AIM Aerospace Sumner, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

May 16, 2018

19-CA-203455 (N.L.R.B. May. 16, 2018)

JD(SF)–12–18
Sumner, WA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
AIM AEROSPACE SUMNER, INC.
and Cases 19–CA–203455
19–CA–203586
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, DISTRICT 751
Ryan Connolly, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Charles P. Roberts, III, Esq., and
W. Melvin Haas III, Esq.,
for the Respondent.
Kathryn Sypher, Esq., and
Spencer Nathan Thal, Esq.
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELEANOR LAWS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Seattle, Washington
on February 13–15, 2018. The International Association of Machinists, District 751 (Charging
Party or Union) filed charges on August 1 and 2, 2017, and the General Counsel issued the
consolidated complaint on October 27, 2017.1
The complaint alleges that AIM Aerospace (the Respondent or AIM) violated Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by engaging in various activity, detailed
below, aimed at interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights. The complaint also alleges the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act when it promoted employee Lori-Ann Downs-Haynes (Downs-Haynes) to discourage
employees from exercising protected Section 7 activities. Finally, the complaint alleges the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it withdrew recognition from the

1 All dates are in 2017 unless otherwise indicated.
JD(SF)–12–18
2
Union and granted wage increases to employees without giving the Union notice and opportunity
to bargain.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging
Party, I make the following
5
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation, manufactures composites and ducting for the aerospace 10
industry at its facility in Sumner, Washington. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES15
A. Background on the Respondent and the Union
AIM Aerospace manufactures composites and ducting for the aerospace industry. It has
three facilities, in Auburn, Renton, and Sumner, Washington. This case concerns the20
Respondent’s Sumner facility.2
On August 5, 2013, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) certified the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the following Unit:
25
all full-time hourly and regular part-time hourly kit cutters, team leaders, laminators,
paint preppers, production control coordinators, mold makers, painters, tool preppers,
water striders, assemblers, maintenance helpers, document control clerks, inventory
clerks, trimmers, quality administrators, quality inspectors, clerk 1, oven operators, core
cutters, trainers, tool repairers, autoclave operators, shipping and receiving clerks, 30
inventory leads, drivers, lab tech A, continuous improvement administrators, tool
coordinators, and maintenance employees. Drivers and quality inspectors based in
Sumner are considered part of the bargaining unit even though they may be assigned
work away from the Sumner plant.
35
The Union and the Respondent entered into a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA)
effective April 25, 2014, through May 1, 2018. The contract provides that employees may
choose whether to join the Union and pay dues. If they join, they are members for the length of
the contract. (Jt. Exh. 2.)3

2 The references to “AIM” in this case concern only the Sumner facility unless otherwise indicated.
3 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Tr.” for transcript; “R Exh.” for Respondent’s
exhibit; “GC Exh.” for General Counsel’s exhibit;” “CP Exh.” for Charging Party’s exhibit; “Jt. Exh” for
joint exhibit; “GC Br.” for the General Counsel’s brief; “R. Br.” for the Respondent’s brief, and “CP Br.”
for the Charging Party’s brief. Although I have included several citations to the record to highlight
JD(SF)–12–18
3
Liberty Hall, a private equity group, purchased AIM in February 2016. Following the
purchase, AIM hired consultants, and the company moved toward having the Sumner, Auburn,
and Renton facilities function more as a single entity. The vice president, general manager, and
human resources (HR) manager in Sumner were replaced in early 2017, and the wage scales in 5
Renton and Auburn were increased in February. (Tr. 367–368.)
During the relevant time period, Pat Russell was AIM’s chief operating officer (COO).
Mike Pratt was vice president of operations. Leigh Booth was the vice president of human
resources.4 Since May, Deborah Ruffcorn has been the human resources director at the Sumner 10
facility.5
Employees work one of three work shifts. Start and end times are somewhat variable, but
the first shift, or dayshift, runs from about 6:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., with breaks at 8:30 a.m. and 1:30
p.m., and lunch at 11:30 a.m. Second shift runs from about 5 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. Finally, about 15
eight employees work the third shift, referred to as the graveyard or night shift.
Employees may come in before their shifts and talk to other employees in the break areas.
Employees are instructed to take their breaks in designated areas so they won’t disturb
employees who are working, but this instruction is sometimes disregarded. (Tr. 50.) While 20
performing their jobs, employees talk about topics other than work. This is generally permitted
as long as employees stay on task while conversing. (Tr. 250, 318.) At times, supervisors and
managers will interrupt employees’ conversations and instruct them to return to work. This is
usually when employees are spending excessive amounts of time talking and not performing
their work. Employees may use the restroom as needed, without seeking permission. 25
B. Wages and Comments about the Union Contract
The CBA’s wage provision, Article 7, provides a set scale for wages and wage increases
by job category. Section 7.05 gives AIM discretion to pay above these rates for “legitimate 30
business reasons”, including “retention of needed skills, exceptional performance, consistent
demonstration of stills above expectations, excellent dependability, quality of work, leadership,
mentoring and demonstrated collaborative behavior.” (Jt. Exh. 2.)
James Herness, who works as a layup mandrel assembler, is a union member and shop 35
steward. In 2014, Herness asked Rob Anderson, the production manager, what he could do to set
himself up for a future raise. Anderson said that if he gave Herness a raise, he would need to give
everyone a raise because of the union contract. (Tr. 45.)
In or around 2016, Giuseppe Mercado, a lead in the paint prep department, told Anderson 40
he wanted to be a painter. Anderson showed Mercado the pay scale in the CBA, and said if he

particular testimony or exhibits, I emphasize that my findings and conclusions are based not solely on the
evidence specifically cited but rather are based on my review and consideration of the entire record.
4 Booth’s main office is in Renton, but she visits the Sumner facility on a regular basis.
5 She was previously director of human resources at the Auburn facility for several years.
JD(SF)–12–18
4
took a job as a painter, he would lose his extra pay for being a lead because pay was governed by
the CBA. (Tr. 140.)
Sometime around March 2017, Anderson asked Mercado, who had since become a union
steward, why he no longer wanted to paint, and Mercado responded that he was tired of doing 5
extra work for no extra pay.6 Anderson replied that AIM could not pay more because the wages
were set by the CBA. Mercado said that was not true, and offered to show Anderson the
provision in the CBA that permits AIM to pay employees rates above the wage scales. (Tr. 140–
142; GC Exh. 7.) About 2 weeks later, General Manager Bill Keilman7 asked Mercado why he
was not painting. Mercado gave the same answer, and Keilman said he could not pay employees 10
more due to the CBA. Mercado disputed this, and mentioned another employee who had
received a pay bump. Keilman told Mercado to be patient because AIM had new owners, and
said he would mention him to the new vice president. (Tr. 144–146; GC Exh. 8.) Mercado
wanted to be compensated more because of his extra effort, and was not suggesting an across-
the-board raise for all employees. (Tr. 148.) 15
In mid-June, employee Lori-Ann Downs-Haynes and Herness had an exchange in the
lunchroom. Downs-Haynes asked Herness if the Union had fulfilled the promises they made to
employees. Herness replied that he did not work at AIM during the organizing drive, so he did
not know. They exchanged some more words, and Herness commented that Downs-Haynes 20
seemed angry at the Union. Downs-Haynes replied, “You have no idea.” Herness said she was
angry at the wrong person and said the CBA permitted wage increases at any time. According to
Herness, Downs-Haynes said something like, “well, the Employer has already promised that
we’d get a raise if we decertified so there’s your guarantee.” (Tr. 35–37.)
25
Around July 20, Herness dropped off a couple of pay discrepancy grievances to Ruffcorn.
She commented that there seemed to be a lot of pay issues. Herness said employees were not
making much money, and when they asked for more wages, they were denied. Ruffcorn said she
thought AIM couldn’t give employees any more money because of the union contract. Herness
said the contract permitted raises at any time, and offered to show her the provision, but Ruffcorn30
declined. (Tr. 46–47.)
Also sometime in July, Corrine Peterson had reworked a part for Anderson. She said to
him, “I guess . . . we will get our raise.” Anderson responded that he doubted it. (Tr. 111–112.)
35
C. The Decertification Petition and Withdrawal of Recognition
Downs-Haynes began working for AIM in 2013. Downs-Haynes joined the Union,
thinking she was required to join in order to remain employed at AIM. She later learned she had
a choice about whether or not to join the Union, which made her upset. 40

6 At the time, Mercado had grown a beard, which prevented him from wearing the respirator required
to paint.
7 The complaint references Bill Kyleman, but the answer provides the presumably correct spelling,
Keilman. Keilman transferred to the Auburn facility and was replaced by Dave Blake.
JD(SF)–12–18
5
Downs-Haynes and other employees, including coworker Rebecca Cole, discussed
decertification in early-mid June. (CP Exh. 1 p. 4; Tr. 304.) Downs-Haynes was in favor of
decertification because the Union dues were going up and she could not afford them. Downs-
Haynes began talking with fellow employees and learned many were dissatisfied with the Union.
5
Downs-Haynes initially worked in autoclave as a laminator, and was supervised by
Brenda Sellers, the production supervisor. On June 19, supervisor Donna Shaw requested help
in layup area 1, sometimes referred to as duct 1, which was located on the other side of the
facility. Sellers responded that she would send Downs-Haynes. (R Exh. 6.) Even though
Downs-Haynes went to work in layup 1, she remained on Sellers’ payroll. Sellers also sent Kelli 10
Clough to assist Shaw during this same time period. (Tr. 339–340.)
In mid-June, Downs-Haynes went to Ruffcorn’s office to complain that she had only
received a 10-cent raise. She complained about her union dues, and said she wanted to get rid of
the Union. Ruffcorn said she could not comment on that. Ruffcorn let Booth know about the 15
meeting, and they planned some training for the supervisors. (Tr. 400–401.)
During the third week in June, employee Rebecca Cole drafted a petition to decertify the
Union along with an accompanying cover letter. (R Exhs. 3–4; Tr. 259.) She obtained the
template from a website called “Union Facts.” 8 She drafted the document because she and some 20
other employees were tired of paying dues and not getting anything in return. Cole did some
research on decertification, and learned that decertification could take place in the fourth year of
a contract. She had wanted to get rid of the Union since they came in, and had been waiting.
Cole was not willing to circulate the petition, but Downs-Haynes said she would.9
25
Downs-Haynes took leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) on June 26
and 27. (Tr. 446.) She began circulating the petition, and secured the first signatures on June 28.
She enlisted help from employees on the second and third shifts. When Downs-Haynes had a
page full of signatures, she gave the petition to Cole, who would then give her another blank
petition. After someone complained that Downs-Haynes was discussing the Union during work 30
time, Shaw told her she could only talk with employees before and after work, as well as on
breaks and lunch. (Tr. 281.)
On or around June 27, the Respondent held a meeting for supervisors and managers about
the decertification petition. The supervisors learned that Downs-Haynes was collecting 35
signatures. They were instructed to remain neutral. (Tr. 238, 319, 344.) Any questions were to
be presented to HR.10 (Tr. 402.)
The morning of June 30, Downs-Haynes went to a scheduled meeting at HR. Pratt was
present in Ruffcorn’s office, and he stayed for the meeting. She had specific questions 40
concerning the decertification process. She also mentioned that employees in Sumner wanted to

8 The template for R Exh. 4 and the verbatim language in R Exh. 3 appear at
https://www.unionfacts.com/downloads/unionDecertificationPetition.pdf.
9 In 1989, the company Cole worked for went through a decertification process.
10 I agree with the General Counsel that Booth was evasive about this training. (GC Br. 12, fn. 6; Tr.
389–90.)
JD(SF)–12–18
6
be on the same wage progression scale as employees in Renton and Auburn. Ruffcorn and Pratt
told Downs-Haynes they could not answer most of her questions. Downs-Haynes had a question
about the time frame for submitting signatures on a decertification petition. Pratt explained the
differences of the time frame difference between a 3-year contract and 4-year contract.11 Downs-
Haynes expressed concern about being threatened. Ruffcorn told her to come to HR if she 5
received threats. Downs-Haynes reported that Herness had been telling employees AIM was not
honoring the contract regarding pay. Ruffcorn and Pratt told Downs-Haynes they needed to
remain neutral and could not offer her advice. (R. Exh. 11; Tr. 405–406.)
That same day, Downs-Haynes met with Ruffcorn and Booth later in the afternoon. She 10
reported that an employee named Cookie interrupted her when she was in the lunchroom
discussing decertification. Herness then approached and said that without the Union, their 15-
minute breaks would be 10-minute breaks. A heated discussion ensued and employees were
uncomfortable with Herness. Downs-Haynes asked if she had the right to tell Herness to go
away. Booth responded that the break rooms are open to all employees, but Downs-Haynes 15
could ask Herness not to interrupt her. They also told Downs-Haynes she could not bother
second and third-shift employees during their shifts. They instructed her not to come back to HR
unless it was work-related. (R. Exh. 11; Tr. 408–409.)
Downs-Haynes met with Ruffcorn and Pratt the afternoon of July 5.12 She complained 20
that Herness threatened employees. Ruffcorn told Downs-Haynes that any employees who felt
threatened should come to HR. According to Ruffcorn’s notes, Downs-Haynes also reported the
NLRB told her she needed signatures from 80 percent of employees for decertification.13
Ruffcorn gave her the National Right to Work website address. Downs-Haynes said she had put
together some flyers, and Pratt told her she needed to hand them out, not post them. Downs-25
Haynes asked for a list of union dues-paying employees. Ruffcorn said she would not furnish
this information because she had to remain neutral. (R. Exh. 11; Tr. 409–411.)
At some later point, Cole and Downs-Haynes met with HR in an attempt to determine the
number of employees in the unit.14 Booth recalled Ruffcorn saying she could not provide this 30
information. (Tr. 392) Ruffcorn eventually provided Cole and Downs-Haynes with the number
of employees in the bargaining unit. (Tr. 462.)

11 The General Counsel and Charging Party contend that this explanation serves to discredit Cole’s
testimony that she learned about decertification petitions on her own. The evidence shows, however, that
Cole drew up and began circulating the petition prior to this meeting between Downs-Haynes and
Ruffcorn and Pratt. Cole therefore could not have gained her knowledge regarding timing from the
meeting Downs-Haynes attended. The Charging Party contends that Cole was evasive in her testimony.
(CP Br. 4–7.) Cole, an older employee, had obvious trouble with her hearing. (Tr. 260.) I did not find
her to be evasive at all. I found her to be very credible, particularly in her testimony about her feelings
about the Union. She struck me as a straight-forward, no-nonsense person.
12 Downs-Haynes also met with human resources for reasons unrelated to the decertification petition,
but the time frames for these meetings have not been established.
13 In her January 12, 2018, affidavit in connection with a Federal court proceeding, Downs-Haynes
said that she did not get through to the NLRB, but Cole did, and was informed they needed 51 percent of
employees to sign the decertification petition. (CP Exh. 1, p. 4.)
14 Downs-Haynes did not recall talking about the number of employees with HR. (Tr. 306.)
JD(SF)–12–18
7
Darlene Goff works at AIM in the paint prep department. Downs-Haynes approached her
in the cafeteria and asked her about the Union. She mentioned a petition and mentioned
something about a pay raise as a reason for the petition. (Tr. 203–204.)
Katy Pine worked as a bagger and laminator in the same work area as Downs-Haynes. 5
One week, toward the end of June, Pine observed that Downs-Haynes was away from the work
area for a few hours about two or three times. She also observed, “Some employees would have
to go and layup what we call domes and they would have to go down to the other building. Or
not the other building, but the other side of the building and they would be gone for hours.” (Tr.
230.)10
On June 29, Downs-Haynes approached Mercado and painter Merrick James while they
were working and asked if they wanted to sign the petition. They both declined. (Tr. 132; GC
Exh. 6.) There were no supervisors in the area.
15
Corrine Peterson has worked at AIM for nearly 10 years. Around June 30, Peterson saw
Sellers talking to Downs-Haynes in layup room 1, but she could not hear their conversation.
Even so, when Shaw came by, Peterson told her that Sellers and Downs-Haynes were discussing
getting rid of the Union. According to Peterson, Shaw replied that she did not care what they
were talking about and she could not stop employees from talking. (Tr. 118–119; GC Exh. 4.) 20
Around this same time, Peterson asked Kendrick James if he knew Downs-Haynes was
collecting signatures for the decertification petition. James said there was nothing he could do to
stop her. (Tr. 110.)
Rodney Christian has worked for AIM as an oven operator for over 5 years. He works 25
the graveyard shift with approximately seven other employees. In June or July, Downs-Haynes
approached Christian during his work shift and asked him how he felt about the Union. Downs-
Haynes said she thought she paid too much in union dues. Christian stated his support for the
Union. No supervisor was present.
30
Adaire Noonan works as a laminator in the same area as Downs-Haynes. In early to mid-
July, Downs-Haynes approached Noonan during her lunch break and asked if she supported the
Union. Noonan replied that she did. Noonan observed that Downs-Haynes was away from Duct
1 more than other employees. One time, Noonan saw Downs-Haynes leave the work area to talk
to Shaw. About once per week, Sellers pulled Downs-Haynes off the workroom floor. 35
Christy Westover worked at AIM from April 2016–October 2017 as a quality assurance
inspector. In July 2017, before work one morning in the parking lot, Downs-Haynes asked her if
she would sign the decertification petition. Downs-Haynes later approached Westover at her
workstation on two occasions and asked if she had signed the petition.15 During their last 40
conversation, Westover told Downs-Haynes the petition was in her podium but when she went to
look for it, it was no longer there.
On July 13, the Respondent posted decertification information at the timeclock. That day,
Mercado and Herness spoke to manager Dave Blake about this, and Blake referred them to HR. 45

15 Employee Dann Derrow observed Downs-Haynes approach Westover at her workstation.
JD(SF)–12–18
8
(Tr. 135–136.) Mercado and Herness spoke to Ruffcorn and Booth on July 14 and asked if they
were promoting the poster about decertification. Ruffcorn and Booth said it was just factual and
neutral. Herness said the decertification poster was being read on company time, and Ruffcorn
said that it should not be, and she had not witnessed employees reading it on company time.
Ruffcorn then informed Mercado and Herness that she had received a report they had left their 5
work area the prior day to speak to Blake. Booth said the rules about leaving their work area
also applied to them. Mercado then asked if they were aware of the petition. Booth responded
that she did not need to answer that question. Mercado said the petitions were being passed
around during work time, and Booth said she was not aware of this, but would speak to
management. Herness said Downs-Haynes was promising wage increases and other perks if the 10
petition was successful. Ruffcorn informed him that AIM was not making promises. Herness
asked if he could post prounion literature next to the decertification information, and Booth
replied that he could not because the Union had its own boards in the break rooms. Booth said
they had not seen or heard about supervisors or managers assisting with the petition. They
discussed a few other topics, and the meeting concluded. (Tr. 375, 412–414; R. Exh. 12.)15
In late July 2017, Peterson saw Downs-Haynes approach a group of employees in the
lunchroom and she heard her promise them a raise if they signed the petition. Peterson told the
employees not to sign the petition because it was to vote the Union out. Downs-Haynes picked
up the petition and walked away. (Tr. 101–104.) 20
Also in July, Downs-Haynes came to Peterson’s work area and approached an employee
named Dave with a piece of paper in her hand that Peterson believed was the decertification
petition. She then approached another employee, who pushed his hand up and shook his head.
(Tr. 104–105.) 25
Craig Beder works at AIM as the maintenance/janitorial employee, second shift. On
January 28, 2014, Beder received a warning for not completing assigned tasks and talking to
fellow employees. Beder responded to the discipline, stating “I am guilty of some of the
situations that are mentioned, but some relate to the job.” (R. Exh. 1.) 30
During the time period the decertification petition was circulating, Herness and others
passed out pro-union literature to employees before and after work and on breaks. (Tr. 64.)
Herness discussed the decertification petition with other employees during working time. (Tr.
53.) Herness’ supervisor routinely asked him to go to the other end of the building to help trim 35
when they got behind. (Tr. 52.)
James never saw Downs-Haynes walking around with a petition, but he heard rumors
about the petition prior to the supervisor training. (Tr. 316, 320–321.) Sellers never saw the
petition and she did not speak with Downs-Haynes about it. (Tr. 342–343.) 40
On July 20, Downs-Haynes and Cole came to Ruffcorn’s office and asked if they could
present the decertification petition. Ruffcorn said she would check with their legal department
and get back to them. After doing so, Ruffcorn informed Downs-Haynes she could accept the
petition. On July 21, Cole handed the decertification petition, with 142 signatures collected 45
JD(SF)–12–18
9
between June 28 and July 20, to Booth and Ruffcorn. Downs-Haynes had been in the room
earlier, but she was not present when Cole handed over the petition.16 (Tr. 376, 416.)
On July 24, AIM’s President, John Feutz, sent a letter to Jon Holden, the Union’s District
President, and Patrick Bertucci, the Union’s Business Representative, notifying them that the 5
Respondent had received proof the Union had support of a majority of employees, and informing
them that AIM was withdrawing recognition of the Union. (R Exh. 15.)
On July 25, the Respondent held an all-hands meeting. COO Russell and Pratt announced
that AIM had received a decertification petition signed by the majority of the Unit. Pratt read the 10
following statement:
Recently, the Company was presented a petition signed by a majority of employees
stating that they no longer wished for the IAM Union to continue to represent them, The
Company validated the signatures and determined that they are genuine, and that the 15
petition is in fact signed by a majority of unit employees. Under federal labor law, the
Company cannot continue to recognize a union that it knows is not supported by a
majority of employees. Accordingly, the Company notified the Union last night that it
was withdrawing recognition from the Union and would not deal with the Union on an
ongoing basis. This means that the collective bargaining agreement will cease to have any 20
future effect. The Company is still evaluating its legal rights and will provide additional
information soon. We are not able to provide additional information at this time.
However, if you have individual questions that you feel cannot wait, please contact HR.17
(R Exh. 16; Tr. 425.)25
As employees were exiting the meeting, Mercado saw Downs-Haynes give a thumbs-up
sign to Ruffcorn, Leigh Booth, and Sellers, and say, “Hey we did it.” He testified that they all
gave the thumbs up signal back to Downs-Haynes (though he initially said only Sellers did so),
and Ruffcorn went over and patted Downs-Haynes on the back. (Tr. 133–134, 152.) 30
Downs-Haynes said she was talking to a friend next to her. She did not see a thumbs-up
sign and said nobody patted her on the back. (Tr. 292.) Sellers did not recall seeing Booth or
Ruffcorn at the meeting and she did not walk out with them. She did not make a gesture or see
anyone make a gesture (Tr. 345.) Booth said she was standing by door 143 on the left side. She 35
could not recall who was near her. Booth does not believe she made a gesture or any statements
indicating happiness. (Tr. 377–379.) Ruffcorn said she was standing up front with Pratt and
Russell. She went back to her office after the meeting, and did not make any kind of gesture or

16 Downs-Haynes testified she was not at HR that morning, but the weight of the evidence establishes
she was present prior to the time Cole presented the petition.
17 The General Counsel contends that Ruffcorn is not a credible witness because she initially testified
that employees were permitted to ask questions at this meeting, but later changed her testimony. (Tr. 425,
426.) Ruffcorn initially responded that AIM always takes employee questions, but very quickly corrected
herself, recalling that this was a very short meeting with no questions. I do not find this one error colors
her entire testimony.
JD(SF)–12–18
10
statement. She did not see Booth or Sellers make any gesture or statement, she was not near
Downs-Haynes as she exited the meeting, nor did she pat her on the back. (Tr. 426–427.)
D. Meetings After Decertification and Wage Increase
5
On July 27, AIM held quarterly all-hands meetings with each shift.18 Beder asked if the
Company was going to keep its promise to give employees a raise if the Union was decertified.
Pratt said the company made no promises, and could not be responsible for what employees
might have said on the floor. Russell said they would review the financials and determine raise
eligibility on an individual basis. (Tr. 41–42, 65; R. Exh. 17.) An employee on second shift also 10
asked about a wage increase, and Russell said they were evaluating things, and it would take
some time. When asked why the Auburn employees made more money than the Sumner
employees, Russell responded that AIM stayed within the wage scale in the CBA.
Another all-hands meeting took place in early August. Pratt said that now that the 15
Company was no longer unionized, they could change perks for the better. Pratt announced an
additional 2 days for bereavement leave, a 5-minute wash-up period at the end of the day, and
15-minute breaks. He also announced pay raises to match the wages at Auburn and Renton
plants for employees who had been with the Company 4 years or less, and an across-the-board 5
percent wage increase for employees who had been there longer. Herness asked why they were 20
getting raises now, when employees had been asking for the last 3 years. Pratt said they had been
locked into the Union contract. Herness disputed this.
At either this meeting or another meeting that occurred a couple weeks after July 25,
Westover was about 5 or 6 feet away from Ruffcorn and Downs-Haynes. She testified, “All I 25
heard was Debbie turned -- or Lori-Ann and say, don’t worry, I got your back. Everything will
be okay. And then Lori-Ann turned around and sat down.” (Tr. 84–85.)
E. The Receiving Clerk Position
30
On May 21, the Respondent posted a job opening for a receiving clerk.19 (R. Exh. 19; GC
Exhs. 12–14; Tr. 431.) The Respondent followed its regular practice of posting this position
both internally and externally. (Tr. 467; CP Exh. 3.) The following individuals applied on the
corresponding dates:
35
Ervin Taylor, May 19
Leslie Potter, May 19
Gabrielle Ardnt, May 19
Alexander McHellon, May 19
William Critzer, May 19 40
George Goins, May 19
Chris Bickley, May 20
Lacey Cash, May 20
Pat Hubenthal, May 21

18 Ruffcorn attended the first and second shift meetings and took notes. (R. Exh. 17; Tr. 428.)
19 Though the posting was on May 21, an application from May 19 was received.
JD(SF)–12–18
11
Laura Hobbick, May 21
Corey Andreas, May 21
Stephen Smith, May 22
Nick Mosher, May 22
Rob Guasis, May 22 5
Steven Morales, May 23
Cynthia Timlin, May 24
Denise Wildman, May 24
Raul De Jesus Lumboy, May 24
Ken Somerville, May 25 10
Sawyer LeiLani, May 25
Clifford Tedeton, May 27
Michelle LaRue, May 27
Linda Vacca, May 28
Amy Gayle, May 2815
Michael Lepule, May 31
Lori-Ann Downs-Haynes, June 4
(Tr. 450; GC Exh. 13.)
20
Hobbick, an internal candidate who works autoclave layup, applied for the position using
an application (app) called BirdDog. (R Exhs. 7, 20; Tr. 358, 434.) She told Downs-Haynes
about the job opening. Hobbick had no experience in shipping and receiving. On June 4, Downs-
Haynes applied for the position using BirdDog. (Tr. 302; R Exh. 21.) She filled out a paper
application on June 6. (R Exh. 5.) Hobbick and Downs-Haynes were the only internal 25
candidates.
On June 6 or 12, the Respondent hired Taylor to fill the position.20 (Tr. 452.) Taylor was
chosen based on his experience as a logistics technician with warehouse responsibilities. (Tr.
453.) He abandoned the job after 2 weeks, on June 26. 30
According to Ruffcorn, Downs-Haynes’ application was brought to her attention on June
6, after she had already offered the position to Taylor. (Tr. 433.)
On June 29, the position was reposted internally and on BirdDog. (GC Exh. 14; CP Exh. 35
5; Tr. 470.) Ruffcorn initially testified that it was only posted internally, stating, “We posted it
back internally. We did not post it externally because we had such a bad response initially. So
we posted it internally.” (Tr. 432.) The following 20 external candidates applied between June
29 and July 11:
40
Erica Lee Heath, June 29
Elayne Ballard, June 29
Alexandria Zurbano, June 29

20 Ruffcorn gave conflicting testimony regarding Taylor’s hire date. She said the job was “awarded”
to Taylor on June 12 in her affidavit in connection with the 10(j) proceedings. She testified at the hearing
that she offered the job to Taylor on June 6.
JD(SF)–12–18
12
Tara Ewert, June 29
Mary Marquart, June 29
David Plummer, June 29
Amanda Sheetz, June 29
Rachel Smith, June 305
Lorraine Stevens, June 30
Nick Richie, June 29, 2017
Sean Whitehouse, July 3
Joe Johnson, July 3
Anthony Parisi, July 510
Marquelle Gaddy, July 9
Dennis Martin, July 8
Jessica Gillespie, July 8
David Schulz, July 10
Keith Piper, July 1115
Christie O’Farrell, July 11
Daniel Driscoll, July 11
(Tr. 455.)
20
Ruffcorn decided only to consider internal candidates, so she interviewed Hobbick and
Downs-Haynes. Hobbick’s interview was on June 30, and Downs-Haynes’ was on July 6. (R
Exhs. 20, 22; Tr. 434–437.)
Downs-Haynes had prior experience with stock counting, inventory, packing and 25
unpacking, and using the computer, which Ruffcorn found to be important for the position. (R
Exh. 22; Tr. 437–438.) She was given 1.5 years of credit for filling-in in the shipping and
receiving department at AIM, even though she had only filled-in once. (CP Exh. 2; Tr. 307.) She
was also given a year of credit for 7 months of work as a warehouse associate, a year of credit
for 6 months of work as a customer care specialist, and 2 years of credit for a little less than 2 30
years of work in customer service at Loews. (CP Exh. 2; Tr. 472.)
Downs-Haynes was awarded the position on July 11, with a retroactive pay date to July
3. (CP Exh. 1; Tr. 471.) According to Ruffcorn, supervisor Aurelio chose Downs-Haynes for the
position because of her experience, and she had proven herself to the supervisor when she filled-35
in. (Tr. 439.)
The transfer to the receiving clerk position resulted in a wage increase of 40 cents per
hour for Downs-Haynes. According to Ruffcorn, the pay bump was based on Downs-Haynes’
experience. (Tr. 441.) Supervisor Aurelio told Downs-Haynes the pay bump was because the 40
job required more responsibility. (CP Exh. 1.)
45
JD(SF)–12–18
13
III. DECISION and ANALYSIS
A. Credibility
Some of the disputes at issue can be resolved only by assessing witness credibility. A 5
credibility determination may rest on various factors, including “the context of the witness’
testimony, the witness’ demeanor, 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.” Hills & Dales General Hospital, 360 NLRB 611, 617 (2014), citing Double D
Construction Group, Inc., 339 NLRB 303, 305 (2003); Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623 10
(2001). In making credibility resolutions, it is well established that the trier of fact may believe
some, but not all, of a witness’ testimony. NLRB v. Universal Camera Corp., 179 F.2d 749 (2d
Cir. 1950).
Testimony from current employees tends to be particularly reliable because it goes against 15
their pecuniary interests. Gold Standard Enterprises, Inc., 234 NLRB 618, 619 (1978); Georgia
Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304, 1304 fn. 2 (1961); Gateway Transportation Co., 193 NLRB 47, 48
(1971); Federal Stainless Sink Div. of Unarco, 197 NLRB 489, 491 (1972).
It is impossible to reconcile all of the different recollections of the witnesses for both sides. 20
In evaluating the various different versions of events, I have fully reviewed the entire record and
carefully observed the demeanor of all the witnesses. I have considered the apparent interests of
the witnesses; the inherent probabilities in light of other events; corroboration or the lack of it;
consistencies or inconsistencies within the testimony of each witness and between witnesses with
similar apparent interests. See, e.g. NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 408 (1962). 25
Testimony in contradiction to my factual findings has been carefully considered but discredited.
Where there is inconsistent evidence on a relevant point, my credibility findings are incorporated
into my legal analysis below.
B. Alleged Section 8(a)(1) Violations 30
Complaint paragraphs 6–10 and 14 allege that the Respondent has been interfering with,
restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1).
35
Under Section 8(a)(1), it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The rights guaranteed in Section 7 include the right “to form, join or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . 40
.”
The basic test for a violation of Section 8(a)(1) is whether under all the circumstances the
employer’s conduct reasonably tended to restrain, coerce, or interfere with employees’ Section 7
rights. Mediplex of Danbury, 314 NLRB 470, 472, (1994); Sunnyside Home Care Project, 308
NLRB 346, 346 fn. 1 (1992), citing American Freightways Co., 124 NLRB 146, 147(1959). 45
JD(SF)–12–18
14
1. Greater access
Complaint paragraph 6 alleges the Respondent gave its employees gathering signatures
greater access to employees in the shop at the facility. For the reasons discussed below, I find
the General Counsel has not met his burden to prove this allegation.5
To support this allegation, the General Counsel asserts that Downs-Haynes was
transferred from autoclave to layup area 1 to assist her with gathering signatures for the petition.
This argument fails, as the transfer occurred before Downs-Haynes began collecting signatures.
In addition, given that Downs-Haynes was permitted to gather signatures before and after work 10
and during breaks, she already had access to employees outside her work area. The evidence
further shows that she sought assistance from other employees in gathering signatures.
The General Counsel also provided employee accounts, set forth above, regarding
Downs-Haynes approaching them and either talking about decertification or circulating the 15
petition, sometimes while the employees were working.21 The employee accounts demonstrate
that Downs-Haynes did at times discuss the decertification petition with employees who were
working, and on a couple of occasions she attempted to collect signatures. Many times, there was
no supervisor present, nor was there evidence a supervisor was notified about the incident. The
preponderant evidence shows that when such occurrences were reported to management, Downs-20
Haynes was verbally counseled, as were other employees who engaged in discussions distracting
from work.22
Employee Peterson testified that Shaw told her there was nothing she could do about
Downs-Haynes discussing the decertification petition with employees in the layup area during 25
work time. Shaw did, however, counsel Downs-Haynes that she could only talk with employees
before and after work or during breaks. Peterson also testified that James said there was nothing
he could do about Downs-Haynes collecting signatures for the decertification petition. Her
testimony, however, simply does not provide sufficient context surrounding this purported
conversation for me to determine what, exactly, Peterson reported to James. Without evidence 30
that James was told Downs-Haynes was collecting signatures from employees while they were
working, this conversation falls short of proving James condoned improper solicitation.
The General Counsel also provided evidence from employees who observed that Downs-
Haynes was away from her work area more often than most employees. I find these employee 35
accounts are not sufficiently persuasive to show either that Downs-Haynes was away from her
work area more than most employees, or that the Respondent permitted Downs-Haynes greater

21 The General Counsel argues that the Respondent refused to apply its written and previously-
enforced no-solicitation policy. There is no complaint allegation that the Respondent violated such
policy. What is material here is whether the Respondent permitted Downs-Haynes greater access to
employees, whether by granting her preferential treatment in permitting her to solicit employees, or
otherwise.
22 The only exception to verbal counseling the General Counsel provided was employee Craig
Beder’s written warning for not completing assigned tasks and talking to fellow employees. The warning
was issued in January 2014, by supervisor Cindy Keller-Kuzmer, after multiple incidents. I do not infer
from this one attenuated discipline of an employee in a different job and on a different shift that the
Respondent went easy on Downs-Haynes by verbally counseling her.
JD(SF)–12–18
15
access to the facility than most employees. Pine, who observed that Downs-Haynes was away
from the work area for a few hours two or three times, testified that other employees were also
away from their work areas for hours. Even Herness was admittedly routinely sent to another
work area to assist. The evidence shows that on a couple of occasions in June and July, Downs-
Haynes was away from her work area because she had scheduled meetings with HR.23 In 5
addition, she took leave under the FMLA on June 26 and 27.
Noonan observed that about once per week, Sellers pulled Downs-Haynes off the
workroom floor. Downs-Haynes, however, was still on Sellers’ payroll, so to assume they were
talking about the decertification is pure speculation. On one occasion, Sellers instructed Downs-10
Haynes to return from breaks and lunches on time after Shaw raised an incident to her attention.
(Tr. 343.)
The General Counsel cites to Ernst Home Centers, Inc., 308 NLRB 848, 849–850 (1992),
where the Board held that the employer violated § 8(a)(1) by granting a decertification petitioner 15
greater access to employees, including access to employees at facilities other than where she
worked, while restricting access previously enjoyed by the union representatives. The evidence
here does not show that Downs-Haynes was given greater permission to move about the facility
than union representatives.
20
In sum, I find there is insufficient evidence for the General Counsel to prove that Downs-
Haynes was permitted greater access to the facility in order to collect signatures for the
decertification petition. Accordingly, I recommend dismissal of complaint paragraph 6.
2. July 25 comments and gestures25
Complaint paragraphs 7(a), 8, and 9 concern alleged conduct that occurred while
employees were exiting the July 25, 2017 meeting where the Respondent announced it was
withdrawing recognition of the Union. Paragraph 7(a) alleges Ruffcorn gave Downs-Haynes a
pat on the back after she remarked excitedly on the successful campaign to decertify/obtain 30
withdrawal of recognition of the Union; Paragraph 8 alleges that Sellers remarked excitedly on
the successful campaign to decertify/obtain withdrawal of recognition of the Union; and
paragraph 9 alleges that Booth gave Downs-Haynes a “thumbs up” sign after she remarked
excitedly on the successful campaign to decertify/obtain withdrawal of recognition of the Union.
35
The evidence regarding these related allegations comes from employee and union
steward Mercado. Notably, his testimony is inconsistent regarding a key aspect of the interaction
he recounted. He initially testified that after Downs-Haynes remarked, “We did it,” Booth,
Ruffcorn, Sellers all gave Downs-Haynes the thumbs-up sign. (Tr. 133–135.) In his affidavit,
Mercado stated that only Sellers gave two thumbs up back to Downs-Haynes, and Ruffcorn 40
patted her on the back. (Tr. 152.) He never testified that only Booth gave Downs-Haynes the
thumbs up sign, or that Sellers made an excited remark. In light of Mercado’s shaky recollection
of the incident, the lack of any corroborating evidence despite the fact that the alleged conduct
occurred as employees were exiting an all-hands meeting, and the denials by Ruffcorn, Sellers,

23 Employees were free to make appointments with HR, as long as they received permission from
their supervisors if the appointment was during work time.
JD(SF)–12–18
16
and Downs-Haynes that the incident occurred as alleged, I find the General Counsel has not met
his burden of proof.24 I therefore recommend dismissal of complaint paragraphs 7(a), 8, and 9.
3. July 27 comment
5
Complaint paragraph 7(b) alleges that on or about July 27, 2017, Ruffcorn told Downs-
Haynes that she “had her back” in reference to the decertification/withdrawal of recognition of
the Union.
The evidence regarding this incident comes from Westover’s testimony that at an all-10
hands meeting a couple weeks after the Respondent announced its withdrawal of recognition,
Ruffcorn told Downs-Haynes she “had her back” and everything would be okay. Ruffcorn
denied making such a statement to Downs-Haynes. I credit Westover that she overheard the
comment as alleged, based on her forthcoming demeanor, and the fact that as a current employee
testifying against her pecuniary interests, her testimony is considered particularly reliable. 15
Westover admittedly did not know the context of this comment. She did not hear any
other part of their conversation and had no knowledge of what Ruffcorn and Downs-Haynes
were discussing. By this point, Downs-Haynes’ efforts regarding decertification had ceased, and
the Respondent had already withdrawn recognition of the Union a couple of weeks prior. Under 20
these circumstances, I do not find this comment violates Section 8(a)(1). I therefore recommend
dismissal of complaint paragraph 7(b).25
4. Comments about the Union and wages
25
Complaint paragraph 10 alleges that the following individuals told employees the Union
was to blame for employees not receiving wage increases:
 Bill Keilman in February or March 2017
 Rob Anderson in February or March 2017, and June 201730
 Deborah Ruffcorn on June 22, 201726
a. Keilman
The conversation between Keilman, then the general manager, and Mercado, an 35
employee and union steward, about a wage increase in the spring of 2017 is detailed above, and
is unrefuted. The only question is whether Keilman’s statement that he could not pay employees
more because the CBA set the wage scale was coercive. Under the circumstances, I find that it
was not.

24 The Respondent argues that after-the-fact indication that a manager supported Downs-Haynes’
does not rise to the level of an unfair labor practice, and is protected by Section 8(c). (R. Br. 42.)
Because I find the General Counsel did not prove the incident occurred as alleged, I do not reach this
argument.
25 As with the July 25 allegations, I need not address the Respondent’s arguments that this comment
made after the withdrawal of recognition is protected by Section 8(c).
26 Herness testified that this conversation took place in July, not June.
JD(SF)–12–18
17
The context of this conversation came on the heels of wage increases in Auburn and
Renton in February 2017, following AIM’s purchase by Liberty Hall in 2016. The supervisors
and managers knew that there were across-the-board wage increases at AIM’s other facilities that
were not possible at the Sumner facility without a change to the CBA. Keilman’s comment that 5
the CBA pay scales govern employee wages is generally true. Though Mercado was seeking
additional compensation for his individual efforts, I do not find Keilman’s statements about the
pay scales in the union contract to be coercive.
The General Counsel relies on First Student, Inc., 359 NLRB 208 (2012), a case 10
involving contract negotiations between the union and the employer, a school bus service
provider. In that case, a supervisor told every driver that there would be no pay increases until
the contract negotiations were done. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge’s
determination that such a statement, in the context of contract negotiations, was unlawful as a
threat to change the status quo. In the instant case, the contract was in place. The reasoning in 15
First Student is therefore inapplicable. For the same reason, the General Counsel’s reliance on
Laidlaw Waste Systems, 307 NLRB 52, 54 (1992), is misplaced.
The General Counsel also cites to Parkview Furniture Mfg. Co., 284 NLRB 947, 971
(1987). In that case, the employer deducted strike assessments from employees’ paychecks in a 20
lump sum instead of making weekly deductions as the Union requested. It then blamed the
Union for the lump sum deductions, and said that if the employees no longer wanted the Union,
the employers could do something about it. Here, the Respondent took no unilateral action
against the Union’s wishes with regard to wage increases, and I therefore find the instant case is
meaningfully distinguishable from Parkview Furniture. 25
Finally, the General Counsel relies on Equipment Trucking Co., 336 NLRB 277 (2001).
In that case, however, the employer authorized employee agents to circulate a decertification
petition with promises of a specific wage increase and additional benefits if the union was voted
out. Here, there is no allegation that any employee acted as the Respondent’s agent, and the 30
petition did not specify a wage increase or other benefits.27
b. Anderson
The conversation between Anderson and Mercado about a wage increase in the spring of 35
2017 is detailed above and is unrefuted. For the same reasons set forth above with respect to
Mercado’s conversation with Keilman, I find the evidence is insufficient to support a violation of
Section 8(a)(1).
On an unidentified date in July, Peterson had reworked a part for Anderson. She said to 40
him, “I guess . . . we will get our raise.” Anderson responded that he doubted it. This comment
is not tied to the Union or the CBA in any way. I therefore find Anderson did not tell Peterson
the Union was to blame for employees not receiving wage increases.

27 While there is evidence that Downs-Haynes may have told some employees decertification would
result in a wage increase, it is clear that supervisor and managers consistently told employees the
Respondent was not making any promises regarding wages.
JD(SF)–12–18
18
c. Ruffcorn
The conversation between Ruffcorn and Herness in or around July 22 is detailed above
and is unrefuted. During this conversation, Herness was not asking for an individual raise for 5
himself but was instead saying that employees in general were dissatisfied because they were not
making much money. Ruffcorn’s comment that she did not think the CBA permitted the
Respondent to give wage increases outside the set wage scales, in the context of Herness making
a generalized statement about employees’ dissatisfaction with their wages, cannot be reasonably
perceived as coercive. 10
Based on the foregoing, I recommend dismissal of complaint paragraph 10.
C. Alleged Section 8(a)(3) and (1) Violation
15
Complaint paragraphs 11 and 15 alleged the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by
promoting Downs-Haynes and thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization.
I find preponderant evidence proves Downs-Haynes was offered the receiving clerk
position, with its attendant wage increase, as a reward for her circulation of the decertification 20
petition.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455
U.S. 989 (1982), governs mixed-motive cases where discriminatory intent is alleged. Though
generally implicated in the context of disciplining or terminating an employee for his union 25
support, Wright Line’s reasoning is applicable here. See Miramar Hotel Corp., 336 NLRB 1203,
1211 (2001). The General Counsel’s threshold burden is to establish by a preponderance of the
credible evidence that Downs-Haynes’ antiunion views and/or activities were motivating factors
in the Respondent’s decision to promote her. The elements commonly required to support this
showing employer knowledge of the employee’s activity and antiunion animus by the employer. 30
Briar Crest Nursing Home, 333 NLRB 935, 936 (2001). If this is accomplished, the burden
shifts to the employer “to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place even in the
absence of the protected conduct.” Id. The employer cannot carry this burden merely by
showing that it also had a legitimate reason for the action, but must persuade, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the action would have taken place absent the protected activity. Dentech 35
Corp., 294 NLRB 924, 956 (1989).
I find the General Counsel has met the initial Wright Line burden. As noted above, the
Respondent was well aware of Downs-Haynes’ decertification activities, and her promotion
occurred while these activities were in full swing. 40
Unlawful employer motivation may be established by circumstantial evidence, including
among other things: (1) the timing of the employer’s action in relationship to the employee’s
protected activity; (2) the presence of other unfair labor practices, (3) statements and actions
showing the employer’s general and specific animus; (4) the disparate treatment of the 45
discriminatees; (5) departure from past practice; and (6) evidence that an employer’s proffered
explanation for the adverse action is a pretext. See Golden Day Schools v. NLRB, 644 F.2d 834,
JD(SF)–12–18
19
838 (9th Cir. 1981); NLRB v. Rain-Ware, Inc., 732 F.2d 1349, 1354 (7th Cir. 1984) (timing);
Mid-Mountain Foods, Inc., 332 NLRB 251, 260 (2000), enfd. mem. 169 LRRM 2448 (4th Cir.
2001); Richardson Bros. South, 312 NLRB 534 (1993) (other unfair labor practices); NLRB v.
Vemco, Inc., 989 F.2d 1468, 1473–1474 (6th Cir. 1993); Affiliated Foods, Inc., 328 NLRB 1107
(1999) (statements); Naomi Knitting Plant, 328 NLRB 1279, 1283 (1999) (disparate treatment); 5
JAMCO, 294 NLRB 896, 905 (1989), affd. mem. 927 F.2d 614 (11th Cir. 1991), cert. denied 502
U.S. 814 (1991) (departure from past practice); Wright Line, 251 NLRB at 1089; Roadway
Express, 327 NLRB 25, 26 (1998) (disparate treatment).
The timing of events is highly suspicious. Downs-Haynes met with Ruffcorn and Pratt on 10
July 5, asking extensive questions regarding the decertification petition process. During that
meeting, Ruffcorn provided her with the National Right to Work website. The very next day,
Ruffcorn interviewed Downs-Haynes.
When Downs-Haynes originally applied for the receiving clerk position in early June, she 15
was not even interviewed, nor was the other internal candidate, Laura Hobbick. I do not credit
Ruffcorn’s explanation that Downs-Haynes’ application was not brought to her attention until
June 6, after she had already offered the position to Ervin Taylor. Downs-Hayne’s electronic
application was completed on June 4. The Respondent had therefore received her application by
the time Taylor was offered the position, even crediting Ruffcorn’s testimony that she made a 20
verbal offer to him on June 6. The more plausible explanation for the Respondent’s failure to
consider Downs-Haynes for the position is that she had less experience than Taylor, and as of
early June, Downs-Haynes had not yet openly begun her activities in support of decertification.
By the time Taylor abandoned the job, and it was reposted on June 29, Downs-Haynes 25
was actively circulating the decertification petition, a fact known to management. The
circumstances surrounding the re-posting do not add up if the goal was to secure the most
qualified candidate, and only make sense if the Respondent was acting out of motivation to hire
Downs-Haynes. First, Ruffcorn initially testified that the position was not posted internally,
stating, “We posted it back internally. We did not post it externally because we had such a bad 30
response initially. So we posted it internally.” Neither statement holds up, as the initial posting
resulted in 24 external applicants and the re-posting resulted in 20 external applicants.
Next, Ruffcorn chose to only consider internal candidates even though neither was
considered qualified enough to secure an interview following the initial posting. The stated 35
rationale for this was the fact that Taylor had abandoned his job. Somehow, one bad apple
rendered the entire pool of external applicants unworthy of consideration. This raises a red flag,
particularly in light of the Respondent’s practice of giving internal and external candidates equal
consideration. This justification is particularly suspect considering some external candidates had
significantly more experience than Downs-Haynes. As the General Counsel correctly points out, 40
applicants Ballard and Plummer each had years of recent receiving, inventory control, and
warehouse experience.28 As noted by the Charging Party, Downs-Haynes’ experience was
greatly inflated, and her single instance of working in the shipping and receiving department was

28 These applications are in the record at GC Exhs. 15–16. Plummer’s job at the time of the
application, which he had held since 2011, involved shipping and receiving aircraft parts for Horizon Air.
JD(SF)–12–18
20
relied upon to credit her with 1.5 years of experience and serve as a primary justification for
awarding her the position.
Finally, the Respondent offered conflicting reasons for giving Downs-Haynes a pay raise.
Ruffcorn testified the pay raise was based on her prior experience. Supervisor Aurelio told 5
Downs-Haynes the pay raise was based on the greater responsibilities of the receiving clerk
position.
There are simply too many irregularities surrounding the re-posting and hiring for the
receiving clerk position, especially considering the timing of events, for me to conclude that it 10
was conducted based on legitimate motives. The preponderant evidence shows the consideration
only of two internal candidates following the internal and external re-posting was a pretext to
award the position to Downs-Haynes. Accordingly, I find the General Counsel has met his
burden to prove complaint allegations 11 and 15.
15
D. Alleged Section 8(a)(5) and (1) Violations
1. Withdrawal of recognition
Complaint paragraphs 12 and 16 allege the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) 20
of the Act when, on July 24, 2017, the Respondent withdrew its recognition of the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Unit, and has since refused to bargain with the Union.
Following its first year of certification, a union enjoys a rebuttable presumption of
majority status. One way an employer may rebut this presumption is to show that on the date it 25
withdrew recognition, the union did not in fact enjoy majority support. Guerdon Industries, 218
NLRB 658, 659 (1975). An employer, however, may not withdraw recognition and avoid its
duty to bargain by relying on loss of majority status attributable to its own unfair labor practices.
Pittsburgh & New England Trucking, 249 NLRB 833, 836 (1980).
30
To determine whether a loss of support was caused by an employer’s unfair labor
practices, the Board considers:
(1) The length of time between the unfair labor practices and the withdrawal of
recognition; (2) the nature of the violations, including the possibility of a detrimental or 35
lasting effect on employees; (3) any possible tendency to cause employee disaffection
from the union; and (4) the effect of the unlawful conduct on employee morale,
organizational activities, and membership in the union.
Master Slack Corp., 271 NLRB 78 (1984); see also In Re Miller Waste Mills, Inc., 334 NLRB 40
466, 468 (2001), enfd. 315 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2003). This is an objective standard. Saint Gobain
Abrasives, Inc., 342 NLRB 434, 434 fn. 2 (2004).
“Not every unfair labor practice will taint evidence of a union’s subsequent loss of
majority support; in cases involving unfair labor practices other than a general refusal to 45
recognize and bargain, there must be specific proof of a causal relationship between the unfair
labor practice and the ensuing events indicating a loss of support.” Lee Lumber & Building
JD(SF)–12–18
21
Material Corp., 322 NLRB 175, 177 (1996) (footnote omitted). The record does not contain
specific proof of a causal relationship between Downs-Haynes’ promotion and the loss of
support among employees for the Union. I will nonetheless consider the Master Slack factors in
the event a reviewing authority disagrees with me.
5
As set forth above, the only alleged unfair labor practice I find the General Counsel
proved was the promotion of Downs-Haynes on July 11, 2017. Downs-Haynes was promoted as
she was actively gathering signatures in support of the decertification petition, and less than two
weeks before AIM withdrew recognition of the Union. The first Master Slack factor therefore
weighs in the General Counsel’s favor. 10
Turning to the nature of the violation, including the possibility of a detrimental or lasting
effect on employees, I find this factor weighs in the Respondent’s favor. Downs-Haynes’
promotion was not akin a general refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union. It was a
single personnel action, the details of which would be unknown to most employees. 15
With regard to the third factor, I find the selection of Downs-Haynes for the receiving
clerk position was not likely to cause employee disaffection from the Union. While I find it was
unlawfully motivated, it is difficult to see how this one personnel action would cause employees
disaffection from the Union, particularly considering only two internal employees applied for the 20
position. The other employees are not privy to the quantity or quality of other applicants, so they
would have no basis for assessing whether or not Downs-Haynes was legitimately selected.
For similar reasons, I find the fourth factor, the effect of the unlawful conduct on
employee morale, organizational activities, and membership in the union, weighs in the 25
Respondent’s favor. While employees were likely generally aware that Downs-Haynes received
the position, the only other internal employee who applied also signed the decertification
petition. Accordingly, considering the Master Slack factors, I find the General Counsel has not
established that the Respondent’s unfair labor practices tainted the decertification petition.
30
The Union contends that the Respondent’s acts of providing Downs-Haynes and/or Cole
with: (1) the information regarding the time period to submit a petition; (2) information about the
number of employees in the Unit; and (3) the National Right to Work website, tainted the
petition.
35
An employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by “actively soliciting, encouraging,
promoting, or providing assistance in the initiation, signing, or filing of an employee petition
seeking to decertify the bargaining representative.” Wire Products Mfg. Co., 326 NLRB 625, 640
(1998), enfd. sub nom. mem. NLRB v R.T. Blankenship & Associates, Inc., 210 F.3d 375 (7th
Cir. 2000). The appropriate inquiry is “whether the Respondent's conduct constitutes more than 40
ministerial aid.” Times Herald, 253 NLRB 524 (1980). The Board considers the circumstances to
determine whether “the preparation, circulation, and signing of the petition constituted the free
and uncoerced act of the employees concerned.” Eastern States Optical Co., 275 NLRB 371, 372
(1985) (citing KONO-TV-Mission Telecasting, 163 NLRB 1005, 1006 (1967)); see also Hall
Industries, 293 NLRB 785, 791 (1989), enfd. mem. 914 F.2d 244 (3d Cir. 1990).45
JD(SF)–12–18
22
With regard to Pratt informing Downs Haynes about the timing of when the Union could
be decertified, the Board has held that an employer does not violate the Act by providing
accurate information about the decertification process in response to employee questions without
threats or promises. See Amer-Cal Indus., 274 NLRB 1046, 1051 (1985) and cases cited therein.
5
Referring Downs-Haynes to the National Right to Work website and providing her with
the number of employees in the Unit in response to Downs-Haynes’ questions regarding how
many signatures she needed to decertify the Union likewise constitutes ministerial aid, not
unlawful assistance. See Eastern States Optical Co., supra (Employer provided only ministerial
aid when its attorney provided employee with the unit description, the number of signatures 10
sufficient for a decertification petition, and assistance with its wording); Ernst Home Centers,
supra (Employer provided only ministerial aid to employees’ decertification efforts when it
provided decertification language in response to an employee’s request for some “verbiage” for a
decertification petition)
15
In sum, I find the preparation, circulation, and signing of the petition constituted the free
and uncoerced act of the employees concerned. Based on the foregoing, I find the Respondent’s
withdrawal of recognition of the Union was lawful, and I therefore recommend dismissal of
complaint paragraph 12.
20
2. The wage increase
Complaint paragraph 13 alleges that the Respondent granted a wage in increase to
employees without first providing notice and an opportunity to bargain. Because I find the
withdrawal of recognition was lawful, I find there was no duty to provide notice or an 25
opportunity to bargain prior to granting the wage increase. I therefore recommend dismissal of
complaint paragraph 13.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
30
By promoting employee Lori-Ann Downs-Haynes, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
The Respondent did not otherwise engage in any other unfair labor practices alleged in 35
the complaint.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall 40
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent rewarded employee Lori-Ann Downs-Haynes for her
decertification by granting her a new position with higher pay, I shall order the Respondent to 45
cease and desist from promoting employees who encourage decertification.
JD(SF)–12–18
23
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended29
ORDER
5
The Respondent, AIM Aerospace, Sumner, Washington, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from:
10
a. Granting employee Lori-Ann Downs-Haynes or any other employee a new position
with higher pay to reward or encourage their initiating or supporting a movement to
decertify the International Association of Machinists, District 751, or any other
labor organization
15
b. In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
20
a. Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Sumner,
Washington copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”30 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places 25
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition
to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices 30
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during
the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time since July 11, 2017.35
b. 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 Region attesting to
the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.

29 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.
30 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(SF)–12–18
24
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of
the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 16, 20185
____________________
Eleanor Laws
Administrative Law Judge10
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercising these rights.
WE WILL NOT grant any employee a new position with higher pay to reward or encourage
their initiating or supporting a movement to decertify the International Association of
Machinists, District 751, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
915 2nd Avenue, Room 2948, Seattle, WA 98174-1078
(206) 220-6300, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-203455 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, (206) 220-6284.
ci ZS
•