Queens Village Day School

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jul 6, 2011

29-CA-029618 (N.L.R.B. Jul. 6, 2011)

JD(NY)–22–11
Queens Village, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
QUEENS VILLAGE DAY SCHOOL, INC.
and Case No. 29-CA-29618
29-CA-29798
DISTRICT COUNCIL 1707, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Aggie Kapelman, Esq., Brooklyn, NY, for the
General Counsel.
DECISION
Statement of Facts
Steven Fish, Administrative Law Judge: Pursuant to charges filed by District Council
1707, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (the Union) in
Case Nos. 29-CA-29618 and 29-CA-29798, the Regional Director issued an Order
Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing on September 23, 2009,
alleging that Queens Village Day School, Inc. (Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act by discharging its employee, Daisy Sherrod, because she joined, supported or assisted
the Union, and by unlawfully threatening to discharge employees if they joined or supported the
Union and by creating the impression among its employees that their union activities were being
kept under surveillance by Respondent.
On March 24, 2010, the Director approved a bilateral settlement, executed by
Respondent and the Union, resolving the allegations set forth in the consolidated complaint.
On April 19, 2011, the Director issued an Order Revoking Settlement and Reissuing
Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing. The order asserted that Respondent has failed
to comply with certain aspects of the agreement by failing to make six scheduled installment
payments totaling $13,168.00.
The order further concluded that due to Respondent’s conduct in breaching the
agreement and failing to cure the default, the settlement agreement was revoked and requested
that pursuant to the terms of the agreement that the allegations in the amended complaint must
be deemed to be true.
Respondent did not file an answer to the aforementioned Order Revoking the Settlement
and Reissuing the Consolidated Complaint.
On May 17, 2011, a hearing was held before me in Brooklyn, NY. Respondent did not
appear. Counsel for General Counsel requested that I grant a Motion for Summary Judgment
based on Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the reissued complaint. General Counsel
also asked that I issue a bench decision. I denied General Counsel’s request for a bench
decision and reserved ruling on the summary judgment request. I also requested a brief on
several issues, particularly the questions of whether service of the reissued complaint had been
JD(NY)–22–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
properly established. General Counsel filed such a brief, which has been carefully considered.
On the entire record, I make the following:
Findings of Fact
I. The Settlement Agreement
A. Procedural Terms
The settlement agreement provides as material herein:
In the event of non-compliance with any of the terms of this
Agreement, the Charged Party/Respondent shall be given written
notice that it has seven (7) days to cure its default(s). If it fails to
cure the default(s), the Charged Party/Respondent agrees that all
of its monetary obligations under the Agreement shall immediately
become due and shall be payable as liquidated damages.
Payment of these amounts shall not constitute the full remedy of
the allegations set forth in the Complaint. Charged
Party/Respondent shall, however, be entitled to a setoff against its
liability under the full customary Board remedy, as set forth below,
for all liquidated damages it pays and all prior payments it makes
under the Agreement. The Charged Party/Respondent agrees that
in case of non-compliance with any of the terms of this Settlement
Agreement by the Charged Party/Respondent, the Regional
Director may issue a complaint based upon the allegations of the
charge(s) in the instant case(s) which were found to have merit,
and/or reissue the complaint previously filed in the instant
case(s).Thereafter, the General Counsel may file a Motion for
Summary Judgment with the Board on the allegations of the just
issued complaint concerning the violations of the Act alleged
therein. The Charged Party/Respondent understands and agrees
that the allegations of the aforementioned complaint may be
deemed to be true by the Board, that it will not contest the validity
of any such allegations, and the Board may enter findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and an Order on the allegations of the
aforementioned complaint, including a full and complete traditional
backpay remedy for all violations of the Act, and any appropriate
special remedies sought. On receipt of said Motion for Summary
Judgment, the Board shall issue an Order requiring the Charged
Party/ Respondent to show cause why said Motion of the General
Counsel should not be granted. The only issues that may be
raised in response to the Board’s Order to Show Cause is whether
the Charged Party/Respondent defaulted upon the terms of this
Settlement Agreement and/or if it received notice to cure said
default. The Board may then, without necessity of trial or any other
proceeding, find all allegations of the complaint to be true and
make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with those
allegations adverse to the Charged Party/Respondent, on all
issues raised by the pleadings. The Board may then issue an
Order providing a full remedy for the violations found as is
customary to remedy such violations, including, but not limited to
JD(NY)–22–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
the remedial provisions of this Settlement Agreement and
liquidated damages.
B. Substantive Terms
The Agreement provides that Respondent make whole its employee, Daisy Sherrod, by
the payment of $25,893.00, payable in installments with the schedule set forth below:
Backpay Amount Date Due
$5,000 April 19, 2010
$2,575 May 15, 2010
$2,575 June 15, 2010
$2,575 July 15, 2010
$2,575 August 15, 2010
$2,575 September 15, 2010
$2,575 October 15, 2010
$2,575 November 15, 2010
$2,575 December 15, 2010
$ 293 January 15, 2011 [sic]
The agreement also provides for a posting of a notice by Respondent. The notice
includes the following language. “We have been advised by Daisy Sherrod that she would not
accept an offer of reinstatement to her former position if we to make such an offer to her.”
II. The Alleged Failure to Comply
The reissued complaint asserts that Respondent failed to make the final six payments in
the agreement, which totaled $13,168.00.
The complaint also alleges that on March 21, 2011, Elias Feuer, supervisory attorney of
the Compliance Division, sent a letter to Keith Frank, attorney for Respondent, as well as to
Dawn Kirby Arnold, Respondent’s bankruptcy attorney. The letter reflects that the Director had
approved a settlement agreement providing that Respondent make certain installment
payments to Daisy Sherrod and that Respondent had stopped making the required payments on
August 15, 2010, and that Respondent must cure its default by March 28, 2011 by making
payment of the unpaid balance of $13,168.00. If not, the letter further asserts that General
Counsel will reissue the complaint, previously filed and seek summary judgment.
Attorney Arnold replied to Feuer’s letter on March 22. This letter asserts that
Respondent filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United Bankruptcy Code and that
the bankruptcy code calls for an automatic stay of all legal proceedings against Respondent.
JD(NY)–22–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
The letter also notes that the Director had appeared and filed a proof of claim in the
Chapter 11 case. Finally, the letter demanded that the Region withdraw its “demands for
payment and threats of legal action outside the bankruptcy court.”
By letter of March 31, 2011, Feuer responded to Arnold. The letter notified Arnold that it
is settled law that Board unfair labor proceedings are excepted from the automatic stay issued
by the bankruptcy court. Feuer cited numerous circuit and district courts’ decisions supporting
that position. In light of such precedent, Feuer reiterated the Region’s intention to revoke the
settlement agreement, reissue the complaint and file a motion for summary judgment.
III. Service of the Complaint and Respondent’s Failure to Answer
As related above, the Director issued the Order Revoking the Settlement Agreement and
Reissuing the Consolidated Complaint on April 19, 2011.
The affidavit of service in the formal papers, signed and sworn to by two agents of the
Region, reflects that the order and the reissued complaint was served by regular and certified
mail on Respondent at its address1 and by regular mail on both Frank and Arnold, Respondent’s
attorneys.
No answer to the reissued complaint was filed by either Frank or Arnold or anyone else
on behalf of Respondent.
On May 5, 2011, Sharon Chau, Counsel for General Counsel, sent a letter by regular
mail and by fax to Respondent and to Frank. The letter reflects that Respondent was served
with the reissued complaint and that its answer was due on May 3, 2011. The letter further
reflects that unless an answer is received by May 13, 2011, the Region would seek a default
judgment. The letter also reminded Respondent and its attorney that the hearing was scheduled
for May 17, 2011. No answer was filed by Respondent or by either of its attorneys.
On May 9, 2011, Frank sent a letter to the Director advising that his firm does not
represent Respondent in the matter of the reissued complaint. A copy of this letter was also sent
to Chau and to Respondent. At the hearing on May 17, 2011, no one from Respondent
appeared.
After the close of the instant hearing, General Counsel sent to the undersigned a copy of
a notice, signed by a United States bankruptcy judge, dated June 3, 2011, dismissing (upon
application by the debtor) Respondent’s bankruptcy petition.
IV. Analysis
Service of Reissued Complaint
Section 102.113 (a) and (e) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations sets forth the Board’s
provisions dealing with service of complaints and compliance specifications.
Section 102.113 Methods of service of process and papers
by the Agency; proof of service.—(a) Service of complaints and
compliance specifications. Complaints and accompanying notices

1 This address used was alleged in the initial complaint as Respondent’s main facility, and
this allegation was admitted in Respondent’s answer to that complaint.
JD(NY)–22–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
of hearing, compliance specifications, and amendments to either
complaints or to compliance specifications, shall be served upon
all parties either personally or by registered or certified mail or by
telegraph, or by leaving a copy thereof at the principal office or
place of business of the person required to be served.
(e) Proof of service. In the case of personal service, or
delivery to a principal office or place of business, the verified
return by the individual so serving the same, setting forth the
manner of such service shall be proof of the same. In the case of
service by mail or telegraph, the return post office receipt or
telegraph receipt therefor when registered or certified and mailed
or when telegraphed shall be proof of service of the same.
However, these methods of proof of service are not exclusive; any
sufficient proof may be relied upon to establish service.
Furthermore, Section 102.121 of the Board’s Rules states as follows: Sec. 102.121
Rules to be liberally construed.—The rules and regulations in this part shall be liberally
construed to effectuate the purposes and provisions of the Act.
In interpreting the above sections, the Board has long held that procedural requirements
regarding proof of service of documents should be liberally construed and that when documents
have in fact been received, technical defects in the form of service do not affect the validity of
service. Control Services Inc., 303 NLRB 481 (1991); Rome Specialty Co., 84 NLRB 55, 56
(1949) (Board finds that service of charge by regular mail rather than by certified mail valid since
employer did not deny actual receipt of charge); Olin Industries v. NLRB, 192 F.2d 799 (5th Cir.
1952) (use of ordinary mail rather than registered mail represents a mere technical defect in
service); Sears Roebuck & Co., 117 NLRB 522, 523 fn. 3 (1957) (service of objections by
ordinary mail to petitioner’s address presumptive proof of service).
Here, the evidence supports the conclusion, which I make, that Respondent in fact
received a copy of the reissued complaint. The complaint was sent by regular mail to
Respondent at its address and there is no evidence that it was returned by the post office.
Further, Respondent has made no assertion that it did not receive the document. Thus, for this
reason alone, service has been established. Apex Electric Services, 356 NLRB #172 fn. 3 at slip
op p. 1 (2011) (failure of postal service to return documents served by regular mail indicates
actual service of those documents on Respondents); Long Island Reelty Group of L.I., 356
NLRB #176 slip op at 3 fn. 3 & 4 (2011) (compliance specification and order to show cause sent
by regular mail and no evidence that method was returned; Board concludes that service has
been accomplished); Lite Flight Inc., 285 NLRB 649, 650 (1987), enfd. 843 F.2d 1392 (6th Cir.
1988); (failure of post office to return compliance specification to Region sent by ordinary mail to
respondent indicates that respondent was actually served); National Automatic Sprinklers, 307
NLRB 481, 481 fn. 1 (1992) (compliance specification mailed by regular mail to last known
address of respondent); Sears Roebuck, supra.
Furthermore, the record establishes additional support for the conclusion that
Respondent actually received the reissued complaint. Thus, on May 3, 2011, Board Agent Chau
mailed a letter to Respondent and to its attorney. The letter indicates that Respondent had been
served with the reissued complaint, that no answer had been filed and that unless an answer
was filed by May 13, the Region would seek a default judgment.
This letter did not result in the filing of an answer, but did produce a letter from
JD(NY)–22–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
Respondent’s attorney advising the Region that the attorney no longer represented Respondent
in the matter of the reissued complaint. Significantly, a copy of this letter was sent by its attorney
to Respondent by mail and email.
Based on the above circumstances, I find that Respondent in fact received a copy of the
reissued complaint and simply failed to answer. It seems that Respondent relied on the position
expressed by its bankruptcy attorney that the stay in the bankruptcy court precluded the Board
from proceeding further with the reissued complaint.2
Further, the letter from Respondent’s attorney establishes that he received a copy of the
reissued complaint, which was sent to him by regular mail. Additionally, Respondent’s
bankruptcy attorney was also served with the reissued complaint in the same manner.3 This is
further evidence that the reissued complaint was validly served on Respondent. Control
Services, supra, 303 NLRB at 481 fn. 3 (service of charges and complaint on attorney, who was
representing respondent at the time, valid service on respondent); Star Grocery Co., 245 NLRB
196, 197 (1979) (copy of compliance specification served on attorney by regular mail).
Finally, I also note that even though the General Counsel was unable to produce a
signed post office receipt of the complaint served by registered mail, that failure is insufficient to
defeat valid service since the affidavit of service of the Board agents is sufficient proof of
service. CCY New Worktech Inc., 329 NLRB 194 (1999) (affidavit of service sufficient to
establish valid service notwithstanding failure to obtain return post office receipt cards); Best
Western City View Motor Inn, 327 NLRB 468, 469 (1999) (postal return receipt card not required
to prove service; affidavit of service is sufficient); Accord, Electrical Workers, Local 11 (Anco
Electrical), 273 NLRB 183, 191 (1984).
Accordingly, based on the above analysis and authorities, I conclude that General
Counsel has established valid service of the reissued complaint.
V. The Effect of Respondent’s Bankruptcy Filing
It is well-established that the institution of bankruptcy proceedings does not deprive the
Board of jurisdiction or authority to process unfair labor practice proceedings to its final
disposition. Republic Windows and Doors, 356 NLRB #175 fn. 2 slip op at 1 (2011); Manhattan
Health Clean/US Health Clean, 353 NLRB 1037 fn. 1 (2009); United International Investigative
Services, 340 NLRB 1360 fn. 1 (2003); Cardinal Services Inc., 295 NLRB 933 fn. 2 (1989);
NLRB v. EDP Medical Computer Systems Inc., 6 F.3d 951, 957 (2nd Cir. 1993); NLRB v. 15th
Ave. Iron Works, 964 F.2d 1366, 1337 (2nd Cir. 1992); NLRB v. Continental Hagen Corp., 932
F.2d 828, 831-835 (9th Cir. 1991); NLRB v. Edward Cooper Painting Inc., 804 F.2d 934, 940 fn.
3 (6th Cir. 1986); Ahrens Aircraft v. NLRB, 703 F.2d 23, 24 (1st Cir. 1983). Board proceedings fall
within the exception to the automatic stay provisions for proceedings by a governmental unit to
enforce its police or regulatory powers. Republic Windows, supra; Manhattan Health Clean,
supra; United International Investigative, supra; NLRB v. 15th Ave. Iron Works, supra; Ahrens
Aircraft v. NLRB, supra; NLRB v. Continental Hagen, supra.

2 I shall deal with that issue below.
3 I also find it significant that after Respondent’s bankruptcy attorney wrote to the Region
asserting to that the bankruptcy filing stayed the Board proceeding, the Region responded citing
case law that such a stay does not apply to the Board. Yet, notwithstanding this notification,
Respondent still failed to file an answer to the complaint, obviously relying on its bankruptcy
attorney’s advice, which, as related above, was and is incorrect.
JD(NY)–22–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
Therefore, contrary to the position expressed in the letter from Respondent’s bankruptcy
attorney, the bankruptcy proceeding does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to proceed on the
reissued complaint. Nor does the automatic stay in the bankruptcy proceeding apply to the
Board complaint. Thus, the bankruptcy proceeding does not provide a defense to nor a
justification for Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the reissued complaint.
VI. Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Based upon the uncontroverted allegations in the reissued complaint, Respondent has
failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement by failing to remit the agreed upon
backpay amounts due to Daisy Sherrod. Consequently, pursuant to the compliance provisions
of the settlement agreement set forth above, I find that all of the allegations of the reissued
complaint are true. Déjà Vu Mechanicals Inc., 356 NLRB #37 slip op at 1-2 (2010); U-Bee Ltd.,
315 NLRB 667, 668 (1994).
Accordingly, I recommend that General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment be
granted.
Based upon the entire record, I make the following:
Findings of Fact
A. Jurisdiction
At all material times, Respondent, a domestic corporation, with its principal office and
place of business located at 219-32 Jamaica Avenue, Queens Village, New York, herein called
the Jamaica Avenue facility, and with three other facilities locate at: 127-08 Merrick Blvd.,
Springfield, New York, herein called the Merrick Blvd. facility; 111-12 Farmers Blvd., St. Albans,
New York, herein called the Farmers Blvd. facility; and 220-03 Hempstead Ave., Queens
Village, New York, herein called the Hempstead Ave. facility, has been engaged in the operation
of day care centers for children. During the past twelve-month period, which the period is
representative of its annual operations in general, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
business operations described above: (a) derived gross revenues valued in excess of $250,000
and (b) purchased and received at its facilities referred to above, goods, products and materials
valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points located outside the state of New York. At all
material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
I also find that, at all material times, the Union has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
B. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
At all material times, Vernetta C. Brown has held the position of executive director and
part-owner, and has been a supervisor of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act, and an agent of Respondent acting on its behalf.
On or about a date precisely unknown in April 2009, Respondent, by its agent, Brown, at
the Merrick Blvd. facility, threatened to discharge employees if they joined, supported or
assisted the Union.
JD(NY)–22–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
On or about May 7, 2009, Respondent, by its agent, Brown, at the Merrick facility,
threatened to discharge employees if they joined, supported or assisted the Union, and created
an impression among its employees that their Union activities were being kept under
surveillance by Respondent.
On or about May 15, 2009, Respondent discharged its employee, Daisy Sherrod.
Since on or about May 15, 2009, Respondent has failed and refused to reinstate or offer
to reinstate Daisy Sherrod to her former position of employment.
Respondent discharged and refused to reinstate Sherrod because Sherrod joined,
supported or assisted the Union and in order to discourage its employees from engaging in such
activities or other concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection.
Conclusions of Law
By the conduct described above, Respondent has been interfering with, restraining and
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and has been discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms
and conditions of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The unfair labor practices of
Respondent, described above, affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
Remedy
Having found that Respondent was engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that it
must be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Although the notice to employees in the settlement agreement stated that Sherrod would
not accept an offer of reinstatement, that agreement has been revoked, so reinstatement is
appropriate. Phoenix Finishing Inc., 354 NLRB #64 slip op at 3 (2009); Symphony Cleaners,
344 NLRB 684, 686 (2005); Manhattan Health Clean, supra at 1039.
It is also appropriate to order Respondent to make whole Sherrod for any loss of
earnings suffered by her as a result of Respondent’s unlawful conduct.
In this regard, Respondent agreed in the settlement agreement to pay Sherrod a total of
$25,893.00, payable in installments. As reflected above, Respondent has made the first four
installment payments, but has failed to make the final six payments. The General Counsel’s
motion states that there is an outstanding balance due to $13,168.00. I shall, therefore,
recommend that Respondent immediately remit these payments to the Region for payment to
Sherrod. Phoenix Finishing, supra, 354 NLRB at 3; Symphony Cleaners, supra, 344 NLRB at
686.
However, the backpay due to Sherrod should not be limited to this amount. As set forth
above, the settlement agreement provided that in the event of non-compliance, the Board could
“issue an order providing a full remedy for the violations found as is customary to remedy such
violations, including, but not limited to, remedial provisions of this settlement.” Thus, under this
language, it is appropriate to provide the “customary” remedies of reinstatement, full backpay,
expungement of the Respondent’s personnel records and notice of posting. Sidhal Industries,
JD(NY)–22–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
356 NLRB #67 slip op at 8 and 9 (2010); Phoenix Finishing, supra, 354 NLRB #64 slip op at 3.
Therefore, additional backpay is due to Sherrod in addition to the $13,168.00 that
Respondent has failed to remit. Since it is unclear from this record whether the $25,893.00
agreed upon by Respondent represents the equivalent of full backpay for the pre-settlement
period, the backpay period for Sherrod shall commence on the date of the unlawful
discrimination against Sherrod with any amounts already paid to be deducted from
Respondent’s backpay liability. Sidhal Industries, supra slip op at 1 fn. 2.
The additional backpay due to Sherrod shall be computed as prescribed in F.W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon to be computed in the manner
prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), and compounded on a
daily basis. Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB #8 (2010).
Further, Respondent shall be required to remove from its filed any reference to the
unlawful discharge of Daisy Sherrod and notify her in writing that this has been done and this
unlawful conduct will not be used against her in any way.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended4
ORDER
The Respondent, Queens Village Day School, Queens Village, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging employees because of their support for or activities on behalf of District
Council 1707, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, or any other labor organization.
(b) Threatening to discharge employees because of their support for or activities on
behalf of the Union or any other labor organization.
(c) Telling employees that they are discharged because of their support for or activities
on behalf of the Union or on behalf of any other labor organization.
(d) Creating the impression that you are watching or spying on the Union activities of
employees.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.

4 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(NY)–22–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
(a) Remit to Region 29 the payment of $13,168.00 to be disbursed to Daisy Sherrod in
accordance with the settlement agreement and to make Daisy Sherrod whole for any additional
loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against her. The
backpay period shall begin on the date of Respondent’s unlawful discrimination against Daisy
Sherrod, with any amounts already paid to be deducted from Respondent’s backpay liability.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Daisy Sherrod employment,
without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, dismissing,
if necessary, any employee hired to fill her former position.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, if it has not already done so,
remove from its files any reference to the discharge of Daisy Sherrod, and within 3 days
thereafter notify her in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used
against her in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records of stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its four Queens, New York
facilities, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.” 5 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facilities involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
May 15, 2009.
Dated, Washington, D.C., July 6, 2011.
____________________
Steven Fish,
Administrative Law Judge

5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(NY)–22–11
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this
Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT fire you because of your support for or activities on behalf of District Council 1707, American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, or on behalf of any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT threaten to fire you because of your support for or activities on behalf of the Union or on behalf of
any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT tell you that we fired you because of your support for or activities on behalf of the Union or on
behalf of any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that we are watching or spying on your Union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with your exercise of any of the rights stated above.
WE WILL remit to Region 29 the payment of $13,168.00 to be disbursed to Daisy Sherrod in accordance with the
settlement agreement and to make Daisy Sherrod whole for any additional loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
our discharge of her, less any monies we have already paid in satisfaction of the money we owe to her, plus interest.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer to reinstate Daisy Sherrod to her former position
of employment, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE HAVE removed from our files any reference to our unlawful discharge of Daisy Sherrod and have notified her
in writing that this has been done.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, notify Daisy Sherrod in writing that her discharge will
not be used against her in any way.
QUEENS VILLAGE DAY SCHOOL, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and
how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s
website: www.nlrb.gov.
Two MetroTech Center, Jay Street and Myrtle Avenue, Suite 5100
Brooklyn, New York 11201-4201
Hours: 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
718-330-7713
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, 718-330-2862.