Weyerhaeuser Company

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 25, 2015

19-CA-122853 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 25, 2015)

JD(SF)–12–15
Longview, WA
i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
And Cases 19-CA-122853
19-CA-127089
ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PULP 19-CA-127090
AND PAPER WORKERS, AFFILIATED 19-CA-127561
WITH THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD 19-CA-128688
OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA 19-CA-128740
19-CA-131148
ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PULP AND
PAPER WORKERS, AFFILIATED WITH
THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 580 AND 633
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of the Case ......................................................................................................................1
Findings of Fact ...............................................................................................................................2
I. Jurisdiction ...............................................................................................................................2
II. Labor Organization .................................................................................................................2
III. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices......................................................................................2
A. Background facts ..............................................................................................................2
B. The 8(a)(1) allegations......................................................................................................4
1. The discipline of Steve Collins........................................................................................4
a. The facts ....................................................................................................................4
b. The analysis ...............................................................................................................6
2. The Weingarten allegations.............................................................................................8
a. The facts ....................................................................................................................8
i. The February 13, 2014 fact finding meeting with employee Collins.......................8
ii. Collins’ February 13, 2014 fact finding meeting ....................................................8
iii. The February 17, 2014 fact finding meeting with employee Joyce Becker...........9
b. The analysis .............................................................................................................11
3. Complaint paragraph 11 alleges that on about June 5, 2014 Respondent
removed a union communication form a union bulletin board. ........................................12
a. The facts ..................................................................................................................12
b. The analysis .............................................................................................................12
C. The 8(a)(5) allegations ..................................................................................................13
1. The October 2013 change in training evaluations.........................................................13
a. The facts ..................................................................................................................13
JD(SF)–12–15
ii
b. The analysis .............................................................................................................15
2. The January 2014 changes in rules regarding food safety ............................................19
a. The facts ..................................................................................................................19
b. The new cleaning requirements of the hygiene standards.......................................20
c. The analysis .............................................................................................................22
3. The March 2014 changes to scheduling of training operators in the energy and
utility department...........................................................................................................25
a. The facts ..................................................................................................................25
b. The analysis .............................................................................................................26
4. The failure to provide information ................................................................................26
a. The April 2, 2014 request ........................................................................................26
i. The facts .................................................................................................................26
ii. The analysis...........................................................................................................27
b. The April 24, 2014 request ......................................................................................28
i. The facts .................................................................................................................28
ii. The analysis...........................................................................................................29
c. The April 30, 2014 request ........................................................................................30
i. The facts .................................................................................................................30
ii. The analysis...........................................................................................................32
d. The May 1, 2014 request ...........................................................................................33
i. The facts .................................................................................................................33
ii. The analysis...........................................................................................................34
REMEDY .........................................................................................................................................35
Conclusions of Law.......................................................................................................................36
APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................42
JD(SF)–12–15
Longview, WA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY
And Cases 19-CA-122853
19-CA-127089
ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PULP 19-CA-127090
AND PAPER WORKERS, AFFILIATED 19-CA-127561
WITH THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD 19-CA-128688
OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA 19-CA-128740
19-CA-131148
ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PULP AND
PAPER WORKERS, AFFILIATED WITH
THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 580 AND 633
Susannah C.Merritt, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Richard N. VanCleave, Esq. (VanCleave & Cobrain), of
Sherwood, Oregon, for the Respondent.
Paul Cloer, Organizing Coordinator, of
Portland, Oregon, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN J. MCCARRICK, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Portland,
Oregon, from December 2 through 5, 2014, upon the order consolidating cases, consolidated
complaint ,and notice of hearing issued on August 22, 2014, by the Regional Director for
Region 19.
The complaint alleges that Weyerhaeuser Company, Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by disciplining employee Steve Collins for engaging in what Respondent believed
were protected-concerted activities, by limiting the ability of employees’ union representatives
from participating in a disciplinary interview, and by removing a union communication from the
Union’s bulletin board.
JD(SF)–12–15
2
The complaint further alleges that Respondent violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
making unilateral changes to its practice of how it performs training evaluations, by unilaterally
implementing new rules related to food safety, by unilaterally changing its practice of scheduling
the training of operators in the Energy and Utility Department, and by refusing to furnish
information or refusing to furnish information in a timely manner requested by the Union 5
necessary and relevant to its duties as exclusive collective-bargaining representative.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon the entire record herein, including the briefs from counsel for the General Counsel 10
and Respondent, I make the following findings of fact.
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent admitted and I find that is a State of Washington corporation located in 15
Federal Way, Washington, and with a facility located in Longview, Washington, where it
operates a paper and pulp mill. In the operation of the paper and pulp mill, during the last 12
months, Respondent has derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and has purchased goods
and services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Washington.
Respondent further admitted and I find that it is an employer engaged in interstate commerce 20
within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and a healthcare institution within the
meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
25
Respondent admitted and I find that Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers,
affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (AWPPA) and its
Locals 580 and 633 (Unions) are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act. The Union’s representatives relevant in this case include
30
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. BACKGROUND FACTS
Respondent and the Unions have a long history of collective bargaining at Respondent’s
Longview, Washington paper and pulp mill. The Unions represent Respondent’s employees in 35
three discreet bargaining units.
Local 633 represents a unit of Respondent’s 75 extruders (extruder unit) including:
All employees of Respondent at its Longview, Washington extruder operation, 40
except those employees engaged in administration, actual supervision, watchman
duties, sales, engineering and drafting, research and technical occupations
requiring professional training, accounting, office clerical and guards, supervisors,
and professional employees as defined in the Act.
45
JD(SF)–12–15
3
The extruder department laminates polyethylene onto paperboard which is then shipped to
the Company’s customers who convert the product into individual drink containers. The parties
have been signatory to a series of collective-bargaining agreements, for this bargaining unit, the
most recent being effective from April 5, 2013— 2019.
5
Local 633 also represents a unit of Respondent’s 125 paperboard employees (paperboard
unit) including:
All employees of Respondent working in its paperboard, shipping, L 3 paper machine,
and L 3 technical departments at its Longview facility, except those engaged in 10
administration, actual supervision, watchman duties, sales, engineering and drafting,
research and technical occupations requiring professional training, accounting, clerical,
stenographic and other clerical work. Also excluded are guards, supervisors, and
professional employees as defined in the Act.
15
The paperboard unit includes the paper machine (identified as L3) which produces
paperboard stock, and includes the paperboard shipping department and the technical department.
The parties have been signatory to a series of collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent
being effective March 15, 2007, through March 14, 2014. This agreement was extended by the
parties through June 1, 2014.20
Local 580 represents a unit of Respondent’s 250 energy and utility, maintenance,
fiberline, and chip processing employees (Local 580 unit) including:
All employees of Respondent at its Longview facility, except those employees in 25
Respondents extruder, paperboard, shipping, L 3 paper machine, L 3 technical
departments, and those employees engaged in administration, actual supervision,
watchman duties, sales, engineering and drafting, research and technical
occupations requiring professional training, accounting, stenographic and other
clerical work. Also excluded are guards, supervisors, and professional employees 30
as defined in the Act.
The Local 580 unit includes the Chips, Fiberline, Energy and Utilities (E & U), and
maintenance departments. The parties have been signatory to a series of collective-bargaining
agreements, the most recent being effective March 15, 2007, through March 14, 2014. This 35
agreement was extended by the parties through June 1, 2014.
Employees in the Local 580 unit and the paperboard units ratified their respective
successor collective-bargaining agreements in August 2014. At the time of the hearing the new
collective-bargaining agreements for these units had not been printed, but any changes from the 40
parties’ previous collective-bargaining agreements have been ratified by the units and are
contained in Respondent’s best and final proposal.1
Respondent’s liquid packaging board product is subject to regulation by the United States
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Respondent is audited annually by the FDA and is 45
required to provide documentation to its customers that the products comply with the FDA

1 GC Exh. 5.
JD(SF)–12–15
4
standards. Respondent admitted and I find that its management team of human resource
manager, Diane Zolotko (Zolotko), extruder department manager, Matt Warthen (Warthen),
assistant to the human resources director, Terri Hurley (Hurley), team development manager
(TDM), Art Calhoun (Calhoun), energy and utilities manager, Assaad Alsemaan (Alsemann),
shift supervisor, Miles Ambergey (Ambergey), paper machines superintendant, Tim Edwards 5
(Edwards), central services superintendant, David Kay (Kay), and Supervisor John Stroburg
(Stroberg) are supervisors and agents within the meaning of the Act.
Since the alleged violations do not occur in any pattern or chronological order, I will
discuss them in the order in which they appear in the complaint.10
B. THE 8(A)(1) ALLEGATIONS
The discipline of Steve Collins
Complaint paragraph 8 alleges that Respondent violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act in 15
issuing its employee Steve Collins a 3 day suspension because it believed he engaged in
protected concerted activity.
a. The facts
Steve Collins has been employed by Respondent as an operator and has worked in its 20
extruder department for the past 37 years. In his testimony Collins explained that Respondent’s
extruder department was sold to Tetra Pak in 1993. Tetra Pak owned and operated the extruder
department for about 17 years, then sold it back to Respondent in 2010. Collins’ supervisors are
TDMs Calhoun, Amburgey, Richard Hart (Hart), and Steve Queckboerner (Queckboerner). The
TDMs are supervised by extruder department General Manager Warthen. Collins was a shop 25
steward for the extruder unit for about 2 years, about 8 years ago.
On January 27, 2014, Collins unrebutted and credited testimony is that he wrote a sign on
a piece of milk carton paper with a felt pen that stated, “Please Buy Us Back!!! Tetra Pak.”2 The
sign was about 18 by 20 inches. No one else was present when Collins made the sign. After 30
writing the sign, Collins leaned it on the front of his console in the operator’s shack, so that it
was visible to anyone walking by.3 Collins said he made the sign as a joke because he had heard
that Tetra Pak officials were coming through his department and he wished he could have stayed
with Tetra Pak, because he was dissatisfied with Weyerhaeuser management. According to
Collins he did not expect that anyone from Tetra Pak would actually see his sign. 35
On January 27, 2014, at about 4:30 supervisory TDM Calhoun went to Collins in the
break shack and asked him if he made the above sign. Collins said, “On the grounds that it
might incriminate me, I can’t answer that question.” Calhoun replied, “Does that mean ‘no’?”
Collins responded, “No, on the grounds that it could incriminate me, that means I can’t answer.” 40
Calhoun again asked Collins if he meant that he did not make the sign, to which Collins

2 GC Exh. 46.
3 ALJ Exh. 1.
JD(SF)–12–15
5
responded, “No, Art, that means yes, I did do it.”4 Five minutes later, Calhoun came back and
told Collins to get a shop steward for a meeting to be held in General Manager Warthen’s office.
A fact finding meeting was conducted at the end of Collins’ shift on January 27 and
another on February 13, 2014, that are discussed below.5
After conducting the fact finding interviews, on March 24, 2014, General Manager
Warthen called Collins into his office and issued him a 3-day suspension for dishonesty and
insubordination due to not answering the questions from the fact finding honestly. The
suspension letter5 states in pertinent part:10
. . . .
Upon first glance at the poster, the company noticed that there were different hand
writings represented. The words “Buy us Back!” were in a female’s handwriting. “Tetra
Pak” and the middle exclamation mark were in a man’s handwriting and the final
exclamation mark was written in what appeared to be a man’s handwriting.15
February 13th a second fact finding meeting was conducted with you and your Union
Representative, Jeff McGlone, to provide you a second opportunity to be truthful
regarding the three people who participated in writing the poster. During this meeting,
you shared that you had written the final exclamation mark, but someone else had filled it 20
in with the heavy felt pen markings. So at this meeting you identified that there were, in
fact, at least two employees who participated in writing the sign.
When asked did you write the word “Tetra” on this poster? You responded “Yes.” When
asked if you wrote the word “Pak” on this sign, you responded “Um huh.” When asked if 25
you wrote the exclamation mark in the middle on the poster, you replied “Um huh.”
When asked if you wrote the exclamation mark to the far right on the poster, you
answered “Yes.” The Company has determined these answers to be truthful based on
your handwriting.
30
When asked, did you write the word, “Please” on the poster, you responded, “Yes”.
When asked, did you write the word “Buy” on the poster, you responded, “Yes”. When
asked, did you write “Us” on the poster, you responded, “Yes.” When asked, did you
write the word “Back” on this poster, you responded “Um huh.” When asked did you
write the exclamation mark on the left of the poster, you responded “Yes”. When asked, 35
did you write the phrase “Please Buy Us Back!” you softly responded, “Yes”. The
Company had determined these answers to be untruthful based on your handwriting and
the handwriting of a female who matches the handwriting on the poster.
Upon review of the facts, it is determined that you have violated the collective bargaining 40
agreement specifically Section 16: Causes for
Discipline or Discharge; subsection 7 dishonesty. Further, you were insubordinate due to
not answering the questions honestly as you were instructed to do.

4 Tr. p. 251, line 25 to p. 252, line 19.
5 GC Exh. 47.
JD(SF)–12–15
6
It appears you are willing to “take one for the team.” Unfortunately, your teammates were
unwilling to come forward to take ownership in their part of the sign. Since you are all in
stated or non-stated agreement, that you should take full blame, you are hereby issued a
3-day suspension, on a non-precedent setting basis, as a reminder for you to understand
that we are in business because of our valued customers. . . . Additionally, being 5
dishonest and insubordinate during fact findings will not be tolerated.
Warthen told Collins he would be suspended for 3 days without pay and had supervisory
TDM Queckboerner escort him to his car.
b. The analysis10
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act when it suspended Collins in retaliation for what it believed was his protected concerted
activity of writing and displaying the Tetra Pak sign.
15
Respondent argues that there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the allegation that
Respondent believed Collins engaged in protected concerted activity. Respondent further
contends that the sign was not protected activity and the complaint was directed at a third party
and disparaged Respondent, citing NLRB v. IBEW Local 1229 (Jefferson Standard
Broadcasting), 346 U.S. 464 (1953), and Elko General Hospital, 347 NLRB 1425 (2006). 20
Usually employee activity is concerted when it is “engaged in with or on the authority of
other employees,” and a respondent violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act if, having knowledge of
an employee’s concerted activity, it takes adverse employment action that is “motivated by the
employee’s protected concerted activity.” Meyers Industries (Meyers I), 268 NLRB 493, 497 25
(1984). However, even in the absence of concert by employees, an employer’s mistaken belief
that an employee engaged in protected concerted activity is controlling. CGLM, Inc., 350
NLRB 974, 979–980 (2007), citing Henning & Cheadle, 212 NLRB 776, 777 (1974).
To be protected under Section 7 of the Act, employee activity must be pursued for union 30
related purposes or for other mutual aid or protection. The Board has long held that employee
activity may be protected where there is an appeal about working conditions to outside agencies,
including where an employee sent a letter to his employer’s client critical of the employer.
M.V.M., Inc., 352 NLRB 1165, 1172 (2008). Activities including sending emails to fellow
employees about working conditions have been found to be protected. Timekeeping Systems, 35
Inc., 323 NLRB 244 (1997).
In analyzing alleged discriminatory conduct for engaging in protected concerted activity
the test is the same as for violations of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. In mixed motive cases, under
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd., 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 40
989 (1982), the General Counsel has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
that animus against protected conduct was a motivating factor in the adverse employment action.
If the General Counsel makes a showing of discriminatory motivation by proving protected
activity, the employer’s knowledge of that activity, and animus against protected activity, then
the burden of persuasion shifts to the employer to prove that it would have taken the same action 45
even in the absence of the protected activity.
JD(SF)–12–15
7
The Board has inferred unlawful motive where the employer’s action is “baseless,
unreasonable, or so contrived as to raise a presumption of unlawful motive.” Montgomery Ward,
316 NLRB 1248, 1253; ADS Electric Co., 339 NLRB 1020, 1023 (2003); Shattuck Denn Mining
Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966); and J.S. Troup Electric, 344 NLRB 1009,
1015 (2005). 5
Where the employer’s defense is found to be pretextual, the employer fails to establish
that it would have disciplined the employee for a lawful, nondiscriminatory reason. Aero Metal
Forms, 310 NLRB 397, 399 fn.14 (1993). A pretextual reason supports an inference of an
unlawful one. Keller Mfg Co., 237 NLRB 712, 717 (1978). Moreover, in the case of pretext 10
there is no mixed motive and the Wright Line test does not apply.
In the instant case, I find that Collins engaged in what Respondent believed was
concerted activity. Contrary to Respondent’s assertion that there is no evidence that Respondent
believed Collins engaged in protected concerted activity, the language of Respondent’s 15
suspension letter reflects that it believed that Collins had engaged in concerted activity when he
made the Tetra Pak sign. As the suspension letter recites: “It appears you are willing to ‘take one
for the team.’ Unfortunately, your teammates were unwilling to come forward to take ownership
in their part of the sign. Since you are all in stated or non-stated agreement, that you should take
full blame, you are hereby issued a 3-day suspension.” From the language of this letter, it is 20
clear that Zolotko believed that the sign was created by Collins and his fellow employees.
Further, as demonstrated below in the Weingarten interviews, Zolotko took the position that
Collins alone did not write the sign but that others, including a female were involved.
Moreover, I find Collins’ activity in preparing and displaying the Tetra Pak sign was 25
protected. Here, Collins sign was essentially a protest of working conditions at Respondent’s
facility as it urged Tetra Pak to resume its operation of the extrusion operation. While Collins
said he wrote the sign as a joke because he did not think Tetra Pak officials would see the sign,
he displayed the sign because he was dissatisfied with Respondent’s management. Timekeeping
Systems, Inc., 323 NLRB 244 (1997); M.V.M., Inc., 352 NLRB 1165, 1172 (2008). Thus I find 30
Collins was engaged in protected-concerted activity that was known to Respondent.
Respondent’s reliance on Elko General, supra, is not warranted here. In Elko General at
1427 the Board found the respondent had met its burden of showing it would have fired the
employee for disloyalty and insubordination despite the employee’s protected activity. 35
However here, the first time disloyalty is raised is in Respondent’s brief. Apparently at
the time of the suspension Respondent had not considered disloyalty a reason for suspending
Collins as the suspension letter mentions only dishonesty and insubordination for not answering
truthfully as grounds for the suspension. Moreover, there is nothing disparaging of Respondent’s 40
product or business mentioned in the sign. Thus, it never lost the protection of the Act.
M.V.M., Inc., supra at 1172. I find Respondent’s contrived argument that Collins engaged in an
act of disloyalty is pretext.
In its defense, Respondent contends that Collins was not disciplined for writing the sign, 45
but rather, that he was suspended for being dishonest during the investigative meeting as well as
being insubordinate by not answering the questions honestly.
JD(SF)–12–15
8
Initially, Respondent’s Wright Line defense fails as it has presented no evidence that
Collins lied about drafting the sign. The record reflects that Collins consistently told Respondent
that he alone wrote the entire sign. Moreover, as discussed below, employee Becker denied she
had any part in making any part of the sign. In the suspension letter Zolotko asserts that Collins
was lying based on handwriting analysis of the sign. No evidence of any expert handwriting 5
analysis was proffered for the record. Thus, the reasons asserted for Collins’ suspension are
baseless.
Moreover, as noted above, I find Respondent’s reasons for suspending Colins are
pretextual. This pretext supplies the unlawful motivation for Respondent’s suspension of 10
Collins. Respondent’s pretext also eliminates the need for the mixed motivation analysis of
Wright Line, as it has presented no valid defense. I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act in suspending Collins.
The Weingarten allegations
a. The facts15
i. The February 13, 2014 fact finding meeting with employee Collins
Complaint paragraph 9 alleges that on about February 13, 2014, Respondent put
restrictions on employee Collins’ union representative’s ability to speak and to remain present
during an investigative interview.20
As noted above, at the end of his shift on January 27, 2014, Collins and shop steward
Rich Murray (Murray) went to General Manager Warthen’s office for a fact finding meeting.
Warthen, TDM Calhoun, Collins, and Shop Steward Murray attended the meeting. Warthen told
Collins that this was a fact finding meeting regarding the Tetra Pak sign. Warthen asked Collins 25
if he wrote the sign and Collins admitted that he had. Warthen then asked Collins if he knew that
the sign could hurt Weyerhaeuser’s reputation, and Collins answered that he had only intended
for the sign to be a joke. Warthen then asked Collins if it was right for him to make a sign that
soiled Weyerhaeuser’s reputation with the customer and he said, “No.” Warthen asked if Collins
was happy with his employment with Weyerhaeuser and Collins responded that he was not 30
satisfied with the way that Weyerhaeuser treated its employees. Warthen also asked Collins if he
knew that there were 50 openings with Tetra Pak on Tetra Pak’s website and Collins responded
that he did not know that Tetra Pak had a website.
ii. Collins’ February 13, 2014 fact finding meeting35
On February 13, 2014, a second fact finding meeting was held with Collins. The meeting
took place in the operator shack in the extruder department. Present were Collins, Shop Steward
Jeff McGlone (McGlone), Respondent’s human resource manager Zolotko, Amburgey, Warthen,
and human resources assistant Hurley. It is unrebutted and I credit both Collins and McGlone 40
that the following discussion took place during this fact finding meeting. At the outset of the
meeting Zolotko stated that this was a fact finding meeting involving the Tetra Pak sign and that
the results could lead to discipline, up to and including termination. Union Steward McGlone
asked Zolotko what section of the contract was violated and Zolotko said that it was section A(8)
JD(SF)–12–15
9
regarding dishonesty. Then Collins asked Zolotko if she was accusing him of being dishonest.
When Zolotko did not answer Collins’ question, McGlone asked Zolotko if she was accusing
Collins of lying. Zolotko told McGlone to sit down and be quiet, that this was her meeting and
she would be asking the questions. Then Zolotko showed the Tetra Pak sign to Collins. Zolotko
then asked Collins about each word written on the sign. Each time Zolotko pointed at a word on 5
the sign and asked Collins if he had written it, he admitted he had. Then Zolotko claimed she
had a handwriting expert analyze the sign and the handwriting on the sign was done by two
different people, one of whom was a woman.6 When McGlone asked her how she knew that
some of the handwriting on the sign was done by a woman, Zolotko once again replied that this
was her meeting and that she would be asking the questions. McGlone stopped asking questions 10
during the meeting. Near the end of the meeting, Collins told Zolotko, “I wrote this. The whole
thing. All three exclamation marks.” 7 Then, after looking more carefully at the sign, Collins
told Zolotko that it looked like the third exclamation mark had been changed.
iii. The February 17, 2014 fact finding meeting with employee Joyce Becker15
Complaint paragraph 10 alleges that on about February 17, 2014, Respondent put
restrictions on employee Becker’s union representative’s ability to speak and to remain present
during an investigative interview.
20
Respondent has employed Joyce Becker as a reel operator in the extruder department for
25 years. On February 17, 2014, during the investigation regarding the Tetra Pak sign, Becker
was also called into a fact finding meeting. Shop Steward Luke Johnson (Johnson) represented
Becker at this meeting. Zolotko ran the meeting with Warthen, Calhoun, and Hurley also
present. 25
According to the testimony of Becker and Johnson, whose testimony was largely
unrebutted and credible, the following occurred at this meeting. At the outset of the meeting
Zolotko told Becker that this fact finding could lead to discipline up to termination for being
dishonest. Zolotko asked Becker if she had been at the facility on January 27, 2014. Becker said 30
she had not been at the facility that day but Warthen reminded Becker that she had been at a
quality meeting at the facility that day. Becker admitted that she had forgotten that she had
attended the quality meeting at the facility. Zolotko asked Becker when she had arrived and
when she had left the facility. Then, Steward Johnson told Zolotko that Respondent already had
that information since that information is recorded at Respondent’s front gate. Becker told 35
Zolotko that she had come in the side gate at 6:45 in the morning and had left immediately after
the meeting was over at about 10:30 to 10:45 a.m. Zolotko then asked Becker if she had heard
about the Tetra Pak sign. Becker replied that she had heard about the sign, but that she had not
seen it. Zolotko showed Becker the sign and asked her if she had written it. Becker said she had
not written the sign. Zolotko asked Becker if she thought the third exclamation point on the sign 40
looked like a phallic symbol. Steward Johnson said he understood that another employee had
already admitted to writing the sign and he asked Zolotko for a copy of the minutes from the
Collins’ fact finding meeting. Zolotko told Johnson that he could ask for the information once

6 As it turns out the handwriting expert was Zolotko herself. I find no basis in the record for
establishing Zolotko to be a handwriting expert.
7 Tr. p. 264, lines 7–10.
JD(SF)–12–15
10
the meeting was over, but she was not there to discuss Collins. Johnson replied that he had the
right to ask for these minutes. Zolotko told Johnson that she was going to ask the questions, that
Johnson was to be quiet and if he kept asking questions she would stop the meeting, ask him to
leave and get a new shop steward. TDM Calhoun admitted that Zolotko told Johnson that he
needed to be quiet during the meeting. Calhoun further admitted that Johnson told Zolotko that 5
she was not letting him act as Becker’s representative.
After a caucus between Johnson and Becker, Zolotko asked Becker if she had written any
part of the sign. After Becker again told Zolotko that she had not written any part of the sign,
Zolotko asked Becker if she would ever do anything that would hurt Respondent’s relationship 10
with its customers. When Becker did not understand the question, she asked Zolotko to repeat
her question. After an exchange between Zolotko and Becker, that was not producing any
results, Johnson attempted to explain Zolotko’s question to Becker. Then Zolotko once again
told Johnson that she would be asking the questions. Zolotko then turned to Johnson and said,
“Thanks a lot Luke,”8 and then asked him to step into the hall with her. In the hall Zolotko 15
reminded Johnson of the seriousness of the meeting and accused Johnson of telling Becker to be
combative. Johnson denied this accusation. When Zolotko and Johnson came back into the
room, Zolotko asked Becker again if she would ever do something to make Respondent look
bad. Becker responded that she would not and that she always put out a quality product.
Zolotko asked her again if she had written any part of the sign and Becker denied she had. 20
Zolotko then said one person had written, “Please Buy Us Back!!!” and another had written
“Tetra Pak.” Becker said that she did not write the sign and she told Warthen that if she had
written the sign, she would have admitted it. .
Johnson said again that someone already admitted to writing the sign. Zolotko told 25
Johnson that that she would be asking the questions, this was her investigation, and that Johnson
needed to be quiet.
While Respondent alleged Johnson was loud and disruptive during the meeting,
according to Becker and Johnson, Johnson did not raise his voice or interrupt Zolotko during the 30
meeting. This is consistent with the testimony of Respondent’s TDM Calhoun who admitted that
during the meeting Johnson never screamed and to the extent that Johnson did raise his voice, he
was doing so in order to get his point across to represent Becker. Calhoun also admitted that the
only time when Johnson could be said to be interrupting Zolotko was when Johnson asked why
Becker was being questioned when another employee had already admitted to writing the sign. 35
In this regard, to the extent Hurley and Zolotko’s testimony is inconsistent with that of Becker
Johnson and Calhoun, I will credit Becker, Johnson and Calhoun. After the meeting, Johnson
followed up with Zolotko and requested that Zolotko provide him with the notes from Becker
and Collins’ fact findings, but she did not provide them to Johnson.
40

8 Tr. p. 331. Line 1.
JD(SF)–12–15
11
b. The analysis
General Counsel argues that under NLRB v. J. Weingarten, 420 U.S. 251, 262–263
(1975), the role of the union representative is to provide assistance and counsel to an employee
who is being interrogated. An employer may not, therefore, silence a union representative. 5
Respondent contends that in the Collins and Becker fact finding meetings, Zolotko did
not try to silence the union representatives but was merely asserting her right to conduct an
investigation without interference from union officials, citing Manville Forest Products, 269
NLRB 390 (1984); Cook Paint & Varnish, Co., 246 NLRB 646 (1979); and New Jersey Bell 10
Telephone Co., 308 NLRB 277 (1992).
Under NLRB v. J. Weingarten, 420 U.S. 251 (1975), the Board has held an employee has
a right to union representation in an investigative interview when the employee reasonably
believes the interview may result in discipline. 15
The right to a representative includes the right to an effective representative who is
present to give assistance and counsel. An employer may not, therefore, silence a union
representative. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 251 NLRB 612, 613 (1980). Accordingly, an
employer may not tell a union representative to remain silent during an interview. USPS, 355 20
NLRB 368, 397 (2010).
Contrary to Respondent’s assertion, Zolotko went well beyond merely informing the
union representatives that she was asserting her right to conduct the interviews. During the
February 13, 2014 interview with Collins, Zolotko told union representative McGlone to sit 25
down and be quiet. During the February 17, 2014 interview with Becker, Zolotko told Union
Representative Johnson that she was going to ask the questions, that Johnson was to be quiet and
if he kept asking questions she would stop the meeting, ask him to leave and get a new shop
steward. Later during this interview Zolotko again told Johnson that that she would be asking
the questions, this was her investigation, and that Johnson needed to be quiet. 30
Moreover, contrary to Respondent’s assertion, there is no evidence that either McGlone
or Johnson were disruptive during the interviews. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co., 308 NLRB
277 (1992), cited by Respondent is inapposite. In New Jersey Bell, the union representative
objected to all repetitive questions asked by the employer. The Board found this disruptive of 35
the investigatory process. Here there is no evidence that McGlone or Johnson engaged in any
such disruptive conduct. While they both asked questions and tried to provide assistance and
counsel, there was no disruption of the interview, verbal abuse, insulting interruptions, or
demeaning conduct. Yellow Freight Systems, 317 NLRB 115, 124 (1995).
40
By her orders to McGlone and Johnson to be silent, Zolotko effectively prevented them
from giving effective assistance and counsel to Collins and Becker, thereby denying Collins and
Becker their right to have a union representative present in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
45
JD(SF)–12–15
12
Complaint paragraph 11 alleges that on about June 5, 2014 Respondent removed a union
communication form a union bulletin board.
a. The facts
In June 2014, former Local 580 Officer Rex Osborne (Osborne), placed a cartoon9 on a 5
Local 580 union bulletin board in Respondents’ E & I maintenance shop in the E & U
department. The cartoon had a definition of bad faith bargaining and showed parties sitting
down at the bargaining table with Respondent representatives shown wearing ear plugs while
telling the union representatives: “We’re listening.” After Osborne posted the cartoon, TDM
John Strouburg (Strouburg) told Osborne that he was going to have to take the cartoon down. 10
Osborne asked Strouburg who told him to take the cartoon down and Strouburg replied that no
one had. Osborne told Strouburg he could not take it down because it was a union posting. Then
Strouburg admitted that he had been told to take all derogatory cartoons down.
The parties’ collective-bargaining agreements provide that Respondent will15
“supply adequate enclosed locked bulletin boards for the use of the Local Union in
posting of official bulletin boards.”10 There are union designated bulletin boards throughout
Respondent’s facility that contain Union and other nonunion related postings. For example, for
the past 3 years, pamphlets on charter fishing trips have been posted on the union designated
bulletin boards and these have not been removed by management. 20
b. The analysis
General Counsel contends that an employer may not remove notices from a union
bulletin board. 25
Respondent contends there is no violation since the cartoon remained posted for 2 months
and Osborn was not an officer of the Union at the time of the posting and there was no evidence that
he was authorized to post a union communication.
30
In Marriott Management Services, Inc., 318 NLRB 144, 153 (1995), the Board affirmed
the administrative law judge who found:
It is well established that there is no statutory right of employees or a union to use
an employer’s bulletin board. However, it is also well established that when an35
employer permits, by formal rule or otherwise, employees and a union to post
personal and official union notices on its bulletin boards, the employees’ and
union’s right to use the bulletin board receives the protection of the Act to the
extent that the employer may not remove notices or discriminate against an
employee who posts notices, which meet the employer’s rule or standard but40
which the employer finds distasteful. Citing, Container Corp. of America, 244
NLRB 318 (1979).

9 GC Exh. 54.
10 GC Exhs. 3 and 4 at p.22.
JD(SF)–12–15
13
Here, it is uncontested that Supervisor Strouburg removed Osborne’s cartoon from one of
union designated bulletin boards, even though other personal items had also been posted on those
bulletin boards without being removed. As noted in Marriott, supra, it is immaterial whether it
was the union or an employee who posted the notice. Once the employer has given permission
to use a bulletin board it may not remove union related items it finds distasteful. As the cartoon 5
constituted a statement about the conditions of collective bargaining with Respondent, it was
protected under section 7 and Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when it discriminatorily
removed this pro union commentary from the bulletin board.
C. THE 8(A)(5) ALLEGATIONS
1. The October 2013 change in training evaluations10
Complaint paragraph 12(a) alleges that in October 2013 Respondent changed its practice
with regard to how it performs training evaluations in its E & U department without the
agreement of the Union.
a. The facts15
The record reflects that the parties have bargained for and memorialized contract
language that method and means of evaluation of employee skills shall be jointly agreed upon.
The March 15, 2007, through March 14, 2014, collective-bargaining agreement in the Local 580
unit provides in pertinent part under 580 Local Ground Rule No. 48 the subheading 8. Pay for 20
skills11:
. . . .
Some component of pay will be based on skill, with increasing pay as additional skills
and capabilities are acquired and used.25
Processes will be developed to assure that acquired skills are maintained and
continuously improved upon. For greater clarity, management shall have the right to
implement certification requirements where required by law or when recommended by
industry standards (e.g. Black Liquor Recovery Boiler Advisory Committee, Factory 30
Manual). The Company and the Union will jointly develop the means of evaluation.
Each pay level will include elements of leadership, administration, operation,
coordination, project management and maintenance.
35
The new work design will define the advancement process. The minimum qualification
levels and performance standards will be determined by mutual agreement between
the Company and the Union.
Employees hired into the mill after March 15, 2008 must demonstrate the capability and 40
aptitude to eventually perform all jobs within the work system before being allowed to
work in any such system. The Company and the Union shall jointly develop the
instrument(s) to be used to measure capability and aptitude through the application

11 GC Exh. 4, pp. 176–177.
JD(SF)–12–15
14
of a structured external evaluation tool, such as Work Keys or another mutually
agreed to tool. (emphasis added)
This provision of the Local 580 collective-bargaining agreement has been retained in the
parties’ successor agreement.5
Dan Sauer (Sauer), who has conducted all of Respondent’s classroom training for
employees in the E & U department since 2010, testified without contradiction, and I credit his
testimony, that the parties’ 1999 E & U final design agreement,12 referred to in the Local 580
collective-bargaining agreement as the “new work design,”13 reflects that Local 580 and 10
Respondent have joint decision making authority with regard to the “level of skills needed,” the
“gap between current and needed skills,” and scheduling training for E & U employees.
Under the E & U final design agreement the areas listed as “Assess mastery; verify
learnings” are to be decided by the system leader and system leader has the sole authority to 15
“Approve/Veto” such determinations.14
Sauer testified without contradiction that Respondent’s E & U department is broken
down into two discreet sections, the power house and effluent department. Power house
employees are either in recovery or power jobs. The E & U department is part of the Local 580 20
bargaining unit. Local 580 and Respondent have agreed on the skills that employees at each
level must have mastered in order to move up to the next qualification level. These skills are
contained in the parties March 15, 2007, through March 14, 2014, collective-bargaining
agreement as modified in the current agreement, reflected in Respondent’s best and final offer.15
The job positions and pay rates in the recovery and power side range from D (lowest) to A 25
(highest).16 Each time an employee goes from one level to the next, they receive a raise of $1
to $4.
Sauer said that before October 2013, in order for an employee to move from the entry
position to the next higher level in the E & U department, the employee had to go through both 30
formal classroom and on-the-job-training of 2 to 12 weeks from an experienced employee (OJT).
The employee is given an OJT check list17 that sets forth all the job functions that the trainee is
responsible for learning. The employee checks off each item in the list as it is completed.
According to Sauer, before October 2013 after several weeks of classroom training and 35
OJT, the employee would meet with their supervisor, to discuss the employees’ qualifications to
perform the job for which they were training. Sauer stated that before October 2013, the typical
meetings between supervisor and employee lasted about 15 to 30 minutes where the supervisor
asked the employee questions or posed hypothetical problems for the employee to solve. If the
supervisor found the employee qualified, the employee was promoted into the next higher job 40

12 GC Exh. 37, p. 26.
13 GC Exh. 4,p. 177
14 GC Exh. 37, pp. 24-26.
15 GC Exhs. 5, and 37 pp. 12–14.
16 GC Exh. 37, p. 2.
17 GC Exhs. 27–34.
JD(SF)–12–15
15
position and got a raise. There is no dispute that Respondent’s evaluation system had operated in
this way for at least the past 20 years.
Sauer stated that in about August of 2013, Respondent hired Alsemaan as its E & U
manager. According to Sauer’s un-contradicted testimony, in the fall of 2013, Alsemaan 5
changed the way E & U employees were evaluated and promoted. The meetings to evaluate
employees’ skills went from 15–30 minute sessions to four 14 hour sessions.18 The meetings
now included not only the employee and immediate supervisor but also Alsemaan and Sauer.
Rather than the immediate supervisor, the meetings were now run by Alsemaan. These new
evaluation meetings were broken into 2 hour increments and could last for up to seven sessions. 10
According to Sauer, because these meetings involved multiple meetings they became difficult to
schedule and resulted in the evaluation process taking months longer to complete than it had
before the Fall of 2013. Sauer said that Alsemaan began testing employees on subject matter
that had not been previously covered, including safety and environmental issues.
15
On April 2, 2014, Local 580 President Michael Silvery (Silvery) wrote a letter to human
resources manager Zolotko requesting that Respondent meet and bargain about the changes in
the E & U department employees’ evaluation process and requesting documentation regarding
the changes.19 On April 8, 2014, Zolotko responded by email stating only that the bargaining
issue should be addressed by the parties’ grievance procedure.2020
b. The analysis
It is General Counsel’s position that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act when
it failed to notify or bargain with Local 580 of its intention to change the method by which it was 25
going to be conducting the training evaluations or the effect that these changes would have on its
bargaining unit.
Respondent contends that the Union clearly and unmistakably waived its right to bargain
over any changes to the training evaluations of bargaining unit employees in the E & U 30
department.
The Board and Courts have long held that Section 8(a)(5) of the Act requires an employer
to provide its employees’ representative with notice and an opportunity to bargain prior to
making material, substantial, and significant changes with respect to terms and conditions of 35
employment that are mandatory subjects of bargaining. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962);
Toledo Blade Co., 343 NLRB 385, 387 (2004). Evaluations that have the potential to affect the
wage rate an employee might receive, are a mandatory subject of bargaining. Saginaw Control
& Engineering, 339 NLRB 541
(2003).40
Wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment generally survive the
expiration of a collective-bargaining agreement. Hen House Market No. 3, 175 NLRB 596

18 GC Exhs. 35 and 36.
19 GC Exh. 6.
20 GC Exh. 8.
JD(SF)–12–15
16
(1969). In addition, “an employer’s regular and longstanding practices that are neither random
nor intermittent become terms and conditions of employment even if these practices are not
required by the collective bargaining agreement.” Prime Healthcare Services, 357 NLRB No.
63, at page 8 (2011). The Board has held that an employer cannot change established past
practices without notifying and offering to bargain with the union. Id.5
The changes here to a mandatory subject of bargaining and long-established practice are
significant as these evaluations are directly related to significant wage increases. Significantly,
the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement itself specifically states that Respondent and Local
580 will jointly develop the means of evaluation and that the minimum qualification levels and 10
performance standards will be determined by mutual agreement between Respondent and Local
580.
It is uncontested that Respondent significantly changed the way that the E & U
department performed its training evaluations beginning in October 2013. There is no dispute 15
that before October 2013 and for the past 20 years, the training evaluations consisted of the
operator’s TDM asking a few general questions about the performance of the new position and
that such questioning would last anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes. When the TDM had any
concerns about the trainees’ qualifications after their interview, the trainee would be sent back
for 1 or 2 weeks of OJT to work on their skills and then the trainee would be to moved up to the 20
next classification.
The change in manner of evaluating trainees resulted in delays in moving up to the next
classification, because the coordination in the schedules of several different managers for a series
of meetings took more time than setting up a single 15-minute evaluation. In addition, the 25
content of the information that was tested changed from a focus on job duties to include
Respondent’s safety and environmental policies.
Respondent does not deny that it neither notified nor bargained with Local 580 prior to its
implementation of this change. In its defense Respondent argues that the Union waived its right 30
to bargain over any changes to the evaluation procedures in the E & U department through the
terms of the collective-bargaining agreement.
A waiver of the duty to bargain may result from action or inaction, through contractual
language specifically waiving the right of a party to bargain about a particular subject or in the 35
failure of a party to protest unilateral action. Ador Corp., 150 NLRB 1658 (1965); U.S. Lingerie,
170 NLRB 750 (1968). However, the Board and the courts have construed the waiver doctrine
narrowly and have been reluctant to infer waiver in the absence of clear and unmistakable
conduct. Metropolitan Edison Co., v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693, 708 (1983). The clear and
unmistakable test applies where the waiver is claimed in contract language. In this regard in 40
Amoco Chemical Co., 328 NLRB 1220, 1121–1122 (1999) the Board held:
Either the contract language relied on must be specific or the employer must show
that the issue was fully discussed and consciously explored and that the union
consciously yielded or clearly and unmistakably waived its interest in the matter.45
Respondent refers to its collective-bargaining agreement with Local 580 to establish that
there was a waiver by the Union of its right to bargain over the E & U department evaluation
JD(SF)–12–15
17
process. In support of its waiver argument, Respondent cites local ground rule (LGR) No.48
which provides in part:
580 LOCAL GROUND RULE NO. 48
Subject: Work Design Principles, Processes and Roles5
1. All Work systems will have these main elements included in their designs:
-work teams
-job function rotation
-pay for skills and knowledge 10
-verification of skills and knowledge
-training processes
-operator-maintenance interface
-team administrative roles
-communication with and between teams2115
Respondent also cites that the E & U Work design agreement22 includes provisions for
pay for skills and knowledge and verification of skills and knowledge; that it establishes required
skill blocks that must be verified before moving on to the next skill block; and that it assigns the
authority and responsibility to assess mastery and verify learnings to the system leader who is 20
Department Manager Alsemaan.
Notwithstanding Respondent’s citations to the negotiated agreements between it and
Local 580, the language of those is agreements is clear that the parties agreed in their collective-
bargaining agreement23 that there would be joint decision making with respect to such items as:25
The Company and the Union will jointly develop the means of evaluation.
The minimum qualification levels and performance standards will be determined
by mutual agreement between the Company and the Union.30
The Company and the Union shall jointly develop the instrument(s) to be used to
measure capability and aptitude through the application of a structured external
evaluation tool, such as Work Keys or another mutually agreed to tool.
35
It is also clear from the work design agreement implemented pursuant to the terms of the
above cited collective-bargaining agreement that the parties contemplated joint decision making
authority with regard to the “level of skills needed,” “select plan needed,” the “gap between
current and needed skills,” and “schedule training” for E & U employees.
40
Although the work design agreement provides that the authority and responsibility to
“assess mastery” and “verify learnings” resides with the system leader, this language cannot be
viewed as a clear and unmistakable waiver by the Union of its right to bargain over changes to
extant procedures of evaluation. This language only reflects who the parties have agreed will be

21 GC Exh. 4, p. 173.
22 GC Exh. 37.
23 GC Exh. 4, pp.176–177.
JD(SF)–12–15
18
the person to determine if trainees have acquired the skills necessary to advance. It is the
language of the collective-bargaining agreement that is clear that the parties shall together
develop, “The minimum qualification levels and performance standards . . .” and “shall jointly
develop the instrument(s) to be used to measure capability and aptitude through the application
of a structured external evaluation tool, such as Work Keys or another mutually agreed to tool.” 5
Id.
I find no evidence from the terms of the collective-bargaining agreements between the
parties that Local 580 clearly and unmistakably waived its right to bargain over the means of
evaluating the E &U department employees.10
Respondent argues further that the Union essentially waived its right to bargain over the
changes to the evaluation process because it took no action concerning the changes from
October 2013 until April of 2014 and that while the parties were in negotiations from
February 2014 to July 2014, the Union never made any proposals regarding the changed 15
evaluation process.
The evidence reflects that Respondent implemented the changes to the E & U department
evaluation process in about October 2013 without notice to or bargaining with the Union. The
Board has long held that a union cannot be held to have waived bargaining over a change that is 20
presented as a fait accompli. In this regard, in Intersystems Design & Technology Corp., 278
NLRB 759 (1986), the Board cited Gulf States Mfg. v. NLRB, 704 F.2d 1390, 1397 (5th Cir
1983):
In Gulf States, the court dealt not only with the adequacy of the notice, but also 25
with the related waiver issue (704 F.2d 1397): It is . . . well established that a
union cannot be held to have waived bargaining over a change that is presented as
a fait accompli. . . "An employer must at least inform the union of its proposed
actions under circumstances which afford a reasonable opportunity for counter
arguments or proposals." Notice of a fait accompli is simply not the sort of timely 30
notice upon which the waiver defense is predicated. [Citations omitted.]
Respondent also argues that the language of the collective-bargaining agreement
precludes a finding that the evaluation process prior to October 2013 was an existing term and
condition of employment. 35
Respondent cites section 32 C of the collective-bargaining agreement24 which provides:
The failure of the Union to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement or
exercise any rights granted by law, or the failure of the Company to exercise any 40
right reserved to it, or its exercise of any such right in a particular way, shall not
be deemed a waiver of any such right or waiver of its authority to exercise any
such right in some other way not in conflict with terms of this Agreement.
This section of the collective-bargaining agreement is similar in nature to a management 45
rights clause which the Board has uniformly held will not constitute a waiver by the union of its

24 GC Exh. 4, p. 52.
JD(SF)–12–15
19
right to bargain over a mandatory subject of bargaining in the absence of evidence that the
particular subject involved was knowingly discussed and waived by the union. Dubuque
Packing Co., 303 NLRB 386 (1991).
Respondent appears to argue that this language permits it to enforce rights it has under 5
the collective-bargaining agreement despite a contrary practice. The problem with this argument
is that, as noted above, the collective-bargaining agreement has never given Respondent the sole
right to determine the “instrument(s) to be used to measure capability and aptitude. . .”
There is no evidence that the Union has waived its right to bargain over the evaluation 10
process of unit employees in the E & U department.
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act when it unilaterally changed the
length, content, and format of E & U department bargaining unit employees’ evaluations without
first notifying and bargaining with the Union about these changes. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 15
(1962); Saginaw Control & Engineering, 339 NLRB 541 (2003).
2. The January 2014 changes in rules regarding food safety
Complaint paragraph 12(b) alleges that in January 2014 Respondent implemented new 20
rules related to food safety without the agreement of the Union.
a. The facts
Respondent adopted its predecessor Tetra Pack’s food safety hygiene rules in early 2010
after reacquiring the extruder facility. In February, 2014, Respondent implemented hygiene 25
standards known as Food Safety System Certification (FSSC) 22000. The FSSC 22000
consisted of two parts: International Standards Organization (ISO) 22000 and Publicly Available
Standard (PAS) 223. ISO 22000 is a food product quality management system. ISO 22000’s
predecessor was ISO 9001, a generic process quality management system. Respondent had
operated under ISO 9001 since 1987. Tetra Pak had also operated under ISO 9001 and when 30
Respondent reacquired the extruder department it adopted and incorporated Tetra Pak’s ISO
9001 documentation.
In February 2014, Respondent implemented a new set of hygiene standards at its facility
as set forth in “FSSC 22000 Food Safety Training—new hygiene standards” training material2535
introduced to employees through a series of food safety training sessions which took place in late
January 2014. These new rules were implemented immediately following the training sessions
in February 2014.26 These rules applied to the Local 633 paperboard and extruder units.
The Unions first became aware that there could be changes in Respondent’s food safety 40
rules was in early February 2014 from their members.

25 GC Exh. 23.
26 GC Exh. 25, p. 2.
JD(SF)–12–15
20
In June 2014 a summary of the rules27 for the rewinder hygiene zone and the L3 paper
machine hygiene in the paperboard unit was posted on the facility bulletin boards.
According to the unrebutted and credited testimony of Respondent’s advanced lab
technician in the paperboard department and Local 633 recording secretary, Lowell Lovgren 5
(Lovgren), prior to February 2014 paperboard and extruder bargaining unit employees were
permitted to drink coffee and beverages and chew tobacco on the production floor including the
paper machine, the winder, the wrap line, the back tender control room, the winder control room
and the wrap line control station and employees could eat lunch in the winder break shack and
the back tender shack. After February 2014 only clear beverages were permitted on the 10
production floor and the rewinder area was cordoned off as a hygiene area and no food or
beverages were allowed in the shacks. Chewing tobacco was also prohibited throughout the
production area.
Lovgren also testified without contradiction that a new hygiene zone was created in 15
April 2014 around the rewinder area in the paperboard unit and demarcated by a blue line
painted on the floor. In this hygiene zone employees could have no personal belongings, food,
or beverages other than water.
While Respondent’s January 2014 training materials28 reflect there were extant hygiene 20
rules in the Local 633 extruder bargaining unit, including no use of tobacco products, no gum or
candy, no food or drink, according to Lovgren’s unrebutted and credited testimony, prior to
February employees could drink coffee and eat food in the extruder hygiene zone so long as it
was in the shack which is part of the hygiene zone. After April 2014 employees could no longer
drink coffee or eat food in the hygiene zone. Respondent’s customer in technical service 25
manager Scott Donaldson (Donaldson) admitted that new restrictions were added to the extruder
department in February 2014, including the prohibition of personal items such as purses,
lunchboxes, backpacks, coats, toothpicks in mouths, nail polish, false nails, false eyelashes, and
loose clothing above the waist.29
30
Donaldson admitted that Respondent began strictly enforcing the water only
restrictions for the five shacks located in the extruder department starting in February 2014. It is
unrebutted that Respondent has also now restricted any food or beverage on the floor even
during a shut down, contrary to its past practice.
35
Zolotko advised the Union that employees could be disciplined for non compliance with
the new rules.30
b. The new cleaning requirements of the hygiene standards
As part of Respondent’s new hygiene standards it required bargaining unit employees to 40
ensure that specific areas of the facility were cleaned by filling out “Cleaning Inspection

27 GC Exh. 26.
28 GC Exh. 23, p. 8.
29 Ibid. at p. 9.
30 GC Exh. 25, p. 2.
JD(SF)–12–15
21
Checklists.”31 To verify the cleaning had taken place. In January 2014, Respondent gave
bargaining unit members these check lists32 and told them to fill them out and hand to their
supervisors daily. New checklists were created for the following areas: rewinder, winder, wet
end, stock prep, roll line, dry end, starch deck, dry end backtender, roll line operations, starch
deck operators, stock prep, machine tender—wet end, rewind storage area, loading 5
dock/warehouse, loading dock 5, 3 rail line, 2 rail line, fine paper cleaning, west end shredder,
extruder winder, #6 extruder, #6 extruder unwind, and #7 extruder unwind. Donaldson admitted
that these checklists and employee responsibilities associated with the checklists were
implemented for the first time in February 2014 and that, prior to February 2014, employees
were not responsible for this kind of inspection or cleaning. Donaldson further admitted that 10
Respondent’s rule that employees inspect to ensure that there was no glass or brittle plastic in
any of the hygiene zones was also part of the new food safety expectations and had not been
previously required. He further admitted that the housekeeping standards in the Extruder
department were increased and now required new inspections and checklists.
15
It is undisputed that in February 2014, Respondent implemented new job duties in
requiring employees to fill out checklists ensuring that certain areas of the facility were clean. In
addition, if those areas were not clean, the employee would be responsible for cleaning those
areas. It is also unrebutted that, as of February 2014, Respondent required employees, such as
employees who work in the rewinder area, to spend the last hour of their 4-day shift thoroughly 20
cleaning each of the areas listed on the checklist, a job duty that was not previously required.
Respondent’s paperboard unit employee Gabe Lovingfoss (Lovingfoss) testified about
the new cleaning requirements and new forms33 certifying the Langston Rewinder is clean. The
back side of the form sets forth a list of 13 different glass and plastic fixtures (such as windows, 25
gauges, and mirrors) that the employee is responsible for checking to make sure they are intact
and not broken. The new checklist on its front side sets forth the following requirements:
Employee Responsible for Cleaning: Langston Operator
30
Frequency: Every shift and after maintenance down
Clean Winder frame until free of loose dust and debris. Use compressed air.
Clean floor under Winder until free of dust and debris. Use compressed air.
Clean Control room until free of dust and debris. Use compressed air, Wipe down
with a Wypall towel use cleaners35
Clean Unwind Stand until free of dust and debris. Use compressed air, wipe down
with Wypall towel and use cleaners.
Clean all Paper rolls and Winder drums until free of dust, debris and tape. Wipe
down with a Wypall towel and use cleaners.
Clean all dust and floor debris around Langston area. With Factory Cat Sweeper, 40
broom and dust pan
Bug light OF-25A is working, southwest of Langston
No food or food waste in the Control room or Hygiene Zone
Operator to use clean gloves when processing product

31 GC Exh. 24, points 8–10 and Exh.25, points 8–10.
32 GC Exhs. 56–103.
33 GC Exh. 56.
JD(SF)–12–15
22
No food waste in process waste
Complete the Glass & Brittle Plastics checklist on the backside
If down for maintenance, wipe down Langston frame with simple green.
Lovingfoss credibly testified without contradiction that Managers Greg Jasmer and Mike 5
Haas provided Lovingfoss and his coworkers with the above checklist after the January 2014
training sessions and explained that now the operators were responsible for cleaning the
machines, checking off each item on the checklists and providing the completed list to their
TDM each day after they had done so. In addition to filling out these checklists on a daily basis,
Respondent directed employees to spend the last hour of each 4-day shift performing a thorough 10
cleaning in each of the areas on the checklists. These requirements were new.
Respondent asserts Lovingfoss testified that the only new task required as a result of the
FSSC 22000 rules is that the day shift operator of the Langston Rewinder is required to
thoroughly clean the machine at the end of their four day week. Contrary to Respondent’s 15
assertion, Lovingfoss testified that in addition to cleaning the machine he now, for the first time
after January 2014, had to fill out the above forms certifying he had cleaned the machine.34
c. The analysis
20
General Counsel argues that Respondent failed to notify or bargain with Local 580
regarding their intention to implement changes to their food safety regulations or the effect that
these changes would have on its bargaining unit employees.
On the other hand, Respondent contends that the Union has waived its right to bargain 25
over changes in the food safety regulations by contract language or by inaction.
As noted above, Section 8(a)(5) of the Act requires an employer to provide its
employees’ representative with notice and an opportunity to bargain prior to making material,
substantial, and significant changes with respect to terms and conditions of employment that are 30
mandatory subjects of bargaining. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962); Toledo Blade Co., 343
NLRB 385, 387 (2004). The Board has found tobacco bans and food restrictions to be material
and constitute a unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment, especially where those
new work rules could be grounds for discipline. W-I Forest Products Co., 304 NLRB 957, 959
(1991); King Soopers, Inc., 340 NLRB 628 (2003); Toledo Blade Co., Inc., 343 NLRB 385 35
(2004). Also employee job assignments are a mandatory subject of bargaining. Flambeau
Airmold Corp., 334 NLRB 165, 171–172 (2001). The Board has found that an increase in job
duties is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Bundy Corp., 292 NLRB 617, 678 (1989).
An employer may however, unilaterally implement changes to working conditions where 40
the Union has waived its right to bargain over specific terms and conditions of employment. A
waiver of the duty to bargain may result from action or inaction, through contractual language
specifically waiving the right of a party to bargain about a particular subject. When a
“management-rights” clause is the source of an asserted waiver, it is normally scrutinized by the
Board to ascertain whether it affords specific justification for unilateral action. Mt. Sinai 45

34 Tr. at p. 607, lines 12–14.
JD(SF)–12–15
23
Hospital, 331 NLRB 895, 895 fn. 2 (2000); Johnson-Bateman Co., 295 NLRB 180, 184 (1989).
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. New York Mirror, 151 NLRB
834, 839–840 (1965).
5
Similarly, the failure to protest unilateral action may result in a waiver. Ador Corp., 150
NLRB 1658 (1965); U.S. Lingerie, 170 NLRB 750 (1968). However, the Board and the Courts
have construed the waiver doctrine narrowly and have been reluctant to infer waiver in the
absence of clear and unmistakable conduct. Metropolitan Edison Co., v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693,
708 (1983). Only where the collective=bargaining agreement provides a clear and unmistakable 10
waiver of the union’s right to bargain may an employer unilaterally implement rules. Provena
St. Joseph Medical Center, 350 NLRB 808 (2007).
There is no dispute that Respondent failed to notify or bargain with Local 580 in
February 2014 regarding their intention to implement changes to their food safety regulations or 15
the effect that these changes would have on its bargaining unit employees. Respondent
unilaterally implemented new job duties in requiring employees to fill out checklists ensuring
that certain areas of its facility were clean. In addition, if those areas were not clean, the
employee would be responsible for cleaning those areas. It is also unrebutted that, as of
February 2014, Respondent required employees, such as employees who work in the rewinder 20
area, to spend the last hour of their 4-day shift thoroughly cleaning each of the areas listed on the
checklist, a job duty that was not previously required.
In addition, it is uncontested that Respondent’s new restrictions on its employees’ ability
to use chewing tobacco or have food, drink, and other personal items on in the production area as 25
well as the newly designated hygiene zones were implemented without first notifying or
bargaining with the Union. Respondent’s implementation of these new food safety rules
materially affected its employees’ terms and conditions of employment and constituted a
mandatory subject of bargaining.
30
In support of its argument that Local 580 and Local 633 waived their right to bargain
over new hygiene rules, Respondent cites Section 17 of the collective-bargaining agreement
between Respondent and Local 58035 that applies to the extruder department and the identical
provisions in section 17 of its agreement with Local 63336 dealing with the L3 department and
the Langston Rewinder which provide that: 35
A. Causes for discipline or discharge are as follows:
****
40
13. Refusal to comply with Company Rules
a. Provided that such rules shall be posted in each department where they may
be read by all employees and further, that no changes in present rules or no
additional rules shall be made that are inconsistent with this Agreement: and 45

35 GC Exh. 4, p. 21, sec. 17, erroneously cited in R. Brf. as GC Exh. 2, sec.16.
36 GC Exh. 3, p. 21
JD(SF)–12–15
24
further provided, that any existing or new rules or changes in rules may be
the subject of discussions between the Local Union Standing Committee and
the Local Mill Manager, and in case of disagreement, the procedure for
other grievances shall apply.
5
Respondent also cites section 17 B. 337 of the collective-bargaining agreements38 which provide:
Where a letter of reprimand, suspension or discharge is deemed justified, the final
decision will be deferred until the appropriate Local Union representative has a
reasonable opportunity to investigate the facts and then discuss the matter with the 10
appropriate supervisor in the presence of the employee. . . .
Citing Provena St. Joseph Hospital, 350 NLRB 808, 810, 815 (2007), Respondent argues
that taken together, the above contract provisions constitute a clear and unmistakable waiver of
the Union’s right to bargain about Respondent’s work rules.15
In Provena the employer argued that the union had relinquished its right to bargain over
two subjects, incentive pay and a new attendance tardiness policy. The contract language in
issue was a managements-rights provision that provided, inter alia:
20
(1). . . [e]xcept as specifically limited by express provisions of this Agreement,
[the Respondent] retains exclusively to itself the traditional rights (as historically
existed prior to Association organization) to operate and manage its business and
to direct its employees; (2) the clause permitting the Respondent “to change or
eliminate existing methods, materials, equipment, facilities and reporting 25
practices and procedures and/or to introduce new or improved ones; (3) the clause
authorizing the Respondent “to suspend, discipline and discharge employees”; (4)
the clause allowing the Respondent to “make and enforce the rules of conduct,
standards, and regulations governing the conduct of employees”; (5)
Respondent’s right “to establish and administer policies and procedures related to 30
research, education, training, operations, services and maintenance” of the
Respondent’s operations; and (6) the final section, reserving to the Respondent
the right “to determine or change the methods and means by which its operations
are to be carried on; to take any and all actions it determines appropriate,
including the subcontracting of work, to maintain efficiency and appropriate 35
patient care.” Id. at 810.
The Board found that the employer did not violate the Act with respect to the newly
implemented incentive pay program but that it did not violate the Act with regard to the new
disciplinary policy on attendance and tardiness. The Board held that the:40
Application of our traditional standard reveals that several provisions of the
management-rights clause, taken together, explicitly authorized the Respondent’s
unilateral action. Specifically, the clause provides that the Respondent has the
right to “change reporting practices and procedures and/or to introduce new or 45

37 Erroneously cited as sec.16.
38 GC Exhs. 3 and 4 at p. 21.
JD(SF)–12–15
25
improved ones,” “to make and enforce rules of conduct,” and “to suspend,
discipline, and discharge employees.” By agreeing to that combination of
provisions, the Union relinquished its right to demand bargaining over the
implementation of a policy prescribing attendance requirements and the
consequences for failing to adhere to those requirements. Such a conclusion 5
requires no resort to a “contract-coverage” analysis, for the contract itself plainly
speaks to the right of the Respondent to act.
Contrary to the contract language in Provena and in both Cincinnati Paperboard, 339
NLRB 1079 (2003), and Ingham Regional Medical Center, 342 NLRB 1259 fn. 1 (2004), the 10
language here does not clearly and unmistakably give Respondent the right to formulate new
work rules. Here the language of section 17 in both contracts deals with discipline for not
following extant rules not with Respondent’s right to unilaterally implement new work rules.
Indeed, the language of section 17 A. 13 specifically states that there shall be discussions
between the Respondent and Locals 580 and 633 regarding any changes to extant rules. 15
Section17 B. 3 has nothing to do with the Unions’ waiver of bargaining over work rules.
As to Respondent’s argument that the Unions waived their right to bargain over the
hygiene rules by inaction, no waiver can occur where the union is presented with a fait accompli.
The evidence reflects that Respondent implemented the changes to its food safety regulations in 20
about February 2014 without notice to or bargaining with the Union. The Board has long held
that a union cannot be held to have waived bargaining over a change that is presented as a fait
accompli. Intersystems Design & Technology Corp., 278 NLRB 759 (1986). Here, since the
changes were made without notice to or bargaining with the Unions they were presented by
Respondent with a fait accompli for which there can be no waiver.25
Having found that Respondent unilaterally implemented new hygiene rules without
notice to or bargaining with the Unions and that the Unions did not waive their rights to bargain
over the implementation of these rules, I find that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act.30
3. The March 2014 changes to scheduling of training operators in the energy and utility
department
Complaint paragraph 12(c) alleges that in March 2014 Respondent changed its practice of
how it schedules its training operators in its E & U department. In its brief Respondent asserted 35
that it no longer contests paragraph 12(c) regarding training scheduling.
a. The facts
There is no dispute that in a May 4, 2014, email Alsemaan told employees and 40
management in the E & U department that “all new hires and transferred employees will work 8
hour days 5 days a week Monday through Friday 7AM-3PM.”39 Prior to this email, new E & U
department trainees worked four 12-hour shifts each week. Therefore, after May 4, 2014 E & U
trainees’ hours were reduced from 48 hours to 40 hours per week.

39 GC Exh. 45.
JD(SF)–12–15
26
b. The analysis
It is uncontested that Respondent never notified or bargained with Local 580
before implementing this scheduling change. The Board has found the scheduling of employees 5
to be a mandatory subject of bargaining. Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Services, Inc., 335
NLRB 635, 636 (2001); Raven Government Services, 331 NLRB 651 (2000); Bentler Industries,
Inc., 323 NLRB 712, 715 (1997).
I find that by unilaterally changing the scheduling of trainees in its E & U department, 10
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
4. The failure to provide information
a. The April 2, 2014 request
15
Complaint paragraphs 13(c) and (d) allege that since April 9, 2014, Respondent has failed
to provide the Union with documentation and from April 9 to June 13, 2014, it has unreasonably
delayed in providing the information related to any wage increases given to employees,
disciplinary actions, probationary actions, reassignment of employees, and disciplinary
recommendations that are related to these interviews and evaluations that are now being 20
conducted by the management team.
i. The facts
On April 2, 2014, after hearing that Alsemaan was making changes to the E & U
department employees’ evaluation process, Local 580 President Silvery wrote a letter to Zolotko 25
asking Respondent to meet and bargain about the changes and requesting documentation
regarding the changes.40 Silvery’s letter requested the following information:
[A]ll records, notes, emails, test results or other documentation related to any of
the interviews and evaluations. Please make sure to also include documentation 30
related to any wage increases given to employees, disciplinary actions,
probationary actions, reassignment of employees and disciplinary
recommendations that are related to these interviews and evaluations that are now
being conducted by your management team by April 9, 2014, since the time you
originally hired your new power plant manager. 35
On April 4, 2014, in response to Silvery’s letter, Zolotko emailed41 union area
representative Anderson stating that she did not understand Silvery’s letter. The same day
Anderson responded42 that it was quite clear that Silvery was asking Respondent to cease its
unilateral changes to the qualification test in the E & U department and also provide Local 580 40

40 GC Exh. 6.
41 GC Exh. 7, p. 2.
42 Ibid, p. 1.
JD(SF)–12–15
27
with information related to those changes. On April 8, 2014, Zolotko emailed43 Anderson stating
that the bargaining issue in the E & U department should be addressed by the parties’ grievance
procedure.
On June 13, 2014, Zolotko provided the standing committee with a response to Silvery’s 5
April 2, 2014 information request.44 Zolotko’s response consisted of an assortment of
unidentified documents attached to it. Zolotko attached no cover letter to her submission
explaining either what she was responding to or why she had not attached all of the responsive
documents. A review of the attachments reveals that they included some E & U evaluation
records, notes taken during evaluation interviews, and emails regarding the recent evaluations. 10
Absent from the response were any documents related to any wage increases given to employees,
disciplinary actions, probationary actions, reassignment of employees, and disciplinary
recommendations related to the evaluation interviews. There is no dispute that Zolotko never
provided these documents to Local 580, never informed Local 580 that these documents did not
exist, and never presented Local 580 with a reason for failing to provide these documents. 15
Zolotko testified that the information requested does not exist.
As the record makes clear, the only responsive documents that were provided 2-1/2
months after Silvery’s initial request were unduly delayed and Respondent provided no reason
for the delay.20
ii. The analysis
General Counsel takes the position that Respondent was obligated to produce the
information Silvery requested or to provide the Local 580 with a timely explanation for its
refusal to provide the requested information, citing USPS, 332 NLRB 635, 636 (2000). It did not 25
do so.
Respondent argues that it had no duty to produce information that it does not have, citing
Harmon Auto Glass, 352 NLRB 152 (2008), and Whittier Area Parents Assn., 296 NLRB 817
(1989). Respondent further contends that it did not engage in any unreasonable delay in 30
furnishing requested information.
The Courts and Board since its inception have long held that an employer’s duty to
bargain includes, upon request, supplying the union with information necessary and relevant to
fulfill its bargaining obligations. NLRB v Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435–436 (1967); 35
S.L. Allen & Co., Inc., 1 NLRB 714, 728 (1936); Industrial Welding Co., 175 NLRB 477 (1969).
Information that implicates terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees is
presumptively relevant. Whitesell Corp., 355 NLRB No. 134 (2010); CalMat Co., 331 NLRB
1084 (2000). Once it has been determined that the employer is under an obligation to produce
the requested information, the employer is under an obligation to either produce the information 40
or provide an explanation for its refusal to provide the requested information. An employer’s
failure to respond at all is likewise a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. USPS, 332 NLRB
635, 639 (2000).

43 GC Exh. 8.
44 GC Exh. 53.
JD(SF)–12–15
28
Once the duty to provide information applies, an employer must produce the information
in a timely manner. West Penn Power Co., d/b/a Allegheny Power, 339 NLRB 585, 587 (2003).
While the Board looks to the totality of the circumstances in determining if the delay in
furnishing information is unlawful, it has found a 7 week and 10 week delay unreasonable.
Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737 (2001); Bundy Corp., 292 NLRB 671, 672 (1989).5
Here there is no dispute that the information Local 580 requested was presumptively
relevant as it applied to terms and conditions of bargaining unit employees. Respondent did not
furnish any of the information until June 13, 2014, over 10 weeks after it had been requested.
Then much of the requested information, including documents related to wage increases, 10
disciplinary actions, probationary actions, reassignment of employees, and disciplinary
recommendations related to the evaluation interviews, was not provided. No explanation for
either the delay in providing the information or the absence of the information was given until
the hearing herein when Zolotko testified the information did not exist.
15
I find Respondent’s citations to Harmon Auto Glass, 352 NLRB 152, 153 (2008), and
Whittier Area Parents Assn., 296 NLRB 817 fn. 2 (1989), inapposite. In neither Harmon nor
Whittier was there an issue as to whether the employer failed to explain its failure to produce
non-existent information.
20
Respondent was under an obligation to either produce the requested information in a
timely manner or to explain its inability to produce the information. It did neither. Moreover, I
find that 10 weeks was an unreasonably long time to provide the information furnished,
particularly considering the clarity of the request, the absence of evidence that it would be
difficult to recover the information, and the absence of any explanation for Respondent’s failure 25
to act in a timelier manner. Accordingly, I find Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
by failing to explain the absence of the requested information and by failing to provide the
information furnished to the Union in a timely manner.
b. The April 24, 2014 request30
Complaint paragraph 14(c) alleges that from about May 5 to about June 4, 2014,
Respondent unreasonably delayed in furnishing the Union with information regarding Respondent's
food safety training as set forth in Attachment A of the consolidated complaint.
35
i. The facts
On February 5, 2014, when Local 633 president Lovgren learned about the new
hygiene rule changes, he sent superintendent of the paper machine area Tim Edwards (Edwards)
an information request45 about the new rules. In his letter Lovgren asked for the following 40
information by February 18, 2014:
1. We need to know what the expected changes are,

45 GC Exh. 20.
JD(SF)–12–15
29
2. We need to know the locations of the Hygiene zones are,
3. We need to know what locations of the Production zones are,
4. We need to know what are the changes to existing job duties and whose 5
jobs will those effect,
5. Please include any check off sheets, or check off lists that will effect
[sic]those jobs,
10
6. We need to know if there will be any special clothing requirements, i.e.
clean clothes, uniforms?
Zolotko emailed46 Lovgren back that day stating: “Did you attend the recent food safety
ISO training? I believe the answers to your questions are there.” After receiving Zolotko’s 15
response and hearing from Edwards that manager Mike Haas (Haas) was the appropriate person
to whom to direct his request, Lovgren forwarded this same request to Haas on February 10,
2014.47
On April 7, 2014, after receiving no response from Haas, Lovgren sent an email to 20
Zolotko requesting the information once again. On April 8, Zolotko emailed Lovgren the
training materials for the new food safety rules.48 After reviewing the training materials, Lovgren
created a list of questions about the hygiene rule changes and sent it to Zolotko on April 24,
2014.49 In the April 24, 2014 information request, the Union made a list of 10 subjects regarding
the new hygiene rules about which they had several questions in each subject. On June 4, 2014, 25
Zolotko responded to Lovgren’s inquiry.50
ii. The analysis
General Counsel takes the position that Respondent failed to provide the information
requested on April 24, 2014, in a timely manner. Respondent contends the information was 30
provided in a timely manner under all of the circumstances.
As already noted, an employer has the duty under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act to provide
the union with relevant information in a timely manner. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 332 NLRB
635 (2000); Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735 (2001).35
The information sought here was presumptively relevant as it deals with terms and
conditions of employment. Lovgren requested specific information regarding the new food
safety rules on April 24, 3014. Zolotko failed to provide Lovgren with any response until June 4,
2014, 6 weeks later.40

46 GC Exh. 21.
47 GC Exh. 22.
48 GC Exh. 23
49 GC Exh. 24.
50 GC Exh. 25.
JD(SF)–12–15
30
A determination of the reasonableness of a delay in supplying relevant information
requires a review of all the relevant circumstances, including “the complexity and extent of the
information sought, its availability and the difficulty in retrieving the information.” Allegheny
Power, supra at 587. The Board has held the absent of evidence justifying an employer's delay
in furnishing a union with relevant information, may justify finding a violation of Section 5
8(a)(5) of the Act. Pennco, Inc., 212 NLRB 677, 678 (1974).
Here, the information sought was not complex but straightforward. Respondent
presented no evidence that the information was unavailable or difficult to retrieve. Under these
circumstances I find that a delay of 6 weeks in furnishing the requested information was 10
unreasonable and therefore violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
c. The April 30, 2014 request
Complaint paragraph 15(c) alleges that since about May 2, 2014, Respondent has
failed to provide the Union with the exact cost and your justification for each of the costs in the 15
bill and invoice you sent to Local 580 and 633 for bargaining related expenses; and explain in
detail how you calculated the amounts that are contained in the invoices you sent to Locals 580
and 633.
i. The facts
20
At the beginning of bargaining, the parties agreed that Respondent would pay the
bargaining unit employees for their time spent in bargaining sessions and the Locals would
reimburse Respondent for that time. This agreement was not reduced to writing.
On April 8, 2014, after parties had met for some time in bargaining for the successor 25
contracts, Local 633’s president, Lovgren wrote an email51 to Respondent’s payroll specialist,
Sandra Swogger (Swogger), requesting that she send Local 633 an invoice for the hours that
Respondent had paid for the bargaining committee members’ bargaining time. Swogger sent
Lovgren an invoice52 which provided lump-sum amounts due on behalf of each member of the
bargaining committee. When Lovgren received this information he sent another email53 asking if 30
something had been added. Swogger replied54 that she used “a fully loaded rate.” Finally on
April 11, 2014, Lovgren emailed55 Swogger and Zolotko and asked to see a break down on the
uploaded rate and what it covered.
Zolotko sent Lovgren an email56 reply stating that “. . . we are not creating special 35
documents to satisfy your curiosity. We are paying the same way we paid for the Extruders.”
According to Lovgren, he needed this itemized information in order to understand how
Respondent was billing the Union for the bargaining committee members’ time and for the
Local’s financial records for tax purposes.
40

51 GC Exh. 9, p. 4.
52 GC Exh. 10.
53 GC Exh. 9, p. 3.
54 Ibid. at p. 2.
55 Ibid. at p. 1.
56 Ibid. at p. 1.
JD(SF)–12–15
31
On April 15, 2014, Lovgren emailed57 Zolotko again and asked her for a breakdown of
Respondent’s fully loaded rate. Receiving no response, Lovgren emailed58 Zolotko again on
April 24, 2014. On April 30, 2014, after still having received no response from Zolotko, Union
AWPPW representative Anderson sent yet another letter59 to Zolotko requesting, in pertinent
part:5
. . . a written description of how the company calculated the hourly rates that you
have included in the 2 invoices you sent to Locals 580 and 633.
a. Please identify the exact cost of your justification for each of the costs in the 10
bill and invoice you sent to our unions 580 and 633 for bargaining related
expenses.
b. Please explain in detail how you calculated the amounts that are contained in
the invoices you sent to Locals 580 and 633.
15
On May 19, 2014, Zolotko emailed60 Lovgren payroll records for the employees who
were on the bargaining committees for the specified time periods. That day, Zolotko sent an
email61 to Lovgren stating: “I just sent you the bargain board payroll data. It seems redundant,
since you all were at the bargain and you all have access to your payroll records . . . so,
collectively you’ve had this data all along.” 20
The records Zolotko sent failed to reflect what the Locals were requesting, however, as
there was no indication as to which benefits Respondent had added in calculating their “fully
loaded” rate and/or how those benefits were calculated.
25
On June 5, 2014, Anderson emailed62 Zolotko expressing that the Locals still had
not received the information requested stating:
It is my understanding that on the original bill the Union received, the Company
was charging an amount that was greater than the hourly rates of the bargaining 30
board members. When the Union asked the Company why this was, they were
told that they were “uploaded rates.” The Union has asked for an itemized bill
breaking down just what these uploaded rates were comprised of. Diana has
refused to give the Union this information, only stating that this was how the
Company charged the Union during Extruder bargaining.35
Zolotko responded63 that she had sent employee paystubs to Lovgren.

57 GC Exh. 11.
58 GC Exh. 12.
59 GC Exh. 14.
60 GC Exh. 15.
61 GC Exh. 16.
62 GC Exh. 17.
63 Ibid.
JD(SF)–12–15
32
On August 15, and 18, 2014, Lovgren again emailed64 Zolotko explaining that the payroll
records did not break down the amount taken into consideration by Respondent in coming up
with its lump-sum amounts and he renewed his request for the information yet again.
On September 18, 2014, Respondent finally provided the breakdown of what was 5
included in the “fully loaded” rate.65
ii. The analysis
General Counsel argues that Respondent unreasonably delayed in furnishing relevant
information to the Union. Respondent contends that the issue is moot since Respondent 10
ultimately furnished the requested information.
An employer is under an obligation to furnish a union with relevant information
necessary for the performance of the union's duties in representing the unit employees
and for administration of a collective-bargaining agreement. NLRB v. Acme Indus. Co., 385 U.S. 15
432 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956); Safeway Stores, 252 NLRB 1323
(1980); Westinghouse Electric Corp., 239 NLRB 106, 107 (1978). The standard for determining
the relevance of information sought by a bargaining agent in conjunction with administration of a
collective-bargaining agreement was set forth in Westinghouse:
20
It is well established that a labor organization, obligated to represent employees in a
bargaining unit with respect to their terms and conditions of employment, is entitled to
such information from the employer as may be relevant and reasonably necessary to the
proper execution of that obligation. The right to such information exists not only for the
purpose of negotiating a contract, but also for the purpose of administering a collective-25
bargaining agreement. The employer's obligation, in either instance, is predicated upon
the need of the union for such information in order to provide intelligent representation of
the employees. The test of the union's need for such information is simply a showing of
"probability that the desired information was relevant, and that it would be of use to the
union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities.” The union need not 30
demonstrate that the information sought is certainly relevant or clearly dispositive of the
basic negotiating or arbitration issues between the parties. The fact that the information is
of probable or potential relevance is sufficient to give rise to an obligation on the part of
an employer to provide it. The appropriate standard in determining the potential
relevance of information sought in aid of the bargaining agent's responsibility is a liberal 35
discovery-type standard. Id at 107
Here Local 633 sought an explanation of the invoice Respondent had provided for Local
633 to reimburse Respondent for bargaining unit members pay during bargaining time. While
Respondent does not contest the relevancy of this information, I find the information sought here 40
was relevant not only to the Union’s administration of its oral agreement with Respondent for
reimbursement of its members’ bargaining pay but also for its ability to negotiate the parties’
successor collective-bargaining agreement. The oral agreement was established to facilitate the
Local 633 bargaining committee members’ pay during bargaining sessions and thus was of

64 GC Exh. 18.
65 GC Exh. 19.
JD(SF)–12–15
33
benefit to Local 633 in engaging in bargaining for a successor contract with Respondent. Local
633 requested information to ensure the appropriate amount of money for bargaining committee
members had been included in Respondent’s invoice for the Union’s reimbursement, per the
parties’ agreement. While Zolotko claimed in her email that the information could be
ascertained from the bargaining committee members’ paystubs, the exact breakdown of the 5
lump-sum amounts set forth in Respondent’s invoice, including which employee benefits were
included, could not be established from general paystub information provided.
Thus, Respondent failed to provide the Locals with the breakdown of those numbers until
after the complaint issued herein 20 weeks after the information was requested. No explanation 10
was offered as to why Respondent failed to produce the requested information for 20 weeks.
Respondent’s sole defense is that it ultimately gave the information to the Union. Under these
circumstances I find that Respondent’s failure to provide the requested information until
September 18, 2014, was an unreasonable delay and violated its duty to provide the Locals with
information in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 15
d. The May 1, 2014 request
Complaint paragraph 16(a) alleges that since about May 1, 2014, the Union has requested
the following information of Respondent: (i) The questions asked at the fact finding; (ii) The 20
answers as recorded by Dave Kay and Bob Montgomery at the fact finding; (iii) The reasons for
these questions; (iv) Emails about this incident; (v) A list of all complaints against Rick Olsen;
and (vi) Who complained—what was said and personal notes/conversations about the incident.
Complaint paragraph 16(c) alleges that since about May 8, 2014, Respondent has failed 25
and refused to furnish the Union with (iii) The reasons for these questions;
(iv) Emails about this incident; (v) A list of all complaints against Rick Olsen.
Complaint paragraph 16(d) alleges that from May 8, 2014, to about June 5, 2014,
Respondent unreasonably delayed in furnishing the Union with (i)The questions asked at the fact 30
finding; (ii) The answers as recorded by Dave Kay and Bob Montgomery at the fact finding; (vi)
Who complained—what was said and Personal notes/conversations about the incident.
i. The facts
35
On April 28, 2014, Local 580 Shop Steward Mike Mirenta (Mirenta) participated in a fact
finding meeting, representing E & I Tech Rick Olson (Olson). Central services Superintendent
Kay and TDM Bob Montgomery (Montgomery) were also present during the meeting. During
the meeting, Kay asked Olson a series of questions about a call that he received while he was on
duty in the power house. At the end of the meeting, Mirenta asked Kay who had made the 40
complaint about employee Olson. Kay replied that Mirenta would have to ask the human
resources department for that information. Mirenta also asked for a copy of the questions that
Kay had asked Olson during the fact finding as well as any notes of Olson’s responses made
during the interview. Again Kay said that Mirenta would have to go through human resources to
get that information. 45
JD(SF)–12–15
34
After the meeting Mirenta went to the human resources office to follow up on his
information requests. Mirenta asked Zolotko if he needed to fill out a specific form in order to
make an information request. Zolotko told Mirenta that if he wanted the form, he could get one
from Local 580. When Mirenta asked Zolotko if he could send her an email asking for the
information, Zolotko replied that she did not think an email would work. 5
Later Mirenta spoke with Local 580 President Silvery, who told Mirenta that email was
an appropriate way to make an information request. On May 1, 2014, Mirenta emailed66 Zolotko
an information request for the following information regarding the Olson fact finding:
10
The questions asked at the fact finding; The answers as recorded by Dave Kay &
Bob Montgomery at the fact finding; The reasons for these questions; E-mails
about this incident; List all the complaints against Rick Olson; Who complained;
What was said Personal notes/conversations about the incident
15
On June 5, 2014, Zolotko responded67 to Mirenta’s information request. Zolotko attached
two sets of fact finding notes for Olson and James Pruitt to an email sent to the Local 580
Standing Committee with a copy to Mirenta.68 Zolotko failed to provide the reasons behind the
questions asked in Olson’s fact finding, emails about the incident, or complaints against Olson.
It is undisputed that Zolotko never provided the requested items, never told Local 580 that the 20
information requested did not exist, and never explained why she was not providing Local 580
with the requested information.
In its brief Respondent contends that the investigation into Olson’s conduct had not been
completed at the time of Mirenta’s request and on June 5, 2014, when the investigation was 25
completed, it responded to the information request and provided all available documents.
ii. The analysis
General Counsel takes the position that Respondent unreasonably delayed in furnishing 30
and refused to furnish requested information. Respondent argues the investigation was not
completed until June 5, 2014, and that it provided all available documents.
The Union requested information concerning a fact finding regarding a bargaining unit
member that could lead to discipline and ultimately a grievance. The information requested was 35
therefore presumptively relevant. Island Creek Coal Co., 292 NLRB 480, 487 (1989). Zolotko
provided some of the requested materials, two sets of fact finding notes, 5 weeks after the initial
request on June 5, 2014. There is no evidence that the fact finding notes were difficult to obtain.
In its June 5, 2014 partial production69 of information, Respondent asserted that “Our
investigation is now complete.” In its brief Respondent asserts that, when the investigation was 40
completed, it responded to the information request and provided all available documents.
However, the record is devoid of any evidence as to when Respondent completed its

66 GC Exh. 50.
67 GC Exh. 51.
68 GC Exh. 52.
69 Ibid.
JD(SF)–12–15
35
investigation or that this in some way absolved it of its duty to furnish the requested information
before June 5. Further there is no record evidence that there was no other information responsive
to the May 1 information request or that Respondent ever so notified the Union.
Under all of the circumstances, including the clarity and lack of complexity of the 5
request, the relative ease of recovering the information and the absence of a rationale for the
delay in providing the requested information, I conclude that Respondent unreasonably delayed
in providing the information for over 5 weeks and thereby violated section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 339 NLRB 871 (2003); USPS, 332 NLRB 635, 638 (2000);
Overnight Transportation Co., 330 NLRB No. 1275 (2000).10
Further, Respondent’s failure to provide all of the information in the May 1 information
request violates Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Respondent’s bare assertion in its brief that it
provided all available documents is insufficient explanation for its failure to provide the
requested documents. By failing to provide all of the requested documents and by failing to 15
inform the Union in a timely manner that it had no further documents, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. USPS, 332 NLRB 635, 639 (2000).
REMEDY
20
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The evidence having established that the Respondent suspended its employee Steve 25
Collins, my recommended order requires the Respondent to make him whole without loss of
seniority and other privileges previously enjoyed, and to make him whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. My
recommended order further requires that backpay shall be computed in accordance with F.W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 30
1173 (1987), plus daily compound interest as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356
NLRB No. 8 (2010).
The recommended Order also requires that the Respondent shall expunge from its files
and records any and all references to the unlawful suspension and to notify Collins in writing that 35
this has been done and that the unlawful discrimination will not be used against him in any way.
Sterling Sugars, Inc., 261 NLRB 472 (1982). Further, the Respondent must not make any
reference to the expunged material in response to any inquiry from any employer, employment
agency, unemployment insurance office, or reference seeker, or use the expunged material
against them in any other way.40
The Respondent shall be required to post a notice that assures its employees that it will
respect their rights under the Act. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall
be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such 45
means. J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
JD(SF)–12–15
36
The Board has held that discriminatees be reimbursed for any excess taxes owed as a
result of a lump-sum backpay award and that Respondent be ordered to complete the
appropriate paperwork as set forth in IRS Publication 975 to notify the Social Security
Administration what periods to which the backpay should be allocated as requested in the
remedy section of the complaint herein.5
In Don Chavas LLC d/b/a Tortillas Dan Chavas, 361 NLRB No. 10 (2014), Board
ordered that it will routinely require the filing of a report with the Social Security Administration
allocating backpay awards to the appropriate calendar quarters. The Board also held that it will
routinely require respondents to compensate employees for the adverse tax consequences of 10
receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year. The
Board concluded that it is the General Counsel’s burden to prove and quantify the extent of any
adverse tax consequences resulting from the lump-sum backpay award and that such matters
shall be resolved in compliance proceedings.
15
Pursuant to Tortillas Dan Chavas supra, I will order that Respondent shall file a report
with the Social Security Administration allocating any backpay awards to the appropriate
calendar quarters.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW20
1. Respondent Weyerhaeuser Company is an employer engaged in commerce and in an
industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, affiliated with the United 25
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (AWPPA) and its Locals 580 and 633
(Unions) are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and are the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of Respondent’s employees in the following
appropriate collective bargaining units:
30
Local 633 represents a unit of Respondent’s 75 extruders (extruder unit) including:
All employees of Respondent at its Longview, Washington extruder operation,
except those employees engaged in administration, actual supervision, watchman
duties, sales, engineering and drafting, research and technical occupations 35
requiring professional training, accounting, office clerical and guards, supervisors,
and professional employees as defined in the Act.
Local 633 also represents a unit of Respondent’s 125 paperboard employees (paperboard
unit) including:40
All employees of Respondent working in its paperboard, shipping, L 3 paper
machine, and L 3 technical departments at its Longview facility, except those
engaged in administration, actual supervision, watchman duties, sales,
engineering and drafting, research and technical occupations requiring 45
professional training, accounting, clerical, stenographic and other clerical work.
Also excluded are guards, supervisors, and professional employees as defined in
the Act.
JD(SF)–12–15
37
Local 580 represents a unit of Respondent’s 250 energy and utility, maintenance, fiberline, and
chip processing employees (Local 580 unit) including:
All employees of Respondent at its Longview facility, except those employees in 5
Respondents extruder, paperboard, shipping, L 3 paper machine, L 3 technical
departments, and those employees engaged in administration, actual supervision,
watchman duties, sales, engineering and drafting, research and technical
occupations requiring professional training, accounting, stenographic and other
clerical work. Also excluded are guards, supervisors, and professional employees 10
as defined in the Act.
3. By engaging in the following conduct, the Respondent committed unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act:
15
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain in good faith with Association of Western
Pulp and Paper Workers, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America (AWPPA) and its Locals 580 and 633 (Unions),the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the following
collective-bargaining units:20
The Local 633 unit of Respondent’s 75 extruders (extruder unit) including:
All employees of Respondent at its Longview, Washington extruder
operation, except those employees engaged in administration, actual 25
supervision, watchman duties, sales, engineering and drafting, research
and technical occupations requiring professional training, accounting,
office clerical and guards, supervisors, and professional employees as
defined in the Act.
30
The Local 633 unit of Respondent’s 125 paperboard employees (paperboard unit)
including:
All employees of Respondent working in its paperboard, shipping, L 3 paper
machine, and L 3 technical departments at its Longview facility, except 35
those engaged in administration, actual supervision, watchman duties, sales,
engineering and drafting, research and technical occupations requiring
professional training, accounting, clerical, stenographic and other clerical
work. Also excluded are guards, supervisors, and professional employees as
defined in the Act.40
The Local 580 unit of Respondent’s 250 energy and utility, maintenance, fiberline
and chip processing employees (Local 580 unit) including:
All employees of Respondent at its Longview facility, except those 45
employees in Respondents extruder, paperboard, shipping, L 3 paper
machine, L 3 technical departments, and those employees engaged in
administration, actual supervision, watchman duties, sales, engineering and
JD(SF)–12–15
38
drafting, research and technical occupations requiring professional training,
accounting, stenographic and other clerical work. Also excluded are guards,
supervisors, and professional employees as defined in the Act.
(b) Unilaterally implementing food safety rules without notice to or bargaining 5
with the Unions.
(c) Unilaterally implementing new evaluation processes for the E & U department
employees without notice to or bargaining with the Unions.
10
(d) Unilaterally changing the hours of E & U department employees without notice
to or bargaining with the Unions.
(e) Refusing to provide and unreasonably delaying in providing the Unions with
information relevant and necessary to its function as collective-bargaining 15
representative of bargaining unit employees.
4. By engaging in the following conduct, the Respondent committed unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
20
(a) Suspending Steve Collins because he exercise his right to bring issues and
complaints to Respondent on behalf of himself and other employees.
(b) Denying Steve Collins and Joyce Becker their right to effective union
representation in an interview that could reasonably lead to discipline by telling 25
the representative to remain silent.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended70
30
ORDER
Respondent, Weyerhaeuser Company, located in Federal Way, Washington, and with a
facility located in Longview, Washington, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
35
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain in good faith with Association of Western Pulp
and Paper Workers, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
(AWPPA) and its Locals 580 and 633 (Unions),the exclusive collective-bargaining 40
representative of its employees in the following collective bargaining units:
The Local 633 unit of Respondent’s 75 extruders (extruder unit) including:

70 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections shall be waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)–12–15
39
All employees of Respondent at its Longview, Washington extruder
operation, except those employees engaged in administration, actual
supervision, watchman duties, sales, engineering and drafting, research and
technical occupations requiring professional training, accounting, office
clerical and guards, supervisors, and professional employees as defined in the 5
Act.
The Local 633 unit of Respondent’s 125 paperboard employees (paperboard unit)
including:
10
All employees of Respondent working in its paperboard, shipping, L 3 paper
machine, and L 3 technical departments at its Longview facility, except those
engaged in administration, actual supervision, watchman duties, sales,
engineering and drafting, research and technical occupations requiring
professional training, accounting, clerical, stenographic and other clerical 15
work. Also excluded are guards, supervisors, and professional employees as
defined in the Act.
The Local 580 unit of Respondent’s 250 energy and utility, maintenance, fiberline
and chip processing employees (Local 580 unit) including:20
All employees of Respondent at its Longview facility, except those employees
in Respondents extruder, paperboard, shipping, L 3 paper machine, L 3
technical departments, and those employees engaged in administration, actual
supervision, watchman duties, sales, engineering and drafting, research and 25
technical occupations requiring professional training, accounting,
stenographic and other clerical work. Also excluded are guards, supervisors,
and professional employees as defined in the Act.
(b) Unilaterally implementing food safety rules without notice to or bargaining with 30
the Unions.
(c) Unilaterally implementing new evaluation processes for the E & U department
employees without notice to or bargaining with the Unions.
35
(d) Unilaterally changing the hours of E & U department employees without notice to
or bargaining with the Unions.
(e) Refusing to provide and unreasonably delaying in providing the Unions with
information relevant and necessary to its function as collective-bargaining representative of 40
bargaining unit employees.
(f) Suspending you because you exercise your right to bring issues and complaints to
us on behalf of yourself and other employees.
45
(g) Denying your right to effective union representation in an interview that could
reasonably lead to discipline by telling the representative to remain silent.
JD(SF)–12–15
40
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
5
(a) The Respondent shall be required to post a notice that assures its employees that it
will respect their rights under the Act. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or internet site, and/or
other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).10
(b) Provide AWPPW Locals 580 and 633 with the information they requested on
April 2, 24, and April 30, 2014.
(c) Make Steve Collins whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as 15
a result of his suspension, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
(d) Remove from our files all references to the discipline of Steve Collins and notify
him in writing that this has been done and that the suspension will not be used against him in any
way. 20
(e) Provide the AWPPW Locals 580 and 633 with the information they requested on
April 2, 24, and 30, 2014, and May 1, 2014.
(f) Upon the request of AWPPW Local 580, rescind any or all changes to your terms
and conditions of employment that we made without first bargaining with the Union, including 25
changes made to the way we conduct training evaluations (also known as “qualification
reviews”) and changes to our trainees’ work schedules.
(g) Upon request of AWPPW Local 580 and/or AWPPW Local 633, rescind any or
all changes to your terms and conditions of employment that we made without first bargaining 30
with the Union, including the new food safety rules implemented in January and February 2014
at our Longview facility.
(h) Restore our training evaluation/qualification review system for our Energy and
Utility employees to as it was prior to October 2013.35
(i) Arrange for any Energy and Utility employees who are currently in the process of
going through such evaluations/qualification reviews to be interviewed, evaluated, and promoted
under our evaluation process in place prior to October 2013.
40
(j) Pay employees for the wages and other benefits lost because of the changes to
terms and conditions of employment that we made without bargaining with AWPPW Local 580
and/or AWPPW 633.
(k) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional 45
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
JD(SF)–12–15
41
and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(l) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at facilities in Longview,
Washington copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”71 Copies of the notice, on forms 5
provided by the Regional Director for Region 19 after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic 10
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to 15
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
June 10, 2013.
(m) Within 21 days after service by the Region, filed with the Regional Director
for Region 19 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region 20
attesting to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 25, 2015
25

71 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.”
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.
After a trial at which we appeared, argued, and presented evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has directed us to post this notice to
employees and to abide by its terms.
Accordingly, we give our employees the following assurances:
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with the Association of Western Pulp and Paper
Workers Union, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 580
(“AWPPW Local 580”), as the exclusive representative of our employees in the following appropriate
unit (“580 Unit”):
All our employees working in our Longview facility, except those employees in our extruder,
paperboard, shipping, L 3 paper machine, and L 3 technical departments, and those
employees engaged in administration, actual supervision, watchman duties, sales, engineering
and drafting, research and technical occupations requiring professional training, accounting,
clerical, stenographic and other office work. Also excluded are guards, supervisors, and
professional employees as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with the Association of Western Pulp and Paper
Workers Union, affiliated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 633
(the “AWPPW Local 633”), as the exclusive representative of our employees in the following appropriate
unit (“Paperboard Unit”):
All our employees working in its paperboard, shipping, L 3 paper machine, and L 3 technical
departments at our Longview facility, except those engaged in administration, actual
supervision, watchman duties, sales, engineering and drafting, research and technical
occupations requiring professional training, accounting, clerical, stenographic, and other
clerical work.
Also excluded are guards, supervisors, and professional employees as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with the AWPPW Local 633, as the exclusive
representative of our employees in the following appropriate unit (“Extruder Unit”):
All our employees at our Longview, Washington extruder operation, except those employees
engaged in administration, actual supervision, watchman duties, sales, engineering and
drafting, research and technical occupations requiring professional training, accounting,
office clerical and guards, supervisors, and professional employees as defined in the Act.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT to freely bring issues and complaints to us on behalf of yourself and other
employees and WE WILL NOT do anything to interfere with your exercise of that right.
WE WILL NOT suspend you because you exercise your right to bring issues and complaints to us on
behalf of yourself and other employees.
WE WILL NOT deny employees effective union representation at fact finding interviews that could
reasonably lead to discipline by telling the representatives to be silent.
WE WILL NOT unreasonably delay in providing AWPPW Locals 580 and 633 with information that is
relevant and necessary to its role as your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide AWPPW Locals 580 and 633 with information that is relevant and
necessary to its role as your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT refuse to meet and discuss in good faith with AWPPW Locals 580 and 633 any
proposed changes in your wages, hours and working conditions before putting such changes into effect.
WE WILL NOT remove union fliers from facility bulletin boards designated for use by AWPPW Locals
580 and 633.
WE WILL provide AWPPW Locals 580 and 633 with the information they requested on April 2, 24, and
30, 2014.
WE WILL pay Steve Collins for the wages and other benefits he lost because we disciplined him.
WE WILL remove from our files all references to the discipline of Steve Collins and WE WILL notify
him in writing that this has been done and that the suspension will not be used against him in any way.
WE HAVE provided the AWPPW Locals 580 and 633 with the information they requested on April 24
and 30, 2014.
WE WILL provide the AWPPW Locals 580 and 633 with all of the information they requested on April
2, 2014, and May 1, 2014.
WE WILL, if requested by AWPPW Local 580, rescind any or all changes to your terms and conditions
of employment that we made without first bargaining with the Union, including changes made to the way
we conduct training evaluations (also known as “qualification reviews”) and changes to our trainees’
work schedules.
WE WILL, if requested by AWPPW Local 580 and/or AWPPW Local 633, rescind any or all changes to
your terms and conditions of employment that we made without first bargaining with the Union,
including the new food safety rules implemented in January and February 2014 at our Longview facility.
WE WILL restore our training evaluation/qualification review system for our Energy and Utility
employees to as it was prior to October 2013.
WE WILL, arrange for any Energy and Utility employees who are currently in the process of going
through such evaluations/qualification reviews to be interviewed, evaluated, and promoted under our
evaluation process in place prior to October 2013.
WE WILL pay employees for the wages and other benefits lost because of the changes to terms and
conditions of employment that we made without bargaining with AWPPW Local 580 and/or AWPPW
633.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with your rights under Section 7 of the Act.
WEYERHAEUSER CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
915 2nd Avenue, Room 2948, Seattle, WA 98174-1078
(206) 220-6300, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-122853 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND
MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE
REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (206) 220-6284.