WEAVEXX, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 6, 2015

15-CA-119783 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 6, 2015)

JD(ATL)–15–15
Starkville, MS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
WEAVEXX, LLC
and Case 15-CA-119783
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 984
Susan B. Greenberg, Esq..
for the General Counsel.1
Barry J. Rubenstein, Esq.,
for the Respondent.2
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM NELSON CATES, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before
me in Starkville, Mississippi, on June 4, 2015.3 The charge initiating the case was filed by
Teamsters Local Union 984 (the Union) on December 30, 2013, and amended on March 19,
2015. After an investigation, the Government, on March 30, 2015, issued a complaint and
notice of hearing (the complaint) against Weavexx, LLC (the Company). The complaint alleges
(the Company, a subsidiary of Xerium Technologies, Inc., in January changed the unit
employees’ pay cycle from weekly to every other week and changed their payday from
Thursday to Friday; and, did so without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with the
Company with respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct. It is alleged these actions
violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).
The Union elected to take the case to arbitration and it was deferred by the Regional
Director for Region 15 to the parties’ grievance and arbitration procedure by letter, dated

1 I shall refer to counsel for the General Counsel as counsel for the Government and to the General Counsel
as the Government.
2 I shall refer to counsel for the Respondent as counsel for the Company and to the Respondent as the
Company.
3 All dates are 2014, unless indicated otherwise.
JD(ATL)–15–15
2
March 31.4 In early July, the arbitrator issued an award, denying the grievance,
concluding the Company’s actions fell within its management rights.5 On November 26, the
Acting Regional Director for Region 15 notified the Company in writing she was revoking
deferral of the charge.6
5
The Company in its answer to the complaint, at trial and in its post trial brief denies
having violated the Act in any manner alleged in the complaint. Among other affirmative
defenses, the Company contends the matter should have remained, or again be deferred, to
arbitration and that its unilateral actions were within its contractual management rights.
10
The parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. The parties entered into a written four
page, 32 paragraph, stipulation of facts which was received into the record,7 after which the
Government called six witnesses and then all parties rested. I have reviewed the whole record,
the post trial briefs, and the authorities cited. I conclude and find the Company violated the Act 15
substantially as alleged in the complaint.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The facts set forth below are compiled from the parties agreed and stipulated facts, as 20
well as, from testimony, admissions, documentation received in evidence, and the pleadings.
The facts are undisputed.
I. JURISDICTION
25
It is admitted the Company is a limited liability company, with an office and place of
business located in Starkville, Mississippi, where it is engaged in the business of
manufacturing, for nonretail sale, paper machine clothing products. Annually the Company, in
conducting its operations, sold and shipped from its Starkville, Mississippi facility, goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Mississippi. The Company 30
also purchased and received at its Starkville, Mississippi facility, goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the State of Mississippi. It is admitted and I find the
Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
The parties stipulated and I find the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of 35
Section 2(5) of the Act.

4 The Regional Director indicated she was deferring the matter because: the parties collective-bargaining
agreement provides for final and binding arbitration; the changes regarding moving from a weekly to
biweekly pay cycle and moving the payday from Thursday to Friday were encompassed by the terms of
the collective-bargaining agreement; the Company was willing to process a grievance concerning the
changes, and, if necessary, arbitrate the grievance and waive time limitations to ensure arbitration; and,
since the issues of the charge appear to be covered by the collective-bargaining agreement it was likely
the matter may be resolved through the grievance/arbitration procedure. GC Exh. 10.
5 GC Exh. 9.
6 GC Exh. 8.
7 GC Exh. 16.
JD(ATL)–15–15
3
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Union’s Certification and the Collective-Bargaining Agreement
5
The Union was certified on December 2, 1966, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of certain employees described in the related-representation case, Case 26-RC-
002780. The unit, as described in the parties collective-bargaining agreement, consists of the
following employees:
10
All production and maintenance employees including group leaders, employed at
the Company’s plant located at Highway 12, Starkville, Mississippi, excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees, managerial employees,
watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
15
There are approximately 200 employees in the bargaining unit. The most recent
collective-bargaining agreement is effective by its terms from March 20, 2011, to March 20,
2016. The agreement includes a management-rights clause at article III, which reads, in
pertinent part, that the Company retains all rights not specifically “abridged, delegated or
modified by the Agreement, including, but not limited to, the right to make and enforce work 20
and safety rules.”8 Section 4 of article III states: “[d]uring the term of this agreement, the
Company will not implement new work rules or policies relating to terms and conditions of
employment without notice to the Union and the opportunity for the Union to raise concerns
and to grieve any change it deems unreasonable.” Additionally, article XIII, section 48, sets
forth a grievance procedure as well as a provision for the Company and the Union to have 25
regular monthly meetings. The scope of authority for an arbitrator is outlined in article XIII,
section 48, as follows:
The jurisdiction and authority of the arbitrator and his opinion and award shall be
exclusively limited to disputes arising under the express terms of this Agreement. 30
The arbitrator shall have no power to add to, subtract from or modify any of the
terms of this Agreement or any Agreements supplemental hereto. The arbitrator
shall not have jurisdiction or authority to substitute his judgment or discretion for
that of management in any area that has not been delegated him by the parties and
the terms of this Agreement.935
B. Changes to Pay Period and Payday
For at least 12 years prior to the January 10 payday, the Company paid its bargaining
unit employees on a weekly basis; every Thursday. Commencing with the January 10 payday,
the Company paid its bargaining unit employees every other Friday.40

8 GC Exh .2, p. 5, secs 3-4.
9 GC Exh. 2, p. 17.
JD(ATL)–15–15
4
On November 6, 2013, Plant Manager Ross Johnstone, Human Resources Manager
Jennifer Lanier, Chief Steward Fara Sue Brooks, and Shift Stewards Darryl Grace and Kenny
Jackson met at the Company's facility for a monthly meeting as provided for at article XIII of
the parties collective-bargaining agreement.10 At this meeting, Johnstone informed the Union's
representatives the Company would be changing its pay cycle from weekly to every other week 5
and payday would be every other Friday instead of every Thursday. Johnstone told the Union's
representatives the Company was implementing the new pay cycle and Friday payday as part of
a corporate wide change effective the first pay period after January l. The Company did not tell
the Union's representatives there were any exigent circumstances necessitating implementation
of the changes to its pay cycle from weekly to every other week or its payday from Thursday to 10
every other Friday, nor did the Company explain that any exigent circumstances existed at the
time the changes were implemented.11 The parties stipulated that the changes to the pay cycle
and the payday are a mandatory subject of bargaining and, the Company did not afford the
Union an opportunity to bargain about the implementation of the changes to the pay cycle and
payday of the bargaining unit employees.1215
On November 14 and 15, 2013, the Company held meetings with its employees to
announce the Company was implementing a new pay system effective January 1. At these
meetings, the Company distributed a memorandum from Mike Bly, executive vice president for
Global Human Resource for Xeriurn Technologies, Inc. The memorandum, dated November 20
11, 2013, announced to the bargaining unit employees the Company was implementing a new
pay system effective January 1, and bargaining unit employees would be paid every other week
on Friday beginning January 10. On November 27, 2013, the Company issued a memorandum
dated November 26, 2013, to “Starkville Unit Team Members” from ''Xerium Human
Resources” with the subject “Response to Questions You Raised.” The last weekly pay date 25
was December 26, 2013, and the next payday for the bargaining unit employees was January
10.
On November 18, 2013, unit employee Mitchell Jones filed a grievance protesting the
announced implementation of changes to the pay cycle and payday of bargaining unit 30
employees. Additional bargaining unit employees subsequently filed grievances protesting the
announced implementation of changes to the pay cycle and payday of bargaining unit
employees.

10 The parties admit or stipulate that Plant Manager Ross Johnstone and Human Resources Manager
Jennifer Lanier are supervisors and/or agents of the Company within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) and (13)
of the Act. It is specifically stipulated that on November 6, 2013, Johnstone and Lanier held those
positions and that Terry Lovan was union president, Fara Sue Brooks was the chief steward, Darryl Grace
the swing-shift steward, Bruce Spencer the first-shift steward and Kenny Jackson the second-shift
steward. As of the trial herein Byron Myers serves as plant manager.
11 The parties specifically stipulated the Union did not agree to the announced changes to the pay cycle and
paydays of the bargaining unit employees.
12 The parties also stipulated, for purposes of this hearing, the change to the pay cycle from weekly to every
other week and of the paydays from Thursday to Friday were material, significant, and substantial
changes.
JD(ATL)–15–15
5
On December 9, 2013, Plant Manager Johnstone issued a third-step answer to the
grievances filed by bargaining unit employees, denying the grievances. The answer, signed by
Human Resources Manager Lanier on Johnstone’s behalf, reads, in part: “The change to a
biweekly payroll schedule is a legitimate exercise of the Company's Management Rights under
Article III of the contract.”5
On December 5, 2013, the Company and the Union met to discuss work-related issues
at a contractually sanctioned monthly meeting. At the meeting, the Union again did not agree
to the announced changes to the pay cycle and payday of bargaining unit employees. The
Company again did not afford the Union the opportunity to bargain about the implementation 10
of the changes to the pay cycle and payday of bargaining unit employees.
The parties agreed to arbitrate the grievance filed by Jones. Arbitrator Samuel J.
Nicholas Jr. conducted the arbitration on Apri1 25. Company counsel and the president of the
Union represented the parties at the arbitration. Arbitrator Nicholas issued his decision, 15
denying the grievance, on July 8. On July 11, Company counsel transmitted a copy of
Arbitrator Nicholas' decision, by email, to an agent of Region 15 of the Board. On November
26, Acting Regional Director Susan Crochet issued a letter revoking deferral of the charge in
this case. Portions of Acting Director Crochet’s letter follow:
20
Subsequent investigation has revealed that the grievance was taken to arbitration
and the arbitrator issued his decision. However, after review of the arbitrator’s
decision, it has been determined that the decision in this matter does not meet the
standards set out in Spielberg Manufacturing Co., 112 NLRB 1080 (1995) and
Olin Corporation, 268 NLRB 573 (1984) in that the evidence fails to reflect that 25
the facts relevant to resolving the unfair labor practice were presented,
considered, and decided by the arbitrator. Therefore, deferral to the arbitrator’s
decision is not appropriate. See, e.g., Columbian Chemicals Company, 307
NLRB 592 (1992) (deferral inappropriate when arbitrator based his decision on an
extra-contractual residual rights theory inconsistent with the Act). Consequently, 30
you are hereby advised that the Region is revoking its deferral action and will
resume processing the charge.
III. DISCUSSION, LEGAL ANALYSIS, AND CONCLUSIONS
35
A. Unilateral Changes In Pay Cycle and Payday
It is undisputed the Company changed the timing of the pay cycle form weekly to
biweekly and the payday from every Thursday to every other Friday on January 10. It is also
undisputed the Company did not give prior notice nor offer to bargain with the Union regarding 40
the changes.
Under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer “to refuse
to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees.” NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736
(1962). Since NLRB v. Katz, it has been unlawful under Section 8(a)(5) for an employer to 45
circumvent its bargaining obligation with the 9(a) representative of its employees by making
JD(ATL)–15–15
6
unilateral changes in their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.13 A
unilateral modification or repudiation of such provisions during a contract term is a violation of
Section 8(a)(5). Rapid Fur Dressing, 278 NLRB 905 (1986) (the company unilaterally
discontinued its contractually required payments to the pension plan and vacation fund in
violation of Sec. 8(a)(5)).5
A unilateral change of a mandatory subject of bargaining is unlawful only if it is
“material, substantial, and significant.” Alamo Cement Co., 281 NLRB 737, 738 (1986). It is
admitted company employees were subjected to unilateral changes with respect to their payday
schedule and pay cycle. The Company simply announced the changes without any effort to 10
bargain with the Union. The parties stipulated the changes were mandatory subjects of
bargaining and that changes to the pay cycle from weekly to every other week and payday from
Thursdays to Friday were material, significant and substantial changes.
The Union was entitled to notice and an opportunity to bargain over the changes to the 15
payday and pay cycle. See Abernathy Excavating, 313 NLRB 68, 68 fn. 1 (1993) (unilateral
change of payday from Thursday to Friday was a mandatory bargaining subject and, when
made without notice and bargaining, violated the Act); Also see American Ambulance, 255
NLRB 417, 421 (1981), enfd. 692 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1982); King Radio Corp., Inc., 166 NLRB
649, 654 (1967) (Board adopted the judge’s finding that changing unit employees pay cycle 20
from weekly to biweekly without notice to and bargaining with the union violated the Act).
Accordingly, I find the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it
unilaterally, without notice or bargaining, changed unit employees pay cycle from weekly to
biweekly and changed unit employees’ paydays from Thursday to every other Friday.
25
B. The Management-Rights Clause and Other Defenses14
The Company failed to establish any exigency that would justify, without notice or
bargaining, the unilateral changes made here and the Company so stipulated. Although all
elements necessary to constitute unlawful unilateral changes have been established, as set forth 30
above, the Company denies its actions violated its duty to bargain collectively because its
conduct was within its contractual rights outlined in the management-rights section of the
parties collective-bargaining agreement and/or its conduct was within the parameters of one or
more exceptions that would allow for unilateral changes by an employer without violating the
Act. 35
One of the exceptions allowing unilateral changes, the Company advanced, involves the
issue of waiver. Did the Union here waive its right to bargain about the payday and pay cycle
by its agreement to the management-rights clause of the collective-bargaining agreement? I
find it did not. Management-rights clauses typically reserve for an employer the right to act 40
unilaterally with respect to specified topics which may sometimes be construed as a waiver.
Allison Corp., 330 NLRB 1363, 1365 (2000). The Board in Johnson-Bateman Co., 295 NLRB

13 The Supreme Court reiterated this rule of law in Litton Financial Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190,
198 (1991) (“an employer commits an unfair labor practice if, without bargaining to impasse, it effects a
unilateral change of an existing term or condition of employment”).
14 GC Ehx. 2, art. III, Secs. 3 & 4.
JD(ATL)–15–15
7
180, 184 (1989), however, noted “It is well settled that the waiver of a statutory right will not
be inferred from general contractual provisions; rather, such waivers must be clear and
unmistakable. Accordingly, the Board has repeatedly held that generally worded management
rights clauses or ‘zipper’ clauses will not be construed as waivers of statutory bargaining rights
[footnotes omitted].” Here, the management-rights clause makes no explicit, or even general, 5
reference to payday or pay cycle nor does the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement even
mention changing the pay cycle or payday. That portion of the management-rights clause
stating the Company “retains all authority not specifically abridged, delegated or modified” by
the parties collective agreement is an overbroad general clause and will not, in itself, constitute
a waiver of statutory rights, especially where, as here, the subject of the purported waiver is not 10
explicitly stated. See: Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 708 (1983). The Board
has repeatedly held that a generally worded management-rights clause does not constitute a
clear and unmistakable waiver of statutory rights. See, e.g., Hi-Tech Cable Corp., 309 NLRB 3,
4 (1992) (“general” contractual right to make “reasonable rules and regulations” insufficient to
constitute clear and unmistakable waiver), enfd. mem. 25 F.3d 1044 (5th Cir. 1994). In 15
summary, on the waiver issue, I find the language “retains all authority not specifically
abridged, delegated or modified by the Agreement” to be too broad and vague to find the Union
clearly and unmistakably waived the right to bargain over any change in working conditions,
such as payday and pay cycles, not covered in the parties collective-bargaining agreement and
the language in no way permits the Company to make the unilateral changes it made, without 20
violating the Act.
Another exception allowing unilateral changes, in limited circumstances, is where there
is an established or traditional past practice that a company would be following. Was the
Company here privileged to make the unilateral changes it did in keeping with an established 25
past practice? I find it was not. The change in pay cycle and payday did not result from a
traditional practice existing prior to any negotiations or collective-bargaining agreement; in
fact, the change was a significant deviation from a longstanding (12 year) practice of unit
employees being paid every week on Thursday.
30
C. Arbitrator’s Decision
The Company, in its post trial brief, limited its analysis of the case exclusively to the
deferral issue. It argues this matter has already been resolved by the parties’ arbitration
mechanisms and the decision of the arbitrator, finding no violation on behalf of the Company,35
should be upheld, as the Regional Director originally deferred the matter to arbitration.
In Spielberg Mfg. Co., 112 NLRB 1080 (1955), the Board ruled it would give deference
to an arbitrator’s resolution of an unfair labor practice claim if certain conditions are met. The
Board’s policy to defer has been refined in subsequent cases following Spielberg; however, 40
Spielberg remains the seminal statement of the Board’s deference policy. The Board’s
conditions are: (1) the unfair labor practice was presented to and considered by the arbitrator;
(2) the arbitration proceedings were fair and regular; (3) the parties agreed to be bound by the
arbitration award; and (4) the arbitration award was not clearly repugnant to the purposes and
JD(ATL)–15–15
8
policies of the Act. The Board in Olin Corp., 268 NLRB 573, 574 (1984), spoke to the
considerations necessary with regard to the unfair labor practice being presented to and
adequately considered by the arbitrator and stated in part as follows:
Accordingly, we adopt the following standard for deferral to arbitration awards. 5
We would find that an arbitrator has adequately considered the unfair labor
practice if (1) the contractual issue is factually parallel to the unfair labor practice
issue, and (2) the arbitrator was presented generally with the facts relevant to
resolving the unfair labor practice. In this respect, differences, if any, between the
contractual and statutory standards of review should be weighed by the Board as 10
part of its determination under the Spielberg standards of whether an award is
“clearly repugnant” to the Act. And, with regard to the inquiry into the “clearly
repugnant” standard, we would not require an arbitrator's award to be totally
consistent with Board precedent. Unless the award is “palpably wrong,” i.e.,
unless the arbitrator's decision is not susceptible to an interpretation consistent 15
with the Act, we will defer. Finally, we would require that the party seeking to
have the Board reject deferral and consider the merits of a given case show that
the above standards for deferral have not been met. Thus, the party seeking to
have the Board ignore the determination of an arbitrator has the burden of
affirmatively demonstrating the defects in the arbitral process or award. 20
I am persuaded the Government affirmatively demonstrated the standards for deferral
here have not been met.
First, the arbitrator did not consider one of the two unfair labor practices alleged in the 25
complaint. The issue of the Company’s changing the payday from Thursday to Friday was not
presented to, considered, or decided by the arbitrator. The arbitrator’s description of the
“issue” before him: (“The parties were unable to stipulate to the wording concerning the issue
of the grievance. Therefore, your Arbitrator has framed the issue(s) as follows: did the
Company’s decision to change the pay period of the bargaining Unit and all non-salaried 30
positions from weekly to bimonthly, despite the Union protest, violate an established past
practice that effectively bound the parties?”); reflects he did not consider the change in the
payday issue. The Board will not defer where a statutory issue is not presented to the arbitrator.
Professional Porter & Window Cleaning Co., 263 NLRB 136, 136-137 (1982).
35
Second, the arbitrator did not base his decision on contractual provisions but rather on
extra-contractual considerations. The arbitrator concluded the change in the payroll period
from weekly to biweekly was a “managerial decision” that allowed the Company to make “an
institutional change” and was a proper use of “managerial discretion” and should not be seen as
a violation of “a binding past practice.” The arbitrator’s decision, simply stated, is not 40
“susceptible to an interpretation consistent with the Act.” The arbitrator, while setting forth the
management-rights provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement, did not discuss and/or
address whether, or how, any provision(s) of the two sections of the management-rights clause
authorized the Company to take the action it did or that the Union waived its right to bargain
about pay periods or cycles which are mandatory subjects of bargaining. Stated differently, 45
there is no indication in the arbitrator’s decision that he found any language in the
JD(ATL)–15–15
9
management-rights clause that constituted, or that he considered constituted, a waiver of
bargaining rights by the Union. The arbitrator found, without explanation, a managerial right
not contained in the applicable provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement that conveyed
to the Company the right to change pay cycle, a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Board
has long held that deferral is not appropriate where a respondent’s defense is not reasonably 5
based on an interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement. See Oak Cliff-Golman
Baking Co., 202 NLRB 614, 616–617 (1973). The arbitrator here did not look to any
particular language in the management-rights clause that might support the Company’s
position, but did note that section 58 of the contract limited the Union's position. That section
of the collective-bargaining agreement states: “The specific provisions of this Agreement are 10
the sole source of any rights which the Union or any member of the bargaining unit may
charge that the Employer has violated in raising a grievance.” The arbitrator concluded the
pay cycle was not part of the agreement, and its absence it allowed the Company to “make an
institutional change” that did not affect the agreement. The Board in, Columbian Chemicals
Co., 307 NLRB 592, 592 fn.1 (1992), rejected recognition by an arbitrator of a right that was 15
not in the contract which afforded the employer “a basic management prerogative” to take
unilateral action. The Board specifically stated: “we note particularly that the arbitrator did
not rely on the management-rights clause to find the Respondent’s conduct privileged.
Instead, quite apart from the contract, he found that there was a ‘basic management
prerogative’ to take the action. He then found nothing in the contract to tak e away that 20
prerogative. In these circumstances, it is clear that the arbitrator did not rely on the
management-rights clause to find the managerial prerogative [emphasis in original].” In
agreement with counsel for the Government, Columbian is applicable and controlling here.
Managerial discretion, or prerogative, outside the contract, as the arbitrator here found, will
not legally permit an employer to unilaterally change mandatory working conditions. See also 25
Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuticals Div., 264 NLRB 1013 (1982), enfd. 722 F.2d 1120 (3d Cir.
1983). The case here is distinguishable from Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., 344 NLRB 658,
659-660 (2005), on which the Company seeks to have the matter deferred. In Smurfit-Stone,
the Board found the arbitrator’s decision, while not a model of clarity, was at least susceptible
to the interpretation that it was based on his construction of the management -rights clause. 30
Here, as in Columbian Chemicals, the arbitrator’s decision is clearly repugnant, in that it is
based on extra-contractual management prerogatives not susceptible to an interpretation
consistent with the Act and is palpably wrong.
Additional facts indicate the arbitrator considered extra-contractual rights in arriving 35
at his decision. He concluded he “must address whether the change in pay period was
excessive or unnecessary.” The arbitrator presumed “the vast majority of hourly workers in
present day bargaining units are paid on a bimonthly basis.” And, because the Company
“implement[ed]” the change on a nationwide scale, the arbitrator “presumed” that said change
“was for the purpose of improving efficiency of operations and did not require the approval 40
of the Union.” Further the arbitrator also considered, outside the contract, whether the
change in pay periods “negatively” affected the employees’ compensation or caused any loss
of employment benefits. Concluding no losses he found the change to the pay period “a
managerial decision” that did not adversely affect the unit employees.
45
JD(ATL)–15–15
10
In summary the arbitrator’s decision is repugnant to the Act and may not be deferred
to. Thus, the unfair labor practices found here must be remedied.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
5
1. The Company, Weavexx, LLC, Starkville, Mississippi, is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, Teamsters Local Union 984, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.10
3. At all times material, Teamsters Local Union 984, has been and continues to be,
the exclusive bargaining representative for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act the employees employed by Weavexx, LLC, in the
following unit:15
All production and maintenance employees including group leaders,
employed at the Company’s plant located at Highway 12, Starkville,
Mississippi, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
managerial employees, watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in 20
the Act.
4. Failing to provide Teamsters Local Union 984 with notice or an opportunity to
bargain concerning any changes to the unit employees pay cycle or payday which are
mandatory subjects of bargaining Weavexx, LLC, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.25
5. The unfair labor practices of Weavexx, LLC, affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY30
Having found that the Company has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, find it
must be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
35
I specifically recommend the Company be ordered to bargain with the Union
concerning any changes to the unit employees’ pay cycle and payday and if requested by the
Union, rescind the changes in the pay cycle and/or payday the Company unilaterally made on
or about January 10, 2014, and make unit employees whole for any loss suffered as a result of
the unilateral changes. The money due shall be computed in accordance with Ogle Protection 40
Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 501 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed
in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1171 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River
Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010). Additionally, I recommend the Company be
ordered, within 14 days after service by the Region, to post an appropriate “Notice to
Employees” in order that employees may be apprised of their rights under the Act and the 45
Company’s obligation to remedy its unfair labor practices.
JD(ATL)–15–15
11
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended15
ORDER5
The Company, Weavexx, LLC, Starkville, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from10
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain with Teamsters Local Union 984
concerning changes to the unit employees pay cycle and payday.
(b) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with Teamsters 15
Local Union 984 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our employees in the
following appropriate unit:
Including all production and maintenance employees including group
leaders employed at the Company’s plant located at Highway 12, 20
Starkville, Mississippi, excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, managerial employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing 25
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
30
(a) Bargain with Teamsters Union Local 984 concerning any changes to the
unit employees’ pay cycle and payday.
(b) Upon request of Teamsters Local Union 984, rescind the changes to the
Unit employees pay cycle and payday we unilaterally made on/or about January 10, 2014. 35
(c) Make Unit employees whole for any losses suffered as a result of the
unilateral changes.

15 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(ATL)–15–15
12
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility at
Starkville, Mississippi, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”16 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Company and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are 5
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be
distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or
other electronic means, if the Company customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of 10
these proceedings, the Company has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Company shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the
notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Company at any time
since January 10, 2014
15
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15 in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Company has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 6, 2015
20

16
If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading
“Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(ATL)–15–15
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 the above rights.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with Teamsters Local Union 984 as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our employees in the following
appropriate unit:
Including all production and maintenance employees including group leaders
employed at the Company’s plant located at Highway 12, Starkville, Mississippi,
excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, managerial
employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide notice to and afford an opportunity to bargain in good faith
with Teamsters Local Union 984 concerning any changes to Unit employees pay cycle or
payday.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce our employees
in the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL bargain in good faith with Teamsters Local Union 984 as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in the above-described appropriate unit.
WE WILL, upon request of Teamsters Local Union 984, rescind the changes to the Unit
employees pay cycle and payday we unilaterally made on/or about January 10, 2014.
WE WILL make unit employees whole for any losses suffered as a result of the unilateral
changes.
JD(ATL)–15–15
WEAVEXX, 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.
600 South Maestri Place, 7th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70130-3408
(504) 589-6361, Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/15-CA-119783 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING
AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE
DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (504)589-6389