediately confronted his crew leader, 10
Tom Granbois, after that meeting about the document that Martens displayed to employees and
described as Board Union charges relating to the restoration of premium Sunday pay and the
bridge to overtime. Spencer insisted that the Union did not file such a charge and asked to see
the document. About two hours later, after being notified by Granbois, Quinn provided Spencer
with a blurry copy of the document that Martens displayed earlier that day with the body of the 15
letter redacted except for a section pertaining to the allegations about restoration of Sunday
premium pay. Spencer told Quinn that charges had not been filed over those allegations and
proceeded to display the charges filed on the Board’s website. Spencer also objected to the
Company’s redaction of the Board letter. The next day, Quinn presented him with a new letter
where only the names of the individuals were redacted. Both letters were posted at the facility 20
prior to the election.146 At some point prior to the election, both versions of the letter, redacted
and unredacted, were posted on the employee bulletin board.147
E. The Election
25
On January 27, the parties entered into a stipulated election agreement to hold a
representation election on February 20 and 21.148 The parties also stipulated to an Excelsior List
of 599 employees eligible to vote in the election.149 Notably, the Excelsior List included all crew
leaders, including Abare, who also served as a Union observer at the polling station. During the
election Abare served as the Union’s observer.15030
Emotions ran high with palpable tension on the voting line. As Michelle Johnson waited
on line to vote, another employee, Brian Thomas, called her a “fucking bitch” after she
expressed her intention to vote in favor of the Union. Johnson reported the incident to the

144 GC Exh. 19 at 14:55-15:32; GC Exh. 20 at 11:15-12:6.
145 GC Exh. 19 at 40:19-33; GC Exh. 20 at 29:4-8.
146 Quinn did not dispute Spencer’s credible testimony about the letter that was shown to employees
or his explanation of the charges filed by the Union. (R. Exh. 66; GC Exh. 5, 40-41; Tr. 145-146, 901,
903-905, 912, 946-947, 951, 1258.) I also credit Spencer’s testimony that GC Exh. 41 was a fair and
accurate copy of the letter displayed on Quinn’s computer, as well as what Quinn told him. (Tr. 910-912;
GC Exh. 40.)
147 GC Exh. 40; R. Exh. 66.
148 GC Exh. 10.
149 GC Exh. 11.
150 The Company does not dispute Abare’s prominent role during the election. (Tr. 587.)
JD–05–15
42
Company and listed Mario Martinez as a witness. However, the Company failed to contact
Martinez or take any other action to investigate the incident.151
The tumultuous campaign came to a close and was decided by a razor thin margin of 14
votes out of 571 ballots cast. The vote tally was 273 in favor of the Union, 287 opposed to the 5
Union. One ballot was voided and 10 ballots were challenged, but were not sufficient in number
to affect the results of the election.152
F. Abare is Disciplined for Statements on Social Media
10
1. Abare’s terms, conditions and privileges of employment
Abare, employed by the Company since 1998, currently fills several roles.153 He is
currently assigned as a furnace operator in the Cold Mill’s annealing and metal movement
department. For the past 3 years, with the exception of the period of April to October, 2014, he 15
has also served as a crew leader in that section. As a crew leader, Abare receives an additional
$2-per hour wage rate and led a crew of seven furnace and crane operators. His responsibilities
include receiving work orders from the area coordinator, assigning tasks to crew members, and
evaluating their technical skills.154
20
Abare is considered a “very good” employee by company management and, prior
to April, had never been disciplined.155 In his most recent annual performance evaluation
on March 15, supervisor Joseph Vanella stated that he “has done a great job as a crew
leader. He is respected by his crew as well as others outside the crew.”156
25
In addition to crew leader duties, Abare has spent approximately 70 additional hours a
year over the past 5 years training new crane operators. In obtaining the certification to provide
such training, Abare attended a Company-funded crane training course.157

151 Johnson and Thomas provided conflicting accounts. (Tr. 1208, 1999.) Johnson’s version was
corroborated by Mario Martinez (Tr. 889.), while Thomas’s testimony was only partially corroborated by
Mark Caltabiano, who testified that he only heard part of the conversation between Johnson and Thomas.
(Tr. 2158.) I credit Johnson’s testimony because the Company never contacted Martinez even though
Johnson reported the incident and listed Martinez as an eyewitness. (Tr. 889.)
152 G C Exh. 13.
153 Subsequent to a motion by General Counsel, I issued an order precluding the Company from
asserting an affirmative defense that Abare is a statutory supervisor pursuant to Sec. 2(11) of the Act.
(ALJ Exh. 5.)
154 The Company agrees with Abare’s description of himself as the “go-to person for his work area.
(Tr. 242, 255–256, 494, 498–499, 503–507, 2938.)
155 Abare’s testimony that he has never been disciplined was not refuted. (Tr. 489.) Indeed, Quinn, a
human resource supervisor and the Company’s designated representative during the hearing, spoke on
behalf of management in conceding that Abare was a “very good employee.” (Tr. 2883.)
156 GC Exh. 21.
157 Abare does not receive extra compensation for training other employees. (Tr. 253–255, 3061–
3062, 3066–3067; GC Exh. 23.)
JD–05–15
43
Given the nature of the Company’s sprawling facility and the difficulties inherent in
getting outside assistance in the event of a fire or medical emergency, the Company has its
own Emergency Medical Squad (EMS) and Fire Department Squad (FDS). Abare has been a
member of both for the past 12 years, including service as a FDS shift captain for the past
several years. In 2013, the FDS awarded him the Firefighter of the Year Award. Much of his 5
work as an EMT or fireman, whenever needed, is generally performed in lieu of his regular
duties. However, there have been occasions when his EMT or FDS work lasted beyond the
end of his shift and resulted in overtime pay. In obtaining and maintaining continuing State
certification as an EMT and fireman, the Company has funded and/or provided the monthly
and annual training. Such training amounts to approximately 110 to 140 additional hours per 10
week in addition to Abare’s regularly scheduled work hours and have been paid at an
overtime rate. In addition to the remuneration for performing these duties, Abare, like other
company firefighters, is rewarded with the privilege of parking his vehicle in the Company’s
enclosed parking facility. That privilege contrasts the accommodations of most coworkers,
who are provided only with access to the Company’s outdoor parking lot.15815
2. Abare’s Facebook post
On Saturday, March 29, still embittered by the Union’s loss in the election, Abare took to
cyberspace to express his frustration. He accessed his Facebook social media account and posted 20
the following critique of his wages and coworkers who voted against the Union:159
As I look at my pay stub for the 36 hour check we get twice a month, One worse than the
other. I would just like to thank all the F*#KTARDS out there that voted “NO” and that
they wanted to give them another chance…! The chance they gave them was to screw us 25
more and not get back the things we lost. . . ! Eat $hit “NO” Voters. . .160
Abare’s Facebook post was viewed by at least 11 employees, each of whom indicated
approval by a “Like” response to the post. Several of these Facebook “Friends” also commented
on the post.161 However, one of those employees demonstrated that a “Friend,” as that term is 30
used on Facebook, can be seriously overrated. Facebook “Friend” and fellow fire department
member John Whitcomb, after viewing Abare’s post, provided a copy of it to Sheftic and Smith.
A few days later, Sheftic referred the matter back to Quinn for disciplinary action.162
35

158 It is undisputed that Abare played a prominent role as fire captain, at one point describing himself
as the “commander” of the FDS during his shift. (Tr. 244–253, 1872; GC Exh. 22 and 24 at 1–10, 14.
159 Abare’s testimony regarding the changes to his pay was not disputed. (Tr. 472–473, 487–488, 568–
569, 578.)
160 GC Exh. 25.
161 While 11 coworkers expressed approval for the post in the “Like” section, it is evident that persons
with “Friend” access do not have to indicate that they “Like” it in order to view it. (Tr. 473–474, 1870,
1881–-1882; GC Exhs. 2, 25(b), 11.)
162 Given the failure of either Sheftic or Smith to testify, I do not credit Quinn’s hearsay testimony
that Sheftic referred the matter for action solely because Abare disrespected “employees that voted against
the Union.” Nor do I credit uncorroborated hearsay testimony that anyone other than Whitcomb brought
the Facebook post to his attention. (Tr.1882–1883, 1886, 2884–2887, 2939; GC Exh. 25(b)).
JD–05–15
44
3. Abare’s demotion
On April 4, Cold Mill Manager Greg Dufore and Quinn called Abare into a meeting
about the Facebook post. During the meeting, Quinn confronted Abare with his Facebook post.
Abare admitted the Facebook posting was his. Quinn told Abare that the post violated the 5
Company’s social media policy and provided him with a copy of it, adding that “you may not
be aware that we have a social media policy.”163 Abare apologized, explained that he posted the
comments out of frustration and added that his wife chastised him for the inappropriate
comments. He also offered to apologize to anyone else offended by the post. Quinn and Dufore
told Abare that Sheftic and Smith were very interested in the outcome of the meeting.16410
Subsequent to the April 4 meeting, Smith and Sheftic decided to send a message by
demoting Abare because of the Facebook post. On April 11, Quinn and Dufore carried out their
directive at a followup meeting with Abare. At that meeting, Quinn informed Abare that he was
removed from his positions as a crew leader position, FDS captain, EMS member, and crane 15
trainer. Quinn explained that the decision as to whether the demotions or removals were
“forever,” and their duration, depended on how Abare “react[ed]” to the disciplinary action.
Abare again offered to apologize to anyone offended by his post, but to no avail. Abare was
replaced as crew leader by fellow union supporter Michelle Johnson.165
20
Quinn briefly documented his actions after the meeting. His report stated, in pertinent
part, that the Company expected better behavior from someone in a “leadership role in plant;”
Company did not have “confidence in his ability to perform his “duties” based on his Facebook
post.166
25
The model behavior outlined in the Company’s online social media rules hardly reflects
the vulgar and otherwise offensive language commonly heard within the Company’s work
environment, including in the presence of supervisors. Numerous employees often use foul and
demeaning language when routinely addressing each other in work areas and, prior to April 11,
have never been disciplined. Such terms have included “fucktard,” “idiot,” “retard,” “brain-30
dead,” and a host of lewd anatomical references.167

163 The social media policy was the only policy introduced on this point. (GC Exh. 26.) Quinn
testified that Abare’s post violated the Company’s “code of conduct” because the “terminology” used to
describe other employees was “inappropriate.”The Company did not, however, offer a “code of conduct”
policy into evidence or identify what provision was violated by Abare’s comments. Nor did Quinn
identify any other employee disciplined, or demoted for violating a code of conduct policy. (Tr. 2896.)
164 Abare and Quinn provided fairly consistent versions. Significantly, however, Quinn did not
dispute Abare’s testimony about Smith and Sheftic’s interest in the meeting (Tr. 464–469, 571, 2887.).
165 Quinn testified Smith and Sheftic were involved in the decision to discipline Abare. Again,
however, neither of those high level managers testified. (Tr. 462, 464, 470–472, 892, 2939.)
166 Given the significant amount of attention by the Company to this episode, the scant documentation
relating to Abare’s demotion casts serious doubt as to its motivation for taking such action. (R. Exh. 160 ;
Tr. 2894–2899.)
167 The Company did not dispute the extensive credible testimony confirming the common use of foul
language by employees, including supervisors, in work areas. (Tr. 488, 1024, 1027-28, 837-838, 890-892,
1024–1028, 1034–1037, 1427.)
JD–05–15
45
The Company’s established tolerance of vulgar language in the workplace was also
reflected by the lack of any discipline for such behavior. In fact, the Company’s past discipline
of crew leaders consisted of four demotions for performance related issues.168 In one of those
instances, the Company gave the employee an opportunity to remediate his performance
deficiencies.169 Abare, as previously noted, had a good performance record and had never been 5
disciplined.
G. The Company’s Postelection Response to the Complaint
As previously noted, the Company customarily notifies employees sometime between 10
October and December each year about changes to wages and benefits. Moreover, unscheduled
overtime was previously eliminated in December 2013. However, on May 22, or 16 days after the
initial complaint was filled, the Company announced that it would give all Oswego hourly
employees 3-percent annual pay raises for the next 5 years, starting January 1, 2015.170 The
Company also announced that, starting July 1, it would restore premium overtime rates for 15
employees who worked on their scheduled days off, and would not make changes to its pension
plan or the J-12 shift schedule during the same 5-year period. Cognizant that the atypical timing
of its pay and benefits announcement would be deemed suspicious, Palmieri told the local press
that the announced changes were not related to its opposition to the union campaign.171
20
In late June, Martens and Smith pleaded the Company’s case against the complaint
allegations in two letters to employees denying that their captive audience statements in February
constituted threats.172 Martens stated:
I have reviewed my comments…and do not believe that they could reasonably be 25
interpreted as a threat. In fact, my comments were the opposite…But to eliminate any
possible misunderstanding or misconception, let me be absolutely clear: I did not and
would never make any threats to close the Oswego plant. When I mentioned the closure of
our plant in Saguenay, it was simply to emphasize the commitment to the Oswego

168 The scant documentation referred only to performance reasons for their reclassification and there
were no references to behavioral issues. (Tr. 2900–2902, 2909–2910, 2917, R. Exh. 177–178.)
169 R. Exh. 156.
170 The Company’s motion in limine regarding evidence of its postelection conduct was partially
granted with respect to limiting postelection statements or other conduct to evidence “that directly refutes
the Respondent’s evidence of mitigation.” (ALJ Exh. 6.) Having opened the proverbial evidentiary door
on mitigation with letters to employees that included an unusual mid-year announcement of a series of
annual pay raises , the General Counsel and Charging Party were entitled to refute the specific mitigation
alleged with contextual evidence. The Company’s December 16, 2014 motion to strike CP Exh. 2–6 is
denied. (ALJ Exh. 8(a)-(b).)
171 The General Counsel and Charging Party do not allege the postelection pay raises and restoration
of unscheduled overtime as violations, but contend that the action reflects continued unlawful postelection
behavior by the Company. Since I found that premium overtime pay had been taken away and then
restored on January 9, I find Smith’s statement implying that it had not been restored as a calculated
attempt to respond to the corresponding allegations in the complaint. (CP Exh. 2-6.)
172 It is undisputed that the letters were sent to all employees. (R. Exh. 54, 56; Tr. 2981.) Subsequent
to the Company’s motion to preclude evidence relating to postelection conduct, I granted an order
limiting evidence of such conduct to that which directly refuted the Company’s evidence of mitigation.
(ALJ Exh. 6.)
JD–05–15
46
plant…I hope this provides clarity and eliminates any confusion or possibility that a
negative inference could be interpreted from my comments.”173
Smith similarly stated:
5
I have reviewed my comments from this meeting, and I do not believe that they could
reasonably be interpreted as any type of threat…my opinion was based on the deadlines
and commitments we face and my personal observations of the distractions we all
experienced during the weeks leading up to the union election…To eliminate any possible
misunderstanding or misconception, I want you to be unmistakably clear certain that I did 10
not and would never make any threats.174
H. The District Court’s Preliminary Injunction
On September 4, during the pendency of these proceedings, Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the 15
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted a motion by the
Union for a preliminary injunction.175 The injunction ordered the Company to refrain from
engaging in various specific prohibited activities or in any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7.176
The injunction further ordered the Company to: within 5 days, restore Abare, post copies of the 20
order, and grant agents of the NLRB reasonable access to the plant; within 10 days, have Smith
and Martens read the order to the bargaining unit; and within 21 days, file with the court a sworn
affidavit setting forth the manner in which the Company complied with the order.177
On September 11, the Company complied with Judge Sharpe’s order by reading his order 25
to all hourly employees.178
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. The Restoration of Sunday Premium Pay30
The first of several alleged violations during the campaign pertains to the Company’s
restoration of Sunday premium pay and the unscheduled overtime without any business
justification and for the purpose of inducing employees to oppose union affiliation. The
Company denies that it restored Sunday premium pay since it never actually eliminated it. Even 35

173 R. Exh. 56.
174 R. Exh. 54.
175 Ley ex rel NLRB v. Novelis Corp., No. 5:14-cv-775 (GLS/DEP), 2014 WL 4384980 (N.D.N.Y.
Sept. 4, 2014).
176 Id. at 7.
177 Id.
178 The General Counsel and Charging Party do not dispute the Company’s compliance in carrying
out Judge Sharpe’s order. (R. Exh. 49, 54, 56, 77; Tr. 1640–1642, 1690–1691, 1746–1747, 1809–1810,
1833–1835, 1864, 1866, 1881, 1927–1928, 1935–1937, 1976–1977, 1985, 2001–2003, 2018, 2022–2023,
2035–2036, 2038, 2079–2080, 2100–2101, 2113–2114, 2141–2142, 2168–2169, 2194–2195, 2221, 2276–
2277, 2233–2236, 2310–12, 2329–2330, 2427–2430, 2443–2444, 2477, 2487–2488, 2502–2503, 2528–
2530, 2982–2983.)
JD–05–15
47
if it is found that the benefit was eliminated and then restored, the Company contends that it was
done for purely business reasons and without any knowledge of an incipient union campaign.
The danger inherent in well-timed increases in benefits is the coercive inference that
employees’ failure to comply with the employer’s position may curtail future benefits. See NLRB 5
v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409 (1964). Conferral of benefits during an organizing
campaign is sufficient to constitute interference with employees' Section 7 rights. Hampton Inn
NY - JFK Airport, 348 NLRB 16, 17 (2006). To establish improper motivation requires a
showing that an employer knew or had knowledge of facts reasonably indicating that a union
was actively seeking to organize. Id. at 18 (quoting NLRB v. Gotham Industries, 406 F.2d 1306, 10
1310 (1st Cir. 1969)). The employer may rebut the coercive inference by establishing an
explanation other than the pending election for the timing of the announcement or bestowal of
the benefit. Star, Inc., 337 NLRB 962, 962 (2002). Absent a showing of legitimate business
reasons for the timing of the grant of benefits, improper motive and interference with employee
rights is inferred. Newburg Eggs, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 171 slip op. at 11 (2011). 15
The fact that the Company admitted in its January 9 letter to employees that it restored
the Sunday and overtime premium pay is fairly determinative regarding the fact that these
benefits were once conferred, then taken away and subsequently restored—especially given the
lack of any testimony by high level managers to the contrary. 20
On December 16, the Company announced a new pay scale, including, inter alia, the
elimination of Sunday premium pay and the bridge to overtime. The new pay scale was to
become effective January 1. When employees expressed concern about the changes, Sheftic
responded that the Company would consider their concerns. However, when an employee 25
suggested that the employees might seek to affiliate with a labor organization, Sheftic responded
that it was the Company’s “hope that we don’t have to have a union here at this point.” Such a
possibility became a reality on January 9, when the Union submitted a written demand for
voluntary recognition to the Company based on signed authorization cards from a majority of
employees. 30
The Company relies on evidence that Smith and Sheftic told crew leaders about the
restoration of Sunday premium pay sometime between 7:30 and 9 a.m. on the same day,
subsequently followed by a memorandum from Smith confirming the same. However,
Ridgeway’s statement in the January 9 letter referring to Smith’s awareness of the campaign was 35
neither denied in Smith’s subsequent response nor testimony by Smith or any other high level
manager. Coupled with warnings by employees to Sheftic and at least one supervisor that
employees might reach out to a union, followed by the organizing committee’s solicitation of
union authorization cards from of hundreds of employees, including some of the very crew
leaders that the Company refers to as Section 2(11) supervisors, and the participation of 40
antiunion employees at the organizing meetings in late December and early January, there is
sufficient circumstantial evidence that the Company knew of the incipient union campaign prior
to receiving Ridgeway’s letter on January 9.
Based on the foregoing, the weight of the credible evidence indicates that the Company’s45
restoration of Sunday premium pay and the bridge to overtime on January 9, the same day in
which it received the Union’s written demand for voluntary recognition, was motivated by the
JD–05–15
48
Company’s attempt to squash an incipient organizing campaign in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. See MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., 342 NLRB 1172, 1174—1176 (2004).
II. Captive Audience Speeches
5
The other complaint allegations with the broadest implications during the campaign
involve the alleged threats by Martens, the Company’s president and chief executive officer, to
close the plant, reduce pay and benefits, impose more onerous working conditions, and rescind
retroactively premium and unscheduled overtime pay, along with a warning that the Company
would lose business if employees selected the Union. The Company denies that the speeches 10
threatened, intimidated, or instructed employees on how to vote and contends that the statements
were overwhelmingly positive, informed employees about the bargaining process, and merely
advised employees to do what was best for themselves and their families.
Employer predictions are lawful when “carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to 15
convey an employer's belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond his control or to
convey a management decision already arrived at to close the plant in case of unionization.”
NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969). Employer predictions become unlawful
threats, however, when “there is any implication that an employer may or may not take action
solely on his own initiative for reasons unrelated to economic necessities.” Id. They become 20
unlawful when their context has a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights. Flying Foods, 345 NLRB 101, 105–106 (2005).
A. Plant Closure
25
During mandatory employee meetings held a few days before the representation election,
the Company’s highest level managers presented their closing arguments against union
representation. During repeated statements to employees over the course of 2 days, Martens
referred to a prior company decision to close a Canadian plant and transfer the work to Oswego,
suggesting that it had been his personal decision to save jobs at Oswego, which had incurred a 30
decrease in business in its nonautomotive product operations. He then proceeded to tell the
employees that, should they select the Union as their labor representative, the future of the
Oswego plant and its work force would be decided on the basis of a “business decision.” The
implication of this statement, notwithstanding the Company’s ongoing expansion plans, was that
if economic circumstances changed, he would no longer make decisions on the same basis that 35
he did in moving the Canadian work to Oswego. While he referred to such a future decision as a
“business decision,” the fact is that, by his own words, his past “business” decisions had not been
based on objective criteria. Thus, employees were led to believe that he would base future
decisions at the Oswego plant on subjective criteria, such as the presence of a union.
40
Employer predictions that a plant will or may close are unlawful absent proof. Gissel, 395
U.S. at 618–619. Implied threats of plant closure are also unlawful. See Mohawk Bedding Co.,
204 NLRB 277, 278–279 (1973).
It is inconsequential that no high level manager testified about the decision to lay off 45
employees at the Company’s Saguenay plant and move that work to Oswego. While I am not
convinced by Martens’ campaign era statement that the decision was a “personal” one, as
JD–05–15
49
opposed to one based on objective business criteria, it is what he sought to impress upon the
employees. Martens’ shrewd attempt to coerce employees by conflating the terms “business
decision” and “personal decision” does not pass muster. The sophisticated ploy was devoid of
economic or other objective proof to support Martens’ prediction and reasonably left employees
pondering, 2 days before the election, the long-term future of Oswego plant operations based on 5
his personal considerations. The threats violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Allegheny
Ludlum Corp., 104 F.3d 1354, 1364 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (given the context, employer’s comparison
to past poor business conditions where it found ways to avoid layoffs constituted an unlawful
implied threat that if the union won the employer would not look as hard to find ways to avoid
future layoffs). Cf. Tri-Cast, Inc., 274 NLRB 377 (1985) (employer’s statements that,10
postunionization, it would no longer be able to deal with employees on an informal,
individualized basis were lawful).
B. Reduced Pay and Benefits
15
At these meetings, Martens also threatened reduced pay if employees selected the Union
as their labor representative. He repeatedly mentioned the contracts at the Company’s unionized
plants, explained that their employees were paid less and warned that the pay scale for unionized
Oswego employees would begin at the same levels—clearly predicting that employees would be
paid less than they are now. 20
An employer's description of the collective-bargaining process, including the reality that
employees may end up with less as a result, does not violate the Act. Wild Oats Markets, Inc.,
344 NLRB 717 (2005). Further, an employer has a right to compare wages and benefits at its
nonunion facilities with those received at its unionized locations. Langdale Forest Prods., 335 25
NLRB 602 (2001). However, bargaining-from-scratch statements are unlawful when “in context,
they reasonably could be understood by employees as a threat of loss of existing benefits and
leave employees with the impression that what they may ultimately receive depends upon what
the union can induce the employer to restore.” Taylor-Dunn Mfg. Co., 252 NLRB 799, 800
(1980). Statements that imply a regressive bargaining posture, i.e., beginning negotiations by 30
withdrawing benefits, are unlawful. Kenrich Petrochemicals, 294 NLRB 519, 530 (1989). The
presence of contemporaneous threats or unfair labor practices is often a critical factor in
determining whether bargaining-from-scratch statements imply a threat to discontinue existing
benefits prior to negotiations or rather that the mere designation of a union will not automatically
secure an increase in wages and benefits. Coach & Equipment Sales Corp., 228 NLRB 440, 440-35
41 (1977).
Marten’s comments about likely pay and benefits resulting from bargaining violated
Section 8(a)(1). By warning that unionization would begin at a pay scale analogous to the
Company’s lower-paid unionized plants, he did more than compare the two locations. Martens 40
implied a loss of existing benefits, thereby adopting a regressive bargaining posture. Given that
these statements were made during a meeting in which contemporaneous threats were espoused,
employees present reasonably perceived Marten’s statements as a threat to discontinue existing
benefits prior to negotiations.
45
JD–05–15
50
C. More Onerous Working Conditions
Martens and Smith also threatened that Oswego employees would forfeit the flexible
work schedules that they currently enjoy if the Union prevailed. They mentioned these
developments as an eventuality while omitting any mention of the need to bargain over such 5
changes based on objective facts.
A threat of more onerous working conditions is unlawful. Liberty House Nursing Homes,
245 NLRB 1194, 1999 (1979). Similarly, a statement that the presence of a union could
deteriorate employment conditions, e.g., “it could get much worse,” is also unlawful absent a 10
reference to the collective-bargaining process. Metro One Loss Prevention Service Group, 356
NLRB No. 20, slip op. at 1 (2010).
Martin and Smith’s statements that employees would lose their flexible work schedules
constituted threats of more onerous working conditions. Since those threats omitted any 15
reference to the collective-bargaining process, they violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See
Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 320 NLRB 484, 484 (1995).
D. Loss of Business
20
Smith’s campaign remarks stressed the Company’s relationship with the automobile
industry and predicted that unionization would impede the Company’s ability to adequately
perform its contractual obligations. He did not offer objective criteria to support such an
assertion, instead declaring that the impediment of a union presence would cause the Company
to lose current and future contracts at the Oswego plant, further resulting in layoffs.25
Predictions that unionization will cause loss of business are unlawful absent objective
evidence. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 255 NLRB 14, 14 (1981). See also Contempora Fabrics, Inc.,
344 NLRB 851 (2005) (collecting cases).
30
Smith’s conjectural statements regarding the consequences of unionization would have
on the Company’s contractual obligations with the automobile industry were unsupported by
objective criteria. The further prediction that such consequences would result in layoffs violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
35
E. Rescinding Sunday Premium Pay
On February 18, Martens and Smith displayed to employees a redacted February 10 letter
from Board Agent Petock and represented that it contained charges of violations under the Act
relating to the restoration of Sunday premium and unscheduled overtime pay. He also predicted 40
that the newly restored benefit would have to be rescinded retroactively to January 1 because of
the Union’s charges. Petock obviously learned about the restoration of Sunday premium pay
during her investigation of the January 27 charges in Case 3–CA–121293 involving specific
unfair labor practices occurring between January 12 and 23. However, whether such information
was conveyed to Petock or uncovered by her during her investigation of the actual charges is of 45
no consequence. Petock merely conveyed to the Company that it was one of several
“allegations.” The Company had been served with the charges on January 27 and knew that this
JD–05–15
51
allegation was not among them. There is no doubt that the Company’s actions were deliberately
calculated to cause fallout among union supporters and still undecided employees by blaming the
Union for the potential loss of Sunday premium pay.
Absent threat of reprisal or promise of benefit, an employer may communicate both 5
general views on unionization and specific views about a particular union. NLRB v. Gissel
Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969). Words of disparagement alone concerning a union or its
officials are insufficient for finding a violation of Section 8(a)(1). Sears, Roebuck, & Co., 305
NLRB 193, 193 (1991). However, disparagement is unlawful when, under all the circumstances,
the conduct reasonably tends to interfere with the free exercise of the rights of employees under 10
Section 7. Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services, 357 NLRB No. 37, slip op. at 6 (2011).
The Company disparaged the Union by displaying an altered Board document and
misrepresenting it as charges filed by the Union seeking the rescission of Sunday premium pay
and the bridge to overtime. In assessing campaign misrepresentations, the Board does not 15
typically probe the truth or falsity of parties' campaign statements unless “a party has used forged
documents which render the voters unable to recognize propaganda for what it is.” Durham
School. Services, 360 NLRB No. 108 (2014) (quoting Midland National Life Insurance. Co.,
263 NLRB 127, 133 (1983)). The standard of review is premised on a “view of employees as
mature individuals who are capable of recognizing campaign propaganda for what it is and 20
discounting it.” Id. at 132 (quoting Shopping Kart Food Market, Inc., 228 NLRB 1311, 1313
(1977)).
The dissemination of blurred language regarding allegations about restored premium pay
on an altered document, while not forged, was displayed in conjunction with a false statement 25
that it reflected a charge filed by the Union. Under the circumstances, it can hardly be said that
employees, without the filed charges to compare at that moment, were capable of recognizing the
Company’s propaganda for what it was. Moreover, the warning by Martens and Smith that the
Company would have to rescind such benefits retroactive to January 1 was not accompanied by
objective facts. Lastly, the Company’s posting of both the altered and unaltered versions of the 30
Petock letter on Company bulletin boards after employees were bombarded with the altered
version by Martens’ at the captive audience meeting hardly undoes the harm. Since the Company
never told employees that the pay restoration allegation was not, in fact, among charges filed by
the Union, the follow-up action did not constitute a legally sufficient retraction of Marten’s false,
misleading and disparaging remarks. See Casino San Pablo, 361 NLRB No. 148, slip op at 635
(2014) (revision does not cure violation unless it is unambiguous, specific in nature to the
coercive conduct, and includes assurances to employees that going forward the employer will not
interfere with their Section 7 rights).
The Company cites Virginia Concrete Corp., for the proposition that “[m]ere 40
misstatements of law or Board actions are not objectionable under Midland.” 338 NLRB 1182,
1186 (2003). In Virginia Concrete Corp., the judge found that the employer’s statements
regarding the consequences that would arise from the union filing a charge improperly involved
the Board and its processes because the employer misstated Board law. Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). The Board reversed, holding that misstatements of law or Board actions were 45
not actionable to the extent those statements are insufficient to implicate the Board and its
processes. Id.
JD–05–15
52
Va. Concrete Corp. is distinguishable from the instant case since the misstatements of
Board action here were accompanied by an altered Board document and represented as charges
by the Company. The Board’s decision in Riveredge Hospital, 264 NLRB 1094 (1982), is
informative in this regard. In Riveredge Hospital, the union distributed a leaflet which stated, in 5
part, that the U.S. Government had issued a complaint against Riveredge. Id. at 1094. The Board
held that the leaflet, as a misrepresentation of Board action, was not in and of itself objectionable
under Midland. See id. at 1094–1095. In reaching this conclusion, the Board distinguished
misrepresentations of Board processes from physical alterations of Board documents, noting that
a “physical alteration involves the misuse of the Board's documents to secure an advantage while 10
the misrepresentation merely involves a party's allegation that the Board has taken an action
against the other party and is essentially the same as any other misrepresentation.” Id. at 1095.
The distinction between misstatements or misrepresentations of Board processes and
misrepresentations of Board authority was further clarified in Goffstown Truck Center, Inc., 356 15
NLRB No. 33 (2010). In Goffstown Truck Center, the Board found that a misstatement of the
Board’s processes purporting to come from the Board itself carries more weight and therefore
compromises the integrity of the election process. See id. at 2. In reaching this conclusion, the
Board noted that the distinction between lawful misrepresentations and the types of actions
which used a “false cloak of Board authority,” such as the alteration of sample ballots, was that 20
the latter went “beyond the realm of typical campaign propaganda which ‘employees are capable
of recognizing…for what it is.’” Id. at 3 (quoting Midland, 263 NLRB at 132).
The decisions in Va. Concrete Corp., Riveredge Hospital, and Goffstown Truck Center
thus clarify that while misstatements of law or Board action are not unlawful, misrepresentations 25
which utilize a false cloak of Board authority, e.g., through the physical alteration of Board
documents, are unlawful insofar as they render a reasonable employee unable to recognize the
propaganda for what it is.
Under the circumstances, the Company unlawfully disparaged the Union and violated 30
Section 8(a)(1) by falsely representing to employees that (1) the Union filed charges seeking the
rescission of Sunday premium pay and the unscheduled overtime, and (2) that it would have to
rescind the benefits retroactively to January 1.
III. The No Solicitation and Distribution Rules35
The complaint also alleges that the Company’s solicitation and distribution policies
unlawfully restrict employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. The Company denies the
charge.
40
Employees are rightfully on the employer’s property. Accordingly, the employer’s
management rather than property interests are implicated in promulgating a no-solicitation rule.
See Eastex v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 573 (1978). As such, employers may lawfully impose
restrictions on workplace communications among employees. Stone & Webster Engineering
Corp., 220 NLRB 905 (1975); Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 265 NLRB 129, 133 (1982). Thus,45
employers may lawfully ban worktime solicitations when defined as not to include before or
after regular working hours, lunchbreaks, and rest periods. Sunland Constr. Co., 309 NLRB
JD–05–15
53
1224, 1238 (1992). However, a no-solicitation rule is unlawful when it unduly restricts the
organizational activities of employees during periods and in places where these activities do not
interfere with the employer's operations. Our Way, Inc., 268 NLRB 394 (1983); Laidlaw Transit,
Inc., 315 NLRB 79, 82 (1994), cited in Adtranz, ABB Daimler-Benz, 331 NLRB 291 (2000).
Therefore, a prohibition on communication among employees during either paid or unpaid 5
nonwork periods is overly broad. St. John's Hospital, 222 NLRB 1150 (1976). Moreover,
employees who have rightful access to their employer's email system in the course of their work
have a right to use the email system to engage in Section 7-protected communications on
nonworking time. Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 126, slip op. at 14 (2014).
10
The Company’s policy prohibits “solicitation and distribution in working areas of its
premises and during working time (including company email or any other company distribution
lists).” The Company’s policy further prohibits “unauthorized posting of notices, photographs or
other printed or written materials on bulletin boards or in other working areas and during
working time.” 15
The Company’s policy is facially valid insofar as it uniformly prohibits the posting of
unauthorized literature on bulletin boards or in other working areas during working time. The
Register Guard, 351 NLRB 1110 (2007) (employees have no statutory right to use an employer's
equipment for Section 7 purposes, provided the restrictions are nondiscriminatory). However, the 20
Company’s policy prohibiting distribution to “[include] Company email” is impermissibly vague
to the extent that an employee who has rightful access to the email system would reasonably feel
restrained from posting Section 7 material via email during non-work time. See Purple
Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 126, supra. By promulgating a policy that is
impermissibly vague, the Company violated Section 8(a)(1). 25
IV. Enforcement of No Solicitation and Distribution Rule
And Other Supervisory Conduct During the Campaign
The complaint alleges that Company Supervisors Bro, Taylor, Gordon and Granbois 30
selectively and disparately enforced the Company’s rules against distribution and solicitation of
prounion literature in favor of antiunion literature. The Company denies these allegations and
contends that the aforementioned supervisors took an evenhanded approach and removed
prounion and antiunion literature from work areas during the campaign.
35
An employer may uniformly enforce a rule prohibiting the use of its bulletin boards by
employees for all purposes. Vincent's Steak House, 216 NLRB 647, 647 (1975). However, even
when facially valid, a no-solicitation rule may be unlawful when enforced in a discriminatory
manner. Lawson Co., 267 NLRB 463 (1983); Hammary Mfg. Corp., 265 NLRB 57 (1982); St.
Vincent's Hospital, 265 NLRB 38 (1982). A discriminatory manner is evinced through the 40
restriction of pro-union solicitations to nonworking-times and areas while alternately placing no
such restrictions on antiunion campaigning. Reno Hilton Resorts, 320 NLRB 197, 208 (1995).
See also Eaton Technologies, Inc., 322 NLRB 848, 853 (1997) (having permitted use of bulletin
boards for nonwork-related messages the employer cannot discriminate against the posting of
union messages.) Similarly, discrimination becomes evident when an employer permits the use 45
of bulletin boards for nonunion postings but alters its enforcement policy subsequent to the
commencement of a union campaign. See id. at 322 NLRB at 854.
JD–05–15
54
A. January 12
On January 12, Bro, the Cold Mill operations leader, entered the combination pulpit
work/break area, a room where employees, among other things, posted flyers for fundraising and
other personal endeavors. Bro noticed union and company campaign material and questioned 5
Rookey as to the origin of the union literature. After Rookey professed ignorance as to which
employee placed it there, Bro removed the union literature and left the pulpit. Bro’s act of
confiscating union literature while permitting Company material of the same nature to remain
was unlawfully discriminatory. Cooper Health Systems, 327 NLRB 1159, 1164 (1999).
10
B. January 21
In mid-January, Bro removed a union meeting notice posted on the public bulletin. On
January 21, Bro removed a prounion flyer from the Cold Mill bulletin board. In light of the
Company’s past custom and practice of permitting employees to post a variety of personal items 15
on bulletin boards, Bro’s removal of union materials from bulletin boards was unlawfully
discriminatory. See Bon Marche, 308 NLRB 184, 199 (1992).
On January 21, Gordon entered the cabana office, an office/break room which usually
contains newspapers, magazines and other personal items placed there by employees. Gordon 20
told employees present that they could not have prounion fliers in the cabana. Gordon then
removed prounion literature from the window and countertop and replaced it with the
Company’s campaign literature. Gordon’s confiscation of union materials in favor of company
materials of a similar nature was unlawfully discriminatory. See Blue Bird Body Co., 251 NLRB
1481, 1485 (1980). 25
C. January 23
On January 23, three company supervisors violated Section 8(a)(1) through coercive
conduct. Bro met with operators in the Cold Mill furnace office, a mixed work/break location 30
containing, among other things, newspapers, magazines and personal flyers. Bro removed a
Union fact sheet, explaining that no pro or antiunion literature would be permitted on bulletin
boards or clipboards. Bro also handed out a Company pamphlet. Bro’s explanation of Company
policy uniformly prohibiting pro and anti-Union literature from bulletin boards was lawful.
However, his act of confiscating Union literature while concurrently distributing Company 35
literature of a similar nature was unlawfully discriminatory. See Blue Bird Body Co., 251 NLRB
at 1485.
During the same meeting, Bro also directed employees wearing prounion stickers to
remove or cover them up beneath their uniforms. In the absence of any showing of special 40
circumstances, Bro’s order unlawfully restricted employees’ long-established right to wear
stickers at work. See, e.g., St. Luke’s Hospital, 314 NLRB 434, 494 (1994) (employees have a
protected right to wear union insignia at work). See also Northeast Industries Service. Co., 320
NLRB 977, 977 fn. 1 (1996) (union stickers on hardhats); Feldkamp Enterprises, 323 NLRB
1193, 1201 (1997) (same). 45
JD–05–15
55
During the same meeting, Dan Taylor, a shipping supervisor, entered and removed Union
materials from both a desk and employees’ clipboards. In light of the Company’s longstanding
practice of placing its literature of a similar nature in these areas, Taylor’s confiscation of union
materials was unlawfully discriminatory. See Gertz, 262 NLRB 985, 985 fn .3 (1982).
5
On the same day, Tom Granbois removed a Union meeting notice from the Remelt
cafeteria bulletin board. In light of the Company’s past custom and practice of permitting
employees to post a variety of items on bulletin boards, Granbois’ removal of union materials
from bulletin boards was also unlawfully discriminatory. See id.
10
V. Supervisory Threats, Unlawful Interrogation and Polling of Employees
The complaint alleges that Bro and Formoza unlawfully interrogated and/or threatened
employees during the organizing campaign. The Company denies the allegations.
15
Questioning an employee constitutes unlawful interrogation when, considering the
totality of the circumstances, the interaction at issue would reasonably tend to coerce the
employee to an extent that he or she would feel restrained from exercising rights protected by
Section 7 of the Act. Westwood Health Care Center, 330 NLRB 935, 940 (2000); Rossmore
House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), affd. sub nom. Hotel Employees Local 11 v. NLRB, 760 F.2d 20
1006 (9th Cir. 1985). Consideration of the totality of the circumstances includes, but is not
rigidly limited to: (1) the truthfulness of the replies from the employee being questioned; (2) the
nature of the information sought, i.e., whether the questioner sought information upon which to
base taking action against individual employees; (3) the identity of the questioner, i.e., how high
up the questioner was in the company hierarchy; (4) the place and method of interrogation, i.e., 25
whether the employee was called from work to a supervisor's office and whether there was an
atmosphere of unnatural formality; and (5) the background between the employer and union, i.e.,
whether a history of employer hostility and discrimination exists. Metro-West Ambulance
Service, Inc., 360 NLRB No. 124, slip op. at 63 (2014); Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d
Cir. 1964). Whether an interrogation is courteous rather than rude or profane is not dispositive.30
Woodcrest Health Care Center, 360 NLRB No. 58, slip op. at 7 (2014).
A. January 23
During a January 23 meeting, Bro drilled employees with an antiunion question-and-35
answer session in their work areas: “You know what you need to do to keep the Union out of
here. You need to vote no.” Some employees remained silent while others repeated Bro’s
directive; one employee said that he would vote in favor of the Union. Bro resorted to a
blackboard to present the Company’s position, and when an employee disagreed with Bro’s
analysis by referring to his pay stub, Bro responded that anyone who did not like working for the 40
Company could find a new job.
Bro advocated the Company’s position, but also discouraged workers who disagreed with
his presentation and coached individual employees one-by-one on how to vote. Under the
circumstances, Bro unlawfully interrogated employees and restrained them from exercising their 45
Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1). See Roma Baking Co., 263 NLRB 24, 30 (1982).
JD–05–15
56
B. January 28
On January 28, Formoza approached Cowan in his work area and said that he wanted to
discuss the Union. Cowan expressed his discomfort with the topic. Formoza warned of the
impact that a union victory might have on the J-12 shift employees, including the possibility of a 5
schedule change or a shift lay-off.
Formoza, an operations leader, pursued discussion about the Union despite Cowan’s
attempts to steer the conversation elsewhere. In light of Cowen’s relatively brief tenure with the
Company, Formoza’s hypothesis that unionization could lead to layoffs in order of seniority 10
constituted an implied threat. Given the totality of the circumstances, including the location of
the incident, a reasonable employee in Cowen’s situation would have reasonably felt restrained
from exercising his or her Section 7 rights. See Central Valley Meat Co., 346 NLRB 1078, 1087
(2006). Formoza’s actions constituted an unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
15
C. January 30
On January 30, Bro met with a different set of employees in a mixed pulpit/break area.
Bro first asked the group generally how they would vote if they did not want a union. Bro then
proceeded to repeat the question directly to each individual one-by-one. Phelps did not answer. 20
Rookey responded by stating that without a union employees would “[t]ake it in the ass.” When
Bro did not reply, Rookey questioned Bro by asking him how employees should vote if they
wanted union representation. Bro responded, “Vote yes, of course.” Another employee answered,
“If I don’t want a union I’ll vote no and if I do want a union I’ll vote yes.”
25
Bro, an operations leader, met with employees in a mixed work/break area. Bro coached
employees both as a group and individually, one-by-one how to vote. Rookey and Bro’s
combative exchange suggests that Rookey did not feel restrained in exercising his Section 7
rights. However, the fact that another employee felt free to express a choice to vote either for or
against the Union is not dispositive since the standard is whether a reasonable employee would 30
have felt coerced during the interaction. Multi-Ad Services, 331 NLRB 1226, 1227–1228 (2000),
enfd. 255 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2001) (test is an objective one that does not rely on the subjective
aspect of whether employee was actually intimidated); accord El Rancho Market, 235 NLRB
468, 471 (1978). In any event, such a suggestion is undermined by the fact that Phelps, rather
than responding to Bro’s questioning, remained silent. Given the totality of the circumstances, 35
Bro’s management position, the combative nature of the encounter, and Bro’s role in other
similar situations, the interaction at issue would reasonably tend to coerce an employee to an
extent that he or she would feel restrained from exercising Section 7 rights.
VI. Quinn’s Solicitation of Grievances40
The complaint alleges that Quinn unlawfully solicited employee grievances during the
campaign in a manner that included an implied promise to resolve them. The Company denies
that Quinn solicited grievances and was simply engaging employees during one his typical strolls
through the plant.45
JD–05–15
57
Absent previous practice, “solicitation of grievances in the midst of a union campaign
inherently constitutes an implied promise to remedy the grievances.” Clark Distribution Systems,
Inc., 336 NLRB 747, 748 (2001). Grievance solicitation during an organizational campaign
creates a “compelling inference,” that the employer seeks to influence employees to vote against
union representation. Traction Wholesale Center Co., 328 NLRB 1058 (1999).5
On February 15, Quinn visited the Remelt control room and initiated a discussion with
Parker, Boyzuck, and Barkley. After a discussion of general morale and specific employee
concerns, Quinn stated that “things could be fixed” if the Company was “given another chance,”
and that though “it would never be as good as it was . . . it would be better than it is now.” Quinn 10
added that “they couldn’t start making things better until a ‘No’ vote was in.” Given that it was
unusual for Quinn to engage in discussion with those employees in the work area, his statement
that a situation in which the Company prevailed “would be better than it is now” constitutes an
implied promise to remedy grievances if employees voted against the Union and is thus a
violation of Section 8(a)(1). See Allen-Stone Boxes, Inc., 252 NLRB 1228, 1231 (1980).15
VII. The Social Media Standard and Its Application to Abare
The complaint alleges that the Company, prior to the election, promulgated an unlawful
social media policy which unlawfully restricted its employees’ Section 7 rights to engage in 20
protected speech. It further alleges that the Company enforced this policy by discriminatorily
demoting Abare after the election because he posted critical comments on social media. The
Company contends that both its policy and the manner in which it demoted Abare due to his
disrespectful and vulgar comments towards his antiunion coworkers were unlawful.
25
A. The Social Media Standard
A rule violates 8(a)(1) when employees would reasonably construe its language to
prohibit Section 7 activity. Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 647 (2004).
Overbroad phrasing is reasonably construed by employees to encompass discussions and 30
interactions protected by Section 7. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, 361 NLRB No. 8 , slip
op. at 2 (2014).
The Company’s social media policy provides, inter alia, that “[a]nything that an
employee posts online that potentially can tarnish the Company’s image ultimately will be the 35
employee’s responsibility.” The policy provides further that “taking public positions online that
are counter to the Company’s interest might cause conflict and may be subject to disciplinary
action.”
The Company’s social media policy uses overly broad language, threatening employees 40
with discipline for posting messages that may “potentially” or “might” conflict with the
Company’s position. These clauses are not aberrations, but rather comport with the essential
structure and aim of the Company’s social media standard, the theme of which is to encourage
employees to self-monitor their “personal behavior” on social media in light of company values.
See Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB at 646 (citing Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 45
NLRB 824, 825 (1998)) (noting that the Board must “refrain from reading particular phrases in
isolation, and it must not presume improper interference with employee rights.”). Thus, an
JD–05–15
58
employee could reasonably construe this language to prohibit, e.g., protests of unfair labor
practices, activity which may “potentially tarnish” or “cause conflict” with the Company’s
image, but which is yet protected by Section 7. See Hills & Dales General Hospital, 360 NLRB
No. 70, slip op. at 2 (2014) (language requiring that employees represent the Company in the
community in a positive and professional manner was found overbroad and ambiguous). 5
B. Application of the Social Media Standard to Abare
The General Counsel asserts that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by
demoting Abare in retaliation for his social media posting. The Company asserts that (1) Abare’s 10
posting was not protected concerted activity, (2) alternately, that it was not aware of the
posting’s concerted status, and (3) Abare’s reprimand was a valid response consistent with past
practice and company policy.
Analysis of Abare’s demotion is governed by the burden-shifting framework set forth in 15
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S.
989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).
Under Wright Line, the General Counsel must prove that an employee's union or other protected
activity was a motivating factor in the employer's action against the employee. The elements
required to support such a showing are union or protected concerted activity, employer 20
knowledge of that activity, and union animus on the part of the employer. See, e.g., Consolidated
Bus Transit, 350 NLRB 1064, 1065 (2007), enfd. 577 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2009); cf. Libertyville
Toyota., 360 NLRB No. 141, slip op. at 5 fn. 10 (2014) (rejecting a heightened showing of
particularized motivating animus towards the employee's own protected activity or to further
demonstrate some additional, undefined “nexus” between the employee's protected activity and 25
the adverse action). If the General Counsel carries that initial burden, the burden then shifts to
the employer to prove, as an affirmative defense, that it would have taken the same action even
in the absence of the protected activity. Id. at 1066. If, however, the evidence establishes that the
reasons given for the respondent's action are pretextual, the respondent fails by definition to
show that it would have taken the same action for those reasons, and its Wright Line defense 30
necessarily fails. See Golden State Foods Corp., 340 NLRB 382, 385 (2003), citing Limestone
Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722 (1981).
1. Concerted activity
35
Concerted activity is activity “engaged in, with or on the authority of other employees,
and not solely by and of the employee himself.” Meyers Industries, 281 NLRB 882, 885 (1986)
(Meyers II), affd. sub nom. Prill v. NLRB, 835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied 487 U.S.
1205 (1988). The concept of “mutual aid or protection” focuses on the goal of concerted activity;
chiefly, whether the employee or employees involved are seeking to “improve terms and 40
conditions of employment or otherwise improve their lot as employees.” Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB,
437 U.S. 556, 565 (1978). An employee's subjective motive for taking action is not relevant to
whether that action was concerted; rather, the analysis focuses on whether there is a link between
the activity and matters concerning the workplace or employee’ interests as employees. Fresh &
Easy Neighborhood Market., Inc., 361 NLRB No. 12, slip op. at 4 (2014). Social media postings, 45
including “likes,” are concerted activities when such postings supplement workplace discussions.
See Triple Play Sports Bar & Grille, 361 NLRB No. 31, slip op. at 3 (2014).
JD–05–15
59
On March 29, following the election, Abare posted on social media: “As I look at my pay
stub…One worse than the other. I would just like to thank all the F*#KTARDS out there that
voted “NO” …The chance they gave them was to screw us more and not get back the things we
lost. . . ! Eat $hit “NO” Voters…” Abare’s post was viewed by at least 11 employees, each of 5
whom indicated his approval by a “Like” response to the post. Several of these Facebook
“Friends” also commented on the post. Abare’s post made direct reference to the election, a
quintessential concerted activity. Further, Abare’s post made direct reference to wages, a basic
term and condition of employment. See Aroostook County Regional Ophthalmology Center, 317
NLRB 218, 220 (1995), enf. denied in part on other grounds 81 F.3d 209, 214 (D.C. Cir. 1996) 10
(discussion of wages was inherently concerted because it was vital to employment). Abare’s
post, corroborated by the “likes” of coworkers, clearly constituted concerted activity.
2. Protected status
15
The Board recently clarified the correct legal standard for analyzing the circumstances
under which concerted postings on social media sites lose their protected status. See Triple Play
Sports Bar & Grille, 361 NLRB No. 31 (2014); accord: Bettie Page Clothing, 361 NLRB No.
79, at slip op. 1 fn.1 (2014). In Triple Play Sports Bar & Grille, the Board first held that
application of the test under Atlantic Steel Co., 245 NLRB 814 (1979), was ill-suited to social 20
media postings, which were held off-site and off-duty, involving both employees and non-
employees, with no managers and no confrontation with a manager these circumstances. See 361
NLRB No. 31 at 4. The Board continued its analysis of the protected status of concerted postings
in the social media context by next holding that the standards set forth in NLRB v. Electrical
Workers IBEW Local 1229 (Jefferson Standard), 346 U.S. 464 (1953), and Linn v. United Plant 25
Guard Workers Local 114, 383 U.S. 53 (1966), respectively, outlined the proper scope for
balancing an employee’s Section 7 rights against an employer’s legitimate interest in both
preventing the disparagement of its products or services and protecting its reputation. See id. at
5. Applying Jefferson Standard to the social media postings at issue, the Board held that given
that the comments in question clearly disclosed the existence of an ongoing labor dispute, and 30
that the comments did not mention the employer’s products or services, the comments were not
disloyal, but rather, were aimed at seeking and providing mutual support looking toward group
action. See id. at 7. Next, applying Linn, the Board found no basis for finding that the employees'
claims that their withholding was insufficient to cover their tax liability, or that this shortfall was
due to an error on the respondent's part, were maliciously untrue. See id. The Board held further 35
that the employee’s characterization of her employer as an “asshole” in connection with the
asserted tax-withholding errors could not reasonably have been read as a statement of fact;
rather, the employee was merely (profanely) voicing a negative personal opinion. Id.
Accordingly, the statements did not lose protection. Id.
40
Thus, under Triple Play Sports Bar & Grille, comments posted on a social media site
accessible by both employees and non-employees do not lose their protected status when such
comments clearly disclose the existence of an ongoing labor dispute, do not mention the
employer’s products or services, and are not made with either the knowledge of their falsity or
with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. Cf. Richmond Dist. Neighborhood Center, 361 45
NLRB No. 74 (2014) (social media postings pervasively advocating insubordination with
detailed descriptions of specific acts are not protected).
JD–05–15
60
As discussed above, Abare’s post clearly disclosed the existence of an ongoing labor
dispute. Further, Abare’s post did not disparage or otherwise mention the Company’s products or
services. Finally, Abare’s post, though vulgar, clearly reflected a negative personal opinion and
could not reasonably have been construed as a statement of fact. See Plaza Auto Center, Inc., 5
355 NLRB 493, 505 fn. 29 (2010) (collecting cases). Thus, Abare’s post did not lose its
protected status under the Act.
3. The Company’s animus
10
Knowledge of an employee’s union activities may be proven through direct or
circumstantial evidence, including “the employer's demonstrated knowledge of general union
activity, the employer's demonstrated union animus, the timing of the discharge in relation to the
employee's protected activities, and the pretextual reasons for the discharge asserted by the
employer.” Kajima Eng’g & Construction Inc., 331 NLRB 1604 (2000). Pretext demonstrates 15
animus. Lucky Cab Co., 360 NLRB No. 43 (2014). An employer’s failure to follow its own
practice of progressive discipline demonstrates animus. Santa Fe Tortilla Co., 360 NLRB No.
130 at slip op. 3 (2014) (citing 2 Sisters Food Group, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 168 (2011)). Animus
is demonstrated by independent unfair labor practices. See Amptech, Inc., 342 NLRB 1131, 1135
(2004).20
In response to the Company’s November email announcing a change in benefits, Abare
asked Sheftic if it was true that certain benefits, including Sunday premium pay and unscheduled
overtime pay, were being eliminated. When Sheftic asked if the gathering was an organized
meeting and who organized it, Abare responded that Sheftic could “call this a work stoppage or 25
you can call it whatever you may want to call it, a safety shutdown, a safety timeout, whatever it
might be that you feel comfortable calling this but there are a lot of employees out there that their
minds are not on the job.” That upper management’s focus on Abare had filtered down to
midlevel managers was evident from Bro’s inquiry during as to whether Union literature had
been placed in the office/break area by Abare. Finally, during the election, Abare served as the 30
Union’s observer. The Company clearly had direct evidence of Abare’s union activities.
The Company has a disciplinary procedure relating to unsatisfactory work performance.
Steps in the procedure range from a “casual and friendly reminder,” followed by (1) a warning
for recurrences within a 3-month period, (2) sending an employee home for a single recurrence 35
within a 6-month period, and (3) suspension or termination for a second recurrence within a 6-
month period. The policy also provides guidance stating that “there shall be no disciplinary
demotions, suspensions or other forms of punishment—as a normal means of disciplining
employees.”
40
Dufore and Quinn called Abare into a meeting on April 4, during which Abare
apologized. On April 11, at a followup meeting, Quinn and Dufore demoted Abare. Quinn
informed Abare that he was removed from his positions as a crew leader, FDS captain, EMS
member and crane trainer. In disciplining Abare, the Company neither warned him nor sent him
home. The Company thereby failed to follow its own progressive disciplinary policy and thus 45
demonstrated animus.
JD–05–15
61
In addition to the Company’s postelection conduct toward Abare because of his support
for the Union, animus is also demonstrated by the aforementioned 8(a)(1) violations that resulted
from the Company’s preelection antiunion conduct. See K.W. Electric, Inc., 342 NLRB 1231,
1242 (2004).
5
4. The Company’s justification for Abare’s demotion
Where the General Counsel makes a strong showing of discriminatory motivation, an
employer's rebuttal burden is substantial. See Bettie Page Clothing, 359 NLRB No. 96 ( 2013),
enfd. Bettie Page Clothing, 361 NLRB No. 79 (2014). An employer fails to establish a legitimate 10
reason for its actions when it vacillates in offering a rational and consistent account of its actions.
Aluminum Technical Extrusions, 274 NLRB 1414, 1418 (1985). Disparate treatment establishes
pretext. Windsor Convalescent Center, 349 NLRB 480 (2007), enf. denied on other grounds 570
F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
15
The Company argues that the severity of Abare’s conduct is compounded by the
offensive nature of his comment, his targeting of coworkers with different viewpoints, and his
leadership roles. It further contends that Abare was not demoted for violating the Company’s
social media policy, or in retaliation for alleged exercise of Section 7 rights; rather, the Company
removed him from those roles for violating a code of conduct. Finally, the Company argues that 20
its treatment of Abare was consistent with the discipline meted out to other employees in similar
situations. Thus, Abare would have been disciplined even in the absence for his protected
concerted activity.
The Company’s argument lacks merit. As a general matter, the Company’s reasons for 25
the demotion have been inconsistent. When Quinn confronted Abare with his Facebook post, he
stated that the post violated the Company’s social media policy and provided him with a copy of
it, adding that “you may not be aware that we have a social media policy.” The Company now
argues, however, Abare was demoted for violating the code of conduct. The Company has thus
shifted its reasons for demoting Abare, demonstrating pretext. Approved Electric Corp., 356 30
NLRB No. 45, slip op. at 3 (2010) (shifting reasons raise the inference of pretext); accord:
Naomi Knitting Plant, 328 NLRB 1279, 1283 (1999).
Further, the Company failed to establish that any employees, much less crew leaders,
have ever been disciplined for similar behavior. The Company has demoted only four crew 35
leaders due to performance-related issues. In one of those instances, the Company gave the
employee an opportunity to remediate his performance deficiencies. In addition, the record
establishes that numerous plant employees, including supervisors, often use foul and demeaning
language, including terms such as “fucktard,” “idiot,” “retard,” “brain-dead” and a host of lewd
anatomical references. The Company’s demotion of Abare was thus disparate demonstrating 40
pretext. See United States Gypsum Co., 259 NLRB 1105, 1107 (1982).
The Company has thus failed to establish a legitimate reason for its actions absent
unlawful animus. See Alternative Energy Applications, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 139, slip op. at 5
(2014). 45
JD–05–15
62
VIII. Applicable Remedy
The aforementioned 8(a)(1) violations constituted overwhelming evidence of conduct by
the Company during the month leading up to the election which eroded the ideal conditions 5
necessary to facilitate the free choice of employees and determine their uninhibited desires.
Jensen Enterprises, 339 NLRB No. 105 (2003); Robert Orr-Sysco Food Servs., 338 NLRB 614
(2002) (narrowness of the vote is a factor); Clark Equipment Co., 278 NLRB 495, 505 (1986)
(factors include the number of violations, their severity, the extent of dissemination, the size of
the unit and other relevant factors); Playskool Mfg. Co., 140 NLRB 1417 (1963); General Shoe 10
Corp., 77 NLRB 124 (1948). Thus, the petitioning Union has met its burden in Case 03–RC–
120447 and there is no doubt that the results of the election must be set aside. When considered
in context with the unfair labor practice proceedings, it is also evident that, at the very least, the
traditional remedies are warranted—a rerun of the election in disposition of the representation
case and a cease and desist order and posting of a notice in the unfair labor practice proceedings. 15
There is a much closer call, however, with respect to the General Counsel’s request for an
order granting the extraordinary remedy of a bargaining order designating the Union as the legal
representative of Company’s employees pursuant to NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575,
610 (1969). The General Counsel contends that the timing and enduring nature of the Company’s 20
unlawful conduct warrants a bargaining order. The Company maintains, however, that the record
evidence fails to meet the high standard for issuing such relief.
In Gissel, the Supreme Court held that a bargaining order is warranted when “an
employer has committed independent unfair labor practices which have made the holding of a 25
fair election unlikely or which have in fact undermined a union's majority and caused an election
to be set aside.” Id. at 610. The traditional remedy for unfair labor practices is to hold an election
once the atmosphere has been cleared of past misconduct; a bargaining order thus is an
extraordinary remedy applied when it is unlikely that the atmosphere can be cleansed. Aqua
Cool, 332 NLRB 95, 97 (2000). However, a bargaining order is not punitive, but rather is30
designed both to remedy past election misconduct and to deter future misconduct. Gissel, 395
U.S. at 612; General Fabrications Corp., 329 NLRB 1114, 1116 (1999). The issuance of a
bargaining order, then, seeks to balance the rights of employees who favor unionization, and
whose majority strength has been undermined by the employer’s unfair labor practices, against
the rights of those employees opposing the union who may choose to file a decertification 35
petition at the appropriate time pursuant to Section 9(c)(1). See Overnite Transportaion Co., 329
NLRB 990, 996 (1999).
A bargaining order is warranted absent a card majority in exceptional cases marked by
outrageous and pervasive unfair labor practices. Gissel. 395 U.S. at 613 (internal quotation 40
marks omitted). A bargaining order is also warranted with a card majority “in less extraordinary
cases marked by less pervasive practices which nonetheless still have the tendency to undermine
majority strength and impede the election processes.” Id. at 614. In these less extraordinary
cases, the extensiveness of an employer's unfair practices is relevant both in terms of those
practices’ past effect on election conditions and in terms of the likelihood of their recurrence in 45
the future. Id. Minor or less extensive unfair labor practices which have a minimal impact on the
election machinery will not warrant a bargaining order. Id. at 615. In evaluating these factors, the
JD–05–15
63
fundamental question is whether there is a slight possibility of erasing the effects of past
practices and of ensuring a fair rerun by the use of traditional remedies, and that employee
sentiment once expressed through cards would thus be better protected by a bargaining order. Id.
at 614–615.
5
A. Establishment of Majority Status Prior to the Election
Cumberland Shoe Corp. established that an unambiguous card is valid unless and until it
is rendered invalid through solicitation misrepresenting the sole purpose of the card. See 144
NLRB 1268, 1269 (1963). A card may be ambiguous, and thus facially invalid, through either 10
the words on the card or through the manner in which the card is presented to the signee. The
Board has found that a card is rendered ambiguous through the words on the card when it both
authorizes union representation and states that “[t]he purpose of signing the card is to have a
Board-conducted election” (Nissan Research & Development, 296 NLRB 598, 599 (1989)
(internal quotation marks omitted)). The Board has clarified that cards which seek both majority 15
status and cards which seek representation must, of necessity, express the intent to be represented
by a particular labor organization. Levi Strauss & Co., 172 NLRB 732, 733 (1968). Thus, “the
fact that employees are told in the course of solicitation that an election is contemplated, or that a
purpose of the card is to make an election possible, provides . . .insufficient basis in itself for
vitiating unambiguously worded authorization cards on the theory of misrepresentation.” Id.20
Absent evidence of such representation, enquiry into the subjective motives or understanding of
the signatory to determine his or her intentions toward usage of the card is irrelevant. See Sunrise
Healthcare Corp., 320 NLRB 510, 524 (1995). As the Supreme Court clarified, summarizing
and expanding upon Cumberland Shoe and Levi Strauss:
25
[E]mployees should be bound by the clear language of what they sign unless that
language is deliberately and clearly canceled by a union adherent with words
calculated to direct the signer to disregard and forget the language above his
signature. There is nothing inconsistent in handing an employee a card that says
the signer authorizes the union to represent him and then telling him that the card 30
will probably be used first to get an election…in hearing testimony concerning a
card challenge, trial examiners should not neglect their obligation to ensure
employee free choice by a too easy mechanical application of the Cumberland
rule. We also accept the observation that employees are more likely than not,
many months after a card drive and in response to questions by company counsel, 35
to give testimony damaging to the union, particularly where company officials
have previously threatened reprisals for union activity in violation of s 8(a)(1).
We therefore reject any rule that requires a probe of an employee's subjective
motivations as involving an endless and unreliable inquiry.
NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 606–608 (1969).40
The record evidence reveals that Ridgeway, Abare, Spencer and the rest of an organizing
committee of about 25 employees obtained 356 signed union authorization cards from employees
during the organizing campaign, 351 of which were properly authenticated by witnesses, the
employees themselves or handwriting comparison. Cards may be authenticated by comparing 45
signatures with other handwriting. See Action Auto Stores, 298 NLRB 875, 879 (1990) (citing
Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(3)) (authenticating cards by comparing the signature on the card with the
JD–05–15
64
employee’s name and social security number on employment application). See also U.S. v.
Rhodis, 58 Fed. Appx. 855, 856–857 (2d Cir. 2003) (factfinder may compare “a known
handwriting sample with another sample to determine if handwriting in the latter is genuine”);
Parts Depot, Inc., 332 NLRB 670, 674 (2000); Thrift Drug Co. of Pennsylvania, 167 NLRB 426,
430 (1967) (cards authenticated by comparison with other samples by nonexperts); Traction 5
Wholesale Ctr. Co., 328 NLRB 1058, 1059 (1999) (cards authenticated by judicial comparison
of signatures to other records); Justak Bros., 253 NLRB 1054, 1079 (1981) (same).
With respect to what employees said or were told during the solicitation of cards,
however, the testimony did not overly impress. Both sides produced many witnesses who 10
testified to mere snapshots of what they discussed with solicitors since it was evident in the
overwhelming number of these cases that the conversations lasted significantly longer than the
short, rote responses given. Nevertheless, the testimony revealed consistent statements by
solicitors advising employees to read the cards, requesting that they provide the detailed
information requested by the card and sign it, and advising coworkers that they could request 15
return of their cards if they changed their minds. In certain instances, solicitors explained the
purpose of the card when asked. In many instances, solicitors outlined the process of requesting
union representation through a signed authorization card, some mentioned that the cards would
result in a representation election and yet a few responded that the card would be used to get
more information about the Union. 20
Notably, there was testimony from only a few witnesses that they requested return of
their union authorization cards. In light of the parade of recanting employees called by the
Company to testify that they were duped into signing cards in order to get more information
about the Union, I find it peculiar that most of them never requested return of their cards, 25
especially after experiencing the onslaught of the Company’s campaign information relating to
election “facts” and “employee rights.” An equally relevant consideration is the absence of any
statement by the Company or antiunion employees during their dissemination of anti-Union
propaganda about the Union misleading employees about the purpose of the authorization cards.
30
In some instances, the General Counsel’s witnesses did not possess the most accurate
recollection as to when they signed or witnessed a card being signed. Many of them were
looking at the cards when asked about the dates when signed. In such instances, however, the
Board recognizes a presumption that the card was signed on the date appearing thereon.
Multimatic Products, 288 NLRB 1279, 1350 fn. 126 (1988), Zero Corp., 262 NLRB 495, 499 35
(1982); Jasta Mfg. Co., 246 NLRB 48, 63 (1979).
It was also evident in certain situations that the solicitors did not witness the signing of
cards but merely collected completed and signed cards. In such situations, authorization cards are
authenticated “when returned by the signatory to the person soliciting them even though the 40
solicitor did not witness the actual act of signing.” Evergreen America Corp., 348 NLRB 178,
179 (2006) (quoting McEwan Mfg. Co., 172 NLRB 990, 992 (1968)). See also Henry Colder
Co., 163 NLRB 105, 116 (1967) (personal authentication of each and every card by their signers
is contrary to the rule to which forgery is an exception).
45
To the extent that some solicitors stated that the cards would be used to get more
information or get an election, their words did not clearly and deliberately direct the signer to
JD–05–15
65
disregard and forget the language above his or her signature. Cards are not invalidated through
confused testimony regarding their receipt. See Evergreen America Corp., 348 NLRB at 179
(citing Stride Rite, 228 NLRB 224, 235 (1977)).
In addition to the record evidence as to what employees were essentially told about the 5
purpose of the card, is the language of the card indicating that its purpose was to authorize
“representation” in “collective bargaining” and to be “used to secure union recognition and
collective bargaining rights.” The language of the cards, which required the entry of detailed
information that was obviously read by the card signer, was clear and unambiguous. Under the
circumstances, all but five of the cards were sufficiently authenticated, were thus valid and 10
evidenced the majority support of the Union as of January 9.
B. Sufficiency of Traditional Remedies
Consideration of a bargaining order examines the nature and pervasiveness of the
employer's practices. Holly Farms Corp., 311 NLRB 273, 281 (1993) (citing FJN Mfg., 305 15
NLRB 656, 657 (1991)). In weighing a violation's pervasiveness, relevant considerations include
the number of employees directly affected by the violation, the size of the unit, the extent of
dissemination among the work force, and the identity of the perpetrator of the unfair labor
practice. Id. A bargaining order is not warranted when the violations are not disseminated among
the bargaining unit, such as when they are committed by low-level managers and affect 20
employees on an individual basis. See, e.g., Cast-Matic Corp., 350 NLRB 1349 (2007); Desert
Aggregates, 340 NLRB 289 (2003) (violations, including unlawful discharges, were committed
on an individual basis by low-level supervisors); Philips Industries, 295 NLRB 717 (1989)
(same). Also, a bargaining order is not warranted when the most widely disseminated violations
occur before a union demand for recognition and thus cannot have been said to have eroded the 25
union’s majority support. See, e.g., Jewish Home for the Elderly of Fairfield County, 343 NLRB
1069, 1121–1122 (2004). Conversely, violations are more likely to warrant a bargaining order
when they are disseminated among employees to the extent of affecting all or a significant
portion of the bargaining unit. Evergreen America Corp., 348 NLRB 178, 180–181 (2006).
30
1. Severity of the violations
A bargaining order is warranted, absent significant mitigating circumstances, when the
employer engages in the type of hallmark violations committed here – threats of plant closure,
threats of loss of employment, the grant of benefits to employees, and the reassignment, 35
demotion, or discharge of union adherents. NLRB v. Jamaica Towing, Inc. 632 F.2d 208, 212–
213 (2d Cir. 1980). Hallmark violations are significant in that they are reasonably likely to have
an effect on a substantial percentage of the work force and to remain in employees memories for
a long period. Id. at 213. Cf. Aqua Cool, 332 NLRB 95 (2000) (single hallmark violation was
directed to a single employee and thus counseled against issuing a bargaining order).40
The Company committed a hallmark violation when, during captive audience meetings, it
threatened plant closure and loss of business. This violation, which was directly disseminated to
the bargaining unit, will likely remain etched in employees’ memories for a long period. See
Aldworth Co., 338 NLRB 137, 149–150 (2002) (noting that allusions to potential total loss of
business are the types of threats most likely to have the effect of causing union disaffection and 45
JD–05–15
66
that “[t]hreats of this kind are not likely to be forgotten by employees whose jobs depend on the
stability of that relationship”). Threats of plant closure and loss of jobs are more likely to destroy
election conditions for a longer period of time than other unfair labor practices. Homer D.
Bronson Co., 349 NLRB 512, 549 (2007) (citing A.P.R.A. Fuel, Inc., 309 NLRB 480, 481
(1992), enfd. mem. 28 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1994)).5
The Company also committed a significant hallmark violation when it granted a benefit
to employees by restoring Sunday premium pay. This violation was disseminated to the entire
bargaining unit and is likely to have a long-lasting effect, not only because of its significance to
employees, but also because this benefit will regularly appear in paychecks as a “continuing
reminder.” MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc., 342 NLRB 1172, 1174 (2004) (quoting Holly Farms, 10
311 NLRB at 281–282).
The Company committed another significant hallmark violation when it demoted Abare,
a known union adherent shortly after the election and during the pendency of these proceeding
by purportedly applying an unlawfully restrictive social media policy. Abare’s demotion was 15
widely known among the work force. Demotion of union adherents in violation of Section
8(a)(3) represent a complete action likely to have a lasting inhibitive effect on a substantial
portion of the workforce. See Jamaica Towing, Inc., 632 F.2d at 213.
In addition to the hallmark violations, the Company committed several other violations, 20
including interrogating employees, promising benefits, threatening decreased benefits, and
expressing anti-union resolve. Id. A factor which exacerbates the severity of a violation is the
extent to which the violations are disseminated among employees. See Evergreen Am. Corp.,
348 NLRB 178, 180 (2006); Cogburn Healthcare Center, Inc., 335 NLRB 1397, 1399 (2001). A
second factor which exacerbates the severity of a violation is involvement of a high-ranking 25
official. Parts Depot, Inc., 322 NLRB 670, 675 (2000) (citing M.J. Metal Products, 328 NLRB
1184, 1185 (1999)).
The Company committed several other violations during the captive audience meetings.
It threatened reduced pay and benefits as well as more onerous working conditions. These threats 30
were directly disseminated to the bargaining unit. Further, the severity of this violation was
exacerbated by its communication via high-ranking officials. See Aldworth Co., 338 NLRB at
149 (captive audience meetings convey a significant impact when conducted by high-level
officials). When the antiunion message is so clearly communicated by the words and deeds of the
highest levels of management, it is highly coercive and unlikely to be forgotten. See Electro-35
Voice, 320 NLRB 1094, 1096 (1996); America’s Best Quality Coatings Corp., 313 NLRB 470,
472 (1993), enfd. 44 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 115 S.Ct. 2609 (1995).
The Company also violated the Act during the captive audience meetings when it
unlawfully disparaged the Union by misrepresenting an altered Board document. These 40
violations were disseminated among the entire bargaining unit by high-ranking officials two days
before the election. M.J. Metal Products, Inc., 328 NLRB 1184, 1185 (1999) (communications
by the highest level of management are highly likely to be coercive and unlikely to be forgotten).
The Company further violated the Act through supervisory encounters with smaller 45
groups of employees prior to the election. During those encounters, supervisors interrogated,
JD–05–15
67
threatened and discriminatorily enforced the Company’s unlawfully over broad and restrictive
solicitation and distribution policy. These discriminatory actions committed by supervisors were
likely to leave an impression sufficient to outweigh the general good-faith assurances issued by
management. Garvey Marine, Inc., 328 NLRB 991, 993 (1999).
5
Finally, the Company combined the chilling effect of coercive conduct by supervisors
with the warmer approach taken by Quinn of unlawfully soliciting grievances during the Union
campaign. Solicitation of grievances has a long-lasting effect on employees’ freedom of choice
by eliminating, through unlawful means, the very reason for a union’s existence. See Teledyne
Dental Products Corp., 210 NLRB 435, 435–436 (1974). 10
Thus, the Company’s commission of several hallmark violations along with numerous
other violations, many of which directly affected the entire bargaining unit, and many of which
directly involved upper-level management, strongly suggests that the lingering effect of these
violations is unlikely to be eradicated by traditional remedies. Evergreen America Corp., 348 15
NLRB at 182; Koons Ford of Annapolis, 282 NLRB 506, 509 (1986).
2. Remediation of potential effects of the violations
Evaluation of whether a bargaining order is warranted depends upon the situation as of 20
the time the employer committed the unfair labor practices. Highland Plastics, Inc., 256 NLRB
146, 147 (1981). Evaluation must consider the likelihood of the recurrence of violations. Gissel,
395 U.S. at 614. Evaluation may also, but need not, consider changed circumstances, such as the
passage of time, the addition of new employees, and the issuance of a 10(j) injunction. See
Evergreen America Corp., 348 NLRB at 181–182. 25
The Company cites Cogburn Health Center, Inc. v. NLRB, for the preposition that
mitigating or changed circumstances, such as employee or management turnover may counsel
against issuing a bargaining order. 437 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir 2006). Cf. Overnite Transportation,
334 NLRB 1074, 1076 (2001) (Board evaluation of bargaining order does not consider employee 30
turnover). In Cogburn Health Center, the court found it significant that only 44 percent of the
voting employees remained employed by the company. Id. Further, the court noted key changes
in company management, including the death of a co-owner/vice president and departure of
another coowner, who together had been responsible for 15 unfair labor practices, 5 of 15
instances of unlawful interrogation, and four of six discharges. Id. at 1274–1275. Finally, 5 years 35
had passed since the commission of the unfair labor practices and the Board’s analysis of the
case which, in turn, amounted to 10 years by the time the court reached the matter. Id. at 1275.
Aside from the relatively brief amount of time that has passed since the election,
Cogburn Health Ctr. is distinguishable from the instant case in that the high-level management 40
officials implicated in the hallmark violations—Martens, Palmieri and Smith remain with the
Company; only one such official, Sheftic, is no longer in the Company’s employ. Further, since
the election, the Company has added only about 50 new employees to a work force of 600,
equating to roughly 8 percent of the bargaining unit. This change in the unit composition is
minimal as compared to the significant percentage demonstrated in Cogburn Health Center, and 45
is, thus, not relevant as a mitigating factor. See also NLRB v. Marion Rohr Corp., 714 F.2d 228,
JD–05–15
68
231 (2d Cir. 1983) (35% turnover rate is a relevant factor); NLRB v. Chester Valley, Inc., 652
F.2d 263, 273 (2d Cir. 1981) (same).
The Company further cites J.L.M., Inc. v. NLRB, in support of its larger argument that
employer communications to employees to clarify and/or cure conduct that could be perceived as 5
an unfair labor practice are directly relevant to whether employees “continue to feel the effects of
the ULPs.” 31 F.3d 79, 85 (2d Cir. 1994). However, the court in J.L.M., Inc. made no reference
to employer communications meant to cure past misconduct; its discussion, rather, was whether,
in the context of significant turnover (roughly 57%), employees would continue to feel the
effects of past misconduct after the passage of 3 years. See id. The Company’s reliance upon 10
J.L.M., Inc. is thus not pertinent.
Further, in regard to the ability of an employer to cure unlawful conduct, the Board has
clarified that such repudiation must not only admit wrongdoing, but must also be adequately
publicized, timely, unambiguous, specific in nature to the coercive conduct, untainted by other 15
unlawful conduct, and must assure employees that, going forward, the employer will not
interfere with the exercise of their Section 7 rights. See DirectTV, 359 NLRB No. 54, slip op. at
4 (2013) (citing Passavant Memorial Area Hospital, 237 NLRB 138 (1978)). See also Astro
Printing Services., 300 NLRB 1028, 1029 (1990) (assurances by an employer to employees of
their rights to engage in union activity or disavowals of misconduct, absent unequivocal 20
admission, fail to remedy the long-lasting effects of past misconduct).
The Company also relies on the issuance of a preliminary injunction issued by the
District Court and its compliance with that order, including the reading to all employees of their
rights and restoring the status quo. It also refers to a memorandum to all employees disseminated 25
in June in which Martens and Smith addressed past violations. Each stated, “I did not and would
never make any threats.” However, the statements merely denied any wrongdoing and attributed
the Company’s unlawful conduct to “possible misunderstanding or misconception.” This
equivocating language is insufficient to repudiate past violations. See Rivers Casino, 356 NLRB
No. 142, slip op. at 3 (2011) (referring to an earlier violation as a “misunderstanding” is not 30
sufficiently clear to effectuate repudiation). Further, the Company’s memoranda, though
publicized, lacked assurances of employee rights, and were neither unambiguous nor
unequivocal in admitting wrongdoing, thus failing to cure past violations. See id. (citing Bell
Halter, Inc., 276 NLRB 1208, 1213–1214 (1985)).
35
The Company’s reliance on its compliance with the District Court’s preliminary
injunction order is also unavailing. In such instances, the Board has clarified that compliance
with such orders does not actually remedy unfair labor practices, but rather returns parties to the
status quo ante pending disposition by the Board. R.L. White Co., 262 NLRB 575, 581 (1982).
40
The Company unlawfully demoted Abare, a leading Union supporter, even though he
apologized and assured Quinn that he would not do it again. Quinn conceded that Abare was an
excellent employee, but conditioned the duration of the demotion on Abare’s future behavior.
Since Quinn was not concerned about performance, his remarks would be reasonably interpreted
as referring to either future social media commentary or other activity by Abare adverse to the 45
Company’s labor relations interests. Thus, the postelection demotion and the admonition about
further post-election conduct reflect a continuation of unlawful conduct during the post-election
JD–05–15
69
period. See Transportation Repair & Service,, 328 NLRB 107, 114 (1999) (postelection 8(a)(3)
violation against union adherent diminishes the likelihood that a fair election can be held).
Contrary to the Company’s assertion that it undertook meaningful measures in post-
election employee communications to remediate or mitigate the impact of its unlawful conduct, 5
contextual evidence negated it. The evidence related to the Company’s postelection
communications denying the allegations in the complaint, while also heaping 5 years of pay
raises on the employees.179 This was an unusual occurrence since pay and benefits changes have
always been implemented between October and December of each year. The unusual timing of
this change was coupled with announcements in May that the Company denied the charges, but 10
felt that employees’ rights would be respected and hopefully expressed in a rerun election. The
Company, clearly emboldened by how it peeled away union support with its unlawful tactics
during the election campaign, would be pleased with such a result. That is not to be. The only
fair, justified and appropriate remedy here is a bargaining order. See Tipton Electric Co., 242
NLRB 202, 202–203 (1979) (postelection grant of benefits represents a calculated application of 15
the carrot and the stick to condition employee response to any union organizing effort, affording
the employer an unlawfully acquired advantage in a rerun election which cannot be cured by
simply ordering the employer to mend its ways and post a notice).
Based on the foregoing, the evidence establishes numerous violations by the Company of 20
Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The unfair labor practice violations were sufficiently severe
so as to erode the majority support that the Union had acquired and demonstrated on or before
January 9, causing it to lose the representation election conducted on February 20–21. The
practices also amount to hallmark and other violations demonstrating that traditional remedies,
including a notice posting, cease and desist order and rerun of the election, would be insufficient 25
to alleviate the impact reasonably incurred by eligible unit employees. Thus, a more
extraordinary relief, including a bargaining order, is warranted.
VII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
30
The Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
1. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial
and Service Workers, International Union, AFL–CIO (Union) is a labor organization within the 35
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. The Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in the following
conduct:
40
(a) Threatening employees with plant closure if they select the Union as their
bargaining representative;
(b) Threatening employees with a reduction in wages of they select the Union as
their bargaining representative; 45

179 R. Exh. 54, 56.
JD–05–15
70
(c) Threatening employees with more onerous working conditions, including
mandatory overtime, if they select the Union as their bargaining representative;
(d) Disparaging the Union by telling employees that the Union is seeking to have 5
the Company rescind their pay and/or benefits;
(e) Disparaging the Union by telling employees that they would have to pay back
wages retroactively as a result of charges filed by the Union;
10
(f) Threatening employees that the Company would lose business if they select the
Union as their bargaining representative;
(g) Threatening employees with job loss if they select the Union as their bargaining
representative; 15
(h) Interrogating employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies;
(i) Interrogating employees about the union membership, activities and sympathies of
other employees; 20
(j) Coercing employees by asking them how to vote if they do not want the Union;
(k) Threatening employees by telling them that they did not have to work for the
Company if they are unhappy with their terms and conditions of employment; 25
(l) Prohibiting employees from wearing union insignia on their uniforms while permitting
employees to wear antiunion and other insignia;
(m) Promulgating and maintaining rules prohibiting all postings, distribution and 30
solicitation related to Section 7 activities;
(n) Maintaining a rule that prohibits employees from posting, soliciting and distributing
literature in all areas of the Company’s premises;
35
(o) Selectively and disparately enforcing the Company’s posting and distribution rules by
prohibiting union postings and distributions while permitting nonunion and antiunion postings
and distributions;
(p) Granting wage and/or benefit increases in order to discourage employees from 40
supporting the Union;
(q) Soliciting employees’ complaints and grievances and promising employees improved
terms and conditions of employment if they did not select the Union as their bargaining
representative; 45
JD–05–15
71
(r) Demoting its employee Everett Abare because he engaged in protected concerted
activity;
(s) Maintaining and giving effect to its overly broad unlawful social media policy.
5
3. The Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by demoting Everett Abare
because of this union activities.
4. The following employees constitute a union appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: 10
All full-time and regular part-time employees employed by the Employer at its Oswego,
New York facility, including the classifications of Cold Mill Operator, Finishing
Operator, Recycling Operator, Remelt Operator, Crane Technician, Mechanical
Technician, Welding Technician, Remelt Operations Assistant, Hot Mill Operator, 15
Electrical Technician, Process Technician, Mobile Equipment Technician, Roll Shop
Technician, Production Process & Quality Technician, Production Process & Quality
Specialist, EHS Facilitator, Planner, Shipping Receiving & Packing Specialist, Stores
Technician, Maintenance Technician, Machinist, Facility Technician, and Storeroom
Agent, excluding Office clerical employees and guards, professional employees, and 20
supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees.
5. Since January 9, 2014, and continuing to date the Union has requested and continues to
request that the Company recognize and bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment as the exclusive 25
representative of all employees of the Company in the above-described unit.
6. Since January 9, 2014, a majority of the employees in the above Unit signed union
authorization cards designating and selecting the Union as their exclusive collective bargaining
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Company. 30
7. Since January 9, 2014, and continuing to date, the Union has been the representative
for the purpose of collective bargaining of employees in the above described unit and by virtue
of 9(a) of the Act has been can is now the exclusive representative of the employees in said unit
for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of 35
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment.
8. Since about January 13, 2014, and at all times thereafter the Company has failed and
refused to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit. 40
9. The Company has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
employees in the above-described unit.
45
10. The Company unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
JD–05–15
72
REMEDY
Having found that the Company 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 5
the policies of the Act. For the reasons set forth above, such relief shall include an order that the
Company, on request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the above-described unit.
As a bargaining order has been found appropriate with respect to the unit which includes 10
live haul employees, it is recommended that the election held in Case 03–RC–I120447 be set
aside and that the petition in that proceeding be dismissed. On these findings of fact and
conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended 179
ORDER15
The Respondent, Novelis Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
20
(a) Threatening employees with plant closure if they select the Union as their bargaining
representative;
(b) Threatening employees with a reduction in wages of they select the Union as their
bargaining representative; 25
(c) Threatening employees with more onerous working conditions, including mandatory
overtime, if they select the Union as their bargaining representative;
(d) Disparaging the Union by telling employees that the Union is seeking to have 30
Respondent rescind their pay and/or benefits;
(e) Disparaging the Union by telling employees that they would have to pay back wages
retroactively as a result of charges filed by the Union;
35
(f) Threatening employees that Respondent would lose business if they select the Union
as their bargaining representative;
(g) Threatening employees with job loss if they select the Union as their bargaining
representative; 40
(h) Interrogating employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies;

179 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–05–15
73
(i) Interrogating employees about the union membership, activities and sympathies of
other employees;
(j) Coercing employees by asking them how to vote if they do not want the Union;
5
(k) Threatening employees by telling them that they did not have to work for Respondent
if they are unhappy with their terms and conditions of employment;
(l) Prohibiting employees from wearing union insignia on their uniforms while permitting
employees to wear anti-union and other insignia; 10
(m) Promulgating and maintaining rules prohibiting all postings, distribution and
solicitation related to Section 7 activities;
(n) Maintaining a rule that prohibits employees from posting, soliciting and distributing 15
literature in all areas of Respondent’s premises;
(o) Selectively and disparately enforcing Respondent’s posting and distribution rules by
prohibiting union postings and distributions while permitting nonunion and anti-union postings
and distributions; 20
(p) Granting wage and/or benefit increases in order to discourage employees from
supporting the Union;
(q) Soliciting employees’ complaints and grievances and promising employees improved 25
terms and conditions of employment if they did not select the Union as their bargaining
representative;
(r) Demoting employees because they engage in protected concerted activity or union
activity; 30
(s) Maintaining and giving effect to its overly broad unlawful social media policy;
(t) Refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representatives of the employees in the Unit set forth below: 35
All full-time and regular part-time employees employed by the Employer at its
Oswego, New York facility, including the classifications of Cold Mill Operator,
Finishing Operator, Recycling Operator, Remelt Operator, Crane Technician,
Mechanical Technician, Welding Technician, Remelt Operations Assistant, Hot 40
Mill Operator, Electrical Technician, Process Technician, Mobile Equipment
Technician, Roll Shop Technician, Production Process & Quality Technician,
Production Process & Quality Specialist, EHS Facilitator, Planner, Shipping
Receiving & Packing Specialist, Stores Technician, Maintenance Technician,
Machinist, Facility Technician, and Storeroom Agent, excluding Office clerical 45
employees and guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, and all other employees.
JD–05–15
74
(u) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing Respondent’s
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. 5
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the following appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an
understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement:
10
All full-time and regular part-time employees employed by the Employer at its
Oswego, New York facility, including the classifications of Cold Mill Operator,
Finishing Operator, Recycling Operator, Remelt Operator, Crane Technician,
Mechanical Technician, Welding Technician, Remelt Operations Assistant, Hot
Mill Operator, Electrical Technician, Process Technician, Mobile Equipment 15
Technician, Roll Shop Technician, Production Process & Quality Technician,
Production Process & Quality Specialist, EHS Facilitator, Planner, Shipping
Receiving & Packing Specialist, Stores Technician, Maintenance Technician,
Machinist, Facility Technician, and Storeroom Agent, excluding Office clerical
employees and guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the 20
Act, and all other employees.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, restore Everett Abare to the
positions he previously held at his previous wage and other terms and conditions of employment.
25
(c) Make Everett Abare whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against him.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful demotion, and within 3 days thereafter notify Everett Abare in writing 30
that this has been done and that the demotion will not be used against him in any way.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records 35
and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Oswego, New York,
copies of the attached “Notice to Employees.180” Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the 40
Regional Director for Region 3, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in

180 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–05–15
75
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn 5
statement of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps the
Respondent has taken to comply.
3. It is further ordered that the election conducted in Case 03-RC-120447 on February 20
and 21, 2014 shall be set aside, and the petition shall be dismissed. 10
Dated: Washington, D.C. January 30, 2015
___________________________________15
Michael A. Rosas
Administrative Law Judge
JD–05–15

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
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 do anything which interferes with, restrains or coerces you with respect to these
rights. More specifically,
WE WILL NOT threaten you with plant closure if you select the Union as your bargaining
representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with a reduction in wages if you select the Union as your
bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with more onerous working conditions, including mandatory
overtime, if you select the Union as your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT disparage the Union by telling you that the Union is seeking to have
Respondent rescind your pay and/or benefits.
WE WILL NOT disparage the Union by telling you, you would have to pay back wages
retroactively as a result of the charges filed by the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you that Respondent would lose business if you select the Union as
your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with job loss if you select the Union as your bargaining
representative.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your union membership, activities and sympathies.
WE WILL NOT coerce employees by asking you how to vote if you do not want the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you by telling them that you did not have to work for Respondent if
you are
unhappy with your terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT prohibit employees from wearing union insignia on your uniforms while
permitting you to wear antiunion and other insignia.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and maintain rules prohibiting all postings, distribution, and
solicitation related Section 7 activities.
JD–05–15
WE WILL NOT maintain a rule that prohibits you from posting, soliciting and distributing
literature in all areas of Respondent’s premises.
WE WILL NOT selectively and disparately enforce Respondent’s posting and distribution rules
by prohibiting union postings and distributions while permitting nonunion and anti-union
postings and distributions.
WE WILL NOT grant wage and/or benefit increases in order to discourage you from supporting
the Union.
WE WILL NOT solicit your complaints and grievances and promise you improved terms and
conditions of employment if you did not select the Union as your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT demote you for your union activities and/or protected concerted activities.
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers, International Union, AFL–CIO, is the employees’ representative in dealing with us
regarding wages, hours and other working conditions of the employees in the following unit:
All full-time and regular part-time employees employed by the Employer at its
Oswego, New York facility, including the classifications of Cold Mill Operator,
Finishing Operator, Recycling Operator, Remelt Operator, Crane Technician,
Mechanical Technician, Welding Technician, Remelt Operations Assistant, Hot
Mill Operator, Electrical Technician, Process Technician, Mobile Equipment
Technician, Roll Shop Technician, Production Process & Quality Technician,
Production Process & Quality Specialist, EHS Facilitator, Planner, Shipping
Receiving & Packing Specialist, Stores Technician, Maintenance Technician,
Machinist, Facility Technician, and Storeroom Agent, excluding Office clerical
employees and guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, and all other employees.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in the above bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of your rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, rescind our unlawful solicitation/distribution and social media policies.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of unit employees.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Everett Abare full reinstatement to
his former positions.
WE WILL, make Everett Abare whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
his demotions, plus interest.
JD–05–15
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files any reference to
the unlawful demotion of Everett Abare, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify him in
writing that his had been done and that the demotion will not be used against him in any way.
NOVELIS CORPORATION
(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.
Niagara Center Building., 130 S. Elmwood Avenue, Suite 630, Buffalo, NY 14202-2465
(716) 551-4931, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/03-CA-121293 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, (716) 551-4946.