Zeigler Lincolnwood d/b/a Zeigler Buick GMC of Lincolnwood & Cadillac of Lincolnwood

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Sep 5, 2019

13-CA-225984 (N.L.R.B. Sep. 5, 2019)

Lincolnwood and North Riverside, Illinois
JD–70-19
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ZEIGLER NORTH RIVERSIDE, LLC D/B/A
ZEIGLER FORD OF NORTH RIVERSIDE
and Cases 13–CA–225984
13–CA–230635
ZEIGLER LINCOLNWOOD D/B/A ZEIGLER 13–CA–233695
BUICK GMC OF LINCOLNWOOD & 13–CA–233700
CADILLAC OF LINCOLNWOOD 13–CA–235867
and

LOCAL LODGE 701, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO
Christina Hill, Esq., for the General Counsel.
James F. Hendricks, Jr., Esq., (Leech Tishman Fuscaldo &
Lampl), of Oak Brook, Illinois for the Respondent.
Rick Mickschl (International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers), of Joliet, Illinois for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
CHARLES J. MUHL, Administrative Law Judge. A perfectly-clear successor’s bargaining
obligation under the National Labor Relations Act is to maintain the status quo conditions of
employment under the predecessor, until it bargains to agreement or impasse with the
representative union over terms of a new collective-bargaining agreement for the successor
work force. In 2018, the Zeigler Auto Group purchased auto dealerships located in
Lincolnwood and North Riverside, Illinois. At the time of the purchases, auto technicians at
both dealerships were represented by Machinists Local 701 and were covered by existing
collective-bargaining agreements. When taking over, Zeigler Lincolnwood and Zeigler North
Riverside admittedly were perfectly-clear successors and were required to maintain the status
JD–70-19
-2-
quo working conditions. The General Counsel’s complaint principally alleges that Zeigler
Lincolnwood violated Section 8(a)(5) by prematurely declaring impasse and implementing its
last, best, and final offer, which changed the technicians’ health insurance and retirement
benefits and eliminated their weekly guaranteed minimum pay. The complaint also alleges that
Zeigler North Riverside made numerous unlawful unilateral changes to its technicians’ working 5
conditions, most of which occurred even before bargaining for that dealership began. Finally,
the complaint alleges that, once the parties reached agreement on a contract which would apply
at both dealerships, President Aaron Zeigler unlawfully refused to sign the agreements. I
conclude the record evidence establishes all of these alleged violations.
10
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 21, 2018, Local Lodge 701 of the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (the Union or Machinists Local 701) initiated this case by filing
the original unfair labor practice charge in Case 13–CA–225984 against Zeigler Lincolnwood 15
d/b/a Zeigler Buick GMC of Lincolnwood and Zeigler Cadillac of Lincolnwood (Zeigler
Lincolnwood). On October 30, 2018, the Union filed a first amended charge against Zeigler
Lincolnwood in Case 13–CA–225984. On November 6, 2018, the Union filed an original unfair
labor practice charge in Case 13–CA–230635 against Zeigler North Riverside, LLC d/b/a Ziegler
Ford of North Riverside (Zeigler North Riverside). Thereafter, the Union filed these new or 20
amended charges:

DATE CASE NUMBER CHARGE RESPONDENT
November 29, 2018 13–CA–230635 First amended Zeigler North Riverside
January 8, 2019 13–CA–233700 Original Zeigler North Riverside
January 8, 2019 13–CA–233695 Original Zeigler Lincolnwood
On January 9, 2019, the General Counsel, through the Regional Director for Region 13 of the
National Labor Relations Board (the Board), issued a complaint against Zeigler Lincolnwood in 25
Case 13–CA–225984. Subsequent to the complaint issuing, the Union filed these new or
amended charges:
DATE CASE NUMBER CHARGE RESPONDENT
February 13, 2019 13–CA–235867 Original Zeigler Lincolnwood
February 20, 2019 13–CA–230635 Second amended Zeigler North Riverside
On March 1, 2019, the General Counsel issued a consolidated complaint against both Zeigler 30
Lincolnwood and Zeigler North Riverside (collectively, the Respondents) in Cases 13–CA–
225984, 13–CA–230635, 13–CA–233695, and 13–CA–233700. On March 13, 2019, the
Respondents filed a timely answer to the consolidated complaint. On March 26, 2019, the
General Counsel issued a second consolidated complaint, adding Case 13–CA–235867 to the
previously consolidated cases. On April 9, 2019, the Respondents filed a timely answer. The 35
second consolidated complaint alleges the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of
JD–70-19
-3-
the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) in numerous manners during bargaining for
collective-bargaining agreements between the Union and each respondent. On April 22 and 23,
2019, in Chicago, Illinois, I conducted a trial on the complaint.1 On June 11, 2019, the General
Counsel and the Respondents filed posthearing briefs. On the entire record and after
considering those briefs, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.25
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION, LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS, AND SUCCESSORSHIP
Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood is an auto dealership engaged in the retail sale and 10
service of new and used vehicles, from its facility in Lincolnwood, Illinois. In conducting its
business operations during the 12-month period ending December 31, 2018, Respondent Zeigler
Lincolnwood derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000, as well as purchased and received
goods and materials valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points outside the State of Illinois.
Respondent Zeigler North Riverside likewise is an auto dealership engaged in the retail sale 15
and service of new and used vehicles, from its facility in North Riverside, Illinois. In
conducting its business operations during the 12-month period ending December 31, 2018,
Respondent Zeigler North Riverside derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000, as well as
purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points
outside the State of Illinois. Accordingly, I find, as the Respondents admit, that Zeigler 20
Lincolnwood and Zeigler North Riverside are employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. I also find, as the Respondents admit, that the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
On February 28, 2018, Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood purchased the business of 25
Grossinger Auto Group (Grossinger). Since then, Zeigler Lincolnwood has continued to operate
the business of Grossinger in basically unchanged form. It also has employed, as a majority of
its employees, individuals who were previously employed by Grossinger. As a result, Zeigler

1 In the second consolidated complaint, the General Counsel also added Cases 13–CA–230375,
13–CA–235144, and 13–CA-235147, which involved charges filed by Teamsters Local 731, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO against the Respondents. The trial included evidence presentation
on those complaint allegations. On June 10, 2019 following the hearing, the General Counsel, Teamsters
Local 731, and both Respondents reached an informal Board settlement resolving the allegations. On
June 17, 2019, I approved the settlement agreement and severed those cases from this proceeding.
2 In order to aid review, I have included citations to the record in my findings of fact. The
citations are not necessarily exclusive or exhaustive. To ease the burden on the reader, I largely have
placed the citations in footnotes at the end of each paragraph. In assessing witnesses’ credibility, I have
considered their demeanors, the context of the testimony, the quality of their recollections, testimonial
consistency, the presence or absence of corroboration, the weight of the respective evidence, established
or admitted facts, inherent probabilities, and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the record as
a whole. See Double D Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305 (2003); Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623
(2001) (citing Shen Automotive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 589 (1996)), enfd. sub nom., 56 Fed. Appx.
516 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Where needed, I discuss specific credibility resolutions in my findings of fact.
JD–70-19
-4-
Lincolnwood has continued as the employing entity and is a perfectly-clear successor to
Grossinger, including as to its collective-bargaining obligations with the Union. On June 5,
2018, Respondent Zeigler North Riverside purchased the business of McCarthy Ford
(McCarthy). Since then, Zeigler North Riverside has continued to operate the business of
McCarthy in basically unchanged form. It also has employed, as a majority of its employees, 5
individuals who were previously employed by McCarthy. As a result, Zeigler North Riverside
has continued as the employing entity and is a perfectly-clear successor to McCarthy, including
as to its collective-bargaining obligations with the Union.3
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES10
Machinists Local 701 represents technicians at numerous auto dealerships in the Chicago
metropolitan area. The Union and the New Car Dealer Committee, a multiemployer bargaining
group, have negotiated a standard automotive collective-bargaining agreement, to which
approximately 135 dealerships are signatories. The latest standard agreement runs from 15
August 1, 2017 to August 31, 2021. Going back 65 years, the Union represented a bargaining
unit of technicians at the Grossinger Auto Dealership in Lincolnwood, Illinois. Grossinger was
under the standard automotive agreement during that entire time, except for its last contract
which it negotiated on its own with the Union. At times material to this case, Robert Lessman
was the senior business representative for the Union. His job duties included negotiating most 20
of the contracts in the auto sector. Lessman had held that position since October 2003.
In February 2018, Lessman received a letter from an attorney representing Grossinger
informing the Union that the dealership was going to be sold to the Zeigler Auto Group.4 The
sale was completed on February 28. At Zeigler Lincolnwood, Aaron Zeigler is the president 25
and Robbie Long is the service director.
A. Bargaining for an Initial Contract Between Zeigler Lincolnwood and the Union
After learning of the dealership’s change in ownership, Lessman reached out to James 30
Hendricks, an attorney whom he had known for about 30 years and who previously had done
some work for Zeigler. Hendricks advised Lessman he was representing Zeigler Lincolnwood.
The two agreed to meet on March 29 to begin negotiations for a collective-bargaining
agreement. At the first session, Lessman was joined by Anthony Albergo, the servicing
business representative for the dealership, and Mark Galuski, an employee and union steward. 35
Hendricks was the only representative for Zeigler Lincolnwood. He remained the lone
representative throughout negotiations.
During bargaining on March 29, the Union passed the last Grossinger contract and
proposed that Zeigler continue its terms. The Grossinger contract/proposal included a “base 40

3 At the hearing, the Respondents stipulated to these factual findings and legal conclusions. Jt.
Exh. 43, pars. 2(a) through 2(f).
4 All dates hereinafter are in 2018, unless otherwise specified.
JD–70-19
-5-
pay” provision, which guaranteed technicians 35 hours of pay each week even if they did not
“book” that many hours. Each auto repair job completed by a technician is assigned a specific
amount of time for completion. The assigned time is what the technician books for pay
purposes, irrespective of how long it actually takes the technician to complete the job.5
5
The parties next met on April 4. Hendricks submitted a counterproposal to the Union,
seeking the deletion of provisions on union security, dues checkoff, seniority and its application
in layoffs and recalls, health insurance coverage and contributions through the union’s welfare
fund, and pensions through the union’s pension fund. Hendricks told Lessman that Aaron
Zeigler did not want to be in any trust fund and wanted to use the existing Zeigler Auto Group 10
health insurance plan. Lessman asked for a copy of that plan and its premium costs to unit
employees. Hendricks also told Lessman that Aaron Zeigler was not going to pay the base pay
guarantee and wanted it eliminated from the contract. Beyond that, Zeigler Lincolnwood
proposed no changes to the union’s wage proposal. On April 13, Lessman requested from
Hendricks a summary of benefits and coverage for every Zeigler health insurance plan. 15
Lessman wanted the information so that the union’s benefits administrator could compare the
union’s and Zeigler’s plans. On April 16, Hendricks sent Lessman a summary plan description
for Zeigler’s plans, but did not provide the premium costs to employees. On May 7, Hendricks
asked Lessman to provide dates for future negotiations. When Lessman responded that the
union’s health insurance comparison was not complete, Hendricks said he did not want the 20
negotiations to drag on without meeting. The two agreed to continue bargaining on June 6.6
At some point in June, Lessman received a call from Ray McCarthy, the owner of
McCarthy Ford in North Riverside. The Union also represented technicians there and the
dealership was a signatory to the standard automotive agreement between the Union and the25
New Car Dealer Committee. McCarthy told Lessman he was selling the dealership to the
Zeigler Auto Group. Lessman contacted Hendricks, who told him he would be representing
Zeigler North Riverside as well.7
At the June 6 session, Lessman provided Hendricks with the union’s health insurance 30
benefit comparison. He pointed out the difference in family deductibles, $500 annually for the
union’s plan compared to either $8,000 or $10,000 in the Zeigler plans. Hendricks responded
that was what the company was offering. Hendricks again did not provide the Union with the
employee premium costs. Lessman submitted a written information request for that
information at this session. He also requested information regarding employee eligibility and 35
participation in the Zeigler plans, as well as annual changes the past 3 years and proposed
changes effective November 1. Lessman wrote the information was critical to the union’s
bargaining, because employees’ health insurance was a significant issue.8

5 Tr. 61–62, 95, 139–143; GC Exh. 6, pp. 18–19, 43; Jt. Exh. 3, pp. 18–19, 43.
6 Tr. 144–154; Jt. Exhs. 4–7.
7 Tr. 176–177. I correct the transcript at line 6 on page 177 to read “successorship,” instead of
“censorship.”
8 Jt. Exhs. 7, 8; Tr. 153–158.
JD–70-19
-6-
On June 8, Hendricks submitted a response to Lessman’s information request. It
included employee participation rates and total costs (employer and employee combined) for
single, single plus one, and family coverage in each of the two Zeigler insurance plans. He also
provided “benefits at a glance” pamphlets for the past 3 years. However, the response again 5
did not include employee premium costs, nor did it include the specific benefit changes, if any,
the prior 3 years. Lessman responded, noting that only benefit guides were provided, not
modifications to the plans, and he would either have to figure out the changes on his own or
send it out for comparison. When Hendricks complained about another delay in bargaining,
Lessman responded that Zeigler Lincolnwood should have provided a summary of material 10
modifications to the plans, instead of the summary plan descriptions. Lessman also stated for
the first time: “Maybe Aaron needs to come to negotiations.”9
From June 23 to 25, Hendricks and Lessman exchanged emails regarding the date of the
next bargaining session. Lessman told Hendricks he was not available in June and he was still 15
“deciphering” the information provided by Zeigler Lincolnwood on June 8. When Hendricks
asked him what there was to decipher, Lessman responded that he needed to know whether
coverage was getting better or worse for employees in order to intelligently bargain on the
issue. Ultimately, the two agreed to meet again on July 3 at 4 p.m. at the Union’s hall.10
20
On June 25, Zeigler Auto Group took over as owner of McCarthy Ford. Aaron Zeigler
also became the president of Zeigler North Riverside. Brian Malpeli is the vice president/
general manager and Edgar Cortez is the service manager of the dealership. Immediately after
taking over, Zeigler North Riverside changed employees’ payroll period from weekly to
biweekly, without discussing the change with the Union.11 During the same timeframe at 25
Zeigler Lincolnwood, technician Carlos Martinez spoke to Service Director Robbie Long about
not getting vacation time he was seeking. Under the prior contract with Grossinger,
technicians’ vacation time was chosen by seniority. Martinez told Long he had more seniority
over another employee to take the vacation. Long told him it was not a union shop anymore
and she did not give a fuck about the 701 union.12 30
B. Zeigler Lincolnwood Implements Its Last, Best, and Final Offer
On July 3 at 1:19 p.m., Lessman emailed Hendricks and cancelled their bargaining
session scheduled for 4 p.m. that day, saying the Union had called a special meeting at 3:30 p.m. 35
Hendricks sent multiple responses to Lessman that same day, including one at 4 p.m. saying he

9 Jt. Exh. 9; Tr. 158–160.
10 Jt. Exhs. 9, 10; Tr. 160–161.
11 Tr. 96.
12 Tr. 60–61; GC Exh. 6, p. 21. Martinez’s testimony about what Long said is uncontroverted, as
Long did not testify.
JD–70-19
-7-
was at the union hall waiting. On the morning of July 4, Lessman responded and again told
Hendricks he was in a special meeting and had to change all of his plans.13
On July 6, Lessman emailed Hendricks an annotated contract with a proposed set of
tentative agreements, comprised of the provisions from the union’s initial March 29 contract 5
proposal to which Zeigler Lincolnwood did not object in its April 4 counterproposal. Lessman
also told Hendricks again that he needed the costs of health insurance for the prior 3 years. In
the annotated contract, the Union agreed to a number of Zeigler Lincolnwood’s requested
deletions. The first was the “customer pay menu” provision, under which the dealership’s
ability to offer discounts on repair jobs to customers was capped. The cap was desirable to unit 10
employees, because any discount offered to the customer also reduced the amount of time the
technician could book for the repair by the same percentage as the discount. By deleting the
provision, the dealership could determine the discount rate on its own and offer any amount.
The Union also agreed to delete the contract’s requirement that the dealership’s use of direct
deposit to pay employees could only be implemented upon a majority vote of the bargaining 15
unit. Furthermore, the Union conceded to deleting the provision under which employees
earned vacation time for up to a year, while they were receiving worker’s compensation due to
a workplace injury. Finally, the Union agreed to delete the base pay guarantee.14
On July 10, Hendricks sent Lessman an email stating:20
Since Local 701 has done everything to delay negotiations including
scheduling negotiations on July 3 at 4pm at your hall, and then not
showing up you have left me with no choice but to send you my
clients last, best and final offer for the bargaining unit. Please note 25
I have reduced it to one year and have increased the wage rates. If
I do not receive a response, we intend to implement this offer on
Monday, July 16.
Lessman responded the same day. He noted the lack of response from Hendricks to Lessman’s 30
July 6 email with the proposed tentative agreements and other union counterproposals. On
July 11, Hendricks responded, accusing the Union of “contrived stories” and saying he “won’t
allow more games.” Hendricks denied receiving any email from Lessman on July 6. He told
Lessman to vote the last, best, and final offer. In his response sent the same day, Lessman
offered to show the July 6 email to Hendricks. He also stated: “The three short bargaining 35
sessions we had hardly touched the surface. I also have an information request that has not
been complied with from my July 6th email.” Lessman asked for more bargaining dates, telling
Hendricks “we are still bargaining over the successor agreement.” Lessman suggested
Hendricks’ law firm check its email server for issues. On July 12, Lessman sent Hendricks a
screenshot of his July 6 email, which Hendricks again told Lessman he never received. On the 40
same date, Lessman received an auto-reply email stating that his July 6 message to Hendricks

13 Jt. Exh. 12; Tr. 161–162.
14 Tr. 163–171; Jt. Exh. 13, pp. 11–12, 16, 18, 21–22, 43.
JD–70-19
-8-
was “undeliverable” due to “unknown address error” and “message size exceeds fixed
maximum message size.”15
Also on July 12, Aaron Zeigler held a meeting with the Zeigler Lincolnwood technicians.
Zeigler told the employees he was not going to negotiate any further with the Union and they 5
were no longer going to be a union shop. He said he no longer would guarantee the technicians
35 hours of pay per week and they would get paid only for the jobs they booked. He said he
was implementing a new pay plan the following Monday without the base pay guarantee, but
with wage increases for technicians. He also told them he was not going to be involved in the
union’s underfunded pension plan and was not going to participate in the union’s health 10
insurance because he had his own insurance. He told the employees he would no longer
deduct union dues from their paychecks. Zeigler added that the technicians could work there,
work somewhere else, or they could go on strike but, if they did strike, he had replacements
lined up and could replace them right then and there. Technician and union steward Galuski
spoke up, telling Zeigler that they were still in negotiations and employees could not endure 15
such life-altering decisions in just 2 days. Zeigler briefly left the meeting. When he returned, he
told the group he called his attorney and the changes would not happen for a week.16
On July 13, Hendricks provided Lessman with the health insurance costs for the
dealership and employees, based on the type of coverage and plan, from November 1, 2017 to 20
October 31, 2018. In one plan, employees paid a premium of $347.23 per month for single
medical coverage and $1,041.67 per month for family medical coverage. In the second plan,
employees paid $278.66 per month for single medical coverage and $835.94 for family medical
coverage. The employer paid 56 percent and the employee 44 percent of the total premium cost.
Under the existing Grossinger contract, any technician employed when the agreement was 25
ratified paid nothing per month towards the premium for the union’s health insurance plan.17
During the week of July 23, Zeigler Lincolnwood implemented its last, best, and final
offer, including the elimination of the base pay guarantee.18 The dealership did not advise the
Union that it had done so. Prior to the elimination, technician Martinez’s biweekly gross pay 30
was $2,331, when he was paid the guarantee in both weeks. From July 23 to November 2 after
the elimination, Martinez’s biweekly gross pay ranged from $579.67 to $1,927.66. In August,
Martinez also lost his health insurance. He went to see his dentist and the receptionist asked
him for his insurance card. When Martinez produced his union insurance card, the receptionist

15 Jt. Exh. 14; Tr. 172–175.
16 Tr. 58–60; 303–306. I credit Galuski’s and technician Carlos Martinez’s uncontroverted
testimony concerning what Aaron Zeigler said in this meeting. I found both to be reliable witnesses and
Aaron Zeigler did not testify.
17 Jt. Exh. 15; GC Exh. 6, pp. 27–28; Tr. 180–184.
18 I base the finding as to the timing of the implementation on Galuski’s and Martinez’s pay
stubs, which show no guaranteed pay after the week of July 21. (GC Exhs. 3, 9.) That timing is consistent
with Aaron Zeigler’s statement at the July 12 meeting that he would wait a week (from the following
Monday, July 16) to implement the announced changes. Finally, Zeigler Lincolnwood admits in its brief
that it implemented its last, best, and final offer. (R. Brf., p. 4.)
JD–70-19
-9-
told him the insurance was terminated and he was responsible for his medical bills. Due to the
elimination of the base pay guarantee and loss of the union’s health insurance, Martinez
resigned his employment from Zeigler Lincolnwood on November 2. Martinez no longer could
make his mortgage payments or afford his and his family’s medical expenses under the Zeigler
plan. Prior to the elimination of the base pay guarantee, technician Galuski’s biweekly gross 5
pay was $2,443, when he was paid the guarantee in both weeks. From July 23 to August 17 after
the elimination, Galuski’s biweekly earnings ranged from $516.96 to $2,225.46. Due to the
decrease in his pay resulting from the elimination of the base pay guarantee, Galuski resigned
his employment with Zeigler Lincolnwood on August 17.19
10
C. Despite Zeigler Lincolnwood’s Implementation of the Last,
Best, and Final Offer, Bargaining Continues
Zeigler Lincolnwood and Machinists Local 701 next met for negotiations on August 6.
On that date, the Union agreed to delete the contract’s provision on dues checkoff, as well as the 15
provision allowing 10 percent of employees to be off on any given day. Lessman also submitted
a different information request to Hendricks. He sought all “side deals” between the dealership
and technicians, as well as payroll records for the technicians since Zeigler took over as owner.
Prior to making the request, unit employees informed Union Steward Galuski that Zeigler
Lincolnwood was making side deals with individual employees. At the next meeting on 20
August 15, Hendricks provided the Union with individual employment contracts the dealership
made with four employees on July 20, 24, and 30. The agreements provided a variety of
enhancements to terms and conditions of employment, including bonuses, insurance premium
rebates, sick days, continuation of existing holiday schedules and training paths, and annual
cost of living increases in pay. Hendricks told the union representatives he could not believe 25
the dealership put the agreements in writing.20
Also in early August, union representatives visited Zeigler Lincolnwood seeking to sign
up new employees to join the Union. After the representatives left the dealership, Service
Director Long approached Galuski and told him: “we’re no longer a union shop and you need 30
to get on board with that.”21
On August 31, the Union provided Zeigler Lincolnwood with a variety of new
counterproposals preceding their scheduled September bargaining dates. Among them was the

19 GC Exh. 3; Tr. 64–65, 67, 71–72, 307, 311–313. Martinez’s testimony about his pay rates before
and after the base pay guarantee lacked clarity (Tr. 64–66). Thus, I rely upon the pay stubs of Martinez
and Galuski in reaching the findings of fact concerning the reduction in their earnings.
20 Tr. 185–191, 244–246; Jt. Exhs. 17, 18. At the hearing, the Respondent stipulated to the
following with respect to these side deals: “About July 20, 2018, July 24, 2018, and July 30, 2018,
Respondent Lincolnwood by Robbie Long, at Respondent Lincolnwood's facility, bypassed Charging
Party Local 701 and dealt directly with its employees in the Lincolnwood 701 Unit by entering into
individual employment contracts with Lincolnwood 701 Unit employees.” (Jt. Exh. 43, par. 2(g).)
21 Tr. 307–308.
JD–70-19
-10-
offer to utilize the union’s alternative “B” pension plan, which had a lower employer
contribution rate than the existing pension plan and no withdrawal liability.22
D. Bargaining for an Initial Zeigler North Riverside Contract Begins
5
Meanwhile, at Zeigler North Riverside, Mark Grasseschi, the union’s business
representative, reached out via email to Aaron Zeigler regarding negotiations for an initial
collective-bargaining agreement at that dealership. On August 21, Zeigler responded:
There is no confusion on my part. Jim Hendricks has been in 10
contact with Local 701 representatives including a face to face
meeting last week where he once again requested to meet with 701
on [behalf] of the North Riverside location. Please direct all further
communication to Jim Hendrick[s].23
15
On September 6, the Union and Zeigler North Riverside held their first bargaining
session. The Union was represented by Lessman, Grasseschi, and Luis De Leon, a technician at
Zeigler North Riverside. Just prior to the session, Grasseschi emailed Hendricks and Aaron
Zeigler a copy of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and McCarthy Ford.
Grasseschi stated the Union would pass this agreement as its initial proposal at bargaining that 20
day. When the union representatives arrived for the session, Hendricks was on the phone with
Aaron Zeigler. After the call ended, Hendricks told the representatives he was the dealership’s
attorney and not to bother Aaron Zeigler with communications.24
In the same timeframe as the initial bargaining session, Zeigler North Riverside began 25
installing surveillance cameras throughout the property. Before then, the dealership had none.
A camera was put into each of the technician’s repair stalls. In addition, the dealership reduced
the number of hours a technician was paid for a wheel alignment job from 1.7 hours to 1 hour.
When technician Paul Gellert asked Service Manager Cortez why he was booked only 1 hour
for a wheel alignment, Cortez responded “that’s enough time.” Finally, at McCarthy Ford, 30
vacation time was determined by seniority. Around the same time that Zeigler took over, all
previously scheduled vacation for employees was rescinded. Gellert already had scheduled
time off during Christmas 2018. When he noticed another employee, not him, was now listed as
being off at that time, Gellert asked Cortez about it. Cortez told him technician Chris Morris
had the week off now and Gellert could not take it, because the dealership could not have two 35
technicians off that week. Gellert had 29 years of seniority compared to Morris’ 10 years. Also
in the fall of 2018 at Zeigler North Riverside, Gellert asked Cortez in a one-on-one conversation
if Zeigler Lincolnwood still was union. Cortez responded no, that employees voted the Union

22 Jt. Exh. 19; Tr. 148–149.
23 Jt. Exh. 38.
24 Jt. Exhs. 20, 21; Tr. 193–195.
JD–70-19
-11-
out. At other times, Cortez and Bob Neil, another supervisor, told Gellert that both stores were
no longer union.25
On September 18, Zeigler Lincolnwood held an open enrollment meeting to give
employees the opportunity to join the company’s health insurance plans. The announcement 5
for the meeting informed employees that the open enrollment period was the one opportunity
throughout the year to enroll in benefits and that all employees were required to attend the
meeting. Technician Martinez saw the announcement, took a picture of it, and sent it to
Albergo, the union’s business representative. Martinez later attended one of the mandatory
meetings that morning, along with other technicians and Albergo. Service Director Long and 10
other supervisors also were present, along with an insurance representative who gave the
presentation. The representative passed out an employee benefits enrollment guide to all the
employees. He told the group that these were the benefits which Zeigler offered and
recommended. Albergo stood up and told the technicians he did not recommend they elect the
Zeigler insurance, because they had insurance through the Union and it was a better, free plan. 15
Long told Albergo the dealership was not a union shop anymore, the meeting had nothing to do
with him, he was scaring the employees by being there, and he had to leave.26
After the bargaining session on September 19, the Union submitted an information
request for payroll records of all Zeigler Lincolnwood bargaining unit employees. The request 20
sought hours worked, hours booked, hours of base pay guarantee paid (if applicable), and
overtime paid, all by pay period. Lessman submitted the request after the Union heard from
some unit employees that they no longer were getting the 35 hours of minimum pay. Lessman
also asked that Aaron Zeigler check his availability to meet with the Union and discuss open
issues on both contracts being negotiated. On September 21, Hendricks responded:25
Aaron Zeigler will not be meeting with you, as I represent the
dealerships. As I noted in July, we are at impasse and have
implemented our last, best and final offer.
30
This was the first time Hendricks mentioned the last, best, and final offer to the Union since he
submitted it to them on July 10. Lessman responded the same day, telling Hendricks the parties
were not at impasse and asking for bargaining dates. The two exchanged additional messages
arguing about whether they were at impasse and why the Union was not available for
negotiations for another 6 weeks.2735
The parties’ next negotiation session was scheduled for October 25. Six days prior to
then, Grasseschi submitted an information request to Hendricks seeking all side deals between
Zeigler North Riverside and individual employees. He also requested payroll records from the
June 25 date Zeigler took over through October 19. The Union had heard from unit employees 40

25 Tr. 96–104, 113–115, 288–289.
26 Tr. 67–72, 90–92, 246–252; Jt. Exhs. 41, 43 (par. 2(i)); GC Exh. 7.
27 Jt. Exh. 22; Tr. 195–197.
JD–70-19
-12-
at North Riverside that the dealership was entering into employment contracts with individual
employees, as had occurred at Zeigler Lincolnwood. On October 21, Hendricks responded with
the payroll information. He also told Grasseschi “[t]here are no ‘side deals.’” However, when
Grasseschi reviewed the payroll information, he noticed several employees earning an hourly
rate in excess of the maximum one provided in the existing collective-bargaining agreement. At 5
some point in the same timeframe, Grasseschi visited Zeigler North Riverside and observed
camera cable hanging out of the ceiling all over the dealership. An employee told Grasseschi
about the surveillance cameras the dealership was installing. Grasseschi then submitted an
information request to Hendricks concerning the cameras.28
10
E. Negotiations for the Two Dealerships Are Merged and Side Deals Reemerge
At the meeting on October 25, the parties agreed to merge the negotiations for Zeigler
Lincolnwood and North Riverside because the same collective-bargaining agreement would
apply at both dealerships. Hendricks also tentatively agreed to the Union’s wage proposal, 15
which was the same one the Union had made in its initial contract proposal for Zeigler
Lincolnwood. Thus, Hendricks signed off on a different wage scale than the one contained in
Zeigler Lincolnwood’s last, best, and final offer.29
On October 31, Hendricks emailed Lessman and asked when Lessman would be 20
“voting.” Lessman responded that he could not do so until Hendricks provided him with what
the health insurance costs and coverages would be for the upcoming plan year from November
1, 2018 to October 31, 2019. Neither individual identified exactly what unit employees would
vote. On November 8, Hendricks provided the information to Lessman, which showed an
increase to employee costs.30 25
On November 8, Zeigler North Riverside technician Phil Haberland gave Cortez a
2-week notice of his intent to resign. Later the same day, Cortez told Haberland he spoke to
Malpeli, who wanted to know if Haberland would think about an offer. Haberland told Cortez
he would. A week later, Malpeli contacted Haberland directly and asked him for a dollar 30
amount. Haberland told Malpeli he wanted $44.30 per hour. On December 1, Cortez presented
a proposed agreement to Haberland, who signed it that day. The dealership raised Haberland’s
pay to $45.30 per hour, a dollar-per-hour more than he requested. The dealership also gave him
a monthly loyalty bonus of $1,180. Similarly, during the week of November 22, Malpeli and
Cortez met with De Leon. Malpeli said, moving forward, the dealership was going to be a 35
nonunion shop. He told De Leon he did good work and they wanted him to stay, so he was
offering to cover his insurance premiums for the month as a loyalty bonus. This was the first
time De Leon received such a bonus. During this same timeframe, Cortez gave De Leon a sheet
of paper outlining a new pay plan for him. The plan called for De Leon to receive a $4-per-hour
wage increase and the previously-discussed monthly loyalty bonus of $1,180. Cortez also gave 40

28 Jt. Exhs. 23, 24; Tr. 198–199, 267–270, 279–281.
29 Jt. Exh. 25; Tr. 199–206.
30 Jt. Exhs. 26, 27; Tr. 208–211.
JD–70-19
-13-
De Leon a draft of a letter from De Leon to the Union, in which De Leon would request his
resignation from the Union. De Leon never previously told Cortez he wished to resign from the
Union and refused to sign the letter draft. Nonetheless, shortly thereafter, De Leon received
both the wage increase and the monthly loyalty bonus. On December 3 and 10, Zeigler North
Riverside entered into additional individual employment contracts with three more bargaining 5
unit employees. These agreements likewise increased the employees’ wages and/or granted
them loyalty bonuses.31
On November 20, Hendricks sent the following reply32 to Grasseschi’s information
request regarding the surveillance cameras at Zeigler North Riverside:10
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner on the installation of
security cameras at the above facility. After the Zeigler purchase a
vehicle was stolen. All Zeigler dealerships have cameras. The
purpose of the cameras is to deter theft, record incidents when they 15
occur including break-ins, theft, employee, customer and public
injuries and any other incidents which would provide the company
security with a taped recording. The recordings are normally kept
for 30 days, unless it is determined there was an incident, in which
case it is held until such incident is resolved. Location of cameras 20
and camera angles are a matter of privacy and security. All areas
of the property are the focus of the cameras, except for areas of
privacy, such as washrooms, etc.
The cameras could be used for discipline, if such is necessary. Any 25
such discipline would be subject to the grievance procedure.
Should you care to negotiate on this, please let me know.
F. Hendricks and Lessman Reach a Tentative Agreement on a Complete Contract
30
On an unspecified date at the end of November at Zeigler North Riverside, Aaron
Zeigler held a meeting with all unit employees. Utilizing a PowerPoint slide show, Zeigler told
them about his “proposal,” saying they were going to get a $3-per-hour wage increase over the
current contract rate. He also said they would get his insurance, rather than the union’s
insurance, but his was just as good and cost $151 per paycheck. Zeigler told them he was not 35
going to pay into the union pension plan, but would offer the employees his 401(k). Zeigler
said, if the employees did not vote for his proposal, he would implement it, because bargaining

31 Tr. 116–122, 290–291, 295–298, 300–301; GC Exhs. 4, 8; Jt. Exhs. 39, 43 (par. 2(h)). Zeigler North
Riverside stipulated to the following at the hearing: “Beginning November 8, 2018, Respondent Zeigler
North Riverside dealt directly with its employees in the Riverside 701 Unit by entering into individual
employment contracts with Riverside 701 Unit employees.”
32 Jt. Exh. 40.
JD–70-19
-14-
was taking too long and he was done with it. He added, if they went on strike, he would no
longer talk to the Union and would replace the technicians.33
On November 27, Hendricks emailed Lessman a new, proposed wage scale for Zeigler
North Riverside, which differed from the one the two had tentatively agreed to on October 25. 5
The proposed wage rates were higher than those in either the October 25 tentative agreement or
Zeigler Lincolnwood’s July 10 last, best, and final offer. Hendricks also advised Lessman for the
first time that the employer’s 401(k) contribution match would be discretionary.34
The parties’ next bargaining session occurred on November 29. On that date, Lessman 10
provided Hendricks with revised proposals for both dealerships on wages, health insurance,
and 401(k). On wages, the Union updated the hourly wage rates to conform with the proposal
Hendricks sent on November 27. For health insurance, the Union agreed that employees
would get their medical care through the Zeigler plans. The proposal also included the
premium costs for the employer and employees for the current plan year, which Hendricks 15
provided on November 8. On retirement, the Union agreed that, going forward, employees
would be covered by Zeigler’s 401(k) plan instead of the union’s pension plan. These were the
last outstanding issues to reaching a complete agreement. Hendricks told Lessman he would
have to get Aaron Zeigler’s approval before the Union could vote the contract. In addition, the
two sides discussed the surveillance cameras at Zeigler North Riverside. Hendricks said the 20
dealership put in the cameras after a car was stolen. Grasseschi asked him what the reason was
for putting a camera in every technicians’ stall then. Hendricks responded that, if something
came up, the Union could just grieve it.35
On December 3, Lessman emailed Hendricks, told him the Union wanted to vote the 25
contracts that week, and asked when he would have the dealerships’ response to the Union’s
proposals on the remaining outstanding issues. He said the Union needed tentative agreements
on its proposals so it could vote a complete agreement. On December 5, Lessman and
Hendricks talked briefly about the Zeigler negotiations while meeting on a different matter.
Lessman again asked about the Union’s proposals and Hendricks responded he would have to 30

33 Tr. 104–106, 291–292. In reaching the findings of facts in this paragraph, I credit Gellert’s and
De Leon’s testimony about what Zeigler said in this meeting. The testimony is uncontroverted and both
witnesses testified with trustworthiness and conviction on this subject. However, contrary to the General
Counsel’s contention, I conclude Aaron Zeigler only held one meeting that month with technicians and
that it occurred at the end of November. In response to leading questions, Gellert testified that Aaron
Zeigler held a meeting on November 9 and De Leon testified Zeigler held a meeting at the end of
November/beginning of December. As will be discussed, Hendricks submitted a new wage proposal to
the Union on November 27. (Jt. Exh. 28, pp. 1–2.) The proposal itself appears to be a page from a
PowerPoint presentation, consistent with what Zeigler used when describing the Respondent’s contract
proposal to the technicians. I find it logical that Zeigler would hold the meeting with technicians close in
time to when the proposal was made. I also find it unlikely that Zeigler would hold two meetings with
the same employees and review the same proposal.
34 Jt. Exh. 14 (p. 41), 25(a) (p. 43), 25(b) (p. 43), 28 (p. 2); Tr. 211–213.
35 Jt. Exh. 29; Tr. 214–219; 282–285.
JD–70-19
-15-
get back to him and let him know. Lessman sent Hendricks an email that same day after the
discussion, again asking for a TA on the proposals so the Union could vote the contracts. On
December 6, Hendricks emailed Lessman and stated, “TA on both.”36
G. The Union’s Ratification Votes and Their Aftermath5
On December 7, employees ratified the proposed contracts at both dealerships.
Following the vote at Zeigler North Riverside, Malpeli met with the technicians. He told them
he did not know what they voted on but it was a false contract, because Aaron Zeigler had not
approved it. He said Zeigler would be visiting the dealership to clear everything up. When 10
Zeigler later met with the technicians, he told them he never saw or read the contract, the Union
was lying to them, and he did not know why the Union would do that. Zeigler said he planned
on suing the Union for false contracts. De Leon called Grasseschi and told him what occurred.37
Thereafter, Lessman, Grasseschi, and Albergo went to Zeigler North Riverside. Several 15
employees relayed to them that Aaron Zeigler said the contracts were no good, he did not agree
to them, and he was not going to sign them. The union representatives then met with Aaron
Zeigler. Lessman introduced himself to Zeigler, who told Lessman he did not authorize the
contracts. Lessman disagreed with Zeigler that the contracts were not valid, telling him they
had been negotiated, tentatively agreed to, and ratified by employees. As Lessman was 20
speaking, Albergo noticed that Zeigler had his cell phone in his hand. Albergo asked Zeigler if
he was recording the meeting and told him Illinois was a two-party consent state. Zeigler said
he was, to which Albergo responded he did not consent to being recorded. Lessman asked
Zeigler to turn the recording off. Zeigler said why and asked if Lessman was afraid he was
going to lie. Lessman responded that he had no problem with being recorded, but Albergo had 25
asked him to turn it off and he needed to do so. Grasseschi then accused Zeigler of lying to the
technicians when he told them the Union was stalling on getting a contract done. At that point,
Zeigler told the union representatives to leave the dealership. Zeigler directed them out the
front door and stood outside until they left. He told them they were not to step on the property
of either dealership ever again and were not allowed at any of his other dealerships.3830
Prior to the December 7 meeting, union representatives had unlimited access to
employees in the common areas at both dealerships, including after Zeigler took over. The
prior contracts at Grossinger Lincolnwood and McCarthy Ford contained the following
provision: “Union Access to Facility. A Union representative shall be permitted access to the 35
Employer's premises for the purpose of adjusting complaints individually or collectively.”39

36 Jt. Exhs. 30, 31; Tr. 219–223, 270–271. Overall, the parties met on 12 dates from March through
December. The meetings occurred on March 29, April 4, June 6, August 6 and 15, September 4, 6, 12, and
19, October 25, November 29, and December 5. Most of the sessions lasted approximately half an hour.
(Jt. Exh. 43, par. 1; Tr. 138.)
37 Tr. 293–295.
38 Tr. 223–228; 253–256; 272–278. The testimony of Lessman, Albergo, and Grasseschi about this
meeting was uncontroverted and consistent.
39 Tr. 228, 256, 277–278; GC Exhs. 5 (p. 24), 6 (p. 25).
JD–70-19
-16-
On December 8, Lessman emailed Hendricks, noted the contracts had been ratified, and
said he would contact the union’s funds to advise them employees would be moved to Zeigler’s
health insurance and 401(k) plans. Lessman also told Hendricks he would forward the ratified
contracts to him the following week for execution. On December 10, Lessman did so. 5
Hendricks responded the same day, forwarding an email from Zeigler to Hendricks in which
Zeigler stated: “Obviously this is a problem and we will not sign the agreement. Let them
know immediately.” Neither Zeigler nor Hendricks elaborated further as to what the problem
was or otherwise why Zeigler refused to sign the agreements.40
10
On April 9, 2019, Aaron Zeigler reversed course, signing the contracts for Zeigler
Lincolnwood and Zeigler North Riverside which the Union had sent to Hendricks on December
10. He did so two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing in this case.41
ANALYSIS15
I. DID THE RESPONDENTS THREATEN EMPLOYEES IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(A)(1)?
The General Counsel’s complaint alleges four independent violations of Section 8(a)(1)
for unlawful threats to employees, three of which involve Zeigler North Riverside. 20
First, the complaint alleges that Aaron Zeigler threatened employees during the
November 2018 meeting at Zeigler North Riverside in which he described the dealership’s latest
contract proposal. The credited testimony establishes that Zeigler told employees they would
get a $3-per-hour wage increase. He also said they no longer would have union health 25
insurance, but would be covered by his insurance which was just as good. He explained he was
no longer going to pay into their pensions, but would offer them a 401(k) plan. After detailing
these changes, Zeigler told employees, if they did not vote for the proposal, he would
implement it. He also said, if they went on strike, he would no longer talk to the Union and
would replace the technicians. 30
Under Section 8(c) of the Act, an employer is free to inform employees about proposals
it previously made to a union during negotiations. United Technologies Corp., 274 NLRB 609, 610
(1985) (citing Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 160 NLRB 334, 340 (1966)). However, statements which
do not accurately reflect the obligations and possibilities of the bargaining process violate 35
Section 8(a)(1). Federated Logistics & Operations, 340 NLRB 255, 255–256 (2003), review denied
400 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Here, Zeigler did not accurately describe the employer’s
bargaining obligations when he told employees he would unilaterally implement the proposal if
they did not ratify it. The dealership could implement its last, best, and final offer only after
reaching an overall impasse in bargaining with the Union. Zeigler did not mention impasse, 40
instead saying the Union was taking too long. Even if the claim was true, it is not a basis for

40 Jt. Exhs. 31, 42; Tr. 230.
41 Jt. Exhs. 44(a) and 44(b); Tr. 241–242.
JD–70-19
-17-
unilaterally implementing a final offer. Thus, Zeigler’s statement in that regard is unlawful.
Ryder Student Transportation Services, Inc., 333 NLRB 9, 12–13 (2001) (employer’s description of
bargaining process as involving union demands, employer demands, a counteroffer from the
union to the employer’s demands, and then a “unilaterally binding contract and that will be the
end of it” violated Section 8(a)(1)). Zeigler also inaccurately stated he no longer had to talk to 5
the Union if employees went on strike. A strike by employees has no effect on the status of the
Union as the employees’ collective-bargaining representative, nor would it free the dealership
of its continuing bargaining obligation with the Union. Noel Foods, 315 NLRB 905, 909 (1994)
(employer cannot lawfully inform employees that it will no longer recognize a union, unless the
union has lost the support of a majority of employees or the employer has a good-faith doubt, 10
based on objective evidence, that the union has lost its majority status). Finally, Zeigler’s
comment that he would replace the technicians if they went on strike likewise is unlawful.
Although an employer is free to truthfully inform employees they are subject to permanent
replacement in the event of an economic strike, such statements are unlawful when
accompanied by threats that employees will be deprived of their rights as a result of a strike. 15
Unifirst Corp., 335 NLRB 706, 706–707 (2001); Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 263 NLRB 515, 516 (1982).
Zeigler’s statement misstates the law, because he could not replace employees engaged in an
unfair-labor-practice strike. Moreover, he made the statement in the context of other unlawful
threats in the same meeting. Accordingly, I conclude Zeigler violated Section 8(a)(1) multiple
times in this November 2018 meeting.4220
Second, the General Counsel alleges that Edgar Cortez, Zeigler North Riverside’s service
manager, unlawfully threatened technician Paul Gellert in the fall of 2018.43 In a one-on-one
conversation, Gellert asked Cortez if the Zeigler Lincolnwood dealership still was union.
Cortez responded no and that the technicians there voted the Union out. Cortez’s statement 25
was false. It also undermined the Union’s standing by suggesting the Zeigler Lincolnwood
technicians no longer supported the Union. Accordingly, Cortez’s statement violates Section
8(a)(1). Industrial Hard Chrome, Ltd., 352 NLRB 298, 311–312 (2008) (supervisor’s false statement
to unit employee that he had no union representative violated Section 8(a)(1)); Berbiglia, Inc., 233
NLRB 1476, 1491 (1977) (employer’s false statement in letter to employees that the union did not 30
want to continue representing them violated Section 8(a)(1)).
Third, the General Counsel alleges that Brian Malpeli, Zeigler North Riverside’s vice
president, unlawfully threatened technician Luis De Leon during a meeting the week of
November 22, 2018. Malpeli told De Leon the dealership was going to be a nonunion shop 35
moving forward and they wanted De Leon to stay. He then offered to cover De Leon’s
insurance premiums for the month as a loyalty bonus. A reasonable employee objectively

42 In reaching this conclusion, I further note the record evidence does not establish whether
Zeigler held the meeting with employees at which he discussed the dealership’s proposal before or after
Hendricks submitted the proposal to the Union. Thus, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that
Zeigler was lawfully discussing a proposal already made to the Union.
43 The complaint alleges the conversation occurred “about November 2018,” but Gellert testified
he thought it was in September 2018.
JD–70-19
-18-
would interpret Malpeli’s “nonunion shop” comment to mean that North Riverside technicians
would no longer be represented by the Union. Venture Industries, Inc., 330 NLRB 1133, 1133
(2000) (reasonable interpretation of comment that the employer’s facility “would never be a
union shop” was that employer would not recognize or bargain with a union); Noel Foods, supra
(reasonable interpretation of statement to employees that employer was about to start operating 5
“nonunion” after contract expired was that employees would no longer be represented by the
union). Zeigler North Riverside argues that Malpeli merely was referring to the dealership’s
proposed deletion of the union-security clause from the existing collective-bargaining
agreement. I do not agree. When making the nonunion shop comment, Malpeli said nothing
about contract negotiations or the deletion of the union-security clause to provide context to his 10
comment. Instead, he made a bonus offer to De Leon to the exclusion of the Union, which
would be lawful only if the Union no longer represented the technicians. Beyond that, the term
“union shop” has a specific, technical meaning in labor law, one that even practitioners in the
field sometimes have difficulty explaining. A reasonable employee hearing the “nonunion
shop” comment would not conclude Malpeli was saying employees would no longer be 15
required, as a condition of employment, to become or remain members of the Union (or opt out
and pay nonmember fees). Thus, Malpeli’s statements to De Leon violate Section 8(a)(1). Sunol
Valley Golf Club, 310 NLRB 357, 376 (1993) (employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling
employee during ongoing strike that it no longer was a “union shop,” could hire anyone it
wanted, and picketers would probably not be back to work at the company). 20
Finally, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood violated
Section 8(a)(1) during Service Director Robbie Long’s conversation with Mark Galuski, a
technician and union steward, in August 2018. Following a visit from union representatives to
sign up new employees as members, Long told Galuski “we’re no longer a union shop and you 25
need to get on board with that.” At the time Long made the comment, Zeigler Lincolnwood
had implemented its last, best, and final offer, which deleted the union security clause from the
contract. If the reasonable interpretation of “union shop” in this context was that the
technicians no longer were represented by the Union, then Long’s statement violates Section
8(a)(1) for the same reasons articulated in the preceding paragraph. If the reasonable 30
interpretation was the labor law meaning, the statement remains unlawful because of Long’s
subsequent direction to Galuski that he “needed to get on board with that.” Even if new
employees were not required to become union members as a condition of employment, union
representatives still could attempt to get employees to voluntarily become members. Long’s
directive suggested the union representatives, including Galuski, should stop doing so or 35
would face consequences. Thus, I find Long’s statement to be unlawfully coercive.
II. DID RESPONDENT ZEIGLER LINCOLNWOOD IMPLEMENT ITS LAST, BEST, AND
FINAL OFFER PRIOR TO REACHING AN OVERALL GOOD-FAITH IMPASSE?
40
The General Counsel’s complaint further alleges that Zeigler Lincolnwood implemented
the terms of its last, best, and final offer on July 23, 2018, without first bargaining with
Machinists Local 701 to an overall good-faith impasse for a collective-bargaining agreement.
JD–70-19
-19-
A bargaining impasse occurs when good-faith negotiations have exhausted the
prospects of reaching an agreement. Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475, 478 (1967), review
denied sub. nom. Television Artists AFTRA v. NLRB, 392 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968). To determine
whether impasse has been reached, the Board considers the totality of the circumstances, 5
including “[t]he bargaining history, the good faith of the parties in negotiations, the length of
the negotiations, the importance of the issue or issues as to which there is disagreement, [and]
the contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the state of negotiations.” Stein
Industries, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 31, slip op. at 3 (2017) (quoting Taft Broadcasting Co., supra);
Centinela Hospital Medical Center, 363 NLRB No. 44, slip op. at 3 (2015). Impasse is defined as the 10
point in time in negotiations when the parties are warranted in assuming that further
bargaining would be futile. PRC Recording Co., 280 NLRB 615, 635 (1986) (citations omitted).
“Both parties must believe they are at the end of their rope.” Nexeo Solutions, LLC, 364 NLRB
No. 44, slip op. at 12 (2016) (quoting Larsdale, Inc., 310 NLRB 1317, 1318 (1993)). The party
claiming impasse, here Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood, bears the burden of demonstrating its 15
existence. Dish Network Corp., 366 NLRB No. 119, slip op. at 2 (2018).
Applying the Taft Broadcasting factors here, I conclude the parties did not reach a
bargaining impasse. First, Zeigler Lincolnwood and Machinists Local 701 had no bargaining
history. The Union’s bargaining history was with the New Car Dealer Committee and 20
Grossinger. Having just bought the business, Zeigler Lincolnwood was, for all practical
purposes, negotiating its initial collective-bargaining agreement with the Union. Moreover,
even though Hendricks and Lessman were working off the existing Grossinger contract, Zeigler
Lincolnwood sought drastic changes to that agreement. They included the elimination of health
insurance and pensions from the Union’s plans, as well as the base pay guarantee. In these 25
circumstances, parties must be afforded the fullest opportunity to reach agreement. Stein
Industries, Inc., supra, slip op. at 4, fn. 9. Bargaining history does not favor a finding of impasse.
Second, the parties only had three, short bargaining sessions prior to Zeigler
Lincolnwood declaring impasse. On March 29, the Union simply passed the existing30
Grossinger contract as its initial proposal. On April 4, Zeigler Lincolnwood provided a
comprehensive counterproposal, where it sought the changes to many critical, existing
employee benefits described above. The dealership also proposed eliminating provisions on
union security, dues checkoff, and seniority. In response to the proposed change in health
insurance, Lessman immediately asked for information about the Zeigler plans, including the 35
premium costs to employees. At the June 6 session, Lessman provided Hendricks with the
Union’s health insurance plan comparison, showing an exceedingly large difference in
employees’ annual deductibles. This evidence establishes that, at the point where Hendricks
declared impasse on July 10, the parties had barely discussed the dealership’s proposed contract
changes. Negotiations of such a short duration and involving such limited discussion of the 40
most important bargaining subjects weigh against a finding that the parties were at impasse.
Ead Motors Eastern Air Devices, Inc., 346 NLRB 1060, 1064 (2006).

JD–70-19
-20-
Third, prior to Hendricks declaring impasse, the two sides were negotiating in good
faith. To begin, when Hendricks explained the dealership’s proposals to eliminate the existing
health, pension, and minimum pay guarantee benefits, he framed them as “wants,” not
positions etched in stone. On April 4, he said Aaron Zeigler did not want to be in any trust
fund and wanted to use his own health insurance and retirement plans. He also told Lessman 5
that Aaron Zeigler wanted the base rate guarantee eliminated from the contract. On June 6,
after Lessman gave him the deductible comparison, Hendricks responded the Zeigler plans
were what the company was offering. Moreover, at no point did Lessman respond that the
Union would not agree to any of the proposed changes. Neither negotiator made any
statements reflecting the belief that they had exhausted the prospects of reaching agreement. 10
Moreover, on July 6, prior to the claimed impasse, the Union submitted
counterproposals with meaningful concessions to Hendricks. As bargaining chips went, the
most significant concession was the Union’s agreement to eliminate the base pay guarantee. In
addition, the Union agreed to cut the contract’s restrictions on the dealership’s ability to offer 15
discounts to customers and to utilize direct deposit for employees’ pay. The Union also agreed
to cut vacation time credit employees earned while on workman’s compensation. The
dealership had requested all of these concessions in its April 4 counterproposal. Even though
Hendricks did not get Lessman’s email with the proposals until after he declared impasse, he
did not rescind his declaration after receiving them. Thereafter, Hendricks and Lessman 20
continued bargaining for nine additional sessions and ultimately reached a tentative agreement
on a complete contract.
What is readily apparent for the sequence of events is that Hendricks’ submission of the
last, best, and final offer was prompted by annoyance at the Union’s failure to show for the 25
scheduled 4 p.m. bargaining session on July 3. But its cancellation of that meeting has no
bearing on whether the parties reached a bargaining impasse, because the record evidence does
not establish the Union’s action was done in bad faith. Lessman had to cancel the session due to
a surprise meeting called by his union leadership the same day. Prior to this, Hendricks
repeatedly expressed exasperation with the slow pace of negotiations and the delays between 30
bargaining sessions. The source of the exasperation was Zeigler Lincolnwood’s continued
exposure to the costs involved in making its required contributions to the Union’s welfare and
pension funds.44 Lessman’s cancellation of the July 3 session was the proverbial straw which
broke the camel’s back, but had nothing to do with the Union’s good faith in negotiations, the
parties’ bargaining positions, or whether future sessions would be futile. 35
Finally, at the time Hendricks submitted the final offer and declared impasse, the
dealership had not responded to the Union’s information request for employee insurance
premium costs for the Zeigler plans. Hendricks did not end up providing the information until
July 13, three days after sending the last, best, and final offer. That Zeigler Lincolnwood had 40
easy access to the premium costs it and its employees paid under the Zeigler Auto Group plans
is self-evident. One email from Hendricks to the dealership’s human resources department

44 R. Brf., p. 5.
JD–70-19
-21-
would have sufficed to expediently obtain the information—as it ultimately did.45 The delay in
providing this information for more than three months is inexplicable. The Union could not
properly evaluate the proposal to adopt Zeigler’s health insurance plans without knowing what
the plans’ premium costs were to employees, compared to the zero cost to them for the Union’s
plan. The information was necessary for the Union to engage in meaningful bargaining. With 5
that request outstanding, the parties could not have reached impasse on July 10. E. I. du Pont &
Co., 346 NLRB 553, 557–558 (2006); Decker Coal Co., 301 NLRB 729, 740 (1991).
For all these reasons, I find the parties’ good faith in negotiations likewise supports a
finding that the parties had not reached impasse in bargaining. Newcor Bay City Division of 10
Newcor, 345 NLRB 1229, 1238–1239 (2005).
Fourth, regarding the contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the state of
negotiations, the Union did not believe the parties were at impasse. Lessman immediately
responded to Hendricks’ July 10 impasse assertion by telling him they had hardly touched the 15
surface in the 3 bargaining sessions, he had an outstanding information request, and he wanted
more dates from Hendricks to bargain over the agreement. This factor also weighs in favor of
finding no impasse had been reached. Ead Motors, supra at 1064.
Fifth, the importance of the issues as to which there was disagreement is the only one 20
which might weigh in favor of finding impasse. Admittedly, health insurance, retirement
benefits, and the minimum pay guarantee were very important to both sides. However, at the
time of the impasse declaration, the Union had not said it would never agree to Zeigler
Lincolnwood’s proposal to move employees out of the Union’s plans. It also had no
opportunity to formulate a position on health insurance, having not received relevant 25
information it had requested from the dealership. Furthermore, even before the impasse
declaration by the dealership, the Union agreed to eliminate the base pay guarantee. Thus,
despite the importance of the issues in dispute, the parties were not at the end of their
respective ropes on them when Hendricks declared impasse. Overall, this factor also indicates
the parties were not at impasse. Stein Industries, supra, slip op. at 4–5.30
Given the Taft factors and under the totality of the circumstances, I conclude Respondent
Zeigler Lincolnwood violated Section 8(a)(5) by implementing the terms of its last, best, and
final offer without having reached a bargaining impasse in negotiations with Machinists Local
701 for an initial collective-bargaining agreement.46 Penford Products Co., 366 NLRB No. 74 35
(2018); Centinela Hospital Medical Center, 363 NLRB No. 44 (2015). Any unilateral changes to
employees’ terms and conditions of employment resulting from the implementation of the last,
best, and final offer likewise violated Section 8(a)(5). NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962).

45 Jt. Exh. 15, pp. 1–2.
46 As previously noted, Zeigler Lincolnwood also stipulated to the finding that it bypassed the
Union and engaged in direct dealing with unit employees in July 2018, by entering into individual
employment contracts with them. This conduct also violated Section 8(a)(5).
JD–70-19
-22-
III. DID RESPONDENT ZEIGLER LINCOLNWOOD CONSTRUCTIVELY DISCHARGE
TECHNICIANS MARK GALUSKI AND CARLOS MARTINEZ?
The General Counsel’s complaint also alleges Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood violated
Section 8(a)(3) by constructively discharging Galuski and Martinez when it unlawfully 5
eliminated the base pay guarantee and the health insurance provided through the Union’s
welfare plan.
“A constructive discharge is not a discharge at all but a quit which the Board treats as a
discharge because of the circumstances which surround it. Such situations may arise when an 10
employer confronts an employee with the Hobson’s Choice of either continuing to work or
foregoing rights protected by the Act.” Intercon I (Zercom), 333 NLRB 223, 223 (2001) (quoting
Multimatic Products, 288 NLRB 1279, 1348 (1988)). Under the Hobson’s Choice line of cases, an
employee’s voluntary resignation will be considered a constructive discharge when an
employer conditions the employee’s continued employment on the employee’s abandonment of 15
his or her Section 7 rights and the employee quits rather than comply with the condition. Ibid.
(citing Hoerner Waldorf Corp., 227 NLRB 612 (1976)).
After Zeigler Lincolnwood implemented its last, best, and final offer, the technicians’
35-hour base pay guarantee was eliminated on July 23 and employees’ health insurance 20
subsequently was changed to the Zeigler plans. Thereafter, the weekly earnings of both
Martinez and Galuski were less than the guarantee, sometimes substantially less. Galuski
resigned on August 17, due to the reduction in pay. Martinez resigned on November 2, due to
the reduction in pay and the increased out-of-pocket medical expenses resulting from the
Zeigler health insurance. Thus, their resignations were caused by the unlawful unilateral 25
changes made by the dealership. Galuski and Martinez were presented with the Hobson’s
Choice of continuing to work with a reduction in pay and increased health costs from the
violation of their Section 7 rights or to resign their employment.47
Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood argues the two technicians were not constructively 30
discharged, because the working condition changes were not imposed on them due to their
union activities. This argument misses the mark, because the General Counsel proceeded on a
Hobson’s Choice theory to demonstrate the violation, not a traditional constructive discharge
theory. Under the latter theory, a violation is shown where an employer, with knowledge of an
employee’s participation in union activity, harasses the individual to a point that job conditions 35
become intolerable and force the employee to resign. Naperville Jeep/Dodge, 357 NLRB 2252, 2274
(2012). Whether the employees engaged in union activity is only relevant under that theory.

47 Although neither employee immediately resigned upon the implementation of the last, best,
and final offer, that fact does not alter the outcome. Galuski and Martinez could not ascertain the exact
financial impact of the elimination of the base pay guarantee and the change to Zeigler health insurance
without some passage of time.
JD–70-19
-23-
Accordingly, Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood violated Section 8(a)(3) by constructively
discharging both employees. Dish Network Corp., 366 NLRB No. 119, slip op. at 11 (2018)
(employees who resigned after employer’s unlawful implementation of its final offer cut their
pay by 30 percent and greatly increased their health insurance costs were constructively
discharged); Electric Machinery Co., 243 NLRB 239, 239–240 (1979) (after employer unilaterally 5
changed working conditions before impasse was reached, employees who resigned rather than
endure, among other changes, reduced wages and elimination of their union-provided health
insurance were constructively discharged).
IV. DID RESPONDENT ZEIGLER NORTH RIVERSIDE UNILATERALLY 10
CHANGE EMPLOYEES’ WORKING CONDITIONS?
The General Counsel’s complaint alleges Respondent Zeigler North Riverside made
numerous unilateral changes to technicians’ working conditions after taking over the dealership
on June 25, without notifying or bargaining with the Union.15
The law is well settled that an employer violates Section 8(a)(5) when it unilaterally
changes represented employees’ wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
without providing their bargaining representative with prior notice and a meaningful
opportunity to bargain over the changes. Lincoln Lutheran of Racine, 362 NLRB 1655, 1656 (2015)20
(citing NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 742–743 (1962)). Where, as here, parties are engaged in
contract negotiations, an employer’s obligation to refrain from unilateral changes extends
beyond the mere duty to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain about a particular
subject matter. It encompasses a duty to refrain from implementation at all, absent overall
impasse on bargaining for the agreement as a whole. RBE Electronics of S.D., Inc., 320 NLRB 80, 25
81 (1995); Bottom Line Enterprises, 302 NLRB 373, 374 (1991). Furthermore, a perfectly-clear
successor is obligated to bargain with a union prior to setting initial terms and conditions of
employment that differ from those under the predecessor. NLRB v. Burns Security Services, Inc.,
406 U.S. 272, 294–295 (1972); Spruce Up Corp., 209 NLRB 194, 195 (1974). The failure to do so
violates Section 8(a)(5). Nexeo Solutions, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 44, slip op. at 5–6 (2016). 30
After Zeigler Auto Group took over ownership of McCarthy Ford on June 25, it changed
numerous terms and conditions of employment without any notification to or bargaining with
the Union. Prior to the September 6 start of contract negotiations, Zeigler North Riverside
changed employees’ payroll period from one to two weeks; reduced the paid time for 35
completing a wheel alignment from 1.7 to 1 hours; and eliminated the use of seniority to
determine employees’ vacation time. Around the same time that negotiations began, the
dealership began installing surveillance cameras throughout the property, including in
technicians’ service stalls. All of these topics were mandatory subjects of bargaining. See, e.g.,
Columbia University, 298 NLRB 941, 941 (1990) (wages); S & I Transportation, Inc., 311 NLRB 1388, 40
1388 fn. 1 (1993) (pay periods); Migali Industries, Inc., 285 NLRB 820, 825–826 (1987) (vacation
scheduling); Colgate Palmolive Co., 323 NLRB 515, 515 (1997) (installation of surveillance
cameras). Zeigler North Riverside had no discussion about any of these mandatory subjects,
JD–70-19
-24-
save for the surveillance camera installation. After discovering the camera installation on his
own during a visit to the dealership, Grasseschi submitted an information request to Hendricks.
In his response, Hendricks conceded the cameras had been installed. He claimed initially it was
in response to a vehicle being stolen, but then detailed how the company wanted video of
incidents for numerous purposes including discipline of employees. Although he stated at the 5
end of his response that Grasseschi should let him know if the Union cared to negotiate the
topic, the cameras already had been installed at that point. In addition, when the Union
brought up the topic at the November 29 negotiation session, Hendricks did not offer to bargain
over the subject, but just told them to grieve it when an issue arose. Thus, Hendricks’ offer to
bargain in his November 20 response to the Union’s information request was a fait accompli, 10
because the decision to install the surveillance cameras had already been made and
implemented. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB 835, 858–860 (1999).
As a perfectly-clear successor, Respondent Zeigler North Riverside was not free to
unilaterally set or change technicians’ initial terms and conditions of employment. Thus, it 15
violated Section 8(a)(5) by making all of these unilateral changes.
V. DID THE RESPONDENTS REACH COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNION ON A
CONTRACT AND THEREAFTER UNLAWFULLY REFUSE TO EXECUTE IT?
20
The General Counsel’s complaint alleges that, on December 6, both Respondents
reached complete agreement with the Union on terms and conditions of employment to be
incorporated in a collective-bargaining agreement. The complaint further alleges that, on
December 10, the Union requested that the Respondents execute written contracts reflecting the
agreement. Finally, the complaint alleges the Respondents, through Aaron Zeigler, violated 25
Section 8(a)(5) by thereafter refusing to execute the agreements.
Section 8(d) of the Act obligates a party to a collective-bargaining agreement to execute,
or assist in executing, a memorialized version of the agreement, if requested to do so by the
other party. H.J. Heinz Co. v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 514 (1941). A collective-bargaining agreement is 30
formed only after a “meeting of the minds” on all substantive issues and material terms of the
contract. Intermountain Rural Electric Assn., 309 NLRB 1189, 1192 (1992). The question is
whether the parties intended to form a contract. New Orleans Stevedoring Co., 308 NLRB 1076,
1081 (1992), enfd. 997 F.2d 881 (5th Cir. 1993). The General Counsel bears the burden of
showing that the parties have reached the requisite “meeting of the minds.” Intermountain Rural 35
Electric Assn., supra at 1192.
I conclude the parties reached a meeting of the minds on a complete collective-
bargaining agreement as of December 6. On November 29, the Union passed a proposal for
each dealership addressing all of the remaining issues upon which the parties had not yet 40
agreed. Those subjects were health insurance, retirement benefits/401(k), and wages. The
proposals reflected the Respondents’ last wage proposal and the Union’s agreement to use
Zeigler’s health and retirement benefits. On December 3 and 5, Lessman asked Hendricks for
JD–70-19
-25-
responses on the proposals, so he could vote the contracts. On December 6, Hendricks sent an
email to Lessman saying “TA on both.” In doing so, Hendricks agreed to a complete contract
and all the material terms therein. New Orleans Stevedoring Co., supra at 1082 (employer’s
bargaining representative agreed to proposed contract when he told union representative it
“looked okay to him”). On December 10, Lessman sent Hendricks the agreements and asked 5
him to sign them. The same day, Aaron Zeigler refused to do so.
The Respondents offer no defense to the refusal-to-execute allegation in their brief, but
Aaron Zeigler contemporaneously claimed to employees and the union representatives that he
did not approve the contracts. This claim calls into question Hendricks’ authority to bind the 10
Respondents to the agreed-upon contract. The duty to bargain carries an obligation to appoint
a negotiator with genuine authority to carry on meaningful bargaining regarding fundamental
issues. Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center, 337 NLRB 72, 79 (2001). An agent assigned to negotiate
a collective-bargaining agreement is clothed with “apparent authority to bind the principal in
the absence of clear notice to the contrary.” Sands Hotel and Casino, 324 NLRB 1101, 1108 (1997), 15
enfd. 172 F.3d 57 (9th Cir. 1999). After Lessman submitted the Union’s proposals on the
remaining issues in dispute on November 29, Hendricks told him he had to get Aaron Zeigler’s
approval on them. Thus, Hendricks clearly and unambiguously gave notice of that
requirement. Nonetheless, when Hendricks ultimately responded, “TA on both,” he objectively
conveyed that Aaron Zeigler had approved the proposals. At that time, Zeigler’s approval of 20
the proposals was the lone condition precedent to the Respondents agreeing to a complete
contract. Implicit in Hendricks’ “TA on both” comment agreeing to the proposals was that
Aaron Zeigler had approved them. Indeed, Hendricks himself appears to have acknowledged
this fact in his communication with Lessman after the contracts were ratified. When Hendricks
forwarded to Lessman the email from Aaron Zeigler saying he was not signing the contracts, 25
Hendricks offered no explanation for the refusal. No logical explanation could be provided
after Hendricks told Lessman he needed to get Zeigler’s approval on the final proposals and
then said, “TA on both.”
Accordingly, the dealerships’ refusal to execute the agreed-upon collective-bargaining 30
agreements violated Section 8(a)(5).48

48 Both respondents also independently violated Section 8(a)(5), when Aaron Zeigler revoked
union representatives’ access to both dealerships on December 7. Prior to that date, the predecessor
contracts granted the representatives access to the facilities for “adjusting complaints individually or
collectively.” In practice, the representatives were able to visit the common areas of the dealerships
whenever they liked, without obtaining permission from management. Thus, when Aaron Zeigler
banned the union representatives from ever visiting his dealerships again after Lessman told him they
had reached binding contracts, Zeigler made an unlawful unilateral change. Cadillac of Naperville, Inc.,
368 NLRB No. 3, slip op. at 1 fn. 2, 22 (2019).
JD–70-19
-26-
VI. DID RESPONDENT ZEIGLER NORTH RIVERSIDE ENGAGE
IN OVERALL BAD-FAITH BARGAINING?
Finally, the General Counsel’s complaint alleges that, from September 6, 2018 to
December 6, 2018, Respondent Zeigler North Riverside engaged in overall bad-faith bargaining 5
for an initial contract.
The duty to bargain in good faith under Section 8(d) of the Act requires both the
employer and the union to negotiate with a “‘sincere purpose to find a basis of agreement,’”
Atlanta Hilton & Tower, 271 NLRB 1600, 1603 (1984) (quoting NLRB v. Herman Sausage Co., 275 10
F.2d 229, 231 (5th Cir. 1960)). Although the statute cannot compel a party to make a concession,
an employer is, nonetheless, “‘obliged to make some reasonable effort in some direction to
compose his differences with the union, if [Section] 8(a)(5) is to be read as imposing any
substantial obligation at all.’” Ibid. (quoting NLRB v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 205 F.2d 131, 134–
135 (1st Cir. 1953), cert. denied 346 U.S. 887 (1953)). (Emphasis in original.) In determining 15
whether a party has violated its statutory obligation to bargain in good faith, the Board
examines the totality of the party’s conduct, both at and away from the bargaining table. Public
Service Co. of Oklahoma (PSO), 334 NLRB 487, 487 (2001), enfd. 318 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2003);
Overnite Transportation Co., 296 NLRB 669, 671 (1989), enfd. 938 F.2d 815 (7th Cir. 1991). The
Board considers several factors when evaluating a party’s conduct for evidence of bad-faith 20
bargaining. These include unreasonable bargaining demands, unilateral changes in mandatory
subjects of bargaining, efforts to bypass the union, and failure to designate an agent with
sufficient bargaining authority. Atlanta Hilton & Tower, supra at 1603.
Zeigler North Riverside did engage in conduct away from the bargaining table 25
indicative of bad-faith bargaining. Almost immediately after it took over the dealership, Zeigler
North Riverside made numerous unilateral changes to employees’ working conditions which
violated Section 8(a)(5). They included changing the payroll period from 1 to 2 weeks; reducing
the amount of paid time to complete a wheel alignment; altering how vacation time was
determined; and installing surveillance cameras. It dealt directly with certain employees by 30
negotiating, to the exclusion of the Union, side deals enhancing their wages and benefits.49 The
dealership’s supervisors also made repeated, unlawful threats to employees which violated
Section 8(a)(1).
However, Hendricks’ conduct at the bargaining table paints a different picture and 35
reflects good-faith bargaining. The parties met 6 times from September 6 to December 6. On
October 25, Hendricks agreed to merge the negotiations of the two dealerships, effectively
reducing the amount of time needed to reach agreement on a contract for Zeigler North
Riverside. He also tentatively agreed to the Union’s initial wage proposal for technicians,
which had been submitted on March 29 in negotiations for Zeigler Lincolnwood. On November 40

49 The General Counsel’s complaint does not allege Zeigler North Riverside’s direct dealing as an
independent violation of Section 8(a)(5), but includes direct dealing as one of the bases for establishing
bad-faith bargaining.
JD–70-19
-27-
27, Hendricks proposed a different, higher wage scale ($3-per-hour increase) than had been
tentatively agreed to during the prior session. In exchange, the Union agreed to the dealerships’
proposals to use the Zeigler Auto Group health insurance and 401(k) plans. The exchange of
higher wages for changes to the benefits plans is a classic example of good-faith negotiating.
Moreover, during bargaining with Zeigler North Riverside, Hendricks responded in a timely 5
fashion to the Union’s information requests regarding payroll records, side deals, and
surveillance cameras. As discussed above, the parties reached agreement on a complete
contract on December 6.
The General Counsel argues that Zeigler North Riverside engaged in conduct at the 10
table that is indicative of bad-faith bargaining, namely failing to cloak Hendricks with the
authority to enter into a binding contract. I do not find merit to this argument. Hendricks was
the lone negotiator for the dealerships. Once the negotiations expanded to include Zeigler
North Riverside, Aaron Zeigler told Grasseschi on August 21 that all communication should be
directed to Hendricks. On September 6, Hendricks confirmed to the union representatives he 15
was the dealership’s attorney and not to bother Aaron Zeigler with communications. From
September 6 to December 6, Hendricks engaged in meaningful bargaining, including agreeing
to the union’s wage proposal, then offering even higher wages to entice the Union to agree to
the dealership’s health and retirement proposals. The only point at which he needed Aaron
Zeigler’s approval was to enter into the complete contract. An employer is not required to 20
appoint an individual possessing final authority to enter into an agreement, as long as
negotiations are not thereby stymied or inhibited. Wycoff Steel, 303 NLRB 517, 525 (1991).
Having found that the parties reached agreement on a contract as of December 6, Hendricks’
need to obtain Aaron Zeigler’s approval did not stymie the negotiations. He communicated to
Lessman on November 29 that Aaron Zeigler had to approve the Union’s proposals, then got 25
the approval and agreed to the contract 1 week later. Hendricks’ conduct during the 3-month
bargaining period involving Zeigler North Riverside does not reflect someone intent on not
reaching agreement. Bargaining was in good-faith up to the point that Zeigler refused to sign
the agreement. The refusal to execute the contract violated the Act, but the General Counsel
cannot use that violation as a bootstrap to establish bad-faith bargaining.30
The General Counsel also states in conclusory fashion that Zeigler North Riverside’s
conduct at the table included presenting contract proposals as take-it or leave-it offers. I
presume the argument is premised on Aaron Zeigler’s desire not to continue the union’s
pension and health insurance plans or the base pay guarantee. I do not find the dealership’s 35
steadfast position in that regard to be indicative of bad-faith bargaining. Atlanta Hilton and
Tower, 271 NLRB at 1603 (adamant insistence on a bargaining position is not of itself a refusal to
bargain in good faith). Moreover, the dealerships ultimately increased their hourly wage
proposal for technicians to obtain the Union’s agreement to change to the Zeigler benefit plans.
40
Thus, all of Zeigler North Riverside’s bad-faith conduct occurred away from the
bargaining table. The Board is reluctant to find bad-faith bargaining based solely on conduct
away from the table, where no evidence is presented that the conduct affected a party’s conduct
at the bargaining table. See, e.g., River City Mechanical, 289 NLRB 1503, 1505 (1988) (employer
JD–70-19
-28-
did not engage in bad-faith bargaining where its away-from-the table conduct included direct
dealing and expressions of intent to go nonunion, but no evidence the conduct influenced the
aims or attitudes of the employer at the table); Litton Microwave, 300 NLRB 324, 330 (1990)
(unilateral changes and failure to grant a regularly provided wage increase did not support
finding of bad-faith bargaining, because no link existed between the unlawful conduct and the 5
negotiations). The necessary link is not established in this case. Almost all of Zeigler North
Riverside’s unilateral changes occurred when it took over the dealership, more than 2 months
before negotiations began. None of the changes involved topics that were being discussed at
the bargaining table. The side deals the dealership negotiated were with a handful of
employees it wanted to retain, not an attempt to negotiate a different wage and benefit package 10
for the entire unit away from the table. Finally, although certain of Zeigler’s statements in his
November 2018 meeting with employees suggested the dealership would not honor its
bargaining obligations, Hendricks continued to negotiate with Lessman, and reached an
agreement, thereafter.
15
For all these reasons, I conclude Respondent Zeigler North Riverside did not engage in
bad-faith bargaining from September 6 to December 6 and recommend dismissal of this
complaint allegation.50
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
20
1. Respondents Zeigler Lincolnwood and Zeigler North Riverside are employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
25
3. The Union is, and at all material times was, the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the following appropriate unit at the Lincolnwood, Illinois facility
of Zeigler Lincolnwood:
All full-time and regular part-time Journeyman 30
Technicians, Body Shop Technicians, apprentices, lube rack
technicians, part time express team technicians and semi-
skilled technicians.
4. The Union is, and at all material times was, the exclusive collective-bargaining 35
representative of the following appropriate unit at the North Riverside, Illinois

50 In its brief, the Respondents contend that my pre-hearing denial of their motion to bifurcate
these cases was erroneous. For the reasons stated in my April 18, 2019 order, I affirm my prior ruling.
(The order inadvertently was omitted from the record, so I now enter it to the General Counsel’s formal
papers as GC Exhibit 1(ii).) In doing so, I emphasize the Respondents’ continuing failure to identify any
prejudice to the presentation of their defenses. I further note the Respondents did not call any witnesses
at the hearing.
JD–70-19
-29-
facility of Zeigler North Riverside:
All full-time and regular part-time Journeyman
Technicians, Body Shop Technicians, apprentices, lube rack
technicians, part time express team technicians and semi-5
skilled technicians.
5. Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood violated Section 8(a)(1) in August 2018 by telling
employees it was no longer a union shop and they needed to get on board with that.
10
6. Respondent Zeigler North Riverside violated Section 8(a)(1) in the fall of 2018 by
telling employees:
a. if they did not ratify Zeigler North Riverside’s contract proposal, it would
unilaterally implement the proposal and, if they went on strike, it would no 15
longer talk to the Union and would replace the employees.
b. the Zeigler Lincolnwood dealership was no longer union, because the
technicians voted the union out.
20
c. Zeigler North Riverside was going to be a nonunion shop moving forward,
then offering employees enhanced benefits to stay.
7. Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood violated Section 8(a)(3) by constructively
discharging Mark Galuski and Carlos Martinez due to their union and protected 25
concerted activity.
8. Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood violated Section 8(a)(5) by implementing its last,
best, and final offer and unilaterally changing employees’ terms and conditions of
employment about July 23, 2018, without first bargaining with the Union to an 30
overall good-faith impasse for a collective-bargaining agreement.
9. Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood violated Section 8(a)(5) in July 2018 by bypassing
the Union and dealing directly with bargaining-unit employees when it entered into
individual employment contracts with them.35
10. Respondent Zeigler North Riverside violated Section 8(a)(5) in June and August 2018
by unilaterally changing employees’ terms and conditions of employment, including
their pay period, hours worked for wheel alignments, approval of vacation requests
by seniority, and the installation of surveillance cameras, without providing the 40
Union with notice of or an opportunity to bargain over the changes.
JD–70-19
-30-
11. Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood and Respondent Zeigler North Riverside violated
Section 8(a)(5) and 8(d) on December 10, 2018, by refusing to execute written
contracts, after the Union requested they do so, reflecting the complete agreements
reached by the parties on December 6, 2018.5
12. Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood and Respondent Zeigler North Riverside violated
Section 8(a)(5) on December 7, 2018, by unilaterally revoking the Union’s access to
both facilities going forward.
10
13. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
14. Neither Respondent has violated the Act in any of the other manners alleged in the
complaint.15
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood and Respondent Zeigler North
Riverside engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find they must be ordered to cease and 20
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood violated Section 8(a)(3) by constructively
discharging Mark Galuski and Carlos Martinez, I order it to offer them full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if such jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed. I also order 25
Zeigler Lincolnwood to make the employees whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. Backpay shall be computed in
accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in
New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical
Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). Moreover, in accordance with King Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 30
(2016), Zeigler Lincolnwood shall compensate the employees for their search-for-work and
interim employment expenses, if any, regardless of whether those expenses exceed interim
earnings. Search-for-work and interim employment expenses shall be calculated separately
from taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, supra,
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra. Zeigler Lincolnwood 35
also must remove from its files any references to the employees’ unlawful discharges, and
within 3 days thereafter, notify the employees in writing that this has been done and that the
unlawful actions will not be used against them in any way.
Having found that Zeigler Lincolnwood violated Section 8(a)(5) by prematurely 40
declaring impasse and unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment for unit
employees thereafter, I order it, on request, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of unit employees, before implementing any changes to
JD–70-19
-31-
their wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment. I also order it, upon request
of the Union, to retroactively restore any unilaterally modified terms and conditions of
employment, and rescind the unilateral changes it has made, until such time as Zeigler
Lincolnwood and the Union reach an agreement for a new collective-bargaining agreement, or a
lawful impasse based on good-faith negotiations. Zeigler Lincolnwood also must make whole 5
the unit employees for any loss of wages or other benefits suffered as a result of the unilateral
changes in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d
502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons, supra, compounded daily as
prescribed in Kentucky River, supra.
10
With respect to its unilateral changes to unit employees’ health insurance and retirement
benefits, Zeigler Lincolnwood must make unit employees whole by making all payments
missed, if any, to the union’s welfare and pension funds since July 10, 2018, including any
additional amounts due the funds in accordance with Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213,
1216 fn. 7 (1979). In addition, and due to the elimination of the unit employees' preexisting 15
health care benefits through the union’s welfare fund, Zeigler Lincolnwood shall restore, upon
request of the Union, the preexisting health care benefits and reimburse unit employees for any
expenses ensuing from its failure to make the fund benefit contributions and to continue the
unit employees’ preexisting healthcare coverage, as set forth in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252
NLRB 891, 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. mem. 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981), such amounts to be 20
computed in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection, supra, with interest at the rate prescribed in
New Horizons, supra, compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River, supra.
Having found that Zeigler North Riverside unilaterally changed terms and conditions of
employment for unit employees, I order it, on request, to bargain with the Union as the 25
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of unit employees before implementing any
changes in wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of unit employees. I
also order it, upon request of the Union, to retroactively restore any unilaterally modified terms
and conditions of employment, and rescind the unilateral changes it has made. Zeigler North
Riverside also must make whole the unit employees for any loss of wages or other benefits30
suffered as a result of the unilateral changes in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service,
183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd.444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed in New
Horizons, supra, compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River, supra.
Having found that Zeigler Lincolnwood and Zeigler North Riverside violated Section 35
8(a)(5) and 8(d) of the Act by failing and refusing to execute collective-bargaining agreements
embodying the December 6, 2018 agreement reached with the Union, I shall order the
Respondents to execute and implement the agreements and give retroactive effect to their
terms. I shall also order Zeigler Lincolnwood and Zeigler North Riverside to make bargaining
unit employees whole for any losses attributable to its failure to execute the agreements, as set 40
forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with
interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons,, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as
prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
JD–70-19
-32-
For all backpay awards received by unit employees, I further order Zeigler Lincolnwood
and Zeigler North Riverside to compensate the employees for any adverse tax consequences
associated with receiving lump-sum backpay awards and to file with the Regional Director for
Region 13 a report allocating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar year. See AdvoServ
of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016).5
Finally, having found that both Respondents unilaterally changed the Union’s access to
their dealerships, I shall order them, upon request of the Union, to rescind the changes and
restore the Union’s access as it existed prior to December 7, 2018.
10
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended51
ORDER
15
Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood d/b/a Zeigler Buick GMC of Lincolnwood & Cadillac
of Lincolnwood, Lincolnwood, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
20
(a) Threatening employees by telling them the dealership is no longer a union shop
and to get on board with that.
(b) Constructively discharging employees due to their union or protected concerted
activity.25
(c) Implementing a last, best, and final contract offer and unilaterally changing
employees’ terms and conditions of employment, without first bargaining with
the Union to an overall good-faith impasse for a collective-bargaining agreement.
30
(d) Bypassing the Union and dealing directly with bargaining-unit employees by
entering into individual employment contracts with them.
(e) Refusing to execute a written contract, after the Union requested it do so,
reflecting the complete collective-bargaining agreement reached by it and the 35
Union.
(f) Unilaterally revoking the Union’s access to the dealership.

51 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD–70-19
-33-
(g) 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) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Mark Galuski and Carlos
Martinez reinstatement to their former positions or, if their jobs no longer exist,
to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
10
(b) Make Mark Galuski and Carlos Martinez whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any references 15
to the unlawful constructive discharges of Mark Galuski and Carlos Martinez
and, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that this has been done and
that these unlawful acts will not be used against them in any way.
(d) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining 20
representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit, before
implementing any changes to their wages, hours, or other terms and conditions
of employment:
All full-time and regular part-time Journeyman Technicians, Body 25
Shop Technicians, apprentices, lube rack technicians, part time
express team technicians and semi-skilled technicians.
(e) At the Union’s request, restore all terms and conditions of employment for unit
employees which existed prior to the implementation of the last, best, and final 30
offer about July 23, 2018, and continue them in effect until the parties either reach
an agreement or a good-faith impasse in bargaining. Nothing in this Order is to
be construed as requiring Respondent Zeigler Lincolnwood to cancel any
unilateral changes which benefited the unit employees, without a request from
the Union.35
(f) Make whole the unit employees for any losses suffered by reason of the unlawful
changes in terms and conditions of employment, on about or after July 23, 2018,
with interest, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
40
(g) Make all contractually-required contributions to the Union’s welfare and pension
funds that it has failed to make since about July 23, 2018, if any, and reimburse
affected employees for any expenses ensuing from its failure to make the
JD–70-19
-34-
required payments, with interest, as set forth in the remedy section of this
decision.
(h) At the Union’s request, execute the contract which was reached between Zeigler
Lincolnwood and the Union on December 6, 2018, and give retroactive effect to 5
its terms.
(i) Make all affected employees whole, with interest, in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of this decision, for any loss of earnings or benefits resulting from
the failure to sign and honor the collective-bargaining agreement reached with 10
the Union on December 6, 2018.
(j) Restore the Union’s access to Zeigler Lincolnwood which existed prior to the
unilateral changes implemented on December 7, 2018.
15
(k) Compensate Mark Galuski, Carlos Martinez, and all other affected employees for
the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award,
and file a report with the Regional Director for Region 13, within 21 days of the
date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order,
allocating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar years for each affected 20
employee.
(l) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place
designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment 25
records, timecards, personnel records 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.
(m)Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Lincolnwood, 30
Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix A.”52 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being
signed by Zeigler Lincolnwood's authorized representative, shall be posted by
Zeigler Lincolnwood and maintained for 60 days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In 35
addition to the 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 Zeigler Lincolnwood customarily communicates with

52 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the
notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD–70-19
-35-
its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Zeigler
Lincolnwood 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,
Zeigler Lincolnwood has gone out of business or closed the facilities involved in
these proceedings, it shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the 5
notice to all current employees and former employees employed by Zeigler
Lincolnwood at any time since July 20, 2018.
(n) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the 10
Regional Director attesting to the steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
Respondent Zeigler North Riverside, LLC d/b/a Zeigler Ford of North Riverside of
North Riverside, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
15
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees by telling them:
i. if they did not ratify the dealership’s contract proposal, it would unilaterally 20
implement the proposal and, if they went on strike, it would no longer talk to
the Union and would replace the employees.
ii. the Zeigler Lincolnwood dealership was no longer union, because the
technicians voted the union out.25
iii. the dealership was going to be a nonunion shop moving forward, then
offering employees enhanced benefits to stay.
(b) Unilaterally changing unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment, 30
without providing the Union with notice of and the opportunity to bargain over
the changes.
(c) Refusing to execute a written contract, after the Union requested it do so,
reflecting the complete collective-bargaining agreement reached by it and the 35
Union.
(d) Unilaterally revoking the Union’s access to the dealership.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees 40
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
JD–70-19
-36-
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit before
implementing any changes to their wages, hours, or other terms and conditions 5
of employment:
All full-time and regular part-time Journeyman Technicians, Body
Shop Technicians, apprentices, lube rack technicians, part time
express team technicians and semi-skilled technicians.10
(b) At the Union’s request, rescind the unilateral changes made to the terms and
conditions of employment for unit employees, including to their pay period,
hours worked for wheel alignments, approval of vacation requests by seniority,
and the installation of surveillance cameras.15
(c) Make whole the unit employees for any losses suffered by reason of the unlawful
changes in terms and conditions of employment, on or after June 25, 2018, with
interest, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
20
(d) At the Union’s request, execute the contract which was reached between Zeigler
North Riverside and the Union on December 6, 2018, and give retroactive effect
to its terms.
(e) Make all affected employees whole, with interest, in the manner set forth in the 25
remedy section of this decision, for any loss of earnings or benefits resulting from
the failure to sign and honor the collective-bargaining agreement reached with
the Union on December 6, 2018.
(f) Restore the Union’s access to Zeigler Lincolnwood which existed prior to the 30
unilateral changes implemented on December 7, 2018.
(g) Compensate all affected employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of
receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and file a report with the Regional
Director for Region 13, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, 35
either by agreement or Board order, allocating the backpay award to the
appropriate calendar years for each affected employee.
(h) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place 40
designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records,
JD–70-19
-37-
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.
(i) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in North Riverside,
Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix B.”53 Copies of the 5
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being
signed by Respondent Zeigler North Riverside’s authorized representative, shall
be posted by Respondent Zeigler North Riverside and maintained for 60 days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to the physical posting of paper notices, notices 10
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or
internet site, and/or other electronic means, if Respondent Zeigler North
Riverside customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Zeigler North Riverside to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the 15
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, Respondent Zeigler North
Riverside has gone out of business or closed the facilities involved in these
proceedings, Respondent Zeigler North Riverside shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees
employed by Respondent Zeigler North Riverside at any time since June 25,20
2018.
(j) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Regional Director attesting to the steps Respondent Zeigler North Riverside has 25
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., September 5, 2019
________________________
Charles J. Muhl
Administrative Law Judge

53 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.”
a-g440-e
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees by telling them the dealership is no longer a union shop
and to get on board with that.
WE WILL NOT constructively discharge employees due to their union or protected concerted
activity.
WE WILL NOT implement a last, best, and final contract offer and unilaterally change
employees’ terms and conditions of employment, without first bargaining with Local Lodge
701, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (the Union) to an
overall good-faith impasse for a collective-bargaining agreement.
WE WILL NOT bypass the Union and deal directly with bargaining-unit employees by entering
into individual employment contracts with them.
WE WILL NOT refuse to execute a written contract, after the Union requested we do so,
reflecting the complete collective-bargaining agreement reached by us and the Union.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally revoke the Union’s access to the dealership.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Mark Galuski and Carlos Martinez immediate and full reinstatement to their
former positions or, if their jobs no longer exist, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges they previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Mark Galuski and Carlos Martinez whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of our constructive discharges of them.
WE WILL remove from our files all references to the unlawful constructive discharges of Mark
Galuski and Carlos Martinez and, WE WILL notify them in writing that this has been done and
that these unlawful acts will not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the following, appropriate bargaining unit, before
implementing any changes to your wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment:
All full-time and regular part-time Journeyman Technicians, Body Shop
Technicians, apprentices, lube rack technicians, part time express team technicians
and semi-skilled technicians.
WE WILL, on request, restore all terms and conditions of employment for unit employees
which existed prior to our unlawful implementation of the last, best, and final offer about July
23, 2018, and continue them in effect until the parties either reach an agreement or a good-faith
impasse in bargaining. However, nothing in this Notice will be construed as requiring us to
cancel any unilateral changes that benefited you, without a request from the Union.
WE WILL make you whole, with interest, for any losses suffered by reason of our unlawful
changes in your terms and conditions of employment about July 23, 2018.
WE WILL make all contractually-required contributions to fringe benefit funds (welfare and
pension) that we failed to make since about July 23, 2018, if any, and reimburse affected
employees for any expenses ensuing from our failure to make the required payments, with
interest.
WE WILL, on request by the Union, execute the contract upon which we reached agreement
with the Union on December 6, 2018 and give retroactive effect to its terms.
WE WILL make all affected employees whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings or benefits
resulting from the failure to sign and honor the collective-bargaining agreement reached with
the Union on December 6, 2018.
WE WILL restore the Union’s access to Zeigler Lincolnwood which existed prior to our
unlawful unilateral changes implemented on December 7, 2018.
ZEIGLER LINCOLNWOOD
(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.
Dirksen Federal Building, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 808, Chicago, IL 60604–5208
(312) 353–7570, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/13-CA-225984 or by using the QR code below.
Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half
Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER,
(312) 353–7170.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees by telling them:
ï‚· if they did not ratify our contract proposal, we would unilaterally implement the
proposal and, if they went on strike, we would no longer talk to the union and would
replace the employees.
ï‚· the Zeigler Lincolnwood dealership was no longer union, because the technicians voted
the union out.
ï‚· we were going to be a nonunion shop moving forward, and then offering employees
enhanced benefits to stay at our dealership.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change employees’ wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of
employment, without first providing notice of and an opportunity to bargain over the changes
to Local Lodge 701, International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
(the Union).
WE WILL NOT refuse to execute a written contract, after the Union requested we do so,
reflecting the complete collective-bargaining agreement reached by us and the Union.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally revoke the Union’s access to the dealership.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit, before implementing any
changes to your wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment:
All full-time and regular part-time Journeyman Technicians, Body
Shop Technicians, apprentices, lube rack technicians, part time
express team technicians and semi-skilled technicians.
WE WILL, on request, cancel and rescind all the unilateral changes we made to your terms and
conditions of employment on or after June 25, 2018, including to your pay period, hours worked
for wheel alignments, approval of vacation requests by seniority, and the installation of
surveillance cameras. However, nothing in this notice is to be construed as requiring us to
cancel any unilateral changes that benefited you, without a request from the Union.
WE WILL make you whole, with interest, for any losses you suffered by reason of the unlawful
changes in terms and conditions of employment we made on or after June 25, 2018.
WE WILL, on request by the Union, forthwith execute the contract upon which we reached
agreement with the Union on December 6, 2018 and give retroactive effect to its terms.
WE WILL make all affected employees whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings or benefits
resulting from our failure to sign and honor the collective-bargaining agreement reached with
the Union on December 6, 2018.
WE WILL restore the Union’s access to Zeigler North Riverside which existed prior to our
unlawful unilateral changes implemented on December 7, 2018.
ZEIGLER NORTH RIVERSIDE, LLC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
Dirksen Federal Building, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 808, Chicago, IL 60604–5208
(312) 353–7570, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/13-CA-225984 or by using the QR code below.
Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half
Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER,
(312) 353–7170.