Sysco Grand Rapids, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 2, 2017

07-CA-146820 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 2, 2017)

JD–15–17
Grand Rapids, MI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SYSCO GRAND RAPIDS, LLC
Cases 07-CA-146820
and 07-CA-148609
07-CA-149511
GENERAL TEAMSTERS UNION 07-CA-152332
LOCAL NO. 406, INTERNATIONAL 07-CA-155882
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS 07-CA-166479
07-RC-147973
Steven E. Carlson and Colleen J. Carol, Esqs.,
for the General Counsel
William E. Hester, III, Esq. (The Kullman Firm),
New Orleans, LA, and Mark A. Carter and
Kirk M. Wall, Esqs., (Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP),
Charleston, WV, for the Respondent
Michael L. Fayette, Esq. (Pinsky, Smith, Fayette
& Kennedy, LLP), Grand Rapids, MI, for the Charging Party
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. These consolidated cases were tried
in Grand Rapids, Michigan over the course of 14 days between May 24 and October 11, 2016.
General Teamsters Union Local No. 406, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Union or
Petitioner) alleges that Sysco Grand Rapids, LLC (the Company or Respondent) committed
numerous unfair labor practices prior to the May 7, 2015 labor representation election at the
Company’s Grand Rapids area facilities causing the Union to narrowly lose the election by 11
votes out of 153 valid votes cast.1
The Union filed numerous unfair labor practices alleging pre and post-election violations
of: (1) Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act)2 by unlawfully threatening,
interrogating, engaging in surveillance and the impression of surveillance, soliciting grievances,
awarding gift cards to employees, promising benefits if employees voted against the Union, and
telling employees it would be futile to support the Union; Section 8(a)(3) by discharging,
transferring and reducing the work hours of employees in retaliation for their support of the
Union; and Section 8(a)(5) by failing and refusing, since May 6, to recognize and bargain with

1 All dates are in 2015 unless otherwise indicated.
2 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169.
JD–15–17
2
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the proposed bargaining unit
employees. In addition, the Union sought to set aside the election by filing 35 objections, which
substantially mirror the alleged unfair labor practices. Based on the alleged extraordinary nature
of the aforementioned unfair labor practices, the General Counsel seeks a remedy including a
bargaining order pursuant to NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969).5
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Charging Party and the Company, I
make the following
10
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Company, a limited liability company, has been engaged in the non-retail sale and 15
distribution of food and related products at its facilities in Alanson, Cadillac, Grand Rapids and
West Branch, Michigan, where it annually purchases and receives goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the State of Michigan. 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. 20
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Company’s Operations
25
1. The Company’s business model
The Company is one of approximately 70 operating companies (OPCOs) owned in the
United States by Sysco Corporation, the world’s largest broad line food distributor. The
Company operates throughout most of Michigan outside of the Detroit metropolitan area. Detroit 30
and surrounding locations are serviced by Sysco Detroit. The Company’s operations are centrally
operated out of the Grand Rapids facility, which also supplies six northern depots. From all of
those locations, drivers are assigned routes to deliver Sysco Corporation products to commercial
accounts. There are approximately 161 drivers, warehouse, maintenance, sanitation and
inventory control employees at all of the Company’s facilities.35
2. Management
At relevant times during this dispute, the following individuals served as statutory
supervisors or agents on behalf of the Company: Thomas C. Barnes–Market president for the 40
Sysco Corporation’s Mideast Division, which includes Michigan; Luke Jackson–Sysco
Corporation’s market vice president of Operations; Bobby Jordan–Sysco Corporations’ manager
of Employee & Labor Relations. The Company’s Grand Rapids’ hierarchy included: Thomas
Shaeffer–President; Mark Lee–chief financial officer; Amy Campbell–Vice President for Human
Resources; Ted Twyman–vice president of Operations; and Todd Yocum–transportation 45
manager. The Company’s supervisory staff included Transportation supervisors Dean Mercer,
Joe Quisenberry, Jim Brown, Craig Pung and Ryan Norman. Mark Szlachchic was employed as
JD–15–17
3
warehouse manager. Under his supervision were warehouse supervisors Adam Middleton, Ryan
Norman and Michael Scott. Christopher Wilfong served as Environmental Health, Safety and
Security Manager. Charlie Stephenson served as a labor relations consultant.
Three of the managers listed above – Twyman, Middleton and Szlachcic – were no 5
longer employed at the Company’s Grand Rapid facility as of September 10, 2016.3 Twyman,
however, remains a high level official within the Sysco Corporation organization, having been
redeployed to Sysco Cincinnati as Director of Operations on September 9, 2016.
3. Employee workforce10
The Grand Rapids warehouse has approximately 74 non-supervisory employees. The
Company’s transportation department employs a total of approximately 82 food delivery and
shuttle drivers. Drivers are not compensated on an hourly basis, but rather, an incentive pay
system that is based on quantity delivered and the amount of time spent delivering it. Todd 15
Yocum manages the department.
Approximately 54 drivers are based at the Grand Rapids facility. They are supervised by
Quisenberry, Brown and Mercer.4 Approximately 28 drivers are based out of six depots. Two of
the depots – Niles and White Pigeon – employ 11 drivers and are supervised by Quisenberry. 20
The remaining four – Alanson, Kalkaska, Cadillac and West Branch – do not have a formal
supervisor. However, Alanson lead driver Kevin Lauer has several responsibilities in addition to
serving as a delivery driver. Lauer approves driver vacation schedules and prepares delivery
schedules for the Company’s northern depots. While required to submit them to the Company’s
Transportation Department in Grand Rapids for review, they are routinely approved.5 Lauer is 25
also responsible for interviewing and selecting temporary drivers. In that capacity, he serves as
the Company’s representative to the employment agency which supplies temporary drivers
during the busy summer season. Lauer interviews the drivers sent by the employment agency and
decides who to hire. Unlike other drivers, Lauer is provided with a Company laptop and email
address.6 30
On December 18, 2014, the Company employed 162 employees who were eligible for
labor representation. As of September 10, 2016, 29 of those employees were no longer
employed by the Company.7
35

3 R. Exhs. 33(a) and 35(a).
4 GC Exh. 3-4.
5 The Company denies the allegation that Lauer, a current employee who was not called to testify, is a
Section 2(11) supervisor or Section 2(13) agent.
6 It is not disputed that Lauer had significantly more supervisory duties than any other lead driver.
(Tr. 58-59, 400, 685-687, 797, 980-985, 1021, 1026-1031, 1093-1094, 1375-1378; GC Exh. 42-49, 61.)
7 The Company notes that the turnover rate during that period for the stipulated unit was 17.9%. If
one excludes discriminatee George Brewer from that group, the rate drops to 17.3%, (R. Exh. 33(a).) It is
also undisputed that an additional 14 employees separated from the Company as of November 7—the
date of the last alleged unfair labor practice. That would constitute a 26.5% turnover rate; excluding
Brewster, that rate drops to 26%. (R. Exh. 35(a).)
JD–15–17
4
4. Disciplinary policy
The Company’s generally progressive disciplinary policy is set forth in its handbook’s
Rules of Conduct. It enumerates four levels of misconduct, which “are merely guidelines to
appropriate and possibly disciplinary action. This structure is not intended to restrict or negate 5
the Company’s right or ability to depart from the guidelines and to discipline and/or terminate an
associate, with or without advance notice, as it deems appropriate given the circumstances.”
(emphasis in original)
Level A offenses, which include the use of offensive language, start with verbal 10
discipline and proceed through written reprimand, suspension and if there is no improvement, to
discharge. Level B offenses, which include insubordination, begin with a written reprimand and
proceed to suspension and, if no improvement, to discharge. Level C offenses, which include the
“unauthorized use or disclosure of confidential information concerning another associate, a
customer or the Company,” generally result in a written reprimand plus suspension or discharge. 15
Level D offenses are the most serious in nature and generally result in immediate discharge.8
B. The Union Campaign
1. Union organized meetings20
Union representatives met with a select number of employees during the summer of
2014. On or about November 1, 2014, union representatives began meeting with the Company’s
warehouse and transportation employees outside the Company’s main facility in Grand Rapids
and other locations in Michigan. Union president Terry Hoogerhyde provided supporters with 25
information about the authorization card solicitation process, including an explanation as to the
purpose of signing the cards, instructions on what to tell coworkers in soliciting authorization
cards, and that by signing the card the employee was authorizing the Union to represent him or
her and enable the Union to force an election. Hoogerhyde also provided supporters with the
details of the Union’s “Detroit collective bargaining agreement.”30
2. Solicitation of authorization cards
Employees who took leading roles in the solicitation of signature cards included George
Brewster, Derrick Farr and Rick Flier. They and other employees would openly discuss the 35
merits of union representation in front of supervisors.9 Some employees changed their minds,
requested the return of their signed authorization cards, and their cards were returned to them.
By December 18, 2014, the Union had obtained completed and signed authorization cards
from 84 of the 162 eligible employees for the proposed unit. Between December 18, 2014 and 40
the filing of a representation petition on March 11, the Union obtained an additional 15 signed

8 GC Exh. 73 at 55-58.
9 All of the testimony provided by employees who signed cards, solicited the signing of cards or
accepted signed and completed cards from coworkers was credible. While some witnesses were vague
regarding the dates of these transactions, there is no evidence that anyone misrepresented the purpose of
the cards or pressured a coworker into signing one.
JD–15–17
5
authorization cards.10 In contrast to the additional authorization cards obtained by the Union after
December 18, 2014, several employees requested that Hoogerhyde void and/or return their cards.
Three employees, in particular – Jason Badder, Joshua Verberg and Chris Sanicki wrote such a
request on copies of the Company’s January 15th memorandum to employees urging them to
instruct the Union to void their cards. Others who followed the Company’s suggestion and 5
verbally requested the return or voiding of their cards after the January 15th memorandum
included Brad Cole (card signed on September 17, 2014), William Tanis (card signed on
February 18), and Luke Yerke (card signed on November 13, 2014).11
The front of each card contained an introductory statement at the outset as to its purpose, 10
including a critical portion in bold print, and required the entry of certain information by the card
signer:
Authorization for Representation Under the National Labor Relations Act
I, the undersigned employee of 15
Company _____________________________________________________
Address of Company ____________________________________________
Authorize the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (or one of its
chartered Teamster Local Unions) to represent me in negotiations
for better wages, hours and working conditions.20
(PLEASE PRINT)
Name _____________________________ Date _______________________
Home address __________________________________________________
City ________________________ State _______________ Zip __________ 25
E-mail: ___________________________ Phone: ______________________
Job Classification _______________________________________________
Department ______________________________ Shift _________________
Signature ______________________________________________________
This is not a dues deduction card30

10 In an amended order, dated August 16, 2016, I authenticated 37 of the 84 cards signed and
completed prior to December 18, 2014 pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(3). The remaining 47
cards were authenticated by the credible and undisputed testimony of the card signers and/or coworkers
who solicited or witnessed the card signings. Essentially, the only proffered cards excluded for lack of
authentication were those of Scott Hibler and Justin Schlapp. (GC Exhs. 2, 2(a)-(e), 57.) As noted by the
General Counsel, four of the names on the Company’s list-–Ruben Gomez, Jacob Juarez, Tyler Meyers
and Robert Venlet—did not sign cards and were terminated prior to December 18, 2014. Notwithstanding
my subsequent finding that Kevin Lauer functioned as a statutory supervisor when he issued certain
threats to other drivers, there is no evidence that the Union successfully challenged his eligibility to vote
in the election. Thus, he is included in the total number of eligible voters as of December 18, 2014. (GC
Exh. 59; R. Exh. 33.)
11 The authorization cards signed by Badder, Verberg and Sanicki were not included among those
submitted by the Union as proof of its majority support. (GC Exh. 2(c)-(e); R. Exh. 29, 31-32.)
JD–15–17
6
C. The Company’s Initial Response to the Union Campaign
The Company first learned about the Union’s plans for an organizing driver at the Grand
Rapids facility during the summer of 2014. Soon thereafter, Twyman informed the legal and
labor relations departments at Sysco Corporation. They provided him with guidance on how to 5
respond to the Union campaign.12 On November 21, 2014, Twyman reported to Shaeffer and
Campbell that the Union had obtained 38 authorization cards and identified the two employees
who were “causing issues.”13
Beginning the week of the week of November 25, 2014, Twyman began meeting with 10
Company managers and supervisors and presenting the Company’s campaign strategy. At that
point, the focus was to have supervisors gage the extent of employee support for union
representation, identify leaders in the campaign, and listen for complaints.14 Supervisors were
instructed to record and report observations of employee demeanor, conduct and conversations in
a shared database with other supervisors on a daily basis.1515
The Company also began convening periodic employee group meetings where managers
presented the Company’s position. The first captive audience meeting was on December 8, 2014.
Shaeffer spoke to the employees on all of the shifts, explaining the negative impact of
unionization, and imploring employees to avoid further organizing efforts.1620
On December 9, the day after Schaeffer’s speech, driver Josh Meyers was approached in
his cubicle by his supervisor Quisenberry. Quisenberry said that “if the Union got in, we would
go back to minimum wage.” Meyers did not respond and walked away.17
25
D. The Company Conducts Frequent Campaign Meetings With Employees
After Shaeffer’s December 9 speech, the Company convened mandatory small group
meetings every week or every other week starting in late December 2014 and early January
2015. At these meetings, supervisors and managers sought to elicit employees’ grievances, 30
discussed ways to address them and sought to assure employees that their concerns would be

12 Twyman testified that he first heard about the Union campaign from Glenn Lenhart, a supervisor,
sometime in October or November 2014. (Tr. 119.) His testimony was undermined by supervisor Jim
Brown, who conceded that he became aware of an organizing drive during the summer of 2014. (Tr. 769-
770.) Even more incredible was Amy Campbell’s testimony that she did not become aware of a drive
until the representation petition was filed on March 11. (Tr. 905.)
13 GC Exh. 20.
14 GC Exh. 16.
15 GC Exh. 39.
16 Josh Meyers credibly testified that Shaeffer read from a piece of paper at the Company’s mandatory
weekly meetings. He said that the status quo is “bull shit” and that with collective bargaining employees
would start out at zero. (R. Exh. 16; Tr. 89-91.)
17 This finding is also based on Meyers’ credible testimony, which was not refuted by Quisenberry.
(Tr. 85-86, 95, 696.) In addition, the allegation at paragraph 5(a) of the complaint that this conversation
took place in “Late” December is deemed amended to conform to the proof that the conversation occurred
in early December.
JD–15–17
7
resolved by “working together.” The issues included wages, work hours, job security, and the
loss of safety bonuses.18
Employees’ reactions at these meetings were recorded in a Company database.
Observations noted included employee demeanor and reactions to supervisors’ statements. The 5
spreadsheet for December 22, 2014, in particular, identified George Brewster as a “confirmed
union committee leader.”19
Beginning January 9, Company managers convened on a weekly basis to discuss the
organizing campaign and the Company’s response. Charts listing comments by supervisors and 10
managers regarding employee support for the Union, referred to as Straw Polls, were updated
periodically.20
Straw Poll #1 listed each employee in the potential unit and identified that person as
either a likely yes or no vote. Each employee was given a number according to his or her 15
perceived union support, with 5 being the strongest level of support and 1 being the weakest.
Each entry also included a comments section for each employee. As of January 9, Brewster was
assigned a “5” and again identified as a member of the “union committee.” The poll was
distributed to Company supervisors and managers, and Sysco managers.21
20
At the January captive audience meeting, Shaeffer again appealed to the employees to
resist union representation. In that presentation, he mentioned that employees would have to pay
dues. The only employee to comment was Brewster, who corrected a statement by Shaeffer by
noting that employees would not be required to pay dues under Michigan’s “right’to-work” law.
Shaeffer and Stephenson, a Company labor consultant, disagreed, noting that employees would 25
still have to pay a service fee.22
E. George Brewster
1. Brewster’s union activity30
George Brewster was employed as a driver by the Company from January 2001 to
February 17, 2015. He generally worked a daily shift of 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. Brewster interacted with
coworkers on social issues in front of supervisors. His immediate supervisors were Quisenberry
and Jim Brown. Brewster’s disciplinary history consisted of a verbal warning in 2002 for 35
chewing tobacco and a 2013 drive cam policy prohibiting employees from talking on a mobile
telephone while driving.
Brewster signed an authorization card in early November 2014 in the cul-de-sac area in
front of the Grand Rapids facility.23 Shortly thereafter, he became involved in the Union’s 40

18 GC Exh. 32, 33.
19 GC Exh. 39.
20 GC Exh. 9.
21 GC Exh. 58.
22 Brewster’s testimony was credible regarding this event. (Tr. 45-46.)
23 GC Exh. 2 at 8.
JD–15–17
8
organizing drive and solicited coworkers to sign cards.24 As documented in the Company’s straw
polls monitoring the extent of employee support for the Union, Brewster was noted to be a leader
in the campaign.25 In fact, Twyman approached Brewster in early December 2014 in Yokum’s
office. Twyman asked if Brewster could talk and proceeded to ask what his concerns were with
the Company. Brewster said that he was not satisfied with the Company’s insurance benefits.5
Dirk Krisi, a coworker, commented that the Company was not “doing enough to keep the Union
out.” Twyman agreed.26
2. The February 17th incident
10
On February 17, Brewster was assigned to a Grand Rapids delivery route. He made a
food delivery to Charlie’s Bar and Grill around 9:00 a.m. Upon exiting his truck, Brewster turned
off the vehicle, but left the keys in the ignition, as was his regular practice. During the delivery,
Brewster interacted with Doug Emery, a long-time employee of Charlie’s Bar and Grill. About
20 minutes into the delivery, Brewster observed transportation supervisor Jim Brown looking at 15
him from a parked van nearby. Brewster continued with his delivery.
Unbeknownst to Brewster, Brown was monitoring him pursuant to the Company’s
program for “idle time.” Idle time is typically the amount of time a truck’s engine is running
while drivers make deliveries. Brewster was the second of several drivers with high idle time 20
statistics chosen for monitoring on February 17. The observation included assessing other
aspects of driver performance and was to be noted in a report and discussed with the driver.27
While Brewster was inside the restaurant making his delivery, Brown observed that
Brewster’s vehicle was not idling, but noticed the truck in the parking lot with the loading ramp 25
engaged. He decided to check the truck’s ignition to see if Brewster had removed the keys in
accordance with Company policy. Brown found the keys in the ignition, removed them and
placed them under the driver’s seat. This was contrary to the Company’s teaching tool of
removing the keys and then “coaching” the driver. Compounding the problem, Brown did not
stick around to discuss it with Brewster. Instead, Brown left for his next assignment, leaving 30
Brewster clueless as to where his keys were.28
Upon completing his delivery at about 9:30 a.m., Brewster returned to his truck. As he
prepared to drive to his next delivery, Brewster noticed that the keys were no longer in the
ignition or anywhere in the vehicle. He immediately assumed that Brown removed the keys, but 35
Brown was no longer in the vicinity. Brewster immediately texted Brown to return the keys:
“BRING BACK MY KEYS NOW!!!!” Brown, driving to his next assignment, did not respond.
Instead, he parked and texted Yocum, informing him that the keys were under Brewster’s seat.
Yocum read the text but also made no effort to communicate that information to Brewster.
40

24 GC Exh. 2 at 27, 192.
25 GC Exh. 58.
26 Brewster’s version of this encounter, which is not the subject of a charge, was credible. (Tr. 41-43.)
27 R. Exh. 11.
28 It is undisputed that a supervisor had not hidden the keys of a driver for at least 10 years, much less
ever left the premises under such circumstances. (Tr. 705, 1476, 1493-1495, 1476, 1505.)
JD–15–17
9
After a futile attempt to find his keys and unable to move his truck, Brewster returned to
the restaurant visibly upset. He informed Emery that he “screwed up” because he left the keys in
the ignition while parked and unattended, which was against Company policy. Brewster added
that the keys must have been removed from his truck by the Company employee who had been
watching him. When Emery asked why the supervisor did that, Brewster responded, “that’s 5
Sysco for ya.” As a result, Brewster informed Emery that his truck could remain in the parking
lot for an indeterminate amount of time. Emery responded that it was “kind of Mickey Mouse”
and observed Brewster make a call on his mobile telephone to find out where his keys were.29
At about 9:48 a.m., after hearing no response from Brown, Brewster called his other 10
supervisor, Quisenberry. He told Quisenberry that Brown took his keys. Quisenberry merely
responded that Brewster deserved the inconvenience for leaving his keys in the ignition.
Brewster, still upset, told Quisenberry that unless the keys were returned, he would be unable to
complete his route, would need to take a sick day and someone would need to complete his
route. Brewster added that the situation was “fucking bullshit” and noted that the customer 15
agreed with him. Quisinberry asked how the customer knew about the incident and Brewster
conceded that he told Emery about the circumstances by which he was stuck in the parking lot
because of the missing keys. Shortly thereafter, Brewster hung up the telephone.30
At about 9:52 a.m., Quisenberry called Brown. He confirmed that Brown hid the keys 20
under Brewster’s seat and then called Yocum to discuss the incident, including the fact that
Brewster was very upset about the situation. Yocum then called Brown and informed him that
Brewster was upset about the keys. He also instructed Brown not to hide keys on any other
employees in the future. Even after that conversation, Brown continued on to his next
observation assignment and still did not send Brewster a message to let him know where the keys 25
were. Quisenberry, however, did leave a voicemail message for Brewster to let him know where
the keys were.
Meanwhile, Brown’s response to the next driver on his monitoring list was a little
different. Upon observing Eric Thelen at another location, in accordance with Yocum’s 30
instructions, Brown removed the keys, handed them to Thelen and counseled him not to do it
again. Brown filled out the standard Driver Observation form, handed it to Thelen and had him
sign the document.31 After completing his observation of Thelen at 10:12 a.m., Brown finally
texted Brewster that the keys were under his seat.32 The Company’s vehicle tracking system—
Xata—confirms that Brewster continued with his route at about 10:30 a.m. and completed it 35
without any further problems. At the completion of his route, Brewster returned to the facility
and turned in his paperwork. While none of Brewster’s supervisors, including Brown,
Quisenberry or Yocum, approached him at the facility to discuss the key incident, they did
inform Twyman about it.
40
The next day, February 18, Brewster sent a text message to Mercer that he was taking a
sick day. That same morning, Yocum informed Twyman about the incident involving Brewster’s

29 Brewster’s version of the incident was corroborated by Emery. (Tr. 51-52, 66-69.)
30 R. Ex. 10.
31 R. Exh. 14.
32 GC Exh. 36.
JD–15–17
10
keys. Twyman, Yocum, Quisenberry, and Brown discussed the incident with Campbell. The
discussion concluded with a recommendation to Shaeffer that Brewster be terminated. Later that
day, Tyman called Brewster and asked him to come in for a meeting the next day.
3. Brewster’s Discharge5
On February 19, Brewster attended the meeting with Twyman, Yocum, and Campbell.
Campbell asked if Brewster wanted to start the discussion, but Brewster asked what it was about.
Campbell replied that the meeting was about the incident relating to the keys left in the ignition.
Brewster answered her questions, conceding that he left his keys in the truck and became angry 10
and used profanity when he spoke with Quisenberry because his deliveries were being delayed
and his truck was stuck in a customer’s parking lot. Brewster also reiterated that the situation
was “bullshit” and Brown’s fault, but was not loud or insubordinate during the meeting.

On February 20, Yocum summoned Brewster back for another meeting. Twyman and 15
Campbell were also present. Campbell informed Brewster that he was terminated. He was not
provided with a verbal or documentary reason for the discharge.33 Nor was an internal document
generated in his personnel file, aside from interview notes, documenting any reasons for
Brewster’s discharge at any time prior to or at the time of his discharge.34 By the following day,
the news of Brewster’s termination had spread throughout the facility.35 20
The Company did, however, take actions to document its actions after Brewster’s
termination. Later that day, at Campbell’s direction, supervisors sought out employees willing to
testify that their supervisors had previously hidden their keys. In addition, she instructed
supervisors to document the efforts made to cover Brewster’s route on February 17.3625
On February 24, Twyman finally communicated with Emery about the key incident 5
days earlier. Twyman told Emery that the Company received a complaint about a driver, but
Emery said it was not made by him or about Brewster. Emery recalled that the restaurant made
complaints about two other drivers regarding their deliveries, including one who got into an 30
argument with the chef. Emery also recalled Brewster’s concession about leaving the keys in the
truck, but recalled no profanity. Emery did express concern that the idle truck might block

33 Twyman’s testimony regarding Brewster’s discharge was less than credible. Although he sat in on
the disciplinary meeting, he initially professed ignorance. Twyman conceded that leaving keys in the
ignition is not a basis for termination. When asked if he suspected that Brewster was a union supporter, he
evaded the question by stating that Brewster’s attitude compared to other drivers was bad. (Tr. 136-140)
34 The Company did not document the reasons for the discharge, but Twyman and Campbell testified
that they based their decision on insubordination and profanity, involving a customer in an internal
company matter, disclosing confidential company information, and threatening to abandon his job. (Tr.
58, 1389, 1429.)
35 I based this finding on the credible testimony of Josh Meyers and Derrick Farr. (Tr. 91-92; 362-
363.) My ruling mistakenly sustained a hearsay objection to the extent that it struck Meyer’s testimony as
to what he told coworkers, but not as to what they told him about Brewster’s discharge. Consistent with
my rulings regarding similar hearsay objections throughout the hearing, it was obvious that I misspoke,
intending the opposite. In any event, Meyers’ earlier, undisputed testimony was that the “word spread”
throughout the Company the day after Brewster was terminated. (Tr. 91-92.)
36 GC Exh. 37.
JD–15–17
11
customer parking if the truck was not eventually moved. Twyman did not pursue further
information about the two driver complaints.37
Finally, on March 2, Campbell asked Jim Brown to review notes she prepared for him
and locate the observation forms he did for two other drivers on February 17.385
4. Comparable Discipline
There are several comparable situations of other employees disciplined for violating
Company rules relating to customers. The most analogous example is the prior discipline to 10
driver Keith Purvis for discussing an internal Company matter with customers. In September
2013, Purvis shared with two customers that he was concerned about being fired because he may
have been caught driving with a mobile phone in his lap. The customers then called the
Company and pleaded for Purvis to keep his job. Because Purvis discussed an internal Company
matter with customers, he was suspended for 2 days.3915
With respect to Brewster’s threat to walk off the job in the midst of his route, a
comparable incident is found in driver Jim Koepsell’s email to his supervisor on February 18
informing that he would not drive his assigned route the next day. Koepsell, an employee noted
in Straw Poll #4 as a likely vote against the Union, made inappropriate comments to supervisors 20
and was found to be insubordinate for essentially abandoning his route by taking a sham sick
day. He received a written warning about a month after the election.40
Driver Gary May had three customer complaints lodged against him on November 13 and
24, 2014 for rude and inappropriate comments to customers and supervisors, using profanity in 25
front of a customer, and failing to make proper deliveries. In the first instance, Yocum discussed
the matter with him and removed him from the route. In the second instance, Yocum disregarded
the comments as a joke and issued no discipline. May’s previous discipline included a written
warning in 2010 for “inappropriate comments made about a fellow driver to a customer.”41
30
Finally, David Achorn, had two customer complaints filed against him in May for
rudeness to a customer, referred to Company policies as stupid, and derided a customer for
ordering an excess amount of the Company’s product. Achorn was not disciplined.42
F. Company’s Position Reinforced by Supervisors’ Statements35
Shaeffer’s message in the captive audience meetings was reinforced by supervisors on
several occasions prior to the election. On February 24, Josh Meyers was in the driver’s break

37 Emery’s testimony was credible and undisputed, including the fact that he confirmed to Twyman
that the restaurant made no complaint against Brewster. His hearsay testimony that restaurant staff
complained about other drivers was corroborated by Twyman’s February 24 memorandum to Campbell.
(Tr. 70-73, 78, 1284-1287; R. Exh. 10.)
38 GC Exh. 34.
39 R. Exh. 6.
40 GC Exh. 41.
41 GC Exh. 67-69.
42 GC Exh. 70-71.
JD–15–17
12
room when supervisor Craig Pung approached him and asked if he had any questions about the
Union before threatening more onerous work conditions and heavier workloads if employees
chose the Union. He also predicted, on the other hand, that if the Union did not come in, work
conditions would improve. Supervisor Jim Brown joined the conversation a short while later,
remarking that employees would revert to minimum wage at the start of bargaining. He also 5
added that employees would be terminated if they did not take breaks under union rules, but if a
Union was not involved, drivers might just get written up for not taking mandated breaks.43
In addition, within a day or two after Brewster was terminated on February 20,
Quisinberry spoke to Timothy Lowing in front of the break room. Lowing was voicing 10
displeasure that Brewster was fired and Quisenberry responded that he would not be able to talk
with Lowing and others in the same manner if the Union prevailed in the election. Qusineberry
then asked Lowing if he was part of the organizing committee. Farr pulled Lowing away and
they left the room.
15
G. The Union Files Petition for Representation Election
On March 11, the Union filed a petition for a representation election. Pursuant to the
stipulated election agreement, a portion of the election was conducted by mail ballot procedures
from April 22 to May 6. The manual election and ballot count was scheduled for May 7. Those 20
sought to be included in a bargaining unit included:
All full-time and regular part-time warehouse, transportation , facility, fleet
employees, including drivers, yard spotter, beverage technicians , inventory control
and sanitary employees, employed by Sysco Grand Rapids, LLC at, or based at its25
Grand Rapids Michigan facility and its domicile locations in Alanson, Cadillac,
Kalkaska, West Branch, Niles and White Pigeon, Michigan; but excluding office
clerical employees, sales employees, routing employees, slotting coordinator, and
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
30
Shortly thereafter, the Union disseminated informational fliers to employees on “What To
Expect Now That We Filed.” The flier stated, in pertinent part:
When we negotiate a first contract, we start with the pay and benefits we already have
and build upward. This is called status quo bargaining per the National Labor Rights Act. 35
The company cannot make unilateral changes once we vote in the union. We do not have
to compromise or settle for anything less than we have now. Nothing can change until it
is negotiated and ratified by us.44

After filing the representation petition, the Union convened supporters for rallies outside 40
the Grand Rapids facility every day of the week, during the 2 weeks leading up to the election.
They held up signs and posters supporting the Union during the rallies.

43 These findings are based on the credible testimony of Meyers, as essentially corroborated by Pung
and Brown. (Tr. 87-89, 1462, 1497, 1481.)
44 R. Exh. 8.
JD–15–17
13
H. Captive Audience Meetings During Pre-election Period
After the Union filed the representation petition for the election, the Company began
holding mandatory employee meetings to discuss related issues.45 The meetings were attended by
an average of 15 to 20 employees, with less at the depot locations. The Company provided 5
employees with similar presentations, created in conjunction with counsel, at the various
locations, often using PowerPoint presentations.46 In Grand Rapids, the meetings were held in the
upstairs conference room. Yocum, Twyman and Shaeffer were usually present, with Twyman
and Shaeffer speaking as they went through the slides. The presentations were usually
unscripted, except in one instance when Shaeffer read from a script a few days before the 10
election.47
1. Wages
At these meetings, Shaeffer usually repeated statements that bargaining over all employee 15
wages would essentially start as a blank sheet of paper and that negotiations could go up or down
from there, At these meetings in March and April in the Grand Rapids and Alanson facilities,
Shaeffer, Twyman or Bobby Jordan repeatedly made that point, using the same or similar
language to support their predictions where negotiations with the Union over wages would start:
they would “put nothing on the table” and start from a “blank page,” “clean sheet,” “clean slate” 20
or “blank sheet of paper” or “ground zero” and “build from there.” They also phrased it as
employees possibly starting at the federally guaranteed “minimum wage” or start at nothing and
possibly lose everything.48 He urged employees to vote against the Union and, instead, “let us do
this on our own.” He used a blank sheet of paper on an easel to illustrate how negotiations would
start from scratch.49 25
In a letter mailed to all employees, dated March 23, Shaeffer and Twyman supplemented
the Company’s message regarding the consequences of union representation. The letter stated, in
pertinent part:
30
Let me assure you, while the style/manner of delivery may have been direct, the primary
goal was to make sure the message was communicated during the meetings. WHY?

45 The Company called 14 employees to testify that no action or statement of management influenced
their support for the Union up to and including the election on May 7. (GC Exh. 5.)
46 GC Exh. 6-8.
47 GC Exh. 54(b) at 23-24.
48 This and related findings prove the allegations in Petitioner’s Objections 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 15
in Case 07-RC-147973.
49 These findings are based on the generally consistent and credible testimony of Christian Bergsma,
Derrick Farr, Kevin Strautz, Jeffrey Compton, Frederick Moore, Timothy Lowing, Harley Vaughn, Adam
Middleton, and Jesse Silva, and further corroborated by Quisenberry’s testimony that Shaeffer referred to
new contracts starting from scratch or a blank sheet of paper. (Tr. 257-258, 261-262, 365-366, 449-451,
464-467, 518-519, 555-558, 587-588, 670-671, 695-696, 1007-1008, 1048, 1184-1185.) Denials by
Shaeffer that bargaining would start with a “blank sheet of paper” or Twyman that the Company would
put nothing on the table were also undermined by Vaughn’s tape recording of the meetings. (Tr. 1328-
1329, 1343; GC Exhs. 54(b) at 9-11, and 74(b) at 26.) Moreover, Jordan’s denial stating that he did not
speak at any of these meetings was contradicted by Shaeffer. (Tr. 1357-1358, 1998-2000.)
JD–15–17
14
Because the Union’s message has been: if the Teamsters get in YOU CANNOT LOSE –
YOU CAN ONLY GET MORE IN NEGOTIATIONS!
Quite simply, as valued associates of Sysco Grand Rapids, we owe you the TRUTH and
the TRUTH is not always a particularly pleasant or happy message.5
IS THE UNION’S MESSAGE TRUE? NO. After last week you and we know without
any doubt that good faith bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act does not
guarantee that you keep what you have or cannot lose what you already have.
10
The Teamsters want you to believe that you can’t lose with the Union. THE TRUTH IS:
you can lose in good faith bargaining. In fact, YOU CAN LOSE EVERYTHING YOU
HAVE BY BEING PERMANENTLY REPLACED IN AN ECONOMIC STRIKE
CALLED BY THE UNION OVER ITS DEMANDS AT THE BARGAINING TABLE.
15
Please think about it. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS NOT A TODAY ONLY
CONSIDERATION, IT IS A CAREER GAMBLE.
And the only way to avoid running the threat of a union strike and losing everything is to
VOTE NO in the election.5020
Shaeffer’s message was reinforced by supervisors in individual encounters with
employees. On March 23, Grand Rapids transportation supervisor Quisenberry approached
driver Timothy Lowing in the break room and told him that bargaining over wages would “start
from zero” if the Union won the election. Lowing acknowledged the risk but insisted the effort 25
was still worth it. Quisenberry also mentioned the potential loss of benefits and asked Lowing if
he was willing to pay union dues with no guarantee that it would produce greater wages or
benefits. Lowing held to his position, insisting it was worth the effort.51
2. Loss of Benefits 30
At a warehouse meeting led by Twyman on April 17, Warehouse manager Szlachcic told
Strautz that the Company had been generous in permitting Strautz to take several sick days
without a doctor’s note during the previous week. Szlachcic then followed with the point that
Strautz would not have gotten away with that if the Union got in.5235
3. Loss of seniority
In addition to the potential impact on employee wages, the Company communicated its
views to employees about the effect of bargaining on seniority based on a pending merger 40
between the Company and U.S. Foods. Three slides presented during the captive audience
meetings compared hypothetical Company and U.S. Foods employees against each other. Two of

50 GC Exh. 22.
51 This finding is based on Lowing’s credible testimony, which was also corroborated by Quisenberry.
(Tr. 510-511, 1531.)
52 This finding is based on Strautz’ credible and undisputed testimony. (Tr. 560.)
JD–15–17
15
the slides indicated that if both were union employees, a U.S. Foods employee with greater
seniority would prevail over a Company employee with less seniority. The third slide, however,
indicated that if the same Company employee was nonunion, his/her seniority rights would
prevail over the same U.S. Foods employee with more years of service.53 At the March 19
meeting in Alanson, Twyman elaborated as to why the nonunion employee scenario was the only 5
good outcome for Company employees:
Here’s a non-union scenario, and this is what I think we need to take a hard [look] here.
Same situation. We’ve got a 20-year Grand Rapids employee and a 25-year U.S. Foods
employee. In this situation, his – and Jesse, this is what we talked about last week. His 10
contract does not follow him over to Grand Rapids. We open up and we say, guys, if
you’re a U.S. Foods driver, you know, we’re going to welcome you to Sysco up here.
Your contract does not follow you, but we have the say of how your seniority plays into
this thing. I’m going to tell you guys right now that I value that 25 years of Sysco
seniority a hell of a lot more than I do 20, 10, or any kind of seniority from the U.S. 15
Foods guy.
Right now Grand Rapids has the ability to say how much are we going to value this? If
we go union, that discussion is out of our hands, and frankly that’s – don’t give a shit. It’s
the two parties, it’s the two locals who are going to battle it out over this, not us. Right 20
now, it’s me. It’s Shaeffer. It’s obviously (sic) corporate would have a say because
there’s a merger, teams and whatnot. But I’ll tell you right now, in this non-union
scenario, I feel a lot better about the where your seniority stands versus where U.S. Foods
guys’ seniority stands. Okay.54
25
Twyman reinforced the same points about seniority based on whether an employee is
nonunion or union at the March 26 meeting in Alanson. After Yocum made the point that the
union contract of a Sysco Detroit employee would not follow him to Sysco Grand Rapids if the
latter remained nonunion, Twyman stated, in pertinent part:
30
Right. Yeah. And to go back to what we were talking about last week, is being non-
union, we have the flexibility to determine how we want to honor that seniority as those
guys come over. Remember that example we went through last week about that. I would
feel a lot more confident, in your guys’ shoes, if it’s a non-union company, knowing that
we are going to respect your guys’ seniority and we’re going to respect the fact that we 35
know you guys and have known you guys for years, that you guys are 25 year veterans,
versus some U.S. Foods guy we don’t know. All right.55
Shaeffer echoed those sentiments at captive audience meetings at the Grand Rapids and
Cadillac facilities, citing the likelihood that a unionized U.S. Foods employee would “trump” or 40
“bump” a unionized Company employee based on seniority.56

53 GC Exh. 6 at 32-34.
54 GC Exh. 52(b) at 46-47.
55 GC Exh. 53(b) at 26.
56 The credible testimony of former warehouse supervisor Adam Middleton, Christian Bergsma,
Thomas Holton and Kevin Strautz (Tr. 258, 415, 557, 584, 1176-1177.) indicates that Schaeffer’s attempt
to soft-coat his remarks about potential bumping based on seniority was not credible: “the Union could
JD–15–17
16
4. Threats of job loss
On several occasions during the period prior to the election, Shaeffer and other managers
commented on the potential loss of jobs if employees chose union representation. At several 5
captive audience meetings in March 2015, the Company’s slide presentations included depictions
of the potential impact on employee job security if the Union prevailed. One slide depicted a
doomsday result from the collective bargaining that would ensue, suggested there would be no
agreement between the parties and, in such a case, the Company predicted that the Union’s “only
weapon” would be to “strike.”57 He warned that, in such a case, employees would not receive a 10
paycheck, would be responsible for their health insurance premium costs and could be
permanently replaced by new hires.58
The presentations were followed by a letter, dated March 23, 2015, to all employees from
Shaeffer and Twyman which reinforced, in pertinent part, their point about job security:15
The Teamsters want you to believe that you can’t lose with the Union. THE TRUTH IS:
you can lose in good faith bargaining. In fact, YOU CAN LOSE EVERYTHING YOU
HAVE BY BEING PERMANENTLY REPLACED IN AN ECONOMIC STRIKE
CALLED BY THE UNION OVER ITS DEMANDS AT THE BARGAINING TABLE.20
Please think about it. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IS NOT A TODAY ONLY
CONSIDERATION, IT IS A CAREER GAMBLE.
And the only way to avoid running the threat of a union strike and losing everything is to 25
VOTE NO in the election.59
On April 21 at Alanson, Shaeffer told employees of the dire consequences if the Union
prevailed in the election:
30
We would be the only union operating company in Western Michigan of the big three,
and that concerns me because I think customers, and I’ve seen in other operating
companies . . . And all of a sudden an attitude kind of develops, well, I don’t have to do
that because it’s not in my union contract . . . [and the customer] is going to say fine, I’ll
get my product from [the non-union company].35
It really concerns me what that impact could mean to our business, us being the only
union company, because I think – I don’t think, I know from previous experience where

certainly request that U.S. Foods Wixom employees that had more seniority could potentially bump
Sysco Grand Rapids employees that had virtually none or very little at that time.” (Tr. 1336-1338.)
57 GC Exh. 6 at 15, 17, 27.
58 Silva and Schaeffer provided similar testimony regarding the latter’s remarks regarding the impact
of strikes on the employees, which is further corroborated by several PowerPoint slides. (Tr. 1075-1076,
1333-1335; GC Exhs. 24, 29-30.)
59 GC Exh. 22.
JD–15–17
17
I’ve worked at a union company, it becomes a detriment. I don’t know how well you can
progress your company when I have to lay that excuse on a customer.60
Shaeffer made a similar statement during a captive audience at the West Branch facility
in early April where he stated that customers would prefer to deal with nonunion companies over 5
those that are unionized. As a result, the Company would lose jobs if the business went
elsewhere.61
Threats of job loss were also conveyed to employees by other managers and supervisors.
On March 20, a day shift sanitation employee, Joe Bombul was approached in the warehouse by 10
Campbell. Bombul was listed as a likely vote against the Union in the March 16 straw poll. She
told Bombul that the Union was not looking out the “little guys,” was more concerned about the
drivers and if they got in he would likely be “bumped” out of his job by a driver and force him
into a less desirable night shift position.
15
On April 22, Bombul was working in the warehouse when he was approached by
Szlachcic. Szlachcic warned Bombul by reviving a recent topic up for consideration—the
potential outsourcing of sanitation jobs at Grand Rapids. He warned that his job could be
outsourced in a manner similar to that at Sysco’s Detroit facility if the employees chose union
representation.6220
5. Access to supervisors, employee grievances and promised benefits
At the March 19 captive audience meeting in Alanson, Twyman stated that the employer-
employee relationship would “fundamentally change” if the Union came in. While encouraging 25
employees to communicate their issues and comments, he explained that employee concerns,
including the safety bonus, would have to go through the Union if the latter prevailed. As a
result, he would not be able to communicate directly with employees and receive feedback as he
does now, including the ability to pass along employee concerns to all the way up to the top
management of the Company and its parent organization: “when a third party gets involved, it 30
doesn’t become, hey, how – what can we do for the employees? It becomes how do we stop this
thing right here.”63
During the same meeting, Yocum and Twyman stated that “everything is frozen” if the
Union prevailed, including the Company’s practice of the past several years to issue annual cost 35
of living pay raises.64
At the captive audience meeting in Grand Rapids on April 9, Campbell told employees
that senior management was “sincere in their efforts to arrive at some that could be implemented

60 GC Exh. 54(b) at 34-35.
61 This finding is based on the credible testimony of Thomas Holton. (Tr. 419-420.)
62 Except for mistakenly citing the date as March 22, a Sunday when neither he nor Campbell were
working, Bombul was an extremely credible witness. (Tr. 308, 313-317.) Campbell, on the other hand,
conceded speaking to Bombul about position “bumping” and was not credible on several other issues. (Tr.
1837-1838.) These findings also prove the allegations set forth in Petitioner’s Objections 10 and 11.
63 This finding also proves the allegations in Petitioner’s Objection 5. (GC Exh. 52(b) at 9-12.)
64 GC Exh. 52(b) at 13.
JD–15–17
18
to address some of the opportunities. . . .And so I just want to let you know that I would like your
no vote . . . I hope you’ll reach out because, again, we know that there’s opportunities . . .” Her
comments were followed by Shaeffer, who warned that the risk of a strike increases
“exponentially on first time contracts” and, consequentially, the likelihood of being “locked
out.”65 5
At the final captive audience meeting on April 21, Shaeffer responded to a grievance
about the loss of several employee benefit programs, including the night program, safety bonus
and guaranteed 401(k), by noting that management was listening to employees now. He implored
employees to “[g]ive us a year. See if what we’re doing today is not progressing the company, is 10
not progressing your earnings potential, is not progressing your satisfaction with Sysco Grand
Rapids, and if you don’t feel that way this time next year, vote it in, vote it in.”66
During this period, supervisors were conveying similar messages to employees. On
March 23, transportation supervisor Quisenberry expressed concern to Lowing that Company 15
managers and supervisors “wouldn’t be able to talk to [you] anymore,” adding “[o]nce the
Unions [sic] in here, . . . you can’t talk to me anymore.” Brown joined the conversation and
confirmed that “everything would be totally different” if the Union prevailed. He warned of
stricter discipline if the Union came in because the Company would have no discretion and
employees would have to “be written up for everything.”6720
6. The Employee Exchange Program
At the March 26 captive audience meeting at the Alanson facility, Twyman explained the
adverse impact that unionization would have on the Company’s intercompany employee 25
exchange program. The intercompany employee exchange program enabled the Company and
other Sysco companies to reassign employees to busy locations on a temporary basis. For
example, the program enabled employees from Grand Rapids to volunteer for temporary
reassignments at Sysco facilities in Florida and Texas during the winter months. At this time,
however, Twyman said that the program was “on hold” because of the union campaign. If the 30
Union came in, Twyman predicted “that it’s highly unlikely that independent intercompany
exchange will continue after, after a potential union – unionization effort, okay." Yocum stated,
in pertinent part:
[E]ven union people because you don’t want, you know, hey, these people have this 35
contract, these people have this in their contract, and you start getting people talking, you
know, and again, contracts are always an up and down negotiation.68
40

65 This finding also proves the allegations in Objections 21 and 23. (GC Exh. 74(b) at 15-18.)
66 This finding also proves the allegations in Objections 25 and 26. (GC Exh. 54(b) at 53.)
67 This finding is based on the credible testimony of Lowing and Derrick Farr and corroborated by
Quisenberry’s understanding as to what Shaeffer stated at the meetings. (Tr. 363, 511, 514-516, 519-521,
696.) It also proves the allegation set forth in Petitioner’s Objection 13.
68 This finding also proves the allegations in Petitioner’s Objection 6. (GC Exh. 53(b) at 27-28.)
JD–15–17
19
I. Interrogations of Employees
1. Kevin Strautz
Strautz is one of four warehouse employees and is supervised by Mike Scott. He signed 5
an authorization card in November 2014 and was identified in Straw Poll # 1 as not a likely
supporter of the Union. He was known, however, to have grievances concerning a coworker,
Kathee Harmon.69
On March 17, Campbell approached Strautz in the warehouse and asked “if anybody had 10
talked to [him] about the union.” Strautz responded that he was for the Union, was tired of
preferential treatment that some employees received, and aired a bunch of other grievances
against his team leader for taking excessive breaks. Campbell responded that she “would look
into it.”
15
Campbell’s statements to Strautz were followed up in the warehouse by his supervisor,
Scott, on March 23. Scott approached Strautz and asked if anyone had spoken to him about the
Union. Scott continued the discussion in his office where he told Strautz that he should be
concerned about being bumped out of his job if the Union prevailed because he would probably
be displaced by drivers with greater seniority. Strautz indicated that he was leaning toward the 20
Union because of his issues with his coworker. Scott replied that those issues would “fix” the
problem if Strautz “voted the right way.”
On April 3, Strautz attended a Company-sponsored cookout when Chief Financial Officer
Mark Lee suddenly asked him whether he had made a decision about the Union. Strautz 25
responded that he was undecided.70
On April 6, Strautz was approached again in the warehouse by Scott and asked if he was
still on the “fence” about the Union. Strautz stated “yeah” and asked Scott if he knew the law.
30
By April 22, Strautz was wearing a Teamsters cap at work. The cap was noticed by
Transportation supervisor Brown, who stopped Strautz and asked, “Kevin, you?” He then asked
Strautz why he supported the Union. Strautz replied that he had a “long list” of reasons. Brown
continued the discussion for several more minutes.71
35
2. Thomas Holton
Holton, a West Branch depot driver, signed an authorization card in December 2014. On
March 20, Holton was approached by three supervisors when he arrived at the Grand Rapids

69 GC Exh. 2, 58.
70 The Company does not deny that Lee made the statement, but contends that Lee played no part in
the Company’s pre-election educational campaign. (Tr. 553, 1539-1540.)
71 These findings are based on Strautz’ credible testimony and also prove the allegations set forth in
Petitioner’s Objections 17 and 18. (Tr. 547-550, 554, 562-563.) Brown’s credibility, on the other hand,
was essentially eviscerated by his testimony and antics during the February 17 incident involving
Brewster. (Tr. 1480-1483.) Scott essentially corroborated most of Strautz’ testimony regarding the
conversations at issue. (Tr. 1547-1550.)
JD–15–17
20
warehouse at the end of his route. Adam Middleton and Ryan Norman initially asked Holton
what he thought about the Union. Holton declined to answer, but Norman persisted by
suggesting that Holton must have an opinion about the Union. Lenhart echoed that remark. Once
again, Holton declined to respond and left the room. Norman followed Holton, asking if he was
involved in the organizing campaign and asking Holton if he wanted to see employees “lose their 5
jobs.” Holton replied that he had nothing to do with job security. The conversation was briefly
interrupted by Holton’s bathroom break, but Norman waited for him and continued asking
questions about the Union. He concluded with a remark that he expected Holton to “make the
right decision” when he voted.72
10
3. David Achorn
Achorn, a Grand Rapids delivery driver, was approached in his truck in the Grand Rapids
parking lot by Transportation supervisor Mercer. He signed an authorization card in 2014, but
was listed in Straw Poll # 4 as a likely vote against the Union. Mercer approached Achorn and 15
asked what he thought about the Union. Achorn was reluctant to answer and Mercer replied that
such a response was “what we like to hear, you know, we need you guys to vote against the
union.” Achorn repeated his reluctance to get involved, but Mercer suggested names of
employees who opposed the Union that he could speak to and others that he could suggest voting
against the Union.7320
4. Jesse Silva and Harley Vaughn
On April 28, drivers Jesse Silva and Harley Vaughn were at the Alanson depot discussing
the collective bargaining agreements at Sysco’s unionized facilities with several drivers. Lead 25
driver Kevin Lauer, who was also present, took exception, stating that Silva and Vaughn “better
hope” the Union comes in or they would lose their jobs.74
J. Surveillance of Employee Activity
30
During the weeks leading up to May 7 election, employees frequently gathered outside
the Grand Rapids facility with union representatives and engaged in pro-union activity. On April
30, about 10 employees, including driver Christian Bergsma, congregated with several union
organizers when supervisor Jim Brown, in clear view, exited the facility and photographed or
videotaped them.75 The Union also publicized this activity on the internet.7635

72 Holton’s credible testimony was corroborated by Campbell’s follow-up meeting with him a few
days later to express regret for Norman’s actions. (Tr. 405-409.)
73 Achorn’s detailed testimony was credible and essentially corroborated by Mercer, who conceded
initiating the inquiry about the election. (Tr. 716, 1796.)
74 Lauer did not testify, but his brother-in-law and depot driver Justin Schlappi testified generally that
he has never heard Lauer threaten other employees. (Tr. 1745.) His testimony was insufficient to refute
the specific, credible, and consistent testimony of Silva and Vaughn regarding the incident on April 28,
which also proves the allegations in Petitioner’s Objection 27. (Tr. 1013-1014, 1086-1087.)
75 This finding is based on Christian Bergsma’s credible and undisputed testimony. (Tr. 265-266.)
The Company’s assertion, on the other hand, that Brown videotaped the employees because the group
was large and he, a supervisor, was concerned for his safety, was unsupported by credible evidence.
76 R. Exh. 36.
JD–15–17
21
After manually voting in the election on May 7, Grand Rapids driver Kyril Brown went
to the facility’s break room to speak with coworkers. While there, he engaged in a general
discussion about the election with supervisor Mike Scott. After Brown commented about how
Scott had been displaced from his office that day because it was located next to the voting area, 5
Scott told Brown that he knew how Brown had voted. Brown did not respond and walked
away.77
K. Promulgation of No Solicitation Rules
10
The Company’s drivers and warehouse employees routinely discussed non-work matters
during work time before and after the union campaign. In several instances late in the campaign,
however, Company supervisors attempted to regulate certain types of discussion. Throughout the
organizing campaign, warehouse employee Jamie Compton and other union supporters often
discussed the campaign during work time. On April 20, however, warehouse supervisor 15
Szlachcic called Compton into his office and told him to stop talking to other employees about
the union during work time. Compton did not respond and returned to work.78
The Company’s restrictions on union-related solicitation continued even after the
election. Shortly before the election, Achorn began wearing a Teamsters cap during work time. 20
He continued wearing the cap throughout the summer until one day when he was called into
Yocum’s office to discuss his performance. Yocum told Achorn that he and other supervisors
believed that Achorn had a bad attitude. Achorn said he would improve his attitude. Yocum
replied that he did not want Achorn wearing his cap in front of customers. Achorn denied
wearing the cap in front of customers. Yocum replied that Achorn had displayed a bad attitude 25
ever since he began wearing the cap.79
L. Reduction of Jesse Silva’s Scheduled Hours
Shuttle driver Jesse Silva was and is a prominent supporter of the Union’s organizing 30
efforts. He started wearing union support buttons in February or March. Silva also spoke up
frequently and asked question of management at captive audience meetings. Towards the end of
the April 9 captive audience meeting in Alanson, Silva got into a heated exchange with Shaeffer
over the likelihood of a strike if the Union came in. The issue related to whether all employees,
even nonunion members, would be obliged to pay dues if the Union won the election.80 35

77 This finding is based on Kyril Brown’s detailed and credible testimony, and also proves the
allegations in Petitioner’s Objection 19. (Tr. 1141-1143.)
78 This finding is based on Compton’s credible and undisputed testimony. (Tr. 632-633, 713.)
79 I credited Achorn’s detailed testimony over Yocum’s denial that the latter mentioned the
Teamster’s cap during the conversation. Yocum’s reference to customer complaints allegedly brought to
his attention by other supervisors seemed pretextual in the absence of corroborating documentary
evidence. (Tr. 718-726, 1373-1374.) Moreover, the complaint allegation that the conversation occurred on
May 28 was amended to conform to the pleadings. The applicable charge was filed on October 30, well
within the applicable Section 10(b) period. (GC Exh. 1(t), allegation no. 17.)
80 Although his audio recording of the meeting did not cover the very end of the discussion, I credit
Silva’s detailed testimony over Shaeffer’s general denial. (Tr. 1077-1079.)
JD–15–17
22
Silva frequently received double run assignments as part of his schedule, which resulted
in additional work hours and pay. However, double runs are cut to single runs on a routine basis
– up to four to five per month depending on how busy the Company is. On the other hand, there
was no precedent for the transfer of scheduled double runs after they had already been assigned
to drivers.815
On April 10, Lauer informed Silva of a change in his route schedule for the following
week. Silva asked if the schedule change had anything to do with Silva’s exchange with Shaeffer
the previous day, and Lauer simply responded, “I’m sure you know why.” The change was a
double run scheduled for April 16 and was reassigned to another driver, Brance Sluiter, an 10
employee listed by the Company as opposed to the Union. The change to Silva’s schedule
resulted in a reduction of approximately 3 or 4 work hours, the equivalent of $70 to $75.82
M. Jeffrey Johnson’s Reassignment To Light Duty Work
15
Jeff Johnson, a delivery driver, signed an authorization card and solicited other
employees to sign authorization cards. He also participated in pro-union activity in the cul-de-sac
area in front of the Grand Rapids facility prior to the representational election on May 7.83
On April 7, Johnson suffered a knee injury on the job. After determining on April 8 that 20
Johnson’s knee injury prevented him from performing driving duties, safety manager
Christopher Wilfong assigned Johnson to light duty in the warehouse. While in the facility,
Johnson interacted with coworkers and discussed the organizing campaign. However, Wilfong
eventually ran out of work for Johnson to do in the warehouse.
25
At some point prior to April 14, Johnson was evaluated by a physician and placed on
restricted work status. On April 14, as a result of the restrictions against Johnson driving and, in
accordance with Company protocol, Wilfong reassigned Johnson to perform light duty work at
an off-site charity pursuant to the Company’s Re-employability Program. Under this program, if
an employee suffers any type of injury which results in work restrictions being placed on the 30
employee by a physician, the employee can be assigned to a charitable organization until the
restrictions are lifted and the employee can return to normal duties.84 On April 24, Johnson began
working at an off-site charitable organization, Mel Trotter Ministries, while still being paid by
the Company. Johnson continued to work there until he underwent knee surgery on June 23.85

81 The testimony of Silva was credible and consistent regarding the availability of double runs and the
unexplained and unprecedented nature of the transfer of his double run after it had been assigned to him.
(Tr. 1110-1111, 1378-1379, 1441-1442.)
82 Silva’s testimony regarding Lauer’s comment was credible, undisputed and supports a finding that
the Company engaged in the conduct alleged as Petitioner’s Objection 22. (GC Exh. 21 at 4; GC Exh. 50-
51; Tr. 1084.)
83 GC Exh. 2 at 42.
84 The Company’s custom and practice is evidenced by similar reassignments of 8 other employees to
work for charitable organizations between April 2015 and January 2016. (R. 18-25.)
85 Wilfong, terminated by the Company after the representation election for unexplained reasons, was
not credible regarding the alleged statements by supervisors Mercer and Twyman on separate occasions
“to get Johnson out of the building because he continuing to encourage or talk about the Union to the
other co-workers there.” Wilfong testified that the alleged statements were made 4 to 5 weeks after
JD–15–17
23
N. The Safety Program Gift Cards
In or around September or October 2014, the Company devised and implemented a safety
bonus incentive program which provided monetary gift cards to employees who met the no-5
injury requirements of the program. The initial roll-out for warehouse and transportation
employees was based on an all or nothing threshold which provided that if a certain number of
employees experienced recordable injuries during a specified time period, all employees would
become ineligible for a bonus even if a particular employee had no recordable injury. The initial
programs ran from September 2 to December 2, 2014.86 10
Both safety incentive programs failed as the maximum number of recordable injuries in
each group was reached before it ended. The transportation and warehouse programs both started
over again. When the programs reset, the driver program failed again, but the warehouse
program continued for the entire ninety-day period. Warehouse employees qualified for a raffle 15
which resulted in the issuance of cash bonus cards for a certain number of lucky employees.
In January and February, Twyman revised the safety bonus program to an individual
disqualification process rather than a group disqualification process. The new programs resulted
in the payout of bonuses to Transportation employees for the first time and larger number of 20
bonuses to Warehouse employees.87 The distribution of gift cards pursuant to the safety program
was distributed to 49 warehouse and garage employees “on or near” April 27, even though the
program did not end until April 28, 2015. Gift cards under the program were also issued to 66
drivers from the Transportation department “on or near” May 25.88
25
O. The May 7 Election
On May 5, two days before the representation election, employees supportive of the
Union engaged in a “March on The Boss rally and approached Twyman to forgo election and
proceed directly to bargaining. Twyman declined.30
Pursuant to the petition in Case 07-RC-147973, filed by the Union on March 11, and a
Stipulated Election Agreement approved on April 2, a mixed mail/manual secret ballot election
was completed at the Company’s facility on May 7 under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 7. The results of the election were as follows:35

Johnson’s physician placed him on light duty. Based on that scenario, since Johnson was placed on light
duty on April 8, the alleged incriminatory statements to get Johnson out of the warehouse would have
been made at a time when he was no longer there. (Tr. 476, 739-741, 748-755; GC Exh. 11.)
86 GC Exh. 27.
87 Twyman and Yocum conceded the change in the programs based on concerns expressed by
employees during the organizing campaign. (Tr. 694, 771, 1894-1899, 1961-1962, 1970-1972; GC Exhs.
39, and 52(b) at 9-11, 19-20.) These findings also prove the allegations in Petitioner’s Objection 29.
88 Gift cards were issued to warehouse employees prior to the expiration of the applicable period and
during the mail ballot period about a week before the May 7 election. In contrast, gift cards were issued to
the drivers more than 10 days after the applicable period ended and more than two weeks after the
election. (GC Exhs. 20, 23-24, 26, 61.)
JD–15–17
24
Approximate number of eligible voters……………….………………… 158
Void ballots………….………………………………………………….. 1
Votes cast for the Petitioner……………………………………………... 71
Votes cast against the Petitioner………………………………………… 82
Valid votes counted…………………………………………………..…. 153
Challenged ballots………………………………………...…………….. 2
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots…………….………………. 155
The Regional Director ruled that the challenged ballots were not sufficient in number to
affect the results of the election. On May 14, the Union filed 35 Objections to the Company’s
conduct affecting the results of the election.89
5
After conducting an investigation of the objections and issuing a Report on Objections,
the Regional Director determined that the objections entailed substantial and material credibility
issues requiring a hearing. Given the overlapping allegations raised by the objections and the
unfair practice allegations in the third consolidated amended complaint, the Regional Director
consolidated the cases for a hearing, ruling and decision by an administrative law judge.10
P. Post-Election Threats
On October 30, the Union filed, and the General Counsel served on the Company
amended charges in Cases 07-CA-152332 and 07-CA-155882. Significantly, the latter charge 15
included a request for a Gissel bargaining order.
Shortly thereafter, on November 4, Barnes, Shaeffer, Twyman and Yocum met with
every shift in order to provide a Company “Update” or “State of the OPCO” meetings.90 In
addition to providing the customary subjects relating the Company’s financial condition, 20
management clearly wanted to share its views regarding the latest unfair labor practices charges.
Shaeffer opened the meetings. In pertinent part, he denied every making a statement
about starting bargaining with a blank sheet. When he was finished, he introduced Barnes.
Barnes’ stated, in pertinent part: the Sysco Detroit union was going bankrupt and had been run 25
out of Detroit; he had no problem breaking applicable rules and regulations under the Act
because he did it before and always got away with it; he would never allow a union into Sysco
Grand Rapids; the Company’s employees were replaceable; the Company was only a small piece
of the Sysco Corporation organization and the latter would shut the Company down and move it
to Detroit if that happened.9130

89 Attachment A to the amended complaint.
90 GC Exh. 5 at 10.
91 These findings are based on the credible and undisputed testimony of Christian Bergsma, Derrick
Farr, Jeffrey Compton, Timothy Lowing, Reginald Chambers, Jamie Compton, Harley Vaughan,
Frederick Moore, Jessie Silva, Kyril Brown and Adam Middleton. Barnes did not testify (Tr. 268-269,
366-370, 452-457, 520-521, 612-614, 634-639, 674-675, 1015-1017, 1089, 1146-1148, 1179-1180.) In
arriving at these findings, I did not give any weight to the subjective testimony of Ross Tyler Case, Dirk
Krisi, Timothy Loonsfoot and Keith Purvis that Barnes’ comments at these meetings did not concern
them in any respect. (Tr. 1653-1654, 1662-1663, 1775, 1789, 1878.)
JD–15–17
25
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. THE SECTION 8(A)(1) ALLEGATIONS
A. The Threats5
During the pre-election period, Company supervisors and managers consistently
exercised their right to let employees know that they opposed the unionization of Company
employees. Many of those communications, however, constituted threats that employees would
suffer adverse consequences to their terms and conditions of employment if they supported the 10
Union or the Union prevailed.
1. Loss of wages
On December 9, 2014, supervisor Quisenberry warned Josh Meyers in his work area that 15
“if the Union got in, we would go back to minimum wage.” Quisenberry’s statement was
unlawful because there was no reference to the fact that wages could be subject to change based
on good faith negotiations or that they could go up or down. See NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co.,
395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969) (statements must be “carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact”);
Oklahoma City Collection District of Browning Ferris, Inc. 263 NLRB 799, 800 (1980), enfd. 20
mem. 679 F.2d 900 (9th Cir. 1982) (statements must include proper context).
Most of the threats, however, occurred after the Union filed the representation petition.
The subjects raised most frequently during this period were wages and benefits. At captive
audience meetings in March and April, Shaeffer repeatedly warned employees that bargaining 25
over wages would essentially start from scratch by referring to a blank sheet of paper and adding
that negotiations could go up or down from there. Shaeffer, along with Twyman and Bobby
Jordan, elaborated during those occasions by using similar language to support their predictions
as to where negotiations over wages would start: they would “put nothing on the table” and start
from a “blank page,” “clean sheet,” “clean slate” or “blank sheet of paper” or “ground zero” and 30
“build from there.” Employees were also warned that wages could revert to the federally
guaranteed minimum wage rate or start at nothing and they could possibly lose everything.
In a letter sent to all employees on March 23, Shaeffer and Twyman warned that
employees “CAN LOSE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE BY BEING PERMANENTLY 35
REPLACED IN AN ECONOMIC STRIKE CALLED BY THE UNION OVER ITS DEMANDS
AT THE BARGAINING TABLE . . . . And the only way to avoid running the threat of a union
strike and losing everything is to VOTE NO in the election.”
On March 19, Shaeffer’s message was reinforced by supervisors Yocum and Twyman, 40
who told Alanson employees that “everything is frozen” if the Union prevailed, including the
Company’s practice of the past several years to issue annual cost of living pay raises. On March
23, Quisenberry warned Lowing in the Grand Rapids break room that bargaining over wages
would “start from zero” if the Union won the election.
45
The aforementioned Company predictions about the impact of unionization on wages
violated Section 8(a)(1). The Supreme Court has held that when considering whether statements
JD–15–17
26
violate the Act, the Board must consider employees’ economic dependence on their employers,
as well as the likelihood that employees will “pick up intended implications” of their employers
due to the nature of the relationship. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., supra at 617. Here, given the
context of the Company’s other unfair labor practices and explicit threats about the bargaining
process’ futility (e.g., “Negotiations With A Union Gets You NOTHING That The Company 5
Refuses To Give!”), the “blank page,” “ground zero” and similar statements unmistakably
communicated an intention to punish employees for selecting the Union through regressive
bargaining.
2. Loss of jobs10
At several captive audience meetings in March 2015, the Company’s slide presentations
depicted the likelihood of a strike because there would be no agreement with the Union. As a
result, the slides conveyed the likelihood that employees could be permanently replaced by new
hires. In a letter to all employees, dated March 23, Shaeffer and Twyman repeated the warning to 15
employees that they could be replaced in an economic strike as a result of the Union’s bargaining
demands. The slides and March 23 letter constituted an impermissible threat of job loss in
violation of Section 8(a)(1). Where comments regarding striker replacement are linked to
retaliation for selecting union representation, as occurred here, ambiguities should be resolved
against the employer when determining the existence of a violation of the Act. L.S.F. 20
Transportation, Inc., 330 NLRB 1054, 1066 (2000) (comment by employer that it would bring in
replacement workers during a strike constituted an unlawful threat of job loss because it could
reasonably be interpreted to mean that employer would encourage a strike in order to hire
replacements).
25
On April 21 at Alanson, Shaeffer warned employees that the Company would lose
customers because, in his experience, they preferred not to work with unionized companies.
Shaeffer made a similar statement during a captive audience at the West Branch facility in early
April. Statements like these that forecast layoffs and job loss due to lack of competitiveness
following a union victory, without being “carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact,” 30
violate Section 8(a)(1). Crown Cork & Seal Co., 308 NLRB 445 fn. 3 (1992), decision vacated
on other grounds, 36 F.3d 1130 (D.C Cir. 1994). Additionally, an employer may not equate
unionization with dire consequences without reference to collective bargaining or the give-and-
take of the bargaining process. Overnight Transportation Co., 296 NLRB 669, 670 (1989).
35
Threats of job loss were also conveyed to employees by other managers and supervisors.
On March 20, Campbell warned Bombul that he would likely be “bumped” out of his job by a
driver and forced into a less desirable night shift position. On April 22, Bombul was warned by
Szlachcic about the potential outsourcing of his sanitation job if employees chose union
representation. The comments directed at Bombul violated the Act because the threat of being40
“bumped” warns of the prospective loss of a job and one that is “not easily erased from the
minds of employees.” Tri-City Paving, Inc. 205 NLRB 174 (1973); The Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Company, 230 NLRB 766 102 (1977) (threats to bump employees out of positions in the
face of unionization violate Section 8(a)(1) and provide grounds for a bargaining order).
45
The bluntest job threat on behalf of the Company came from lead driver Kevin Lauer on
April 28 when he threatened drivers Jessie Silva and Harley Vaughn at the Alanson depot. He
JD–15–17
27
overheard them discussing the collective-bargaining agreements at Sysco’s unionized facilities
with several drivers and chimed in that Silva and Vaughn “better hope” the Union comes in or
they would lose their jobs. The Company did not seriously contest the allegation that Lauer
blurted the threat of termination at Silva and Vaughn. As such, there no question that the
coercive nature of the threat of job loss attributable to support for the Union violated Section 5
8(a)(1) of the Act. See Overnite Transportation Co., 329 NLRB 990, 991 fn. 11 (1999); House
Calls, Inc., 304 NLRB 311 (1991).
The Company did, however, seek to insulate itself from Lauer’s statement by contesting
his status as a Section 2(11) supervisor. The weight of the credible evidence strongly suggests 10
otherwise. In contrast to other lead drivers, Lauer exercised independent judgment in assigning,
approving and changing the schedules of 25 drivers in the northern depots just like Quisenberry
did in the southern territories. The filing of the paperwork at the Grand Rapids facility was
merely perfunctory. Lauer also hired and terminated temporary drivers as necessary. In essence,
he was the only Company representative in the northern territories and it is clear that he 15
represented its interests as only a supervisor would. See Dean & Deluca New York, Inc., 338
NLRB 1046 (2003). (the lack of other supervisors on site is a significant considering a lead
employee’s supervisory status).
3. Loss of benefits and access to supervisors20
On or about February 21, Quisenberry warned Lowing that he would not be able to talk
with Lowing and others in the same manner if the union prevailed in the election. Quisenberry
then asked Lowing if he was part of the organizing committee. The threat followed Lowing’s
remarks criticizing Brewster’s discharge a day or two earlier. Quisenberry’s statement was 25
unlawful because it indicated that a benefit (access to management) would be lost and was
accompanied by other Section 8(a)(1) threats. See Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 320 NLRB 484
(1995) (telling employees they will lose flexibility in working conditions if they bring in the
union constitutes an unlawful threat of a loss of benefits); cf. Tri-Cast, Inc. 274 NLRB 377
(1985) (statements by employers to employees indicating a change in a relationship if employees 30
opt for union representation are permissible if unaccompanied by threats).
At the March 19 captive audience meeting in Alanson, Twyman warned that employees
would lose direct access to management if the Union came in. Citing the fact that he was now
listening and considering employee concerns about the safety bonus program, he warned that the 35
program would be imperiled because the Union would have to become involved. In that instance,
he noted, it becomes a priority for the Company to “stop this thing right here.” Such threats of
loss of benefits and access to management are unlawful. See L’Eggs Products, Inc., 236 NLRB
354 383 (1978) (comments that employees may face different and more restrictive leave and
vacation policies if unionized constitute unlawful threats); Miller Industries Towing Equipment, 40
Inc., 342 NLRB 1074, 1084 (2004) (statements to employees that previous leniency regarding
break times would no longer occur in a union setting violated Section 8(a)(1).
On April 17, Warehouse manager Szlachcic warned Strautz that, if the Union came in,
the Company would not be as generous in permitting employees to take sick days without 45
doctor’s notes. Szlachcic’s threat to enforce Company rules more strictly if the Union came in
was an unlawful threat of a loss of benefit. See Hyatt Regency Memphis, 296 NLRB 259, 271
JD–15–17
28
(1989) (employer’s statements that employees would not “get away with things” constituted an
8(a)(1) threat of benefit and change of working conditions).
4. Loss of seniority
5
The Company presented employees with several doomsday scenarios at the captive
audience meetings. Numerous PowerPoint presentations predicted a loss of seniority if they were
represented by the Union. The slides focus on hypothetical scenarios if the Company and U.S.
Foods employees merged. The slides predicted that Company employees would lose out to the
previously unionized U.S. Foods employees, while Company employees would fare better in a 10
merger if they remained nonunion. During the March 19 and 26 meetings in Alanson, Twyman
elaborated on those predictions, advising employees that the nonunion employee scenario was
the only good outcome for them. Shaeffer issued similar predictions at captive audience meetings
at the Grand Rapids and Cadillac facilities, citing the likelihood that a unionized U.S. Foods
employee would “trump” or “bump” a unionized Company employee based on seniority.15
These predictions violated Section 8(a)(1) because they were not carefully phrased on the
basis of objective fact conveying an employer’s belief as to demonstrably probable consequences
beyond its control. Instead, they conveyed “a threat of retaliation based on misrepresentation and
coercion.” NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., supra at 618, citing Textile Workers v. Darlington Mfg. 20
Co., 380 U.S. 263, 274, (1965). Moreover, it is unlawful to diminish the employees’ seniority
simply because they were not represented previously by a union. Whiting Milk Corp., 145 NLRB
1035 (1964). See also Teamsters Local 435 (Super Valu, Inc.), 317 NLRB 617, 617 fn. 3 (1995)
(unlawful for a union to advocate granting less seniority to one group of employees because they
had not been represented by a union as long as the employees in another group). 25
5. More onerous working conditions and discipline
On February 24, supervisor Craig Pung threatened Josh Meyers in the Grand Rapids
break room with more onerous work conditions and heavier workloads if employees chose the 30
Union. Supervisor Jim Brown joined the conversation and remarked that employees would revert
to minimum wage at the start of bargaining. He also added that employees would be terminated
if they did not take breaks under union rules. These statements were unlawful because there is no
evidence that either statement was based on objective facts or communicated as a possibility
contingent on good faith bargaining. Oklahoma City Collection District of Browning Ferris, Inc., 35
supra (comments lacking proper context violate Section 8(a)(1)). Additionally, threats regarding
more onerous working conditions are unlawful in particular when made without referring to the
collective bargaining process. Novelis Corporation, 364 NLRB No. 101, slip op at 14 (2016),
citing Liberty House Nursing Homes, 245 NRLB 1194, 1199 (1979).
40
On March 23, Quisenberry hurled an array of threats at Lowing if the Union won the
election. He warned that wages would start at zero and employees would lose benefits, as well as
access to talk to him. Jim Brown added that everything would change if the Union came in and
that Company rules would be more strictly enforced and employees would be written up for
everything. These actions were also unlawful because comments to employees conveying that 45
rules would be enforced more strictly if employees chose the union, without any basis in
objective fact, are inherently coercive. Olympic Supply Inc. d/b/a Onsite News supra, slip op at 7
JD–15–17
29
(2013); Schaumburg Hyundai Inc. 318 NLRB 449, 450 (1995) (informing employees that
working conditions would be governed “strictly” by union contract violates Section 8(a)(1)).
B. The Solicitation of Grievances and Promises to Remedy Grievances
5
During the March 19 captive audience meeting in Alanson, Twyman told employees that
the Company was communicating employees’ concerns to Company management where there
was an “understanding” of the issues causing the employees’ “discomfort and happiness.” Such
statements during an organizing campaign are unlawful because the solicitation of grievances
“raises an inference that the employer is promising to remedy the grievances,” an inference that 10
is especially compelling when the employer makes such statements during a campaign after not
having a history of soliciting employee grievances. Garda CL Great Lakes, Inc., 359 NLRB
1334 (2013) (citing Amptech, Inc., 342 NLRB 1131, 1137 (2004). Here, there is no evidence that
the Company addressed employee concerns to such an extent in the past. Twyman also stated
that “when a third party gets involved, it doesn’t become, hey, how – what can we do for the 15
employees? It becomes how do we stop this thing right here?” Under the circumstances,
Twyman’s promise to remedy employees’ grievances violated Section 8(a)(1).
C. The Interrogations
20
The Board has held that the legality of an interrogation must be viewed in the context of
all circumstances and whether the questioning would reasonably tend to coerce the employee
such that he/she would feel restrained from exercising rights protected by Section 7 of the Act.
Westwood Health Center, 330 NLRB 935, 940 (2000); Metro-West Ambulance Service, Inc., 360
NLRB No. 124 (2014). The Board looks to five factors: (1) the background; (2) the nature of the 25
information sought; (3) the identity and rank of the questioner; (4) place and method of the
interrogation; and (5) the truthfulness of the reply. Id. at 939 (2000). Supervisors reinforced the
Company’s anti-union message on an individual level by isolating employees in the workplace,
interrogating and threatening them. In these instances, the supervisors singled out several
subordinates–-including Kevin Strautz, Thomas Holton and David Achorn—that it thought 30
would be open to persuasion and in some instances promised them benefits in exchange for a
vote against the Union. Strautz vacillated, while Holton and Achorn were reluctant to answer.
Under the circumstances, these interrogations violated Section 8(a)(1).
D. Surveillance and the Impression of Surveillance35
On April 30, supervisor Brown used his mobile telephone to photograph or videotape
approximately 10 employees congregating with union organizers outside the Grand Rapids
facility. The Union also publicized the activity on the internet. Brown’s activity was unlawful
because he was an employer who “surveil[led] employees engaged in Section 7 activity by 40
observing them in a way that is ‘out of the ordinary.’” Alladin Gaming, LLC, 345 NLRB 585,
586 (2005). Indeed, without a “solid justification” for the recording, this was a violation of
Section 8(a)(1). National Steel and Shipbuilding Co., 324 NLRB 499 (1997), citing NLRB v.
Colonial Haven Nursing Home, 542 F.2d 691, 701 (7th Cir. 1976).
45
Following the manual vote in the election on May 7, Grand Rapids driver Kyril Brown
encountered supervisor Mike Scott in the facility’s break room. Scott told him that he knew how
JD–15–17
30
Brown had voted. Scott’s statement unlawfully conveyed the impression of surveillance in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) because a reasonable employee in his position would assume that his
union activities were being monitored. Stevens Creek Chrysler, 353 NLRB 1294, 1295 (2009).
Here, Scott did not communicate to Brown that he learned the information from another co-
worker or previous statements. As such, Brown could reasonably believe that Scott based his 5
statement on information obtained through surveillance. Alpers Jobbing Co. 231 NLRB 449
(1977) (comments to employees that the employer knew how they voted in an election are
coercive).
E. No Solicitation Rules10
On April 20, warehouse supervisor Szlachcic told Compton to stop talking to other
employees about the Union during work time. That “no talking” rule violated Section 8(a)(1).
The Board has held that an employer may prevent employees from talking about a union when
they are supposed to be actively working, if such a prohibition also extends to all subjects not 15
connected to work tasks. However, an employer violates the Act when employees are not
allowed to discuss unionization but may talk about other subjects unrelated to work. G4 Secure
Solutions, Inc., 364 NLRB. No 92, slip op. at 2-3 (2016), citing Jensen Enterprises Inc., 339
NLRB 877, 878 (2003). Here, a supervisor told Compton that the discussion about the Union
was banned at work, while other non-work topics were frequently discussed by employees and 20
supervisors during work time.
Shortly before the election, Achorn started to wear a Teamsters cap during work hours. When
Yocum called Achorn into his office to discuss his performance, Yocum told Achorn that he
thought Achorn had a bad attitude and he did not want Achorn wearing his cap in front of 25
customers. This Company rule preventing employees from wearing union insignia was unlawful
because an employer may not prohibit the wearing of union insignia in the absence of special
circumstances. Cintas Corp., 252 NLRB 752 (2009). The Board has only found special
circumstances when the display jeopardizes employee safety, equipment or product safety or
unreasonably interferes with a public image that the employer has established as part of its 30
business plan. United Parcel Service, 312 NLRB 596, 597 (1993) citing Nordstrom Inc., 264
NLRB 698, 700 (1982). Here, no special circumstances existed justifying the prohibition of
employees wearing union insignia. Accordingly, the directive violated Section 8(a)(1).
F. The Safety Bonus Program35
On or about January 28, and again on February 14, the Company made significant
changes to its safety incentive programs. Before the changes, the program terms were “all or
nothing,” which made everyone ineligible for the incentive pay if even one employee (or, for
drivers, two employees) experienced an injury. The Company implemented programs in January 40
that were much more favorable to employees. (The program became individualized, such that
one employee’s injury would not disqualify the entire group, and removed the raffle-style payout
that benefited only some employees.) The record unequivocally shows that the Company
promised the more generous safety bonus program as employees’ organizing efforts began to
gain steam. The Company then granted the enhanced safety bonus to warehouse employees 45
during the mail ballot election and approximately one week before the date of the manual portion
of the election in which warehouse employees and drivers voted.
JD–15–17
31
The Company’s decision to change its safety program violated Section 8(a)(1) because an
employer may not award benefits in an effort to induce employees to vote against the union in a
pending election. NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409 (1964). Further, an
employer’s legal duty when determining whether to issue a benefit at a time when employees are 5
considering how to vote in a union election is to act in the same manner as it would have in the
absence of a union. Red’s Express, 268 NLRB 1154, 1155 (1984). Here, the timing of the
Company’s decision to make changes to the safety program clearly indicates that the organizing
campaign served as its motivation. On March 2, Campbell sent an e-mail message to Twyman
stating that she was working on “Union Avoidance” action items and asked for the date of the 10
rollout of the “enhanced safety information.” Further, Twyman testified that the “all or nothing”
program had resulted in no injuries, and obfuscated the issue when asked to explain the decision
to change a program that had not produced any injuries.
II. THE SECTION 8(A)(3) ALLEGATIONS15
A. George Brewster’s Discharge
The General Counsel alleges that the Company violated 8(a)(3) and (1) by terminating
Brewster on February 20 because of his role as a union organizer.92 The Company denies the 20
allegation, contending that Brewster was lawfully terminated due to (1) insubordination and
profanity, (2) involving a customer in an internal company matter and (3) threatening to abandon
his route. The Company also asserts that Brewster violated its prohibition against “disclosure or
use of confidential information concerning an associate, customer or the company” as described
in its Rules of Conduct.25
Cases involving 8(a)(3) violations are analyzed using the burden-shifting framework
applied in 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). Wright Line holds that the General Counsel must prove that an employee’s union or other 30
protected activity was a motivating factor in the employer’s action against the employee. The
elements necessary to demonstrate such a showing include union or protected concerted activity,
employer 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 35
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 the adverse action). If the General Counsel meets the initial burden, the burden shifts
to the employer to prove, as an affirmative defense, that it would have taken the same action
regardless of the occurrence of the protected activity. Id. at 1066. On the other hand, if the 40
evidence establishes that the respondent’s reasons for its actions are pretextual, the respondent’s
Wright Line defense fails. See Golden State Foods Corp., 340 NLRB 382, 385 (2003), citing
Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722 (1981).

92 The General Counsel referred to February 19 as Brewster’s termination date. However, he was not
notified of that action until the following day.
JD–15–17
32
It is undisputed that Brewster engaged in union activity and the Company was aware of
that activity. He signed a union authorization card, worked on the Union’s organizing drive and
solicited coworkers to sign cards. More importantly, the Company’s “straw poll” reports
monitoring the involvement of employee support for the campaign documented Brewster’s
activity and flagged him as a top supporter for union representation. He was also openly 5
discussing his concerns about the Company when Twyman approached him in Yokum’s office.
The Company’s union animus was also clearly present. Animus may be proven by direct
evidence or inferred from circumstantial evidence. Robert Orr/Sysco Food Systems, 343 NLRB
1183 (2004). Even before Brewster’s discharge, the Company violated 8(a)(1) by threatening 10
Josh Meyers with a loss of wages. Such violations are evidence of an employer’s animus. W.E.
Carlson Corporation, 346 NLRB 431 (2006); Armstrong Machine Company, supra at 1151-1152
(2004). The timing is also instrumental, as Brewster was terminated within two months of being
identified as a Union committee member. Nichols Aluminum, 361 NLRB No. 22 (2014); Murtis
Taylor Human Service Systems, 360 NLRB No. 66 (2014). Additionally, the Company departed 15
from past practice when a supervisor hid Brewster’s truck keys while observing him, then failed
to stick around, counsel him and fill out the requisite form. That exercise was an obvious attempt
to lure Brewster into acting out. JAMCO, 294 NLRB 896, 905 (1989). Indeed, the Board has
found that an employer may not use an employee’s outburst that was created by its own
malfeasance as grounds for discharge. Paradise Post, 297 NLRB 876 (1990).20
Under the Wright Line burden-shifting analysis, the significant evidence of pretext causes
any affirmative defense on the part of the Company to fail. Notably, where “the General
Counsel, as here, makes a strong showing of discriminatory motivation, the employer’s rebuttal
burden is substantial.” Bally’s Park Place v. NLRB, 646 F.3d 929, 936 (D.C. Cir. 2011); 25
Alternative Energy Applications, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 139, slip op. at 5 (2014); cf. Sasol North
America Inc. v. NLRB, 275 F.3d 1106, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (quoting Doug Hartley, Inc. v.
NLRB, 669 F.2d 579, 582 (9th Cir. 1982) (“the weaker a prima facie case against an employer
under Wright Line, the easier for an employer to meet his burden . . . of proving [the employer’s
action] would have occurred regardless of protected activity”).30
Virtually nothing about how Company managers and supervisors handled this incident
remotely resembles the Company’s typical operational or disciplinary practices. Top Company
managers engaged in an elaborate investigation over the incident, despite Brewster’s relatively
minor offense involving profanity, but did not speak to him or the Charlie’s Pub employee on the 35
day of the incident. Similarly, Yocum and Quisenberry failed to discuss the incident with, much
less mention any disciplinary action to, Brewster when he returned to the facility on February 17.
See, Advoserv of New Jersey, 363 NLRB No. 143, slip op. at 4 (2016) (managers present during
conversation that served as grounds for discharge and yet took no action provided evidence of
pretext). The Company continued to bulldoze its normal procedures by discharging Brewster40
without giving him a reason for that action. Lucky Cab Company, 360 NLRB No. 43 slip op. at 8
(2014). The Company’s questionable actions did not end there. Its shoddy investigation picked
up steam following Brewster’s departure, in what signifies an attempt to retroactively justify the
termination. See, 2 Sisters Food Group, Inc., 357 NLRB 1816, 1837 (2011) (Respondent’s post-
termination investigation into discriminatee’s wrongdoing evidenced animus rather than 45
compliance with past practices.)
JD–15–17
33
Under the circumstances, the Company’s discharge of George Brewster on February 20
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
B. Reduction of Jessie Silva’s Work Hours
5
During the April 9 meeting at the Alanson facility, Shaeffer started a conversation about
strikes and employee Jesse Silva challenged some of the assertions. At one point, Shaeffer
become frustrated and shouted, “Jesus Christ, Jesse!” The next day, Kevin Lauer called Silva and
told him that his route schedule for the following week had changed. Silva’s original double run
scheduled for April 16 was reassigned to another driver who the Company believed to be 10
opposed to the Union. When Silva asked if the reduction in hours (and corresponding
compensation) was due to his interaction with Shaeffer, Lauer responded, “You know why.”
The adverse reduction of Silva’s work hours was attributable to Company animus against
the Union campaign in general, as well as Silva’s protected concerted activities. He was an 15
active and outspoken Union supporter and the record establishes an abundance of Company
animus toward employees’ union activities prior to and on April 9, including Shaeffer’s hostility
toward Silva. In addition, the comment by Lauer, “You know why,” adds to the overwhelming
evidence that Silva’s protected activity was a motivating factor in his schedule change.
20
Based on the overwhelming evidence of a prima facie violation, the burden shifted to the
Company to show that it would have reduced Silva’s schedule hours even in the absence of his
protected activity. The Company failed to meet that burden. It introduced evidence that double-
run assignments had been cut in the past based on demand. However, the Company’s transfer of
Silva’s scheduled double-run assignments to another employee was unprecedented. 25
Under the circumstances, the Company’s reassignment of Silva’s double-run route to an
anti-Union employee was discriminatorily motivated due to his protected concerted and union-
related activities in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
30
C. Transfer of Johnson to an Offsite Location
On about April 7, driver Jeff Johnson, an early card signer and consistent Union
supporter, injured his knee while on the job and could no longer perform driving duties as of
April 8. Johnson was assigned by Wilfong, the Environmental Health and Safety Manager, to 35
light duty work in the warehouse, where he regularly spoke about the Union with other
employees. Wilfong testified that he was directed by Mercer and Twyman to“ get [Johnson] out
of the building” because he was discussing the union with other employees while on the job. As
a result, Wilfong further testified that, as a result of this directive, he assigned Johnson to an off-
site charity organization to do light work on April 24, about a week before the election. 40
However, I did not find Wilfong’s version credible based on his timing of the alleged directives,
which would have been issued after the election. As such, the credible facts established that
Johnson was transferred to the off-site charity location in the ordinary course of the Company’s
practices once there was nothing else for him to do or training courses to watch in the warehouse.
Under the circumstances, this Section 8(a)(3) and (1) allegation is dismissed. 45
JD–15–17
34
III. THE SECTION 8(A)(5) ALLEGATIONS
The complaint alleges that the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union after it established its majority status by valid
authorization cards and then engaging in unfair labor practices that destroyed the Union’s 5
majority and seriously impeded the election process. The Company opposes the requested
bargaining order on several grounds: (1) the Union did not establish majority status as of
December 18, 2014, nor did the Company’s actions dissipate alleged majority support for the
Union; (2) the Company experienced significant employee turnover after December 18, 2014;
(3) the evidence does not support the elements in establishing a Category II Gissell violation; and 10
(4) the vast majority of the alleged unfair labor practices occurred prior to the Union’s demand
for recognition on March 11.
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 must 15
be analyzed under NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., supra at 610. 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 fair election unlikely or which have in fact
undermined a union’s majority and caused an election to be set aside.” Id. The traditional remedy
for unfair labor practices is to hold an election once the atmosphere has been cleared of past 20
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). 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 25
petition at the appropriate time pursuant to Section 9(c)(1). See Overnite Transportation Co.,
supra at 996.
In Gissel, the Supreme Court identified two categories of employer misconduct that
warrant imposition of a bargaining order. Category I cases are “exceptional” and “marked by 30
‘outrageous’ and ‘pervasive’ unfair labor practices.” 395 U.S. at 613. 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 NLRB 656, 657 (1991).
Category II cases are “less extraordinary” and marked by less pervasive practices which
nonetheless still have a tendency to undermine majority strength and impede the election 35
processes.” Id. at 614. In category II cases, the “possibility of erasing the effects of past practices
and of ensuring a fair election . . . by the use of traditional remedies, though present, is slight and
. . . employee sentiment once expressed through cards would, on balance, be better protected by
a bargaining order.” Id. at 614-615; see also California Gas Transport, 347 NLRB 1314, 1323
(2006), enfd. 507 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 2007). 40
The May 7 election was fairly close, with 82 votes cast against union representative and
71 votes cast in favor of representation. The Union has met its burden in proving most of the
overlapping objections in Case 07-RC-147973 and there is no doubt that the results of the fairly
close election must be set aside. When considering the unfair labor practice violations, however, 45
it is evident that the traditional remedies—a rerun of the election in disposition of the
representation case, and a cease and desist order and notice posting in the unfair labor practice
JD–15–17
35
proceedings—would be insufficient under the circumstances.
The aforementioned 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) violations constituted overwhelming evidence of
conduct by the Company during the months leading up to the election which eroded the ideal
conditions necessary to facilitate the free choice of employees and determine their uninhibited 5
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 Corp., 77 NLRB 124 (1948). The Company’s numerous unfair labor practices, 10
while not rising to the level of exceptional, outrageous or pervasive conduct, warrant a category
II analysis.
A. Establishment of Majority Status Prior to the Election
15
The evidence established that several Union representatives and numerous employees
obtained 84 completed and signed clear and unambiguous union authorization cards from
employees by December 18. By the filing of the representation petition on March 11, that total
had increased to 99. Thirty-seven of the 84 cards signed before December 18 were authenticated
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(3) and the remaining 47 cards were authenticated 20
by the credible and undisputed testimony of the card signers and/or coworkers who solicited or
witnessed the card signings. The cards were properly authenticated by witnesses, the employees
themselves or handwriting comparison. 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 employee’s name and social security number on employment application). See also U.S. 25
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
Wholesale Ctr. Co., 328 NLRB 1058, 1059 (1999) (cards authenticated by judicial comparison 30
of signatures to other records); Justak Bros., 253 NLRB 1054, 1079 (1981) (same).

There was nothing ambiguous about the wording of the authorization cards. The top of
each card stated that the “undersigned” Company employee authorizes the Union “to represent
me in negotiations for better wages, hours and working conditions.” The rest of the card asked 35
for detailed information, including names, dates, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses
and work-related information (job classification, department, shift), and a signature.93
Cumberland Shoe Corp. 144 NLRB. 1268 (1963), established that an unambiguous card
is valid unless and until it is rendered invalid through solicitation misrepresenting the sole 40
purpose of the card. A card may be ambiguous, and thus facially invalid, through either the

93 The Company’s contention that the Union unlawfully obtained authorization cards by providing
beer at some of its meetings is inconsequential since an employer may provide free refreshments of
minimal value. See Far W. Fibers, Inc., 331 NLRB 950, 952 (2000) (bagels). Moreover, there is no
evidence to suggest the absence of beer and other beverages in the regular course of other Union
meetings.
JD–15–17
36
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 5
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. 10
Absent evidence of such representation, inquiry 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:
15
[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 will probably be used first to get 20
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, to give testimony damaging to the union, particularly where company 25
officials have previously threatened reprisals for union activity in violation of 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., supra at 606–608.
30
B. The Company’s Actions Dissipated Majority Support for the Union
Determining whether the Company’s actions dissipated majority support for the Union
requires an examination of the nature and pervasiveness of the employer’s unfair labor practices.
In weighing a violation’s pervasiveness, relevant considerations include the number of 35
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. Holly
Farms Corp., 311 NLRB 273, 281 (1993) (citing FJN Mfg., 305 NLRB 656, 657 (1991)). 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 employees on an 40
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 may not be warranted when the most widely disseminated violations occur
before a union demand for recognition and thus cannot have been said to have eroded the union’s 45
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
JD–15–17
37
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).
1. Severity of the violations
5
A bargaining order is warranted, absent significant mitigating circumstances, when the
employer engages in hallmark violations such as threats of plant closure, threats of loss of
employment, the grant of benefits to employees, and the reassignment, 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 10
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).
The Union attained majority support on December 18, 2014 and the Company committed 15
its first hallmark violation on February 20 by discharging Brewster. The Union filed its petition
for certification as the labor representative of its employees on March 11 and did not formally
demand recognition until March 6. Under the circumstances, the applicable date for determining
the appropriateness of a bargaining order is Brewster’s discharge on February 20. California
Gas Transport, Inc., 347 NLRB 1314 (2006) (where union has not initially requested 20
recognition, the employer will be ordered to bargain with the union after it attains majority status
from the “approximate date thereafter that Respondent embarked on its course of unlawful
conduct”).
Information about Brewster’s termination was widely disseminated throughout the plant 25
as the Union was preparing to file its petition for representation on March 11 and was followed
by numerous hallmark and other violations that continued until the May 7 election. The most
serious violations consisted of threats during captive audience meetings by high ranking
managers, including Shaeffer, Twyman, Szlachcik and Yocum, of loss of job loss, plant closure,
loss of benefits and seniority. These violations, which were directly disseminated to the 30
bargaining unit, will likely remain etched in employees’ memories for a long period. See
Aldworth Co., 338 NLRB 137, 149–150 (2002) (allusions to potential total loss of business are
the types of threats most likely to have the effect of causing union disaffection and that “[t]hreats
of this kind are not likely to be forgotten by employees whose jobs depend on the stability of that
relationship”); see also, Homer D. Bronson Co., 349 NLRB 512, 549 (2007) (citing A.P.R.A. 35
Fuel, Inc., 309 NLRB 480, 481 (1992), enfd. mem. 28 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1994) (threats of plant
closure and job loss are more likely to destroy election conditions for a longer period of time
than other unfair labor practices).
Shaeffer and Twyman committed several other violations during the captive audience 40
meetings by threatening reduced pay and benefits if the Union came in. These threats were
directly disseminated to the bargaining unit. Further, the severity of these violations was
exacerbated by their communication to employees 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 45
deeds of the highest levels of management, it is highly coercive and unlikely to be forgotten. See
Electro-Voice, 320 NLRB 1094, 1096 (1996); America’s Best Quality Coatings Corp., 313
JD–15–17
38
NLRB 470, 472 (1993), enfd. 44 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 115 S.Ct. 2609 (1995).
The Company also committed a significant hallmark violation when it granted a benefit
to warehouse and garage employees by awarding them safety bonuses on April 27, just 10 days
before the election. This benefit was disseminated to a substantial portion of the proposed 5
bargaining unit and is likely to have a long-lasting effect, not only because of its significance to
employees, but also because of the expectation that it would continue in the future. MEMC Elec.
Materials, Inc., 342 NLRB 1172, 1174 (2004) (quoting Holly Farms, 311 NLRB at 281–282).
The Company committed another significant hallmark violation on April 10 when Lauer, 10
alluding to Silva’s exchange of views with Shaeffer, transferred Silva’s double-run shift work to
another employee and then strongly implied that the action was retribution for Silva’s protected
activity. There is no indication, however, that the punitive action, unlike Brewster’s discharge,
was likely to have a lasting and inhibitive effect on a substantial portion of the workforce. See
Jamaica Towing, Inc., 632 F.2d at 213.15
Finally, Twyman combined the chilling effect of coercive conduct by managers and
supervisors by unlawfully soliciting and promising to remedy grievances during a captive
audience meeting in April. 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 20
existence. See Teledyne Dental Products Corp., 210 NLRB 435, 435–436 (1974).
In addition to the hallmark violations, several Company supervisors committed several
other violations by coercively interrogating employees, promising benefits, threatening
decreased benefits, and expressing anti-union sentiment. These coercive actions by supervisors 25
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).
Thus, the Company’s commission of numerous hallmark violations on and after February
20, along with numerous other violations, many of which directly affected the entire bargaining 30
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 NLRB at 182; Koons Ford of Annapolis, 282 NLRB 506, 509 (1986).
2. Remediation of potential effects of the violations35
Evaluation of whether a bargaining order is warranted depends upon the situation as of
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 40
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.
The Company’s aforementioned unfair labor practices were severe and continuous during
the critical period prior to the May 7 election. These coercive acts were conveyed to employees 45
by the Company’s top management and they included the most serious types of hallmark
violations, specifically, the loss of jobs and plant closure. These actions significantly dissipated
JD–15–17
39
support for the Union at the most critical time. By March 11, when the Union filed its
representation petition, it had obtained 99 valid authorization cards from the approximately 158
employees eligible to vote. On May 7, however, only 71 employees voted for union
representation.
5
The Company’s barrage of unfair labor practices did not end with the election. Six
months later, after the Union filed its initial unfair labor practice charges, Barnes defiantly
denounced the charges at a captive audience meeting, declared that he would never let the Union
in, knew how to get around the Act, even it meant continuing to violate federal law, because he
“always got away with it.” He also warned that the Company was an insignificant part of the 10
Sysco Corporation organization and would shut the Company down and move its operations to
Detroit if the Union prevailed. That threat closed the lid on any possibility that employees would
go into another election with the assurance that they would be able to exercise their unfettered
choice, free from adverse consequences, if they voted for union representation
15
The Company cites M.P.C. Plating v. NLRB, for the preposition that changed
circumstances, including employee and management turnover weigh against issuing a bargaining
order. 912 F.3d 833, 888 (6th Cir 1990). However, longstanding Board precedent indicates
otherwise. See Overnite Transportation, 334 NLRB 1074, 1076 (2001) (Board evaluation of
bargaining order does not consider employee turnover). The Board recently reaffirmed this 20
posture in Novelis Corp., 364 NLRB No. 101, fn. 27 (2016), refusing to “consider turnover
among bargaining unit employees or management officials and the passage of time in
determining whether a Gissel order is appropriate.” (Citing Garvey Marine, Inc., 328 NLRB 991,
995 (1999), enfd. 245 F.3d 819 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Be-Lo Stores, 318 NLRB 1, 15 (1995), affd. in
part and revd. in part 126 F.3d 268 (4th Cir. 1997). It also reaffirmed its “established practice is 25
to evaluate the appropriateness of a bargaining order as of the time the unfair labor practices
were committed (citing State Materials, Inc., 328 NLRB 1317, 1317–1318 (1999)). Id.
Even considering the Company’s evidence of employee and management turnover, the
predominant factor is that a substantial number of the proposed unit employees remain employed 30
by the Company. As the Board noted in Novelis Corp., besides recalling the Company’s coercive
practices during the organizing campaign, “[t]hose employees are likely to have informed any
new employees of what transpired during the Union’s organizing campaign. Furthermore, the
Respondent’s ownership remains the same and some of the management personnel who engaged
in the unfair labor practices remain employed by the Respondent.” 364 NLRB No. 101, supra 35
(citing State Materials, 328 NLRB at 1317– 1318).
Moreover, the passage of time since the filing of the representation petition, followed by
the string if unfair labor practices leading up to the May 7 election, is less than two years—even
less when one considers the post-election hallmark violation by Barnes in November 2015.40
Either timeframe is less than the period found by Board in Novelis Corp. to be an insignificant
change in circumstances.
Based on the foregoing, the evidence establishes numerous hallmark and other violations
by the Company of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The unfair labor practice violations were 45
sufficiently severe so as to erode the majority support that the Union had acquired and
demonstrated on or before December 18, 2014 and again when it made its initial demand for
JD–15–17
40
recognition on May 6, causing it to lose the representation election conducted on May 7 by 11
votes. Those actions, as well as Barnes’ doomsday speech shortly after the Union filed charges,
clearly demonstrated that traditional remedies, including a notice posting, cease and desist order
and rerun of the election, would be insufficient to alleviate the impact reasonably incurred by
eligible unit employees. Thus, a more extraordinary form of relief, including a bargaining order, 5
is warranted.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Sysco Grand Rapids, LLC, is an employer engaged in commerce 10
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. General Teamsters Union Local No. 406, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the
Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
15
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in the following
conduct:
(a) Threatening employees that a strike is inevitable if they chose to be represented by
the Union.20
(b) Threatening employees that the Respondent would lose business if they select the
Union as their bargaining representative.
(c) Threatening employees that it would close the facility if they chose to be represented 25
by the Union.
(d) Threatening employees with layoff if employees selected the Union as their
bargaining representative.
30
(e) Threatening employees that negotiations will start from scratch if they chose to be
represented by the Union.
(f) Threatening employees with a reduction in wages and benefits if they select the
Union as their bargaining representative.35
(g) Threatening employees with the loss of seniority if they chose to be represented by
the Union.
(h) Threatening employees with more onerous working conditions if they select the 40
Union as their bargaining representative.
(i) Threatening employees with loss of access to supervisors to discuss working
conditions.
45
(j) Interrogating employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies.
JD–15–17
41
(k) Promulgating a rule prohibiting employees from wearing union insignia.
(l) Promulgating a rule instructing employees not to talk to each other about the Union.
(m) Soliciting grievances and promising to remedy them in order to discourage 5
employees from selecting union representation.
(n) Granting increased benefits in the form of safety bonuses in order to discourage
employees from selecting union representation.
10
(o) Creating the impression of surveillance among employees that their union activities
are under surveillance.
(p) Videotaping or photographing employees engaged in union activity.
15
(q) Reducing the hours of employees who support the Union.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by terminating George
Brewster because of his support for the Union or engaging in other protected concerted activities.
20
5. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by reducing Jesse Silva’s
work hours because of his support for the Union or engaging in other protected concerted
activities.
6. The following employees constitute a union appropriate for the purposes of collective25
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
Included: All full-time and regular part-time warehouse, transportation, facility, fleet
employees, including drivers, yard spotter, beverage technicians, inventory control and
sanitary employees, employed by Sysco Grand Rapids LLC at or based at its Grand 30
Rapids Michigan facility and its domicile locations in Alanson, Cadillac, Kalkaska, West
Branch, Niles and White Pigeon, Michigan.
Excluded: Office clerical employees, sales employees, routing employees, slotting
coordinator, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.35
7. Since December 18, 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 Respondent.
40
8. Since February 20, 2015, 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 and 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 employment, and other terms and conditions of employment.45
JD–15–17
42
9. Since about May 6, 2015, and at all times thereafter the Respondent has
failed and refused to recognize and bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
10. The Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and 5
refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all employees in the above-described unit.
11. The aforesaid violations affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.10
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate 15
the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully terminated George Brewster, it must, to
the extent it has not already done so, offer him reinstatement to the position from which he
was unlawfully terminated, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges20
previously enjoyed and to make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
as a result of the discrimination against him.
Similarly, having found that the Respondent unlawfully reduced Jessie Silva’s work
hours, it must make him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of 25
the discrimination against him.
Backpay shall be computed in accordance with Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB
602 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest at the rate prescribed in New
Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical30
Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). Further, in accordance with AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363
NLRB No. 143 (2016), the Respondent shall compensate Brewster and Silva for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards and file reports with the Regional
Director of Region 7 allocating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar years.
35
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended94
ORDER
40
The Respondent, Sysco Grand Rapids, LLC, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall

94 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–15–17
43
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees that a strike is inevitable if they choose to be represented by
the Union.5
(b) Threatening employees that the Respondent would lose business if they select the
Union as their bargaining representative.
(c) Threatening employees that it would close the facility if they choose to be represented 10
by the Union.
(d) Threatening employees with layoff if employees select the Union as their
bargaining representative.
15
(e) Threatening employees that negotiations will start from scratch if they choose to be
represented by the Union.
(f) Threatening employees with a reduction in wages and benefits if they select the
Union as their bargaining representative.20
(g) Threatening employees with the loss of seniority if they choose to be represented by
the Union.
(h) Threatening employees with more onerous working conditions if they select the 25
Union as their bargaining representative.
(i) Threatening employees with loss of access to supervisors to discuss working
conditions.
30
(j) Interrogating employees about their union membership, activities, and sympathies.
(k) Promulgating a rule prohibiting employees from wearing union insignia.
(l) Promulgating a rule instructing employees not to talk to each other about the Union.35
(m) Soliciting grievances and promising to remedy them in order to discourage
employees from selecting union representation.
(n) Granting increased benefits in the form of safety bonuses in order to discourage40
employees from selecting union representation.
(o) Creating the impression of surveillance among employees that their union activities
are under surveillance.
45
(p) Videotaping or photographing employees engaged in union activity.
JD–15–17
44
(q) Reducing the hours of employees who support the Union.
(r) In any other manner interfering with restraining or coercing employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
5
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make George Brewster and Jesse Silva whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits, including consequential damages they suffered because of the discrimination
against them, and their search-for-work or work-related expenses, regardless of whether those 10
expenses exceed their earnings at interim employment, together with interest in accordance with
Board policy.
(b) Rescind and remove from its files and records all references to the discharge of George
Brewster and notify him in writing that this has been done and that the action will not be used 15
against him in any way.
(c) Offer George Brewster immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if
the position is no longer available, to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his
seniority or other benefits and privileges previously enjoyed.20
(d) Recognize the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit
and bargain with it collectively and in good faith and execute a written contract incorporating
any agreement reached.
25
(e) Post appropriate notices to employees at all its Michigan facilities.
(f) Convene meetings at each of its Michigan facilities during working time, scheduled to
ensure the widest possible attendance, at which the notices to employees will be read to all
employees, supervisors and managers by a Board agent in the presence of Thomas C. Barnes (or 30
his successor) and Tom Shaeffer (or his successor) at each reading of the notice. Also, at least
one of the following individuals – Mark Lee, Amy Campbell or Ted Twyman (or their
successors) – must be in attendance at each reading and each of these individuals must attend at
least one reading. At least two other supervisors/managers identified in the Complaint must be
present at each reading.35
(g) Allow the Union reasonable access to its bulletin boards and all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted.
(h) Supply the Union, on its request, the names and addresses of its unit employees as of40
the day of the request.
(i) Grant the Union access to network areas during employees network time.
(j) Give the Union notice and equal time and facilities to respond to any address made by45
Respondent to employees regarding the issue of union representation.
JD–15–17
45
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election conducted in Case 07-RC-147973
on May 7, 2015 be set aside, and the petition dismissed.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 2, 2017
5
_____________________________
Michael A. Rosas
Administrative Law Judge
10
~.~~ /~ ~-
JD–15–17
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 do anything to prevent you from exercising your rights as listed above.
WE WILL NOT threaten that you will lose wages or that your wages will revert to minimum
wage if you choose to be represented by the General Teamsters Union Local No. 406,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Union.)
WE WILL NOT tell you that you will no longer be able to have the ability to speak to or
access supervisors if you choose to be represented by the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that the work rules will be more rigorously enforced or
that employees will be disciplined more often if you choose to be represented by the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with harsher or more difficult working conditions if you choose
to be represented by the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with the loss of work, the loss of your job due to any loss of
work, or discharge if you choose to be represented by the Union
WE WILL NOT tell you that any negotiations with the Union will start from scratch or from
a blank slate or suggest that you will lose your wages and benefits as a result of negotiations
with the Union;
WE WILL NOT threaten you with a loss of benefits if you choose to be represented by the
Union;
WE WILL NOT threaten you that you will lose your seniority and all the benefits that go
with seniority if you choose to be represented by the Union;
JD–15–17
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that a strike is the only way for the Union to obtain
benefits for you and that such a strike is inevitable
WE WILL NOT interrogate or ask you about your level of support for the Union or the
union activities and support of any other employees
WE WILL NOT as you about your complaints and then offer or imply that we will remedy
those complaints to discourage you from supporting the Union;
WE WILL NOT promise you that we will improve the safety bonus in order to discourage
your support of the Union;
WE WILL NOT watch you or give you the impression that we are watching you engage in
activities in support of the Union;
WE WILL NOT tell you that you cannot talk to other employees about the Union;
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT to discuss the union with other employees.
WE WILL NOT tell you that you cannot wear hats or other items to show your support for
the Union;
WE WILL NOT threaten you that we will close the facility and “do what needs to be done” in
order to keep the employees from being represented by the Union;
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the bargaining unit
WE WILL NOT change the safety bonus program or give you gift cards and bonuses in order
to discourage you from supporting the Union
WE WILL NOT reduce your hours in retaliation for your support of the Union
WE WILL NOT fire you in retaliation for your support of the Union
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL pay employee Jesse Silva for any wages and other benefits he lost because we
reduced their hours or transferred them to a different job assignment in retaliation for their
support of the Union;
WE WILL offer George Brewster immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or,
if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or any other rights and privileges previously enjoyed;
WE WILL pay George Brewster for all the wages and other benefits he lost because we
JD–15–17
unlawfully fired him;
WE WILL remove from our files all references to the discharge of George Brewster and we
will notify him in writing that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against
him in any way.
WE WILL compensate Jesse Silva, Jeff Johnson and George Brewster for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards, and WE WILL file a report with
the Social Security Administration allocating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar
quarters for each employee.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
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:
Included: All full-time and regular part-time warehouse, transportation, facility, fleet
employees, including drivers, yard spotter, beverage technicians, inventory control and
sanitary employees, employed by Sysco Grand Rapids LLC at or based at its Grand
Rapids Michigan facility and its domicile locations in Alanson, Cadillac, Kalkaska, West
Branch, Niles and White Pigeon, Michigan.
Excluded: Office clerical employees, sales employees, routing employees, slotting
coordinator, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, on request by the Union, rescind any changes to the terms and conditions of
employment of our unit employees that were unilaterally implemented after February 19, 2015.
SYSCO GRAND RAPIDS, LLC
(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.
477 Michigan Avenue, Room 300, Detroit, MI 48226-2543
(313) 226-3200, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
JD–15–17
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-146820 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (313) 335-8042.